Part 2 of comment... You said I shouldn't re-purpose a moniker just because it has the word patent in it. Well, in this case I'm not re-purposing, I'm using it in a way that is accepted by many; I guess that one of the reasons patent troll is used also for companies that use their patents is because they are also trolling with their patents.
English is a living language, so the meaning of words and expressions can change. If you keep "correcting" people to limit their use of words/expressions, you might mold the meaning of those words/expressions more to your preferences. While I don't approve of such tactics, in this case I think it is a lost battle, because of the weight the two words carry by themselves.
note: I posted my full comment in two parts because of Slashdot's new "Lameness filter encountered", since nothing in the content was the issue, after all it was posted when in two parts, I must assume it is about length. Great way to disrupt the dialogue.
A person, company, etc. that holds and enforces patents in an aggressive and opportunistic manner , often with no intention of marketing or promoting the subject of the patent. (bold is mine)
In pejorative usage, a patent troll is a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.(bolds are mine)
The point you make is that I shouldn't call them patent trolls because "patent trolls don't actually make products". I copied two definitions (the first two on duckduckgo). They both mention your point, but use the word "often". Often they don't actually use the patents, but sometimes they do.
When TFA relates to another post (like in this case to Guccifer's "leak"), it would be good to have a direct link to that too. Specially if TFA is clearly trying to steer people away from information that it is talking about.
Ok, I'm sorry but I'll have to work. Go look further on the Ukranian thing if you are willing. It was some time ago, I read at the time, so I couldn't find more relevant links in a short time. There were American financed NGOs, trade deals to disrupt relations with Russia, the NATO threat, and the pro-US president screwing the country to cause the "resentment over 50 years of Russian hegemony " (do you honestly think there would be a "government turnover" if the people were not screwed over?). If you don't think putting missiles on your border is a serious threat (and they needed the "government turnover" for that) just remember the Cuban missile crisis, and that your country considers this kind of thing a serious threat. So yes, the Russians where between having missiles on their border and invading Ukraine. If the "turnover" wasn't associated with NATO, the missiles and Yats, I wouldn't think the US was at fault. If with all those things you don't think it is, think again. On Syria, the email in the link was from 2011.
t's certainly possible limited aid was going into this country
Read the quotes again.
on the ground (...) training opposition forces (...) commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns (...) enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi
The interview about how supporting terrorists would help terrorists relates to a 2012 report by the DIA. Here is the DIA report, heavily redacted (it's just three pages out of seven pages). Before "the rise" of ISIS, the report is an intelligence alert that ISIS would happen depending on US actions. Please, at least watch the 5 minutes video with the American intelligence officer. So, if you don't believe the Russians, you should believe at least the Americans... plus, they are saying the same thing.
Libya, Syria, Yemen (by selling weapons to the people who are bombarding them)
I'm increasingly convinced that the Donald's secret plan for quickly defeating Daesh involves nuclear weapons
According to him, it's to bomb the oil fields and to cut the money that they get from "US allies" (in reality Hillary's allies [ibtimes.com], as they are donating for her).
Stays.
when have American war crimes ever mattered much to the USA?
Oh, I see, you don't care about war crimes.
Arguable, so I do apologize. You said that American war crimes doesn't matter to the USA, not to yourself. And you worried about a nuclear attack, that proves me wrong. But it is strange when you ignore Libya, Syria and Yemen, her threats against Iran and Russia, and then say "pretty unlikely she will do anything terrible", and also "I don't think a highly limited nuclear strike is such a terrible thing in the big picture", that's were my (apparently wrong) assumption that you don't care about war crimes came from.
Did my apologies get it right? Or there was some other misinterpretation (English is not my native language)? I realize you said that global warming might be the largest risk, but I don't see how that could relate to the points on how "piece of shit" she is. Also, it is unlikely that four years of Trump will be enough to impede "the survival of your own descendents" on the global warming side of things. Just because he is mindless, doesn't mean the rest of the world is too (including good portion of the US). We can hope he will have some opposition and some decent technical advisors. BTW, I'm not in power to vote for him, foreigner. My survival is more likely to be ended by an American drone (for posting links from wikileaks on extremist sites like slashdot) than by American global warming.
they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway
So there were no rebels to train, but they were there and training them anyway.
the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within
They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.
By attacking the person and not the message you are just being stupid, but since you implied that the current state of my country of origin makes me less qualified to talk about the subject, I'll answer.
Your government meddles with ours. Your country implanted a dictatorship some time ago when we were getting better, huge setback, but we got out. We had a pretty good run for 14 years (just go check anywhere), even between two world economic crises. But when our president complained (2013) that your country was violating our constitution and our human rights, your president appointed a coup specialist as ambassador. Three years later, our president was taken out of office in the same way Paraguay's one was taken when this American coup organizer was working there (through a flaw in the law that permitted legally removing the president as long as enough congressmen lied together).
So yeah, we were fixing our government but America keeps fucking us. So don't complain when people talk about it, and don't blame us for everything that happens here, we are pretty shit alone, but you help a lot. As you should know, fixing broken governments is really hard, I'm working on it too. But if you read my previous post, that's not even the reason I care the most about your politics, personally I really dislike murder, as most people I know (including several Americans). Considering your poor options as candidates, something I relate to, I wrote "who you think", as not to give an absolute opinion on the person you should vote to, but on one issue I think you should consider to be top priority (not that employment doesn't matter). To make it clear I wasn't telling on who to vote, I also gave a very conditional advice:
If you care about anti-Americanism, vote for who you think will actually murder less
I babbled a lot in my comment, but in the end the advice that I gave was that one. Do you think it is a bad advice? Do you think the US will become a banana republic if voters think about that? If so, isn't it worth becoming one? And in the end it was a conditional advice, so if you don't care about anti-Americanism, or about murdering less, it's ok, you can do whatever you want. But I will not restrain from speaking.
Libya, Syria, Yemen (by selling weapons to the people who are bombarding them)
when have American war crimes ever mattered much to the USA?
Oh, I see, you don't care about war crimes. Then yes, she's fine, just an average politician getting bribes and corrupting the election.
I'm increasingly convinced that the Donald's secret plan for quickly defeating Daesh involves nuclear weapons
According to him, it's to bomb the oil fields and to cut the money that they get from "US allies" (in reality Hillary's allies, as they are donating for her). But if you don't care about war crimes when it's Hillary, why care when it's Trump?
And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?
The premise that she is not fucking-over America and the globe is wrong. She is provably already doing that.
Do you think corrupting American elections is not fucking-over America? Hell, if the Russians did as much as telling the truth to change the election results that is seem as bad. What about cheating on the elections and stripping the American people from the candidate they apparently wanted? Isn't Libya and Syria to fuck the globe over? What about the recent weapons selling to the UAE, that are currently bombing civilians in Yemen?
If/when Trump start mass murdering we'll have a basis of comparison, but so far Clinton is the one fucking-over America and the globe.
I agree that people have to be all that to be ardent Trump supporters. But as a foreigner that have seem what Hillary has been doing to Americans and to the world, as well as her threats against both Iran and Russia, I'll say you are partially wrong (on the anti-Americanism growth).
If Trump wins we will shitpost on how stupid Americans are, both because many of you are, and to shame you for having him as president. But we'll be glad if you elect someone that doesn't finance terrorists and start proxy wars with Russia. He is really embarrassing, but most people I know down here in Brazil think that if Trump wins it will be mostly on the "lesser of two evils" concept. We (the people I talk to) think most Americans voting on him are in a desperate attempt of doing something for your country, but don't really believe on his white supremacy speeches. Specially after the support that Sanders got and the way that the Democrats pushed Clinton. There are plenty of polls that show that most Americans (rightfully in my opinion) dislike both your candidates.
Foreigners opinions are based on discourse only right in the very beginning. Trump's speeches are not inspiring, but we won't become anti-Americans because of that (at least not for long), we'll be more anti-Americans next time you finance armed "rebels" or start a war. Just like we became more pro-Americans when you elected the constitutional lawyer against surveillance and pro-healthcare, but only for a very short time, as we quickly realized it was just another lie (and that he would spy on our entire populations in spite of international agreements and the notion that men are created equal). Anyway, if you care about anti-Americanism, vote for who you think will actually murder less, it is in direct relation to that, not on how bigoted your presidents are.
It doesn't make sense, smart criminals wouldn't attract the police, they would just use tor, there is no gain in running an exit node. If the couple in question didn't unlock their notebook to prove their innocence they would face a legal battle to get it back from the State. In the same situation, the criminal would lose his electronics and keep praying for the statute of limitations to go faster than the technology to unlock computers (or an image of his HD) with current cryptography.
And forget that they reduced American's product competition by enforcing the round corners patent. Let's forget that they patented the "slide to open" (like the doors). Isn't slide to open even more outrageous than ring-silencing patents? Or at least about the same? Let's forget that they just applied for the paper bag patent
Let's forget that they are constantly buying patents to profit from them in the exact same way these "patent trolls" do. Not every patent they buy becomes a product of their own, many are buried and many are just for collecting money from others use. This was a troll vs troll situation, let's not pretend Apple was on the high moral ground.
These patents are there just to make every product cost more and destroy any competition from small companies, humanity is losing.
Neither space, power or cost are constraints and there is no advantage to the user in removing it unless you get something in return
The exact argument you made about desktops is valid for the MBP. It's a large notebook, for people that want more than the bare minimum and accept extra weight and size for that. The extra weight and size of a minuscule hole isn't much BTW. There are lighter and more powerful notebooks than the MBA that have it.
Space, power and cost aren't really a problem in the MBA either, since we are talking about a headphone jack, but since it's a device made for people that want the least possible for the maximum amount of money, it makes sense.
You choose to ignore international agreements when you say the things the NSA is doing to foreigners are legal. Mass surveillance of foreigners is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that the US signed. There might be cases when the NSA is actually acting on US national security, but those cases were redacted out or not published. That happens because everything that was published was vetted by the journalists, not by Snowden himself (both the parts you agree with and the parts you disagree). The decision to tell how the NSA goes with some of their activities was made by the journalists, not by Snowden. It is worth noting that without those parts, some of the insecurity caused by the NSA would still be happening. It's strange that someone in a "nerd" website complains that we have better computer security.
Suspected terrorist in the eyes of the NSA. Is who you are saying people should stay away from. The program is the murder of known innocents and alleged/suspected terrorists. There is no trial, they are not terrorists.
These people are in their country, they are not murdering in the US. Many of them are murdered based on metadata only, so just by saying stuff and being in the "wrong" places (in your own country) might be enough to be murdered by the US.
How does one figure if your friend who talks bad shit about the US (after his cousin was bomb murdered in the market) is a suspected terrorist in the American eyes? He says the same stuff everyone does... If you live in a country where everyone is Muslin and everyone should hate the US (because of the killings without war), how do you tell the difference between who is normal and who is not in the eyes of the NSA?
But the worst is that you are suggesting people should be afraid in their homes, in their countries, of what they say and who they talk to, because they might just explode. Inflicting this kind of fear is what some people call terrorism.
In the past months I've seen a lot of Democrat action to disrupt the US elections and cause distrust in a result that does not favor them. Including this "news" article that claims that the DNC hack is Russian government backed even though the US doesn't acknowledge the fact. It's the Russians are invading our election system, the Russians are invading the DNC and working with Wikileaks, the Russians have covert plan... It seems that if the Republicans win they will claim that it was the Russians and that the results should not count. And if the Democrats win, the Russian plan was just to cause disturbance and they should be attacked anyway, militarily.
Yes, in principle no researcher can be trusted (Carnegie Mellon, RSA). Jacob was not there because he was beyond reproach, he was there because he was an activist. Now we have some people supposedly "beyond reproach".
But the new board is not beyond reproach, as the person that did make false accusations against Jacob is in it.
Anyone who is not being persecuted for their activism should raise an eyebrow, even Schneier, who chose a very strange moment to join the project.
Most of what we claimed before Snowden was FUD, but it was correct and incomplete.
I closed my node after reading those news. Jacob is a very outspoken enemy of the surveillance state. His speech To protect and infect part 2 was one of the best about the Snowden revelations.
Jacob was expelled from Tor based on several types of accusations made in a website, including rape, intense kisses and crude language (they went for all the audiences). His friends here sort of expelled too when they didn't believe all the accusations or pointed some of them were false (indirectly by claiming they were covering for a rapist and making personal attacks). They went after his other businesses and his doctorate too. It was textbook character assassination.
Write a blog purpoting to be one of their victims Email/text their colleagues, neighbours, friends etc
For those who are interested on what happened to Jacob former face of Tor that is also involved with Wikileaks: The weaponising of social (Analysis from some person on the internet) What has this man done? (On the German Magazine Zeit online - in English)
"I am not a victim of Jake," she told Die Zeit. She says she told a friend about the intense kiss in confidence. This story was not merely used on the website without her permission – she says the story was also "heavily manipulated."
I should warn that they are very long reads.
Now there is an "ex-cia" agent working on Tor.
The person responsible for a questionable website with at least some false accusations and the exit of several developers holds a key position.
There is increased development on usage statistics (that does make sense and is a response on attacks being used against tor - I am being paranoid here, but I wasn't a paranoid enough before Snowden and was proven a fool).
Also, as much as I admire Schneier for his work and would like his addition if it was in other circumstances, something that always bothered me about him is that he always focused on the NSA violations against Americans and American companies. I don't remember him criticizing the NSA for spying on innocent foreigners and on other countries (despite international agreements and the fact that foreigners are people too), I would like to be shown otherwise, but if he did it was tangentially. His discourse has always been that they should do a better job at protecting American national security and companies (and not that such military powers shouldn't exist).
Strange, I posted something like this and it disappeared... anyway...
Because some rich and powerful will lose the election if they don't hack it.
Both foreigners and locals buy American politicians (there are reports from both R and D). But now that hacking is allowed, that might not be enough, for anyone. Why would the people that are used to rigging elections in the traditional way steer from the "alternate" method now that it exists and is available for anyone?
In other words: anyone seriously interested in rigging the election one way or another needs to get in the "alternate" method. That includes the people that usually do the rigging in the US by traditional means (i.e. mostly locals), and does not exclude foreigners.
Capitalist economies have better working conditions, a healthier environment and a broader middle-class than any communist state has ever had
The third world is capitalist. The first and the third are capitalists, the second was "communist". That is the nature of capitalism, the small top do well and the large bottom doesn't. Also, Communist countries weren't supposed to have a middle-class.
1. Have a look in the working conditions in South Asia (don't forget India), Africa and South America; 2. Consider what you said that China is just a dictatorial regime and that now they are in fact capitalists; 3. Now count the true size of the capitalists middle-class and reevaluate the capitalists working conditions and environment.
Chinese history is pretty hard. They were worst before the revolution, got much better after, and are getting much better with this capitalist dictatorship. The "bad" working conditions that Chinese are enduring now aren't much different than what always happened in the other South Asian countries. They have been in a path of conditions improvement.
Since they were so far behind, and there was an obvious improvement (specially in illiteracy and starvation), I don't think its fair to compare where they got in the relatively short Communist time with where the rich capitalists of the first world were after centuries of exploiting the third world and slave labor (and continuing to do so). Plus, they had to reorganize the country after being seriously involved in WWII (actually the 2 Sino Japanese war).
Is that people will start to expect the censorship, instead of complain about it. As if they are responsible for what people are saying in their platform, and that what we see on it are "the face of the company".
Slashdot Mirror
Part 2 of comment...
You said I shouldn't re-purpose a moniker just because it has the word patent in it. Well, in this case I'm not re-purposing, I'm using it in a way that is accepted by many; I guess that one of the reasons patent troll is used also for companies that use their patents is because they are also trolling with their patents.
English is a living language, so the meaning of words and expressions can change. If you keep "correcting" people to limit their use of words/expressions, you might mold the meaning of those words/expressions more to your preferences. While I don't approve of such tactics, in this case I think it is a lost battle, because of the weight the two words carry by themselves.
note: I posted my full comment in two parts because of Slashdot's new "Lameness filter encountered", since nothing in the content was the issue, after all it was posted when in two parts, I must assume it is about length. Great way to disrupt the dialogue.
Patent troll
A person, company, etc. that holds and enforces patents in an aggressive and opportunistic manner , often with no intention of marketing or promoting the subject of the patent. (bold is mine)
Patent troll
In pejorative usage, a patent troll is a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.(bolds are mine)
The point you make is that I shouldn't call them patent trolls because "patent trolls don't actually make products". I copied two definitions (the first two on duckduckgo). They both mention your point, but use the word "often". Often they don't actually use the patents, but sometimes they do.
Apple is a patent troll. They really hurt both the market and innovation with their practices. Buying from them is bad for humanity's future.
When TFA relates to another post (like in this case to Guccifer's "leak"), it would be good to have a direct link to that too.
Specially if TFA is clearly trying to steer people away from information that it is talking about.
Ok, I'm sorry but I'll have to work. Go look further on the Ukranian thing if you are willing. It was some time ago, I read at the time, so I couldn't find more relevant links in a short time. There were American financed NGOs, trade deals to disrupt relations with Russia, the NATO threat, and the pro-US president screwing the country to cause the "resentment over 50 years of Russian hegemony " (do you honestly think there would be a "government turnover" if the people were not screwed over?). If you don't think putting missiles on your border is a serious threat (and they needed the "government turnover" for that) just remember the Cuban missile crisis, and that your country considers this kind of thing a serious threat. So yes, the Russians where between having missiles on their border and invading Ukraine. If the "turnover" wasn't associated with NATO, the missiles and Yats, I wouldn't think the US was at fault. If with all those things you don't think it is, think again.
On Syria, the email in the link was from 2011.
t's certainly possible limited aid was going into this country
Read the quotes again.
on the ground (...) training opposition forces (...) commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns (...) enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi
The interview about how supporting terrorists would help terrorists relates to a 2012 report by the DIA. Here is the DIA report, heavily redacted (it's just three pages out of seven pages). Before "the rise" of ISIS, the report is an intelligence alert that ISIS would happen depending on US actions. Please, at least watch the 5 minutes video with the American intelligence officer.
So, if you don't believe the Russians, you should believe at least the Americans... plus, they are saying the same thing.
Exactly what "piece of shit" things has she done?
Libya, Syria, Yemen (by selling weapons to the people who are bombarding them)
I'm increasingly convinced that the Donald's secret plan for quickly defeating Daesh involves nuclear weapons
According to him, it's to bomb the oil fields and to cut the money that they get from "US allies" (in reality Hillary's allies [ibtimes.com], as they are donating for her).
Stays.
when have American war crimes ever mattered much to the USA?
Oh, I see, you don't care about war crimes.
Arguable, so I do apologize. You said that American war crimes doesn't matter to the USA, not to yourself. And you worried about a nuclear attack, that proves me wrong.
But it is strange when you ignore Libya, Syria and Yemen, her threats against Iran and Russia, and then say "pretty unlikely she will do anything terrible", and also "I don't think a highly limited nuclear strike is such a terrible thing in the big picture", that's were my (apparently wrong) assumption that you don't care about war crimes came from.
Did my apologies get it right? Or there was some other misinterpretation (English is not my native language)? I realize you said that global warming might be the largest risk, but I don't see how that could relate to the points on how "piece of shit" she is. Also, it is unlikely that four years of Trump will be enough to impede "the survival of your own descendents" on the global warming side of things. Just because he is mindless, doesn't mean the rest of the world is too (including good portion of the US). We can hope he will have some opposition and some decent technical advisors.
BTW, I'm not in power to vote for him, foreigner. My survival is more likely to be ended by an American drone (for posting links from wikileaks on extremist sites like slashdot) than by American global warming.
user melted gave a short answer, but lets go:
1.0 - Washington's Man Yatsenyuk Setting Ukraine Up For Ruin
1.1 - Ukraine: One ‘Regime Change’ Too Many?
2 - Syria: From the Global Intelligence Files in 2011, about the US financing anyone available to fight against Assad (read terrorists/"rebels"), and being interested in a big humanitarian disaster. Quotes from the e-mail:
they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway
So there were no rebels to train, but they were there and training them anyway.
the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within
They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.
Also, there is a very interesting interview with the former head of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency):
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL. Here is a link to the most important part: Former DIA Head Concedes US Deliberately Backed Extremists in Syria.
Finally, listen to Putin talking about the subject, most relevant part about ISIS starts around 1:30.
By attacking the person and not the message you are just being stupid, but since you implied that the current state of my country of origin makes me less qualified to talk about the subject, I'll answer.
Your government meddles with ours. Your country implanted a dictatorship some time ago when we were getting better, huge setback, but we got out. We had a pretty good run for 14 years (just go check anywhere), even between two world economic crises. But when our president complained (2013) that your country was violating our constitution and our human rights, your president appointed a coup specialist as ambassador. Three years later, our president was taken out of office in the same way Paraguay's one was taken when this American coup organizer was working there (through a flaw in the law that permitted legally removing the president as long as enough congressmen lied together).
So yeah, we were fixing our government but America keeps fucking us. So don't complain when people talk about it, and don't blame us for everything that happens here, we are pretty shit alone, but you help a lot. As you should know, fixing broken governments is really hard, I'm working on it too.
But if you read my previous post, that's not even the reason I care the most about your politics, personally I really dislike murder, as most people I know (including several Americans). Considering your poor options as candidates, something I relate to, I wrote "who you think", as not to give an absolute opinion on the person you should vote to, but on one issue I think you should consider to be top priority (not that employment doesn't matter). To make it clear I wasn't telling on who to vote, I also gave a very conditional advice:
If you care about anti-Americanism, vote for who you think will actually murder less
I babbled a lot in my comment, but in the end the advice that I gave was that one. Do you think it is a bad advice? Do you think the US will become a banana republic if voters think about that? If so, isn't it worth becoming one? And in the end it was a conditional advice, so if you don't care about anti-Americanism, or about murdering less, it's ok, you can do whatever you want. But I will not restrain from speaking.
Well done. Can't understand why not +5 funny. Great post to shitpost on.
Exactly what "piece of shit" things has she done?
Libya, Syria, Yemen (by selling weapons to the people who are bombarding them)
when have American war crimes ever mattered much to the USA?
Oh, I see, you don't care about war crimes. Then yes, she's fine, just an average politician getting bribes and corrupting the election.
I'm increasingly convinced that the Donald's secret plan for quickly defeating Daesh involves nuclear weapons
According to him, it's to bomb the oil fields and to cut the money that they get from "US allies" (in reality Hillary's allies, as they are donating for her).
But if you don't care about war crimes when it's Hillary, why care when it's Trump?
And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?
The premise that she is not fucking-over America and the globe is wrong. She is provably already doing that.
Do you think corrupting American elections is not fucking-over America? Hell, if the Russians did as much as telling the truth to change the election results that is seem as bad. What about cheating on the elections and stripping the American people from the candidate they apparently wanted?
Isn't Libya and Syria to fuck the globe over? What about the recent weapons selling to the UAE, that are currently bombing civilians in Yemen?
If/when Trump start mass murdering we'll have a basis of comparison, but so far Clinton is the one fucking-over America and the globe.
I agree that people have to be all that to be ardent Trump supporters. But as a foreigner that have seem what Hillary has been doing to Americans and to the world, as well as her threats against both Iran and Russia, I'll say you are partially wrong (on the anti-Americanism growth).
If Trump wins we will shitpost on how stupid Americans are, both because many of you are, and to shame you for having him as president.
But we'll be glad if you elect someone that doesn't finance terrorists and start proxy wars with Russia.
He is really embarrassing, but most people I know down here in Brazil think that if Trump wins it will be mostly on the "lesser of two evils" concept. We (the people I talk to) think most Americans voting on him are in a desperate attempt of doing something for your country, but don't really believe on his white supremacy speeches. Specially after the support that Sanders got and the way that the Democrats pushed Clinton. There are plenty of polls that show that most Americans (rightfully in my opinion) dislike both your candidates.
Foreigners opinions are based on discourse only right in the very beginning. Trump's speeches are not inspiring, but we won't become anti-Americans because of that (at least not for long), we'll be more anti-Americans next time you finance armed "rebels" or start a war. Just like we became more pro-Americans when you elected the constitutional lawyer against surveillance and pro-healthcare, but only for a very short time, as we quickly realized it was just another lie (and that he would spy on our entire populations in spite of international agreements and the notion that men are created equal).
Anyway, if you care about anti-Americanism, vote for who you think will actually murder less, it is in direct relation to that, not on how bigoted your presidents are.
It doesn't make sense, smart criminals wouldn't attract the police, they would just use tor, there is no gain in running an exit node.
If the couple in question didn't unlock their notebook to prove their innocence they would face a legal battle to get it back from the State.
In the same situation, the criminal would lose his electronics and keep praying for the statute of limitations to go faster than the technology to unlock computers (or an image of his HD) with current cryptography.
Yes, they use the round corners and slide to open. But having those patents qualifies them as patent trolls.
And forget that they reduced American's product competition by enforcing the round corners patent. Let's forget that they patented the "slide to open" (like the doors). Isn't slide to open even more outrageous than ring-silencing patents? Or at least about the same?
Let's forget that they just applied for the paper bag patent
Let's forget that they are constantly buying patents to profit from them in the exact same way these "patent trolls" do. Not every patent they buy becomes a product of their own, many are buried and many are just for collecting money from others use. This was a troll vs troll situation, let's not pretend Apple was on the high moral ground.
These patents are there just to make every product cost more and destroy any competition from small companies, humanity is losing.
Neither space, power or cost are constraints and there is no advantage to the user in removing it unless you get something in return
The exact argument you made about desktops is valid for the MBP. It's a large notebook, for people that want more than the bare minimum and accept extra weight and size for that. The extra weight and size of a minuscule hole isn't much BTW. There are lighter and more powerful notebooks than the MBA that have it.
Space, power and cost aren't really a problem in the MBA either, since we are talking about a headphone jack, but since it's a device made for people that want the least possible for the maximum amount of money, it makes sense.
Article 12, but I'm not complaining about government spying, obviously. You can't be honestly saying that's "what they were up to", but I'll bait: read about the whole country wiretap thing (Bahamas). And the kiddie porn GCHQ related article.
You choose to ignore international agreements when you say the things the NSA is doing to foreigners are legal. Mass surveillance of foreigners is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that the US signed.
There might be cases when the NSA is actually acting on US national security, but those cases were redacted out or not published. That happens because everything that was published was vetted by the journalists, not by Snowden himself (both the parts you agree with and the parts you disagree). The decision to tell how the NSA goes with some of their activities was made by the journalists, not by Snowden. It is worth noting that without those parts, some of the insecurity caused by the NSA would still be happening. It's strange that someone in a "nerd" website complains that we have better computer security.
Suspected terrorist in the eyes of the NSA. Is who you are saying people should stay away from.
The program is the murder of known innocents and alleged/suspected terrorists. There is no trial, they are not terrorists.
These people are in their country, they are not murdering in the US. Many of them are murdered based on metadata only, so just by saying stuff and being in the "wrong" places (in your own country) might be enough to be murdered by the US.
How does one figure if your friend who talks bad shit about the US (after his cousin was bomb murdered in the market) is a suspected terrorist in the American eyes? He says the same stuff everyone does...
If you live in a country where everyone is Muslin and everyone should hate the US (because of the killings without war), how do you tell the difference between who is normal and who is not in the eyes of the NSA?
But the worst is that you are suggesting people should be afraid in their homes, in their countries, of what they say and who they talk to, because they might just explode. Inflicting this kind of fear is what some people call terrorism.
In the past months I've seen a lot of Democrat action to disrupt the US elections and cause distrust in a result that does not favor them. Including this "news" article that claims that the DNC hack is Russian government backed even though the US doesn't acknowledge the fact.
It's the Russians are invading our election system, the Russians are invading the DNC and working with Wikileaks, the Russians have covert plan...
It seems that if the Republicans win they will claim that it was the Russians and that the results should not count. And if the Democrats win, the Russian plan was just to cause disturbance and they should be attacked anyway, militarily.
Yes, in principle no researcher can be trusted (Carnegie Mellon, RSA). Jacob was not there because he was beyond reproach, he was there because he was an activist. Now we have some people supposedly "beyond reproach".
But the new board is not beyond reproach, as the person that did make false accusations against Jacob is in it.
Anyone who is not being persecuted for their activism should raise an eyebrow, even Schneier, who chose a very strange moment to join the project.
Most of what we claimed before Snowden was FUD, but it was correct and incomplete.
I closed my node after reading those news. Jacob is a very outspoken enemy of the surveillance state. His speech To protect and infect part 2 was one of the best about the Snowden revelations.
Jacob was expelled from Tor based on several types of accusations made in a website, including rape, intense kisses and crude language (they went for all the audiences). His friends here sort of expelled too when they didn't believe all the accusations or pointed some of them were false (indirectly by claiming they were covering for a rapist and making personal attacks). They went after his other businesses and his doctorate too. It was textbook character assassination.
Write a blog purpoting to be one of their victims
Email/text their colleagues, neighbours, friends etc
For those who are interested on what happened to Jacob former face of Tor that is also involved with Wikileaks:
The weaponising of social (Analysis from some person on the internet)
What has this man done? (On the German Magazine Zeit online - in English)
"I am not a victim of Jake," she told Die Zeit. She says she told a friend about the intense kiss in confidence. This story was not merely used on the website without her permission – she says the story was also "heavily manipulated."
I should warn that they are very long reads.
Now there is an "ex-cia" agent working on Tor.
The person responsible for a questionable website with at least some false accusations and the exit of several developers holds a key position.
There is increased development on usage statistics (that does make sense and is a response on attacks being used against tor - I am being paranoid here, but I wasn't a paranoid enough before Snowden and was proven a fool).
Also, as much as I admire Schneier for his work and would like his addition if it was in other circumstances, something that always bothered me about him is that he always focused on the NSA violations against Americans and American companies. I don't remember him criticizing the NSA for spying on innocent foreigners and on other countries (despite international agreements and the fact that foreigners are people too), I would like to be shown otherwise, but if he did it was tangentially. His discourse has always been that they should do a better job at protecting American national security and companies (and not that such military powers shouldn't exist).
Strange, I posted something like this and it disappeared... anyway...
Because some rich and powerful will lose the election if they don't hack it.
Both foreigners and locals buy American politicians (there are reports from both R and D). But now that hacking is allowed, that might not be enough, for anyone.
Why would the people that are used to rigging elections in the traditional way steer from the "alternate" method now that it exists and is available for anyone?
In other words: anyone seriously interested in rigging the election one way or another needs to get in the "alternate" method. That includes the people that usually do the rigging in the US by traditional means (i.e. mostly locals), and does not exclude foreigners.
Capitalist economies have better working conditions, a healthier environment and a broader middle-class than any communist state has ever had
The third world is capitalist. The first and the third are capitalists, the second was "communist". That is the nature of capitalism, the small top do well and the large bottom doesn't. Also, Communist countries weren't supposed to have a middle-class.
1. Have a look in the working conditions in South Asia (don't forget India), Africa and South America;
2. Consider what you said that China is just a dictatorial regime and that now they are in fact capitalists;
3. Now count the true size of the capitalists middle-class and reevaluate the capitalists working conditions and environment.
Chinese history is pretty hard. They were worst before the revolution, got much better after, and are getting much better with this capitalist dictatorship. The "bad" working conditions that Chinese are enduring now aren't much different than what always happened in the other South Asian countries. They have been in a path of conditions improvement.
Since they were so far behind, and there was an obvious improvement (specially in illiteracy and starvation), I don't think its fair to compare where they got in the relatively short Communist time with where the rich capitalists of the first world were after centuries of exploiting the third world and slave labor (and continuing to do so). Plus, they had to reorganize the country after being seriously involved in WWII (actually the 2 Sino Japanese war).
Is that people will start to expect the censorship, instead of complain about it. As if they are responsible for what people are saying in their platform, and that what we see on it are "the face of the company".