... maliciously trying to avoid the consequences of their actions...
So, in regards to thread, how exactly does mere ownership of a howitzer try to "avoid the consequences of their actions"? Dude only said he wanted one. As long as he doesn't start firing it into random buildings in town or otherwise make overt threats with it? There are no societal consequences to owning an artillery piece, so there's nothing to avoid. Of course, he'll spend a boatload of money owning and maintaining it, but that's his problem.
I don't think the problem is in not knowing what social consequences are, but instead in constantly redefining it so that it becomes an excuse to ban/remove/prohibit anything that the person using that excuse may be frightened of.
About those "wealthy and successful business men" (clue: many of them were decidedly not wealthy Virginia plantation owners - most owned/ran small businesses at most, and many were little more than yeomen)... They staked their families, fortunes and lives on the whole revolution. Most of the ~50 signatories of the Declaration of Independence sacrificed a *lot* to the cause - family members, fortunes, lives, etc. Few of them came out of it as prosperous as they went into it.
Also note that they could have *very* easily set up a new monarchy, and would have probably gotten support to do so from the population at large had they tried. In fact, much of the public were clamoring to make Washington a new king (to his immense credit, Washington hotly refused it, and intentionally limited his terms in office.) Instead, these men decided that maybe, just maybe, an improved version of the classical Greco-Roman Republic would be a better direction to go for governance. This means putting primacy on the individual, and to stop the monarch's habit of curating society (usually to the monarch's benefit, but still...)
That emphasis on individual initiative and growth (and the activities of those who took it to heart) is basically what built the US. Without it, I suspect that we'd decline and collapse in less than a century. Mind you, this does not supersede law and order, but it does mean that the US government should, wherever possible and/or practical, get the hell out of the individual citizen's way. It's a pity that most folks either don't or won't realize this...
I think he was referring to Windows Vista/7/early-8 , where file transfers (especially transfers of a ton of little files in one batch) tended to be a time-suck.
At work, I normally find myself either at the command prompt or a text editor. Outside of the corporate-imposed Lync, Office, and Outlook, I'd have no use for Microsoft's products at all.
Actually, it is on many of them (at least Vonage has it). For the mobiles, there's well... there's an app for that (okay, there's a *lot* of apps for that...)
An interesting philosophical point of view, but speaking as someone who wore a uniform? If there's a chance to prosecute a war without my being exposed to personal danger/gunfire, I'll take it. Pretty sure that all but an ate-up/tiny minority of the military think the same way.
That said, I do agree with your point: you don't own contested ground until there are a pair of your boots standing on it. It's simple, yet true.
1) Denials can more often than not be just as revealing as confirmations. 2) It's a simpler thing for the typical grunt to keep in mind and perform than "confirm nothing, but deny only this stuff {gets handed a list-o-stuff}" 3) A flat non-committal "I can neither confirm or deny" routine (and variations thereof) tells absolutely nothing, which is how the folks running a top-secret project wants it. 4) Nope - I'm not going to lie -or- tell the truth about those days to the missus; Ft. Leavenworth is a lousy place to be at any time of the year.
Hate to be the wet blanket on your hypothesis here, but there is a vast difference between *saying* you'd have no problems with killing someone, and actually doing it.
If you want a civilian parallel, go hunting sometime. Something like 75-80% of first-time hunters freeze the hell up when it comes time to take the shot... and that's considered to be normal.
Quick - define "hate speech" in a completely objective way.
Fact is, you cannot, because "hate" is a subjective emotion, and the recipient(s) refuse to adhere to any consistent behavior upon hearing/seeing it. It also refuses to be equal in application and/or influence. Example? No problem: Call me a "honkey" in anger, and I'd just laugh my ass off (it's a funny word), in spite of the fact that it's a term specifically created to denigrate someone based on pale skin color. Call my best friend the "n" word in jest, and he'll explode in rage, then proceed to kick your ass.
Here's the problem I have with it, especially in matters of law: "Hate speech" can mean anything the presumptive victim wants it to mean, which in turn means that the definition is too fluid to be useful in law. See also "microaggression", which I'm certain will bloom into 'hate speech' if given a chance and the right authorities with a grudge to nurse.
PS: the whole secrecy thing can indeed wear on a relationship.
Years ago, when I did the "Cannot confirm or deny" thing, I spent 4 days a week working on Project Senior Trend, and 3 days in Nellis AFB in Vegas. I've lost count of the number of girlfriends I'd lost to the phenomenon of: "So how was your week?" "Oh, normal." "Did you do anything fun or interesting?" "Nothing out of the ordinary" "C'mon, don't be so closed-up... how was your week?" "Babe, you know I can't talk about it" "Don't give me that shit - I saw those cuties you got on the plane with! You're fucking one of them, aren't you!?" "No, no! It's not like that - I just can't talk about what I do up there is all!" {heated argument ensues...}
I finally got past that by dating a chick who also worked up there as an SP (Security Police), which made things much more relaxed.
Even my wife (who I met *long* after I became a civilian) seriously asked me, point-blank, if I saw or worked with any aliens up there, and got mad when I refused to talk about it. I eventually defused it by joking about a dude named José, but it illustrates that such a job really tends to intrude on one's personal life.
Actually, I believe that Apple's updates are pushed independently of the carrier - my wife's iPhone gets iOS updates just fine, even through we use Net10 (which doesn't distribute core Android updates for shit, since most of their customers do the 'bring-your-own-phone' thing or use one of the really oddball uber-cheap phones that Net10 sells.)
IOW, I believe that Apple pushes all of their updates the same way that Google's Play Store does.
So.. you prefer to pay too much for a phone with few choices simply because you don't have the ability to keep off of unsecured or untrusted WiFi networks?
Just a sec' there...
Most of the schmucks out there are paying through the nose for a contract with monthly data caps, so hell yes they'll latch onto WiFi every chance they get, and aren't going to know jack about trusted vs. untrusted networks... all they know is that they can turn on Wifi and get their updates/video/whatever without burning through their 4G allotment for the month.
Personally, I leave WiFi strictly off on my phone, but I use Net10, so I don't have to worry about overage charges. But, that's just me... most of North America uses $majorCarrier and has to worry about it, so they act accordingly.
Creating a fake Facebook profile isn't exactly all that hard:
Hi, Facebook! Oh, you want personal info to register my account? Okay: My name is John Barlow. I was born on 5/16/1982. My email address is you.silly.dumbass@gmail.com
Oh, wait... none of that personally identifies me.
Now, couple that with a cheap/easy VPN connection from your computer to use when you set up (then use) Facebook and gmail, and you're nigh on untraceable - at least to some local despot.
One way to apply immediate and powerful pressure from the US government's point of view: suspend the issue of all H1-B visas to workers from India until India gets their shit together.
Wikileaks was indeed built for anonymous disclosure, but Facebook has the audience; if you want to expose corruption, which site provides the widest dissemination?
Personally, I am firmly convinced that anonymity should be permitted (with few and obvious exceptions) on any web platform, and expressly for this purpose. It's not up to Facebook (or any other website owner) to provide a means to intimidate folks who actually do speak truth to power (as opposed to the trite over-use of the phrase here in the US by certain parties.)
Slashdot Mirror
... maliciously trying to avoid the consequences of their actions...
So, in regards to thread, how exactly does mere ownership of a howitzer try to "avoid the consequences of their actions"? Dude only said he wanted one. As long as he doesn't start firing it into random buildings in town or otherwise make overt threats with it? There are no societal consequences to owning an artillery piece, so there's nothing to avoid. Of course, he'll spend a boatload of money owning and maintaining it, but that's his problem.
I don't think the problem is in not knowing what social consequences are, but instead in constantly redefining it so that it becomes an excuse to ban/remove/prohibit anything that the person using that excuse may be frightened of.
About those "wealthy and successful business men" (clue: many of them were decidedly not wealthy Virginia plantation owners - most owned/ran small businesses at most, and many were little more than yeomen)... They staked their families, fortunes and lives on the whole revolution. Most of the ~50 signatories of the Declaration of Independence sacrificed a *lot* to the cause - family members, fortunes, lives, etc. Few of them came out of it as prosperous as they went into it.
Also note that they could have *very* easily set up a new monarchy, and would have probably gotten support to do so from the population at large had they tried. In fact, much of the public were clamoring to make Washington a new king (to his immense credit, Washington hotly refused it, and intentionally limited his terms in office.) Instead, these men decided that maybe, just maybe, an improved version of the classical Greco-Roman Republic would be a better direction to go for governance. This means putting primacy on the individual, and to stop the monarch's habit of curating society (usually to the monarch's benefit, but still...)
That emphasis on individual initiative and growth (and the activities of those who took it to heart) is basically what built the US. Without it, I suspect that we'd decline and collapse in less than a century. Mind you, this does not supersede law and order, but it does mean that the US government should, wherever possible and/or practical, get the hell out of the individual citizen's way. It's a pity that most folks either don't or won't realize this...
They're using a new variation of Agile, called "Methagilephetamine".
Still has a few kinks in it, though.
More like probable... OSX apps from the App Store install w/o a wizard.
You mean before they added that ribbon bullshit?
Sign me up!
(I already use LibreOffice too :) )
I think he was referring to Windows Vista/7/early-8 , where file transfers (especially transfers of a ton of little files in one batch) tended to be a time-suck.
I have a Windows 2000 system still in non-stop for almost 15 years.
Cool - what's the IP addy? An almost completely unpatched SP1/2 level box should be awesome to play with, assuming it actually works. ;)
This, right here.
At work, I normally find myself either at the command prompt or a text editor. Outside of the corporate-imposed Lync, Office, and Outlook, I'd have no use for Microsoft's products at all.
Actually, it is on many of them (at least Vonage has it). For the mobiles, there's well... there's an app for that (okay, there's a *lot* of apps for that...)
Err, you may wish to get some education as well, because it ain't just almonds like you assert it is: http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
Well, except you're not allowed to eat these particular fish - California claims them as an endangered species.
An interesting philosophical point of view, but speaking as someone who wore a uniform? If there's a chance to prosecute a war without my being exposed to personal danger/gunfire, I'll take it. Pretty sure that all but an ate-up/tiny minority of the military think the same way.
That said, I do agree with your point: you don't own contested ground until there are a pair of your boots standing on it. It's simple, yet true.
Well...
1) Denials can more often than not be just as revealing as confirmations.
2) It's a simpler thing for the typical grunt to keep in mind and perform than "confirm nothing, but deny only this stuff {gets handed a list-o-stuff}"
3) A flat non-committal "I can neither confirm or deny" routine (and variations thereof) tells absolutely nothing, which is how the folks running a top-secret project wants it.
4) Nope - I'm not going to lie -or- tell the truth about those days to the missus; Ft. Leavenworth is a lousy place to be at any time of the year.
Hate to be the wet blanket on your hypothesis here, but there is a vast difference between *saying* you'd have no problems with killing someone, and actually doing it.
If you want a civilian parallel, go hunting sometime. Something like 75-80% of first-time hunters freeze the hell up when it comes time to take the shot... and that's considered to be normal.
Okay, opinions and feelings inside, the veteran in me demands to know: "WTF, have you idiots never heard of COMSEC/OPSEC?"
Quick - define "hate speech" in a completely objective way.
Fact is, you cannot, because "hate" is a subjective emotion, and the recipient(s) refuse to adhere to any consistent behavior upon hearing/seeing it. It also refuses to be equal in application and/or influence. Example? No problem: Call me a "honkey" in anger, and I'd just laugh my ass off (it's a funny word), in spite of the fact that it's a term specifically created to denigrate someone based on pale skin color. Call my best friend the "n" word in jest, and he'll explode in rage, then proceed to kick your ass.
Here's the problem I have with it, especially in matters of law: "Hate speech" can mean anything the presumptive victim wants it to mean, which in turn means that the definition is too fluid to be useful in law. See also "microaggression", which I'm certain will bloom into 'hate speech' if given a chance and the right authorities with a grudge to nurse.
PS: the whole secrecy thing can indeed wear on a relationship.
Years ago, when I did the "Cannot confirm or deny" thing, I spent 4 days a week working on Project Senior Trend, and 3 days in Nellis AFB in Vegas. I've lost count of the number of girlfriends I'd lost to the phenomenon of:
"So how was your week?"
"Oh, normal."
"Did you do anything fun or interesting?"
"Nothing out of the ordinary"
"C'mon, don't be so closed-up... how was your week?"
"Babe, you know I can't talk about it"
"Don't give me that shit - I saw those cuties you got on the plane with! You're fucking one of them, aren't you!?"
"No, no! It's not like that - I just can't talk about what I do up there is all!"
{heated argument ensues...}
I finally got past that by dating a chick who also worked up there as an SP (Security Police), which made things much more relaxed.
Even my wife (who I met *long* after I became a civilian) seriously asked me, point-blank, if I saw or worked with any aliens up there, and got mad when I refused to talk about it. I eventually defused it by joking about a dude named José, but it illustrates that such a job really tends to intrude on one's personal life.
Consider that unlike a video game, these guys are killing actual human beings on a daily basis.
Actually, I believe that Apple's updates are pushed independently of the carrier - my wife's iPhone gets iOS updates just fine, even through we use Net10 (which doesn't distribute core Android updates for shit, since most of their customers do the 'bring-your-own-phone' thing or use one of the really oddball uber-cheap phones that Net10 sells.)
IOW, I believe that Apple pushes all of their updates the same way that Google's Play Store does.
So .. you prefer to pay too much for a phone with few choices simply because you don't have the ability to keep off of unsecured or untrusted WiFi networks?
Just a sec' there...
Most of the schmucks out there are paying through the nose for a contract with monthly data caps, so hell yes they'll latch onto WiFi every chance they get, and aren't going to know jack about trusted vs. untrusted networks... all they know is that they can turn on Wifi and get their updates/video/whatever without burning through their 4G allotment for the month.
Personally, I leave WiFi strictly off on my phone, but I use Net10, so I don't have to worry about overage charges. But, that's just me... most of North America uses $majorCarrier and has to worry about it, so they act accordingly.
You haven't answered his first question - is the article accurate or not?
...forget to AC that one, did you?
Creating a fake Facebook profile isn't exactly all that hard:
Hi, Facebook! Oh, you want personal info to register my account? Okay: My name is John Barlow. I was born on 5/16/1982. My email address is you.silly.dumbass@gmail.com
Oh, wait... none of that personally identifies me.
Now, couple that with a cheap/easy VPN connection from your computer to use when you set up (then use) Facebook and gmail, and you're nigh on untraceable - at least to some local despot.
One way to apply immediate and powerful pressure from the US government's point of view: suspend the issue of all H1-B visas to workers from India until India gets their shit together.
Wikileaks was indeed built for anonymous disclosure, but Facebook has the audience; if you want to expose corruption, which site provides the widest dissemination?
Personally, I am firmly convinced that anonymity should be permitted (with few and obvious exceptions) on any web platform, and expressly for this purpose. It's not up to Facebook (or any other website owner) to provide a means to intimidate folks who actually do speak truth to power (as opposed to the trite over-use of the phrase here in the US by certain parties.)