That's where Do Not Track type concepts would work if they were respected. The robot doesn't need to know who John Doe is, or remember a previous conversation in order to see his T-shirt says "Do Not Track" and respect his wishes.
So, they mean to blackmail people using information their employer already knows? Good luck Chinese. The government officials that aren't already getting busted for smoking crack, taking bribes, sending dick pics or banging tranny-hookers just don't have much to hide. On the upside maybe the government will finally understand why privacy matters.
The real risk I see with the amount of info known about Americans and government employees is that any real adversary can not only attempt blackmail, but kidnap or assassinate soft targets with regrettable ease end effect.
That fact that this progression is known and apparent provides a great opportunity to do something about it. If the shareholders of public companies are the only interests we make any effort to serve then this is our possible path. It's up to society outside of short term thinkers in corporate leadership to decide to design a better economic future. In the US we have about a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending we could be working on. It would have been nice if we had taken a lesson from the Great Depression and invested during the economic crisis, but none the less, there is a huge amount of economic activity that could be created by making investments. In the private sector I just don't see the innovators and the ambitious people in our society just watching the economy wither and die because of a race to the bottom with no regard for long term economic harm. Basic income I feel offers us no way out of harm. A rethinking of the ways we provide social support may be in order so as to provide more benefit to society, but it would only hurt us if it is to broadly applied. I'd rather we do more to fuel the economic engine through fostering opportunity than merely dole out money. Criminal justice reform, resources for mental health, homelessness, drug addiction treatment and tackling exorbitant health care costs would also be worth the investment.
It's easy to appreciate any victory for common sense when you watch "The Revisionaries" and see how hard they fight to keep the youth stupid for Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Have they considered there may be a reason I'd like to intentionally hit an obstacle. Maybe I want to push a stalled car off railroad tracks. Maybe I don't want my road rage options to be so limited.
What you say about Trump sucking up the attention so that more reasonable republican candidates can't get any attention, I think is true also of Hillary and Bernie Sanders. Bernie sanders is not in any sense electable, but he drowns out any real opposition to Hillary.
NSA head Rogers said that "we have got to engender a better dialogue" on security issues. "In the end, we serve the citizens of the nation... all the revelations [a reference to Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks] have made life more difficult for us."
The reason Mr. Rogers you can't get support is you lie to the people you are supposedly serving. You won't comply with the one thing that we want which is to be left alone and have our rights respected. Tell us the truth, respect our rights, stop weakening our technology security and we'll be all good. I'm happy to have you go kill all the terrorists you like, just stay off my lawn. I'd also suggest you be very selective about when it's really worth meddling in foreign affairs, overthrowing foreign leaders tends to get messy even when it seems like a good idea. We live in a world where the truth is a very hard thing to hide. If your actions can't be justified honestly in the light of day then maybe there is a better approach.
The media won't let it be boring. We give more media coverage to a list of people who are not running, than we do to good candidates like Jim Webb that actually are running. There certainly are links between the two, but money in politics is looking like less of a problem to me than the media picking favorites and covering only people who are newsworthy. As long as the media defines the political winners and losers, we will remain completely fucked.
The costs are enormous either way. Politicians and businesses would rather delay the costs until someone else is in charge. Perhaps we could leave some sort of lasting record so that when future civilizations attempt to understand human extinction they will know it was politics, not climate change that killed us all.
"They envisage a global supply-chain of these software experts" - In other words they envision finally turning software into something that involves as few first world salaries as possible. It gets designed and then created by globalized software sweatshops with the aid of sophisticated software. The stock prices then rise temporarily as profits increase and then two years later the entire tech economy implodes. The state of the software industry and the tech economy are thus inexorably turned to shit.
The actual article basically lays out a journalist needing to have the minimal skills to be a technically capable journalist in the internet age. It isn't suggesting that Google Fu and basic math is a complete path to professional programming. The summary cherry picks some bits as cannon fodder for a volley of sarcasm.
Agreed %100. I'm not sure why companies seem to think engagement in your work just happens naturally. If I have no reason to care about the continued existence of a company and care nothing about the why behind anything they are trying to accomplish, it's just about making money for someone else. That doesn't interest me in the slightest. More than anything I'd like to work for companies where there is a good reason to be passionate about the company's mission.
Yes, but that doesn't appear to be how they are operating. The court didn't take his grievance and make a determination about the legality of the governments actions. They only looked at the available proof of harm to the individual. I understand that approach is generally sensible, but it doesn't leave us the best options when we want to prove that a broad set of actions is unconstitutional without linking it's harm to a specific victim. I have to wonder how it would work out if we had a class action where thousands of complainants stated that government spying practices harms their freedom of speech because they feel the need to self edit their public speech out of fear due to knowledge of specific government surveillance practices. I for instance will not call or text any Iranian/Muslim/Middle-Easterner from my phone even in the U.S. because even if I trust them, I can't know who the government may think they are linked with. It thereby limits my freedom to speak to trusted friends.
" Industry groups say this restriction will kill drone delivery services before they even begin. The legislation would also drastically diminish the usefulness of camera-centric drones like the ones being rolled out by GoPro."
I was legitimately enthusiastic about moving to Windows 10. After learning more about it, I can say with certainty I will never use it on any PC I own at least in it's current form. It's really a shame. I'm not one to just hate Microsoft on principle. I had an open mind, but now that enough information has been presented I just can't allow Windows 10 on my PC and I can't support their approach to the customer relationship. Give me a "Privacy Enhanced" version and I'll be willing to spend $100. The year of Linux on the desktop may be coming, but who knew it would be sponsored by Windows 10.
It's not too late, fix Windows 10 and the EULA now and change the conversation, else Microsoft, you deserve to fail.
I'm still baffled as to why companies think this is a good idea. What the fuck good is a jumble of WiFi hot spots in residential areas. So you cover 150 foot radius around your home and that helps next to no one. I have no interest in allowing some stranger to sit in front of my house to get internet access. If my neighbors want internet, they can get their own. There seems to be some misconception that WiFi is going to work somehow like a cell phone network where enough cells in proximity give broad coverage. This scheme does next to nothing to give WiFi coverage to the public areas in most places where society might actually get some benefit. Please just drop all these fucked off WiFi schemes and don't pretend it's OK to use a service I pay for so that others can get a benefit.
If they want to keep this nonsense intact they would be wise to at least make it easy to get off the list. It shouldn't take more than five business days to look at a file and decide if someone is actually a threat or not. It should not require a lengthy court battle to be heard. It's not just the travel limitations that impact rights, it's also the fairness of available recourse.
It's impossible to force people to use their minds only for work 100% of the time they are at work. People do not function that way. If it's an easy repetitive job that allows you to think about something else while completing your tasks, so that can be a higher percentage of productive time, but tasks that require mental focus especially on things nobody actually wants to focus on require a degree of freedom to maintain one's sanity. If I were watched every moment of the day my internet time would be replaced by time spent beating my head against the desk wishing to be anywhere but there. Then soon I would quit before I began to feel compelled to go Fight Club on management. When you put people into a mental box that is too small it's just extremely uncomfortable. If you think time wasting is expensive, try to analyze the cost of people hating their jobs and the companies for which they work. People who actively hate their companies do shit work and provide shit customer service. If you need software to tell you anything about your employee's then your management is fucking useless.
Slashdot Mirror
You can take the laptop out of China, but you can't take the Chinese out of the laptop.
That's where Do Not Track type concepts would work if they were respected. The robot doesn't need to know who John Doe is, or remember a previous conversation in order to see his T-shirt says "Do Not Track" and respect his wishes.
So, they mean to blackmail people using information their employer already knows? Good luck Chinese. The government officials that aren't already getting busted for smoking crack, taking bribes, sending dick pics or banging tranny-hookers just don't have much to hide. On the upside maybe the government will finally understand why privacy matters.
The real risk I see with the amount of info known about Americans and government employees is that any real adversary can not only attempt blackmail, but kidnap or assassinate soft targets with regrettable ease end effect.
That fact that this progression is known and apparent provides a great opportunity to do something about it. If the shareholders of public companies are the only interests we make any effort to serve then this is our possible path. It's up to society outside of short term thinkers in corporate leadership to decide to design a better economic future. In the US we have about a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending we could be working on. It would have been nice if we had taken a lesson from the Great Depression and invested during the economic crisis, but none the less, there is a huge amount of economic activity that could be created by making investments. In the private sector I just don't see the innovators and the ambitious people in our society just watching the economy wither and die because of a race to the bottom with no regard for long term economic harm. Basic income I feel offers us no way out of harm. A rethinking of the ways we provide social support may be in order so as to provide more benefit to society, but it would only hurt us if it is to broadly applied. I'd rather we do more to fuel the economic engine through fostering opportunity than merely dole out money. Criminal justice reform, resources for mental health, homelessness, drug addiction treatment and tackling exorbitant health care costs would also be worth the investment.
female and alive. Since the most attractive women on dating sites are fake profiles, that's harder to find than it sounds.
They won the moment we altered our daily lives. Fuck the terrorists, double fuck our reactions to fear.
It's easy to appreciate any victory for common sense when you watch "The Revisionaries" and see how hard they fight to keep the youth stupid for Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Have they considered there may be a reason I'd like to intentionally hit an obstacle. Maybe I want to push a stalled car off railroad tracks. Maybe I don't want my road rage options to be so limited.
It won't knock them down, nor will it stop a real threat. This idea is crap. It will only put officers at risk.
What you say about Trump sucking up the attention so that more reasonable republican candidates can't get any attention, I think is true also of Hillary and Bernie Sanders. Bernie sanders is not in any sense electable, but he drowns out any real opposition to Hillary.
NSA head Rogers said that "we have got to engender a better dialogue" on security issues. "In the end, we serve the citizens of the nation... all the revelations [a reference to Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks] have made life more difficult for us."
The reason Mr. Rogers you can't get support is you lie to the people you are supposedly serving. You won't comply with the one thing that we want which is to be left alone and have our rights respected. Tell us the truth, respect our rights, stop weakening our technology security and we'll be all good. I'm happy to have you go kill all the terrorists you like, just stay off my lawn. I'd also suggest you be very selective about when it's really worth meddling in foreign affairs, overthrowing foreign leaders tends to get messy even when it seems like a good idea. We live in a world where the truth is a very hard thing to hide. If your actions can't be justified honestly in the light of day then maybe there is a better approach.
The media won't let it be boring. We give more media coverage to a list of people who are not running, than we do to good candidates like Jim Webb that actually are running. There certainly are links between the two, but money in politics is looking like less of a problem to me than the media picking favorites and covering only people who are newsworthy. As long as the media defines the political winners and losers, we will remain completely fucked.
The costs are enormous either way. Politicians and businesses would rather delay the costs until someone else is in charge. Perhaps we could leave some sort of lasting record so that when future civilizations attempt to understand human extinction they will know it was politics, not climate change that killed us all.
"They envisage a global supply-chain of these software experts" - In other words they envision finally turning software into something that involves as few first world salaries as possible. It gets designed and then created by globalized software sweatshops with the aid of sophisticated software. The stock prices then rise temporarily as profits increase and then two years later the entire tech economy implodes. The state of the software industry and the tech economy are thus inexorably turned to shit.
The actual article basically lays out a journalist needing to have the minimal skills to be a technically capable journalist in the internet age. It isn't suggesting that Google Fu and basic math is a complete path to professional programming. The summary cherry picks some bits as cannon fodder for a volley of sarcasm.
Agreed %100. I'm not sure why companies seem to think engagement in your work just happens naturally. If I have no reason to care about the continued existence of a company and care nothing about the why behind anything they are trying to accomplish, it's just about making money for someone else. That doesn't interest me in the slightest. More than anything I'd like to work for companies where there is a good reason to be passionate about the company's mission.
Yes, but that doesn't appear to be how they are operating. The court didn't take his grievance and make a determination about the legality of the governments actions. They only looked at the available proof of harm to the individual. I understand that approach is generally sensible, but it doesn't leave us the best options when we want to prove that a broad set of actions is unconstitutional without linking it's harm to a specific victim. I have to wonder how it would work out if we had a class action where thousands of complainants stated that government spying practices harms their freedom of speech because they feel the need to self edit their public speech out of fear due to knowledge of specific government surveillance practices. I for instance will not call or text any Iranian/Muslim/Middle-Easterner from my phone even in the U.S. because even if I trust them, I can't know who the government may think they are linked with. It thereby limits my freedom to speak to trusted friends.
So... the government can do any unconstitutional thing it wants as long as no individual has standing to contest it.
The Start Menu Search Bar is for lazy people. Back in my day we just had Run, you had to actually know that you wanted and that's the way we liked it.
The only thing we have to sell, is fear itself.
" Industry groups say this restriction will kill drone delivery services before they even begin. The legislation would also drastically diminish the usefulness of camera-centric drones like the ones being rolled out by GoPro."
I'd call that a win on both counts.
I was legitimately enthusiastic about moving to Windows 10. After learning more about it, I can say with certainty I will never use it on any PC I own at least in it's current form. It's really a shame. I'm not one to just hate Microsoft on principle. I had an open mind, but now that enough information has been presented I just can't allow Windows 10 on my PC and I can't support their approach to the customer relationship. Give me a "Privacy Enhanced" version and I'll be willing to spend $100. The year of Linux on the desktop may be coming, but who knew it would be sponsored by Windows 10.
It's not too late, fix Windows 10 and the EULA now and change the conversation, else Microsoft, you deserve to fail.
I'm still baffled as to why companies think this is a good idea. What the fuck good is a jumble of WiFi hot spots in residential areas. So you cover 150 foot radius around your home and that helps next to no one. I have no interest in allowing some stranger to sit in front of my house to get internet access. If my neighbors want internet, they can get their own. There seems to be some misconception that WiFi is going to work somehow like a cell phone network where enough cells in proximity give broad coverage. This scheme does next to nothing to give WiFi coverage to the public areas in most places where society might actually get some benefit. Please just drop all these fucked off WiFi schemes and don't pretend it's OK to use a service I pay for so that others can get a benefit.
If they want to keep this nonsense intact they would be wise to at least make it easy to get off the list. It shouldn't take more than five business days to look at a file and decide if someone is actually a threat or not. It should not require a lengthy court battle to be heard. It's not just the travel limitations that impact rights, it's also the fairness of available recourse.
It's impossible to force people to use their minds only for work 100% of the time they are at work. People do not function that way. If it's an easy repetitive job that allows you to think about something else while completing your tasks, so that can be a higher percentage of productive time, but tasks that require mental focus especially on things nobody actually wants to focus on require a degree of freedom to maintain one's sanity. If I were watched every moment of the day my internet time would be replaced by time spent beating my head against the desk wishing to be anywhere but there. Then soon I would quit before I began to feel compelled to go Fight Club on management. When you put people into a mental box that is too small it's just extremely uncomfortable. If you think time wasting is expensive, try to analyze the cost of people hating their jobs and the companies for which they work. People who actively hate their companies do shit work and provide shit customer service. If you need software to tell you anything about your employee's then your management is fucking useless.