"But that is exactly the point: did they notice? No. Google play services has been around for a couple of years now and for all the "evil" and "stealing of freedom" of proprietary software the end result is nothing"
What does it matter if they noticed? Unless you have some sort of actual point, you can't really accuse me of using straw men.
Because the benefit and ease of use leaking my data brings far outweighs the consequences to me.
As usual, your priorities are misplaced. The same applies to the majority of gamers, who behave like drug addicts; no matter how badly scumbag corporations abuse them with DRM, outright malware (Sony rootkits), walled gardens, etc., they always come crawling back for another fix, even if they claimed they would boycott the companies. They are profoundly ignorant.
The consequence is some company knows some anonymised information about me.
You are assuming that they truly are anonymizing the data. We already know corporations often work close together with the government, or will hand over lots and lots of information on request.
But government or not, anonymous or not, I simply want to keep as much information out of the hands of scummy companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. as possible.
So far I have yet to be wronged by any of them.
It's possible to be wronged without knowing it. Harm is not always tangible. For instance, the NSA is harming people simply by collecting data.
I don't disable it for the same reason I didn't disable sharing tracking information on my phone despite it being an opt in option when I first turned it on.
So are you 100% google free? No Android, no Google browser, no Gmail?
Yes.
The reason I ask is because when I type something into the Firefox search bar in it's default configuration, shortly after it will appear as a suggested search in Chrome's universal address bar.
The TSA has been around for a while, too. People don't seem to care about privacy, fundamental liberties, or software freedom. Does that make those things bad or unimportant? No. It just means that people are ignorant.
How is it entitlement to use a different extension? Does that word have any meaning whatsoever anymore, or does it just mean, "Anyone who criticizes anything, decides not to buy something, or doesn't support the violation of people's rights."? I've seen it used in a number of odd ways.
You could make voting conditional on passing a test. Not a straight IQ test, although that should be a part of it.
Yeah, so the oh-so-trustworthy people in our government can have an easier way to oppress segments of the population. Also, IQ tests are absolute nonsense.
And I'm sure these tests would be perfectly unbiased, not at all ambiguous, and would vastly improve the situation. If we can't even get standardized tests right, how the hell do you propose we create tests that will determine whether or not someone gets access to a fucking fundamental right?
And they can learn other operating systems, too. Or do most people lack the cognitive ability to use more than one OS, and need crappy 'Microsoft Essentials' classes to teach them anything beyond how to game and access their Facebook accounts?
There is simply no excuse to make a comment like yours. Why? Because I've decided that it's bad. And it's also not professional at all, which isn't a 100% subjective term in the least.
Tapping lots of phones simply to capture the terrorist, or letting them blow up a city?
The former, because we're supposed to be 'the land of the free.' The government has *no power* to violate the constitution. They have to get a warrant or shut up; safety is not an excuse, and it never has been.
There's no need for a constitutional amendment. The government has far too much power as it is, and if an amendment were to be made, it should be one that more explicitly limits the government's powers and closes the 'loopholes' that they like to use; I don't really think they're loopholes, but making things more clear for these crooks and the people fooled by them can't hurt.
Safety is simply not relevant. In the 'land of the free and the home of the brave,' safety is far less important than fundamental liberties.
Spineless citizenry deserves an oppressive government.
Well, then most of my fellow citizens in the US definitely deserve the oppressive government we have. But what about the ones who are actually trying to change things? The problem is, you often get stuck with the government that other people deserve.
The fact is that humans are born to seek safety. In fact all living beings are programmed that way.
That really doesn't explain why some people are principled enough to reject safety in favor of freedom. And most of the 'risk' is vague or exaggerated in the case of terrorism anyway. There is really no direct threat or huge army coming to murder us, so it doesn't even mean sense. That's what makes it even more baffling.
Only sometimes? And since when do average Jane and Joe Schmoe care about the constitution or fundamental liberties? Most people seem to want safety above all else, despite pretending to want freedom.
So as a self-learner, and a not particular fan of the education system I was brought up under, it's not that I disagree with you that you can't do a good job of self-learning, it's that I do not believe it's optimal.
For you.
I believe you'll always be better off if you're a self learner AND you'd pushed yourself through a degree
Don't project yourself onto others. Everyone learns differently. And since everyone learns different, the assignments will often just waste a real self-learner's time. Not because they don't think they need to know it, but because they already do. That is time they could have used elsewhere.
No matter what, if you're extremely determined and intelligent, using a one-size-fits-all solution is not going to be optimal.
but it's the knowledge that you just can't find as a self-learner outside of a university environment.
There isn't all that much of that in subjects like this to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
"But that is exactly the point: did they notice? No. Google play services has been around for a couple of years now and for all the "evil" and "stealing of freedom" of proprietary software the end result is nothing"
What does it matter if they noticed? Unless you have some sort of actual point, you can't really accuse me of using straw men.
Because the benefit and ease of use leaking my data brings far outweighs the consequences to me.
As usual, your priorities are misplaced. The same applies to the majority of gamers, who behave like drug addicts; no matter how badly scumbag corporations abuse them with DRM, outright malware (Sony rootkits), walled gardens, etc., they always come crawling back for another fix, even if they claimed they would boycott the companies. They are profoundly ignorant.
The consequence is some company knows some anonymised information about me.
You are assuming that they truly are anonymizing the data. We already know corporations often work close together with the government, or will hand over lots and lots of information on request.
But government or not, anonymous or not, I simply want to keep as much information out of the hands of scummy companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. as possible.
So far I have yet to be wronged by any of them.
It's possible to be wronged without knowing it. Harm is not always tangible. For instance, the NSA is harming people simply by collecting data.
I don't disable it for the same reason I didn't disable sharing tracking information on my phone despite it being an opt in option when I first turned it on.
Truly, that is a wise decision.
So are you 100% google free? No Android, no Google browser, no Gmail?
Yes.
The reason I ask is because when I type something into the Firefox search bar in it's default configuration, shortly after it will appear as a suggested search in Chrome's universal address bar.
Why not simply disable it?
The TSA has been around for a while, too. People don't seem to care about privacy, fundamental liberties, or software freedom. Does that make those things bad or unimportant? No. It just means that people are ignorant.
I'm saying that they lack the ability to not give everything up in the quest for convenience.*
You're essentially demanding that everyone agree with you is lacking in moral judgment.
I'm saying that they lack the ability everything up in the quest for convenience. They do lack principles.
Yes, if what you care about is consistency and not privacy, I'd say you're lacking principles.
So I switched to Chrome. After all, Google knows what I search for anyway
Stop using Google, then?
Privacy? I'll take consistency first.
How very principled of you. The world needs more people like you, since we clearly didn't have enough unthinking, unprincipled morons already.
That will do little other than save people time. You'll instantly know which sites are absolute garbage.
How is it entitlement to use a different extension? Does that word have any meaning whatsoever anymore, or does it just mean, "Anyone who criticizes anything, decides not to buy something, or doesn't support the violation of people's rights."? I've seen it used in a number of odd ways.
You could make voting conditional on passing a test. Not a straight IQ test, although that should be a part of it.
Yeah, so the oh-so-trustworthy people in our government can have an easier way to oppress segments of the population. Also, IQ tests are absolute nonsense.
And I'm sure these tests would be perfectly unbiased, not at all ambiguous, and would vastly improve the situation. If we can't even get standardized tests right, how the hell do you propose we create tests that will determine whether or not someone gets access to a fucking fundamental right?
hence they learn windows
And they can learn other operating systems, too. Or do most people lack the cognitive ability to use more than one OS, and need crappy 'Microsoft Essentials' classes to teach them anything beyond how to game and access their Facebook accounts?
You asked, "Which is the lesser evil?" I meant to say that it's the latter, in case that wasn't clear.
regardless the particular methods I used to build that confidence.
That matters a lot, because otherwise, they can just get everything they need through lawless means.
There is simply no excuse to make a comment like yours. Why? Because I've decided that it's bad. And it's also not professional at all, which isn't a 100% subjective term in the least.
Tapping lots of phones simply to capture the terrorist, or letting them blow up a city?
The former, because we're supposed to be 'the land of the free.' The government has *no power* to violate the constitution. They have to get a warrant or shut up; safety is not an excuse, and it never has been.
There's no need for a constitutional amendment. The government has far too much power as it is, and if an amendment were to be made, it should be one that more explicitly limits the government's powers and closes the 'loopholes' that they like to use; I don't really think they're loopholes, but making things more clear for these crooks and the people fooled by them can't hurt.
Safety is simply not relevant. In the 'land of the free and the home of the brave,' safety is far less important than fundamental liberties.
don't use advanced warrant-less surveillance technology for matters other than serious national security threats.
Don't use it at all.
Spineless citizenry deserves an oppressive government.
Well, then most of my fellow citizens in the US definitely deserve the oppressive government we have. But what about the ones who are actually trying to change things? The problem is, you often get stuck with the government that other people deserve.
The fact is that humans are born to seek safety. In fact all living beings are programmed that way.
That really doesn't explain why some people are principled enough to reject safety in favor of freedom. And most of the 'risk' is vague or exaggerated in the case of terrorism anyway. There is really no direct threat or huge army coming to murder us, so it doesn't even mean sense. That's what makes it even more baffling.
Nope. If you did any research on him whatsoever, you would have known he was a scumbag even before his first term.
More secretive when it comes to intelligence and national security
Which is by far the most important, given how easily exploitable it is.
Only sometimes? And since when do average Jane and Joe Schmoe care about the constitution or fundamental liberties? Most people seem to want safety above all else, despite pretending to want freedom.
So as a self-learner, and a not particular fan of the education system I was brought up under, it's not that I disagree with you that you can't do a good job of self-learning, it's that I do not believe it's optimal.
For you.
I believe you'll always be better off if you're a self learner AND you'd pushed yourself through a degree
Don't project yourself onto others. Everyone learns differently. And since everyone learns different, the assignments will often just waste a real self-learner's time. Not because they don't think they need to know it, but because they already do. That is time they could have used elsewhere.
No matter what, if you're extremely determined and intelligent, using a one-size-fits-all solution is not going to be optimal.
but it's the knowledge that you just can't find as a self-learner outside of a university environment.
There isn't all that much of that in subjects like this to begin with.
Because the guy's argument was not with her personally.
I'm still not seeing why he can't Tweet her name.