I think that the worst part of all of this is that if the politicians adopt this, then having a facebook account will be somewhat mandatory if you want to participate in democracy, and therefore have your political views cataloged and possibly used against you.
The MP3 players that came before iPod were pretty decent, and Apple didn't change much in this regard. Essentially what they did is market it and make it look cool enough that the hipsters got on board, and then MP3 players saw much bigger appeal to the masses than in the past.
(Which doesn't say much because not only do hipsters love Apple, but they also love vinyl when it's in every way an inferior audio format.)
And before you answer that, consider that everybody who has ever invaded Afghanistan has never succeeded. I'd say based on that and how our efforts have turned out, we've done pretty well there.
Please define left and right before making these assertions.
And being libertarian is far right? What the hell does that even mean? Libertarians are predominantly pro-freedom on basically everything. Is freedom a far right concept, or a far left concept? And why?
For example, for libertarians, free speech is absolute. In Europe however, there are plenty of censorship laws, especially for ones that people label as hate speech with some somewhat vague rules. So which one is right, and which one is left? Again, you need to clarify what exactly right and left mean.
And when exactly did I exclude private universities in my statement? Perhaps we should look to see what your degree is printed on.
Ok now that you're done splitting hairs, even if you're including them, this applies mostly to public universities, which seem to have the same problem. No matter how you try to spin this, you can't pin it on capitalism if a very non-capitalist system is exhibiting the exact same problem, making your argument completely moot.
Besides, I've seen your posts before and you pin many things on capitalism (or alternatively greed or some rant about corporations) that have nothing to do with either. If two of your coworkers were tired of your ineptitude and took a shit on your desk while nobody was looking, you'd 100% blame that on capitalism.
Is capitalism perfect? Nope, but neither is democracy. In fact, both have tons of flaws, but they're by far the best systems we've ever come up with. If you disagree, then I think you'd be happier living in Cuba or North Korea where they have neither capitalism nor democracy. Either way, you seem to be clinically depressed because in every single post of yours, you seem to talk about how everything sucks, and I recommend cognitive behavioral therapy.
Regardless of that, why the fuck did she (or anybody else) want to leak this. It's not whistleblowing by any sense if the word, nor did it benefit the public to know this yet. They've now spoiled an investigation, which gives the Russians an opportunity to further cover their tracks, and any further investigation into Trump is now most likely fucked.
If it was her, (and it seems likely) put her ass in jail for 10 years.
Translation: The quality of the bachelors degree is defined by the fact that it is now the new high school diploma.
Oh, you wanted a quality education instead of just a piece of paper to hang on the wall? Then shell out another $100K for the masters degree.
Gotta love capitalism.
How the hell is this capitalism? State universities have the prices set by the government, which is the total opposite of capitalism. Only private universities that set their own prices would count as capitalist.
The media has always been interested in whatever the current sitting president has to say. Even the most boring president ever becomes a news story just by saying something in public.
For the most part, yes, but if you ever use Google news, pretty much the entire top of the news feed is something involving Trump, and it's incredibly fucking annoying. It wasn't this way for Obama (except for the first two months after inauguration where people like Peggy the Moocher were having a moment of euphoria, and Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher made a video talking about how themselves and a bunch of other celebrities really wanted to have sex with Obama.)
Also, the counter to progressive is conservative. Progressives generally want things changed, conservatives think the best option is keeping things as they are.
Is that so? Well then, explain to me why so called progressives go out of their way to censor speech at universities in order to maintain the status quo.
But, don't bother. The thing is, this line you gave? Also total bullshit. Self identified conservatives want to change things all the time (for example, banning abortion is on their bucket list, and that by definition would be a change.) Progressives also resist change on many topics (as another example, they want to prohibit full incorporation of second amendment rights.)
I wonder who reads Trump's tweets at all, other than the mainstream media, who is really obsessed with him and should just go ahead and have sex with him.
BTW millennial here as well. I sometimes use Twitter to participate in Amex promotions (i.e. $50 off $200 at breath l Newegg if you tweet their hashtag) but that's pretty much it.
I like your tactic: if you can't find something about progressives that you don't like, you just invent things they've done.
No, he's got a point. Sure, not all "progressives" have that particular viewpoint, but just because you don't doesn't mean none do. And I use that term loosely because it's a total BULLSHIT term. When somebody identifies as progressive, what they're really saying is that they think their opinions on any given matter are all forward thinking, and every contrary opinion is backwards, even if that other person identifies as progressive.
Just to give you perspective, Prohibitionists, KKK members, and Nazis have all identified themselves as being progressive at one point or another. Why? Because they're assfucks who can't stand anybody who has a different opinion, just like today's so called progressives who go so far as to implement censorship of unpopular viewpoints at major universities, which are otherwise supposed to be bastions of free speech, no matter the viewpoint.
Lawyers demand stupidly high settlement amounts all the time, and they rarely ever get what they first asked for. They go through rounds of negotiations until either they have a meeting of minds, or if they don't then the court proceedings begin.
Having said that, going to court is risky for both sides, so in most cases they prefer to settle. In this case, Eastwood refused a settlement offer entirely and effectively said "have at me bro", and won.
Anyways, there have been a few times where some congress critters have proposed having a 90 day notice requirement for the ADA before the business can be sued, but all of the lawyers who sue for ADA violations have lobbied hard against it every time, including the lawyer that sued Eastwood, under the argument that there should be strict liability for this. I liked how Eastwood put it "The lawyers in these cases drive off in a new Mercedes, while the disabled person drives off in a wheelchair." In other words, if the lawyer makes say $15,000 in a settlement, the disabled person who they supposedly represent makes about $1,000. And these settlements happen ALL THE TIME, including against business owners who themselves are wheelchair bound, and in such cases, you'd figure "if the owner is wheelchair bound and has no difficulty getting around their business, then why are they getting sued for having an inaccessible business?"
BTW, for an idea of what strict liability is, it essentially means that there doesn't need to be any proof of mens rea or mental culpability. Read this, it's both highly entertaining and enlightening:
To me, sports jumped the shark about a decade ago.
Anyways you can get ad free TV here, it's called Netflix, HBO Now, and bittorrent. And that TV is generally worth my time, but I don't consider it TV in the sense that I'm not watching linear broadcast content.
TL;DR If they hack someone innocent, it's collateral damage as always (they had good intentions, so that makes it ok!), but if YOU hack someone innocent
No, that wouldn't fly. Physical security at major corporations for example can tackle e.g. shoplifters, people not being where they're supposed to be, etc, or even issue a citizens arrest and whatnot, but they can be held civily liable under tort laws if they bust a guy who didn't do anything wrong.
What if my attacker is Russia? Can I hack Russia back and with what kind of force? Can I break their government systems, destroy their computer, launch a stuxnet like virus upon them and destroy the computer systems of the Kremlin? Or would such things maybe be acts of war and a bit beyond the pale?
You already can do that if you'd like, and there would be no legal repercussions. Though I wouldn't be surprised if ol' Putin sends a KGB agent to...oh say...poison your coffee, or maybe stab you with a ricin umbrella...if he found out who you were.
I remember just after 9/11, hacktivists attacked Taliban infrastructure, and the US government didn't do anything other than just ask them to stop, and the only reason they asked for them to stop was so that they could extract intelligence and do some infiltration work of their own, which they can't do if their servers are down.
There's some cases when you could invoke something like BrickerBot against a DDoS attack coming from a bunch of webcams and other unsecured devices. Would I be allowed to attack back against these devices and brick some random guy's webcam or router simple because it's unsecured and being used in the attack?
I mean that's the right target right? I should be allowed to use the same exploit used to compromise that system in mass and destroy vast number of webcams or routers or whatever devices are attacking me right?
Just because I'm pretty hard up about protecting the internet itself, and free speech, and my overall belief that IoT is a big security shitfuck, I'd say probably yes. Also in the case of desktop/laptop systems, I'd be in favor of e.g. Microsoft being allowed to break in and kill whatever malware they are running. Right now they don't because they say they can't due to legal issues.
(FWIW I'm opposed to hacktivism as well because it's effectively a form of censorship; a gag order from court of public opinion, if you will, and it overall devalues the internet. When I see hacktivists bringing down sites like walmart just because they feel like they have some kind of moral high ground, when they clearly don't, it pretty well pisses me off. I'm also a network engineer so I'm instinctively OCD about uptime, even when problems don't involve me.)
Speak of this, Google no longer allows you to block domains from search results. Did they ever say why they removed this feature?
I personally hated eHow more than experts-exchange, but they were #2 on my list. My search result hate list looks like this:
1. eHow 2. experts-exchange 3. wikihow 4. quora 5. yahoo answers 6. forbes And just recently: 7. wsj
Fortunately, after Google adjusted its search rankings to lower sites that have lower quality content, eHow rarely shows up any more, and yahoo answers typically loses to quora. Still though, I'd like to block all of the domains I just listed above, and possibly Microsoft's technet social as Microsoft typically provides worthless answers to questions asked and then annoyingly marks them as the definitive answer even when they're not even relevant to the question. Sometimes the other users there find good answers though, which is its only redeeming property.
Also, I'd like to see Google downrank PDF content. Not delist it altogether, just downrank it. Maybe downrank Microsoft's technet social while they're at it, and Google's product forums as well because they tend to be even more worthless than Microsoft's help forums.
Oh, and uprank the stack-exchange family websites so that they ALWAYS win over shitty content mill sites.
Blah blah blah. The thing is, you're almost fully incapable of having a neutral discussion. Most posts you make are either attacking somebody personally or making arguments not based on any actual evidence. Pretty much you're just an all 'round dick.
so I really don't have the time for your bullshit
And yet you have time to make a really wordy post talking down to me about how awesome you think you are.
You are saying you would WANT to attend a college that considers such a thing?
The choices here are getting somewhat limited. Universities used to be open to just about any thoughts and ideas, but that seems to no longer be the case at most of them. Harvard did well recently in that they said there won't be any speech codes, trigger words, or safe spaces, but then they go and do this.
While Harvard is certainly within their rights and overall I agree with their take on those topics, I'm not so sure that this is a good idea. Not so much on religious grounds, but more commonly, what happens if somebody makes a joke in bad taste? Their career prospects have to be ruined a la donglegate? Just doesn't seem right IMO.
In this case, I think the FDA would benefit from making it easier to start a clinical trial, i.e. speed up its evaluation process, allow to skip animal testing, etc. But in exchange for that, counseling for informed consent must be much more rigorous, namely telling them that they risk loss of life, limb, eyesight, or other bodily functions, and that they will have limited legal recourse if anything goes wrong.
Terminally ill patients could be encouraged to sign up for phase 1 trials, and so long as nothing goes horribly wrong they can quickly move to phase 2, then phase 3, and maybe a 4th phase to rule out any long-term effects, but make the 4th phase open to unlimited participants.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point is that it's mostly older people who use facebook. Younger generations mostly dislike facebook.
I think that the worst part of all of this is that if the politicians adopt this, then having a facebook account will be somewhat mandatory if you want to participate in democracy, and therefore have your political views cataloged and possibly used against you.
What a fucking shitty idea.
The MP3 players that came before iPod were pretty decent, and Apple didn't change much in this regard. Essentially what they did is market it and make it look cool enough that the hipsters got on board, and then MP3 players saw much bigger appeal to the masses than in the past.
(Which doesn't say much because not only do hipsters love Apple, but they also love vinyl when it's in every way an inferior audio format.)
He messed up really bad in Afghanistan.
How?
And before you answer that, consider that everybody who has ever invaded Afghanistan has never succeeded. I'd say based on that and how our efforts have turned out, we've done pretty well there.
Please define left and right before making these assertions.
And being libertarian is far right? What the hell does that even mean? Libertarians are predominantly pro-freedom on basically everything. Is freedom a far right concept, or a far left concept? And why?
For example, for libertarians, free speech is absolute. In Europe however, there are plenty of censorship laws, especially for ones that people label as hate speech with some somewhat vague rules. So which one is right, and which one is left? Again, you need to clarify what exactly right and left mean.
I don't know who actually reads Trump's rambling nonsense, let alone bothers to send tweets to him.
And when exactly did I exclude private universities in my statement? Perhaps we should look to see what your degree is printed on.
Ok now that you're done splitting hairs, even if you're including them, this applies mostly to public universities, which seem to have the same problem. No matter how you try to spin this, you can't pin it on capitalism if a very non-capitalist system is exhibiting the exact same problem, making your argument completely moot.
Besides, I've seen your posts before and you pin many things on capitalism (or alternatively greed or some rant about corporations) that have nothing to do with either. If two of your coworkers were tired of your ineptitude and took a shit on your desk while nobody was looking, you'd 100% blame that on capitalism.
Is capitalism perfect? Nope, but neither is democracy. In fact, both have tons of flaws, but they're by far the best systems we've ever come up with. If you disagree, then I think you'd be happier living in Cuba or North Korea where they have neither capitalism nor democracy. Either way, you seem to be clinically depressed because in every single post of yours, you seem to talk about how everything sucks, and I recommend cognitive behavioral therapy.
Regardless of that, why the fuck did she (or anybody else) want to leak this. It's not whistleblowing by any sense if the word, nor did it benefit the public to know this yet. They've now spoiled an investigation, which gives the Russians an opportunity to further cover their tracks, and any further investigation into Trump is now most likely fucked.
If it was her, (and it seems likely) put her ass in jail for 10 years.
Translation: The quality of the bachelors degree is defined by the fact that it is now the new high school diploma.
Oh, you wanted a quality education instead of just a piece of paper to hang on the wall? Then shell out another $100K for the masters degree.
Gotta love capitalism.
How the hell is this capitalism? State universities have the prices set by the government, which is the total opposite of capitalism. Only private universities that set their own prices would count as capitalist.
Obviously your degree is a paper one.
The media has always been interested in whatever the current sitting president has to say. Even the most boring president ever becomes a news story just by saying something in public.
For the most part, yes, but if you ever use Google news, pretty much the entire top of the news feed is something involving Trump, and it's incredibly fucking annoying. It wasn't this way for Obama (except for the first two months after inauguration where people like Peggy the Moocher were having a moment of euphoria, and Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher made a video talking about how themselves and a bunch of other celebrities really wanted to have sex with Obama.)
Also, the counter to progressive is conservative. Progressives generally want things changed, conservatives think the best option is keeping things as they are.
Is that so? Well then, explain to me why so called progressives go out of their way to censor speech at universities in order to maintain the status quo.
But, don't bother. The thing is, this line you gave? Also total bullshit. Self identified conservatives want to change things all the time (for example, banning abortion is on their bucket list, and that by definition would be a change.) Progressives also resist change on many topics (as another example, they want to prohibit full incorporation of second amendment rights.)
I wonder who reads Trump's tweets at all, other than the mainstream media, who is really obsessed with him and should just go ahead and have sex with him.
BTW millennial here as well. I sometimes use Twitter to participate in Amex promotions (i.e. $50 off $200 at breath l Newegg if you tweet their hashtag) but that's pretty much it.
It's not verbatim, but indeed it happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This was just one element of the Obama euphoria that people experienced. Another (quite nauseating I might add) example is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You do actually have a point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Weapons, marching as a show of force, brown shirts...now all we're missing is kristallnacht.
I like your tactic: if you can't find something about progressives that you don't like, you just invent things they've done.
No, he's got a point. Sure, not all "progressives" have that particular viewpoint, but just because you don't doesn't mean none do. And I use that term loosely because it's a total BULLSHIT term. When somebody identifies as progressive, what they're really saying is that they think their opinions on any given matter are all forward thinking, and every contrary opinion is backwards, even if that other person identifies as progressive.
Just to give you perspective, Prohibitionists, KKK members, and Nazis have all identified themselves as being progressive at one point or another. Why? Because they're assfucks who can't stand anybody who has a different opinion, just like today's so called progressives who go so far as to implement censorship of unpopular viewpoints at major universities, which are otherwise supposed to be bastions of free speech, no matter the viewpoint.
Lawyers demand stupidly high settlement amounts all the time, and they rarely ever get what they first asked for. They go through rounds of negotiations until either they have a meeting of minds, or if they don't then the court proceedings begin.
Having said that, going to court is risky for both sides, so in most cases they prefer to settle. In this case, Eastwood refused a settlement offer entirely and effectively said "have at me bro", and won.
Anyways, there have been a few times where some congress critters have proposed having a 90 day notice requirement for the ADA before the business can be sued, but all of the lawyers who sue for ADA violations have lobbied hard against it every time, including the lawyer that sued Eastwood, under the argument that there should be strict liability for this. I liked how Eastwood put it "The lawyers in these cases drive off in a new Mercedes, while the disabled person drives off in a wheelchair." In other words, if the lawyer makes say $15,000 in a settlement, the disabled person who they supposedly represent makes about $1,000. And these settlements happen ALL THE TIME, including against business owners who themselves are wheelchair bound, and in such cases, you'd figure "if the owner is wheelchair bound and has no difficulty getting around their business, then why are they getting sued for having an inaccessible business?"
BTW, for an idea of what strict liability is, it essentially means that there doesn't need to be any proof of mens rea or mental culpability. Read this, it's both highly entertaining and enlightening:
http://thecriminallawyer.tumbl...
To me, sports jumped the shark about a decade ago.
Anyways you can get ad free TV here, it's called Netflix, HBO Now, and bittorrent. And that TV is generally worth my time, but I don't consider it TV in the sense that I'm not watching linear broadcast content.
TL;DR If they hack someone innocent, it's collateral damage as always (they had good intentions, so that makes it ok!), but if YOU hack someone innocent
No, that wouldn't fly. Physical security at major corporations for example can tackle e.g. shoplifters, people not being where they're supposed to be, etc, or even issue a citizens arrest and whatnot, but they can be held civily liable under tort laws if they bust a guy who didn't do anything wrong.
What if my attacker is Russia? Can I hack Russia back and with what kind of force? Can I break their government systems, destroy their computer, launch a stuxnet like virus upon them and destroy the computer systems of the Kremlin? Or would such things maybe be acts of war and a bit beyond the pale?
You already can do that if you'd like, and there would be no legal repercussions. Though I wouldn't be surprised if ol' Putin sends a KGB agent to...oh say...poison your coffee, or maybe stab you with a ricin umbrella...if he found out who you were.
I remember just after 9/11, hacktivists attacked Taliban infrastructure, and the US government didn't do anything other than just ask them to stop, and the only reason they asked for them to stop was so that they could extract intelligence and do some infiltration work of their own, which they can't do if their servers are down.
There's some cases when you could invoke something like BrickerBot against a DDoS attack coming from a bunch of webcams and other unsecured devices. Would I be allowed to attack back against these devices and brick some random guy's webcam or router simple because it's unsecured and being used in the attack?
I mean that's the right target right? I should be allowed to use the same exploit used to compromise that system in mass and destroy vast number of webcams or routers or whatever devices are attacking me right?
Just because I'm pretty hard up about protecting the internet itself, and free speech, and my overall belief that IoT is a big security shitfuck, I'd say probably yes. Also in the case of desktop/laptop systems, I'd be in favor of e.g. Microsoft being allowed to break in and kill whatever malware they are running. Right now they don't because they say they can't due to legal issues.
(FWIW I'm opposed to hacktivism as well because it's effectively a form of censorship; a gag order from court of public opinion, if you will, and it overall devalues the internet. When I see hacktivists bringing down sites like walmart just because they feel like they have some kind of moral high ground, when they clearly don't, it pretty well pisses me off. I'm also a network engineer so I'm instinctively OCD about uptime, even when problems don't involve me.)
Speak of this, Google no longer allows you to block domains from search results. Did they ever say why they removed this feature?
I personally hated eHow more than experts-exchange, but they were #2 on my list. My search result hate list looks like this:
1. eHow
2. experts-exchange
3. wikihow
4. quora
5. yahoo answers
6. forbes
And just recently:
7. wsj
Fortunately, after Google adjusted its search rankings to lower sites that have lower quality content, eHow rarely shows up any more, and yahoo answers typically loses to quora. Still though, I'd like to block all of the domains I just listed above, and possibly Microsoft's technet social as Microsoft typically provides worthless answers to questions asked and then annoyingly marks them as the definitive answer even when they're not even relevant to the question. Sometimes the other users there find good answers though, which is its only redeeming property.
Also, I'd like to see Google downrank PDF content. Not delist it altogether, just downrank it. Maybe downrank Microsoft's technet social while they're at it, and Google's product forums as well because they tend to be even more worthless than Microsoft's help forums.
Oh, and uprank the stack-exchange family websites so that they ALWAYS win over shitty content mill sites.
Blah blah blah. The thing is, you're almost fully incapable of having a neutral discussion. Most posts you make are either attacking somebody personally or making arguments not based on any actual evidence. Pretty much you're just an all 'round dick.
so I really don't have the time for your bullshit
And yet you have time to make a really wordy post talking down to me about how awesome you think you are.
Not unexpected for a narcissist.
You are saying you would WANT to attend a college that considers such a thing?
The choices here are getting somewhat limited. Universities used to be open to just about any thoughts and ideas, but that seems to no longer be the case at most of them. Harvard did well recently in that they said there won't be any speech codes, trigger words, or safe spaces, but then they go and do this.
While Harvard is certainly within their rights and overall I agree with their take on those topics, I'm not so sure that this is a good idea. Not so much on religious grounds, but more commonly, what happens if somebody makes a joke in bad taste? Their career prospects have to be ruined a la donglegate? Just doesn't seem right IMO.
In this case, I think the FDA would benefit from making it easier to start a clinical trial, i.e. speed up its evaluation process, allow to skip animal testing, etc. But in exchange for that, counseling for informed consent must be much more rigorous, namely telling them that they risk loss of life, limb, eyesight, or other bodily functions, and that they will have limited legal recourse if anything goes wrong.
Terminally ill patients could be encouraged to sign up for phase 1 trials, and so long as nothing goes horribly wrong they can quickly move to phase 2, then phase 3, and maybe a 4th phase to rule out any long-term effects, but make the 4th phase open to unlimited participants.
I like how Apple calls it a breakthrough even though they're the 4th company to offer one of these.