I knew about the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. But not the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus.
FYI, that joke was generated with a PHP Preprocessor on my IBM Machine.
Pigs are pigs regardless of who fills their trough.
Sad thing is, I don't hate cops. I totally understand the stress they're under whether they're policing high-crime areas or grandma's backyard (just before they shoot her based on a crack-addict's "tip"). As individuals, I'm still confident they're no different than anybody else on the street.
However, corporate ownership of the government and the unwillingness of even "good" cops (and prosecutors) to hold other cops accountable for misdeeds, forces the public, including me, to treat them like the "enemy". (I don't mean Chris Dorner asymetrical warfare style; I mean dob/address/name/lawyer only... ALWAYS; and with plenty of political action in between traffic stops) The odds of being misidentified like Menezes or Ryan Ferguson are so miniscule that they almost don't warrant any attention. But like long-term care insurance or surfing when sharks have been spotted in the area, you have to take it seriously because the effects are so catastrophic.
So either
1.It doesn't apply or
2.It doesn't apply.
Therefore its pointless to have it.
No need to define "unreasonable" if the amendment never applies in the first place.
That is not what I said. You're choosing to ignore important words in the middle of sentences, changing their meanings. Why, I don't know nor care. I'm not here to educate you on English comprehension, logic, or the law. I'm here to discuss the topic. Have a wonderful day.
If its reasonable to search everyone, all the time , then why bother having the amendment?
But that is not what they're doing or what the law allows. They're searching information outside the United States. Customs & Border Patrol already have that right for everything physical. The law simply gave the power to the NSA for everything electronic.
If an electronic file is subject to the same 4th Amendment protections as a physical file (as is claimed in most posts here), then it is subject to the same limitations on the 4th Amendment's protections. If the Feds have the power to inspect every physical object leaving or entering the US (SCOTUS agrees with this), then one of the following is also true:
1. The Feds have the power to inspect every electronic file leaving or entering the US
2. Electronic files are not subject to the same protections as physical files, therefore the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.
So my point still stands: You must define "unreasonable" for the 4th Amendment to apply.
Believe it or not, some people oppose Obamacare because of the how, not the what. Confusing or assuming in that regard is a big part of the demagoguery we have to deal with in politics today.
In truth, a big chunk of the people that did oppose Obamacare were opposing it on the basis of freedom. The first thing that popped in my head when I heard it was: Here comes Orwell. That is not why I oppose it, but I do understand the argument as I do believe the Feds (Obama especially) are abusing the commerce clause to the extreme. The justification they used makes it impossible to see the limit of what impacts interstate commerce, and therefore what is in the power of the Feds to control.
The difference is that the US makes such a big deal about being free, that irony continues to gush uncontrollably from the whole NSA scandal, the PATRIOT act, the TSA bullshit, the constant invasions of other countries, the attempts at blocking healthcare for poorer citizens, etc, etc...
How does blocking Obamacare qualify as irony in regards to being free?
A capture rate of 100% is unreasonable. By definition, every document is grabbed and analyzed. It is unreasonable because there is no reason for the seizure of the documents.
How is their capture of the international traffic any less Constitutional from Customs searching every international package?
Until we repeal the 4th, a capture rate of 100% is unconstitutional because there is no specific warrant process.
That is incorrect by oversimplification according to current constitutional law; see above.
nor may the Congress pass a law declaring warrants unnecessary - the Constitution overrides both these actions (or inactions).
They can and have; and the laws have been reviewed and affirmed by the courts. See above and add in other exemptions such as exigent circumstances.
Thank you for calling me out about the moron part. But respectfully, I disagree with you. I will not be kind, nor civil to someone who disagrees with me on this point of Constitutional interpretation.
Then you will find yourself and your opinions consistently ignored. I don't mean here, by me (though I will ignore you if you're a jerk to me:), I mean in Government and social situations. The greatest opportunities to learn are by listening to people and positions you disagree with. You must understand the reasoning behind their own position to fully understand your own.
People like you always fall back on the 'if it's deemed legal, it's ok' excuse.
You really know nothing about me or my positions, please don't assume such. I simply used a few extra words to request his definition of "unreasonable" as that, to me, is the very heart of any intelligent debate here and he completely skipped it. The law has been reviewed and found constitutional. The actions of the NSA have been reviewed and found Constitutional in theory and only in specific, albeit common, practice unconstitutional. The debate as I've seen it has been on the difference between Feinstien et. all's definition of reasonable, and the 99%'s definition of reasonable (My use of "99%" is an exaggerated presumption; it just sounds nice to steal it).
This is what the government does. We both know that while 'unreasonable' is left undefined, it's obviously being expanded constantly towards the meaning of "do whatever you want."
That it is (Especially the commerce clause recently which, by its exact definition today absurdly covers everything). Customs & Border Patrol already have the right to search & seize anything and everything as long as their activities are "routine". Considering that a very common argument against the NSA's tapping & meta-data related activities include the Government's pedantic differentiation of physical papers from electronic files, it would seem logical that the same people presenting that argument against would accept the converse: it is constitutional for an agency with a different name to perform the same type of routine investigations of electronic traffic crossing virtual international borders. So, what is the definition of unreasonable as it pertains to the 4th Amendment and the electronic searches?
Multiple 'wrongs' can and do make a 'right'. It just depends on the subjective definitions of each. Besides, governments engaging in illegal activities have not business calling other people traitors.
All governments engage in illegal activity at some point or another. Does that mean there can never be traitors? Governments are still composed of individual humans and are still constrained by human flaws. Including mob mentality, going with the flow, not making waves, or whatever phrase you want to use to describe it. What you're saying sounds to me like you're refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of our Federal government (Or maybe you're just an anarchist?). Feinstein is not "The Government". She is one (powerful) individual that consistently wins re-election in a liberal leaning state, indicating the people's support of her positions and actions. Neither is amiga3D "The Government". (S)He is one individual that expressed support for the NSA's position and was not only flagged a troll, but was called a moron for having an opinion that differs from the/. group-think.
It just compounds the lie.
'The mob'? Interesting choice of vocabulary. One of the definitions of mob is "a secret organized group of criminals." I think that applies more to people, like feinstein, who are members of the two big elite parties, and the last few administrations, than it does to snowden, or ordinary americans who are rightfully angry over having their freedoms, rights, and liberty taken away a piece at a time. You're right. There's a big case of narcissistic, histrionic elitism here, but you've wrongly identified the 'patients.'
I did not apply the term to Snowden or his supporters or the government. I applied it to/. commentators and moderators. Like so many other stories, there is not 1 single dissenting comment in this board moderated to 5: insightful, informative, or even funny. However there are numerous posts, like amiga3D's, that are so very clearly moderated -1: disagree. Amiga3D didn't offer much in the way of facts, but there was certainly room there to bring thing
If you honestly think that spying on nearly everyone's communications is constitutional or okay, then you're a naive ignoramus.
If you want a discussion, don't be a condescending, insulting, jerk. Reword your post to exclude this combative b.s. and I'd be happy to talk about whatever points you brought up.
Except under capitalism minorities and the poor are more empowered than ever.
Entertainment is not empowerment. If you think that you and I combined have the same power and influence on our government as the Koch brothers... I think you're insane.
In America even the poor have cell phones and cars. What communist country can say the same thing? Access to food is so trivial here, yet in those places they'd be lucky if they have more than one meal in a given day.
Correlation, not causation. The United States has been in a unique position of being started with capitalism in a land with insanely abundant natural resources that naturally distributed themselves. Of course as those natural resources were tapped and depleted, wealth concentration started happening. The same wealth concentration that inspired the Communist revolutions in Russia. Our boom/bust cycles are getting more frequent and severe, the poor are getting poorer, the rich richer. The fact that cheap cell phones are the new rotten turnip changes nothing. Especially with global warming speeding up the depletion of livable territory and scarcity of food, it is only a matter of time before the population (US included) is too large to support capitalism.
When we have 50%, 60%, or 90% unemployment, who will be supporting our capitalist economy?
Perhaps not Communism specifically, but some kind of socialism is the only workable system long term. Of course even that will fail unless population controls are put in place or humans leave earth. I see our current system failing soon, probably in my lifetime, and probably quite violently. Even technology that assists with "solving" food & living space issues exacerbates unemployment. Democracy may survive, but capitalism can't.
The NSA has prima facie been violating the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Their actions are unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.
Considering the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and you failed to define the word "unreasonable", there has been no violation of the 4th amendment as of yet. Certainly not one as obvious as you're claiming. (Do we even need to go into the fact that the Constitution does not specify who can issue warrants?)
No man can be a traitor for upholding or protecting the Constitution, which is what Snowden did.
Can, have, and will again. Check your history books. The Constitution is up for (ever changing) interpretation. Today's villain is tomorrow's hero and vice versa.
Additionally, ever heard the term "two wrongs don't make a right"? The Constitution lays out the framework for our courts. They are the ones that are supposed to be reviewing the constitutionality of laws & actions of the federal government. Breaking a law that has not been flagged as unconstitutional is violating the Constitution. Bypassing the courts (& congress as the OP says) is not in any way upholding the Constitution, it is bypassing it.
Disagreeing with a moron is not a reason to mod someone down
Calling them a moron is somehow better? Bigotry such as yours is arguably the cause of much of the woes in politics today. Believe it or not, two people can have diametrically opposed opinions and yet, somehow, both be correct.
Its sad that discussion stopping posts like yours are regularly modded up here just because you sheepishly agree with the mob, no matter the insults, condescension, or other anti-social, anti-intellectual garbage you spew.
Next time, try inviting disagreement. Ask for clarification or facts to back up an unpopular opinion. It is an opportunity to learn, think, and grow. If you just want people to agree with you, there are a variety of TV personalities like Rush Limbaugh, that serve that purpose well.
Sorry in advance for appearing to pick on you. You earned my wrath for simply being the first "I'm an elitist jerk" post I've seen today. Have a glorious day.
Sorry I wasn't saying the improvements to computer speed, I was saying the speed that improvements (added/improved screens, accelerometers, cameras, etc) are coming out.
I know PC hardware beefed up fast, but I remember most of the hubbub was clock speeds. USB upgrades, same thing. Just have to pick the version/speed you want your software to be able to handle.
It took PCs 25 years to get from a common 640x480 resolution to a common 2560x1600 today.
It took phones 3 years to get from a common 320x240 to a common (Galaxy S4 I think is common enough now) 1920x1080. Resolution won't go up much more I don't think with small screens, but it still is a bigger jump in less time.
I have a 2 year old LG Shine Plus that can still run nearly all of the applications I use, just slower.
And how about your 4 year old phone? I think 2 years is about the upper limit for anybody that can save $300 / year for a new phone every 2 years. Ya, you *can* use a 3 or 4 year old phone, but can you use it regularly without ripping your hair out? I think the carriers know you can't, hence the 2 year contract requirements.
My 4 year old PC is still quite usable. But then, I did put in a new video card. So I would add expandability to the argument. Doubling your RAM or upgrading a video card can make a huge difference on a slightly out of date PC, but you can't do that to a slightly out of date phone.
Meh, I don't know what I'm talking about. Its just my perception. Its the wild-west, disagree and we'll have to meet at high-noon.
Don't forget the categories & audience factor that can influence those rankings.
For instance, anecdotes that support Linux/Android over Windows/Mac on Slashdot can often be reverse order and achieve the same "Insightful" ranking.
While the same arguments on appleinsider, even as a first post, would continue to get downvotes years later after a thorough study was conducted proving them true.
If having different manufacturers use the same OS is a problem, how did DOS/Windows maintain market share? AMD vs Intel, different sound card manufacturers, different video card manufacturers, different BIOSes and motherboards. A far worse deal than with a phone. Same thing, new platform: Apple vs Microsoft, Apple vs Android, same thing.
I'd venture its a combination of:
IBM, Dell, Compaq, Acer, etc. providing limited, controlled setups to the majority of Windows (i.e. business) users.
Since most businesses would spend the same amount of money, the majority of PCs had a limited range of hardware that was supported for several years. All the fringe hardware was only purchased by home users, who suffered the consequences.
Speed of hardware improvement: Hardware improvements are moving a lot faster for phones than PCs. 4 year old PCs are still usable if they were mid to high range when new. Phones... not so much.
# of Versions to support. From 1998 to today (15 years), Windows has gone through 6 major versions; All with a HUGE emphasis on backwards compatibility.
From 2009 to today (just 4 years), Android has gone through 9 major revisions. I have no idea how much effort they put in backwards compatibility.
Why is everyone talking like there even is a problem? In August Android had almost 80% of the market. Yeah, it must be incredibly boring and horrible to use if so many people want it.
And how many times was the market share argument used to espouse the superiority of Windows, the iPhone, COBOL, or alternating current?
But now you want that to be a valid argument for Android?
They need to ban the bible as well. A minister at school in HSS once told the class that the bible has more sex in it then most erotic books. Most people just don't realize it because of the way it is worded, not to mention incest, etc.
The bible contains (and indeed advocates): slavery, misogyny, murder, rape, capriciousness, cruelty, incest, theft, human sacrifice, and brutal dictators... actually pretty much anything a modern society finds abhorrent today except for beastiality and cannibalism. But ya, it reads like a boring history book or instruction manual instead of a graphic novel.
TFA takes a forum, conference, seminar, or something like that, calls it a "meeting" when it's clearly not, and tries to shoehorn all cyber-meetings into having the same problems that the conference did. Overall, just shitty reporting trying to make a point that doesn't mesh with reality.
Did you miss this part?
Institute officials tried to cushion the shock by preserving the forum's usual format. But instead of welcoming some 500 scientists to the Ames campus, the hosts invited participants to log on each day, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Pacific time. In addition to the scientific talks, the forum included virtual poster sessions with an introductory video or audio from the author and a chat window to submit questions and get feedback. Participants were also encouraged to create virtual "hubs" at home to facilitate interactions. The forum even offered a virtual version of its traditional 1-day mini meeting for graduate students and postdocs.
The seminar included numerous smaller meetings, presumably some of those with even few people than you normally have in yours. While this all stemmed from the conference of 500 individuals, can't you see the similarity to a 500-person company where near everybody works from home?
One of the quotes from the article
you get a much better sense of how the audience is reacting to what you're saying, especially any negative feedback
falls perfectly in line with what I remember from my sociology studies and the lack of emotion inspired inflection in most online writing. Personal connections with people enhance the quality of discussions between them. Online media do not currently allow the same level of connectedness that in-person meetings provide. Subtle actions such as unconsciously leaning in towards the speaker when you're interested in what they have to say are often lost even in dedicated virtual meeting rooms with top-of-the-line technology.
Nothing here is definitive, but it does suggest support to recent decisions by Yahoo, HP, and others (including my own employer) to limit their remote workforce.
The part that is more frightening is how small groups (almost always religious and conservative) seem to have disproportionate sway over how those companies behave.
About 75% of Americans identify as some sort of Christian. 1/3 of those are self-identified Catholic, and the other 2/3 are some other denomination. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a congregation that would speak out against this kind of censorship. Even individuals that may be personally interested in such content would not admit to that in front of their church-going peers (which is 3/4 of the entire nation before you include Jews & Muslims); especially if that meant admitting they were ok with children having access to it. Recent court rulings concerning violent video game bans have also mentioned American's historical opposition to smut to explain why banning smut is Constitutional while banning violent content may not be.
Even this survey, which seems to show an overwhelming opposition to any censorship, I don't think supports your argument of disproportionate influence. 62% believe the Bible should definitely be available in school libraries, but only 31% believe the Koran should definitely be available. Likewise, 62% believe that books with "explicit language" should not be available. Yes this is school libraries as opposed to "In a major store accessible by children without age verification"; but the jump in #s I think clearly shows the willingness of average Americans to at least passively support through lack of opposition smut bans in ebook stores.
I'd guess the nerds here probably do agree (I do) that banning books like this is silly... Especially considering some of the cinematic smut they still offer: from Hollywood quality flicks like Bound to the Skinemax-direct garbage you have to watch when your internet connection is down. But nationwide, I think we're in the minority still.
Think of it this way: He was arrested for libeling a government official. He just blogged "omg he did something illegal", without proof, and without the ability to prove it.
The only difference in the US is that this would be a civil matter instead of criminal. But with a government & laws based in non-capitalist ideals I imagine there are a lot more criminal than civil offenses there when compared to the US.
Hey prick, I was offering a scenario where it was a legitimate concern. Neither you nor I did any investigative work to find out if it is actually a concern here. But if keep-alive was such a fucking perfect solution to the connection problems then Google and others wouldn't bother to combine or embed their javascript, Yahoo wouldn't bother recommending sprites, and indeed neither of those changes to site design would notice any significant benefits.
So fuck off.
Telecommuting is nice for the workers, and I too like it, but is absolute shit for creating quality work in a timely manner. Slag at this all you want, but that is my perspective from two projects implementing the same system using two different management policies: telecommuting versus 'no telecommuting'. And 'no telecommuting' produced better work.
You're using personal experience to make your argument. Well, good for you. Glad it worked out in your case. However, not everyone agrees.
The article you're linking does not disagree with the poster at all. It merely lists some benefits of telecommuting to consider. It does not even mention quality of work as a point. There is no comparison being done and no context being offered. Per your claim, telecommuting is absolutely awesome for everybody from CEO to building maintenance workers.
Furthermore, the article lists not even 1 single source. "Telecommuters have reported" is not very scientific for an article written by a PhD.
Lastly, it was published in 1996. Really? You're using 20 year old "research" data published about the same time the 56k modem was invented to justify it being better?
Provide something relevant and recent that actually shows telecommuting does not detract from collective intelligence.
Blanket policies are universally bad
All blanket policies are universally bad? Does that include the blanket policy that all blanket policies are universally bad?
Slashdot Mirror
Must have been the NSA! I should have known that commit from uberspydude@ftmeade-totallynotNSA.gov was suspicious
Was he asking you for any laaauunch cooodes?
I can wait a little while longer.
I knew about the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. But not the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus.
FYI, that joke was generated with a PHP Preprocessor on my IBM Machine.
Paid for with cash from an ATM machine, no doubt.
No, AC coward, I used my visa cc card.
I knew about the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. But not the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus.
FYI, that joke was generated with a PHP Preprocessor on my IBM Machine.
Sad thing is, I don't hate cops. I totally understand the stress they're under whether they're policing high-crime areas or grandma's backyard (just before they shoot her based on a crack-addict's "tip"). As individuals, I'm still confident they're no different than anybody else on the street.
However, corporate ownership of the government and the unwillingness of even "good" cops (and prosecutors) to hold other cops accountable for misdeeds, forces the public, including me, to treat them like the "enemy". (I don't mean Chris Dorner asymetrical warfare style; I mean dob/address/name/lawyer only... ALWAYS; and with plenty of political action in between traffic stops) The odds of being misidentified like Menezes or Ryan Ferguson are so miniscule that they almost don't warrant any attention. But like long-term care insurance or surfing when sharks have been spotted in the area, you have to take it seriously because the effects are so catastrophic.
So either 1.It doesn't apply or 2.It doesn't apply. Therefore its pointless to have it. No need to define "unreasonable" if the amendment never applies in the first place.
That is not what I said. You're choosing to ignore important words in the middle of sentences, changing their meanings. Why, I don't know nor care. I'm not here to educate you on English comprehension, logic, or the law. I'm here to discuss the topic. Have a wonderful day.
you failed to define the word "unreasonable"
If its reasonable to search everyone, all the time , then why bother having the amendment?
But that is not what they're doing or what the law allows. They're searching information outside the United States. Customs & Border Patrol already have that right for everything physical. The law simply gave the power to the NSA for everything electronic.
If an electronic file is subject to the same 4th Amendment protections as a physical file (as is claimed in most posts here), then it is subject to the same limitations on the 4th Amendment's protections. If the Feds have the power to inspect every physical object leaving or entering the US (SCOTUS agrees with this), then one of the following is also true:
1. The Feds have the power to inspect every electronic file leaving or entering the US
2. Electronic files are not subject to the same protections as physical files, therefore the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.
So my point still stands: You must define "unreasonable" for the 4th Amendment to apply.
In truth, a big chunk of the people that did oppose Obamacare were opposing it on the basis of freedom. The first thing that popped in my head when I heard it was: Here comes Orwell. That is not why I oppose it, but I do understand the argument as I do believe the Feds (Obama especially) are abusing the commerce clause to the extreme. The justification they used makes it impossible to see the limit of what impacts interstate commerce, and therefore what is in the power of the Feds to control.
The difference is that the US makes such a big deal about being free, that irony continues to gush uncontrollably from the whole NSA scandal, the PATRIOT act, the TSA bullshit, the constant invasions of other countries, the attempts at blocking healthcare for poorer citizens, etc, etc...
How does blocking Obamacare qualify as irony in regards to being free?
Trusting fool. How do you know the don't? Because they say so?
What evidence do you have to support the claim?
Perhaps all governments are run by people with similar traits that would lead to spying on friends... or perhaps you have a cultural bias. Who knows?
A capture rate of 100% is unreasonable. By definition, every document is grabbed and analyzed. It is unreasonable because there is no reason for the seizure of the documents.
How is their capture of the international traffic any less Constitutional from Customs searching every international package?
Until we repeal the 4th, a capture rate of 100% is unconstitutional because there is no specific warrant process.
That is incorrect by oversimplification according to current constitutional law; see above.
nor may the Congress pass a law declaring warrants unnecessary - the Constitution overrides both these actions (or inactions).
They can and have; and the laws have been reviewed and affirmed by the courts. See above and add in other exemptions such as exigent circumstances.
Thank you for calling me out about the moron part. But respectfully, I disagree with you. I will not be kind, nor civil to someone who disagrees with me on this point of Constitutional interpretation.
Then you will find yourself and your opinions consistently ignored. I don't mean here, by me (though I will ignore you if you're a jerk to me :), I mean in Government and social situations. The greatest opportunities to learn are by listening to people and positions you disagree with. You must understand the reasoning behind their own position to fully understand your own.
People like you always fall back on the 'if it's deemed legal, it's ok' excuse.
You really know nothing about me or my positions, please don't assume such. I simply used a few extra words to request his definition of "unreasonable" as that, to me, is the very heart of any intelligent debate here and he completely skipped it. The law has been reviewed and found constitutional. The actions of the NSA have been reviewed and found Constitutional in theory and only in specific, albeit common, practice unconstitutional. The debate as I've seen it has been on the difference between Feinstien et. all's definition of reasonable, and the 99%'s definition of reasonable (My use of "99%" is an exaggerated presumption; it just sounds nice to steal it).
This is what the government does. We both know that while 'unreasonable' is left undefined, it's obviously being expanded constantly towards the meaning of "do whatever you want."
That it is (Especially the commerce clause recently which, by its exact definition today absurdly covers everything). Customs & Border Patrol already have the right to search & seize anything and everything as long as their activities are "routine". Considering that a very common argument against the NSA's tapping & meta-data related activities include the Government's pedantic differentiation of physical papers from electronic files, it would seem logical that the same people presenting that argument against would accept the converse: it is constitutional for an agency with a different name to perform the same type of routine investigations of electronic traffic crossing virtual international borders. So, what is the definition of unreasonable as it pertains to the 4th Amendment and the electronic searches?
Multiple 'wrongs' can and do make a 'right'. It just depends on the subjective definitions of each. Besides, governments engaging in illegal activities have not business calling other people traitors.
All governments engage in illegal activity at some point or another. Does that mean there can never be traitors? Governments are still composed of individual humans and are still constrained by human flaws. Including mob mentality, going with the flow, not making waves, or whatever phrase you want to use to describe it. What you're saying sounds to me like you're refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of our Federal government (Or maybe you're just an anarchist?). Feinstein is not "The Government". She is one (powerful) individual that consistently wins re-election in a liberal leaning state, indicating the people's support of her positions and actions. Neither is amiga3D "The Government". (S)He is one individual that expressed support for the NSA's position and was not only flagged a troll, but was called a moron for having an opinion that differs from the /. group-think.
It just compounds the lie.
'The mob'? Interesting choice of vocabulary. One of the definitions of mob is "a secret organized group of criminals." I think that applies more to people, like feinstein, who are members of the two big elite parties, and the last few administrations, than it does to snowden, or ordinary americans who are rightfully angry over having their freedoms, rights, and liberty taken away a piece at a time. You're right. There's a big case of narcissistic, histrionic elitism here, but you've wrongly identified the 'patients.'
I did not apply the term to Snowden or his supporters or the government. I applied it to /. commentators and moderators. Like so many other stories, there is not 1 single dissenting comment in this board moderated to 5: insightful, informative, or even funny. However there are numerous posts, like amiga3D's, that are so very clearly moderated -1: disagree. Amiga3D didn't offer much in the way of facts, but there was certainly room there to bring thing
What absurd logic.
General warrants are unconstitutional, you know.
If you honestly think that spying on nearly everyone's communications is constitutional or okay, then you're a naive ignoramus.
If you want a discussion, don't be a condescending, insulting, jerk. Reword your post to exclude this combative b.s. and I'd be happy to talk about whatever points you brought up.
Except under capitalism minorities and the poor are more empowered than ever.
Entertainment is not empowerment. If you think that you and I combined have the same power and influence on our government as the Koch brothers... I think you're insane.
In America even the poor have cell phones and cars. What communist country can say the same thing? Access to food is so trivial here, yet in those places they'd be lucky if they have more than one meal in a given day.
Correlation, not causation. The United States has been in a unique position of being started with capitalism in a land with insanely abundant natural resources that naturally distributed themselves. Of course as those natural resources were tapped and depleted, wealth concentration started happening. The same wealth concentration that inspired the Communist revolutions in Russia. Our boom/bust cycles are getting more frequent and severe, the poor are getting poorer, the rich richer. The fact that cheap cell phones are the new rotten turnip changes nothing. Especially with global warming speeding up the depletion of livable territory and scarcity of food, it is only a matter of time before the population (US included) is too large to support capitalism.
When we have 50%, 60%, or 90% unemployment, who will be supporting our capitalist economy?
Perhaps not Communism specifically, but some kind of socialism is the only workable system long term. Of course even that will fail unless population controls are put in place or humans leave earth. I see our current system failing soon, probably in my lifetime, and probably quite violently. Even technology that assists with "solving" food & living space issues exacerbates unemployment. Democracy may survive, but capitalism can't.
The NSA has prima facie been violating the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Their actions are unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.
Considering the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and you failed to define the word "unreasonable", there has been no violation of the 4th amendment as of yet. Certainly not one as obvious as you're claiming. (Do we even need to go into the fact that the Constitution does not specify who can issue warrants?)
No man can be a traitor for upholding or protecting the Constitution, which is what Snowden did.
Can, have, and will again. Check your history books. The Constitution is up for (ever changing) interpretation. Today's villain is tomorrow's hero and vice versa.
Additionally, ever heard the term "two wrongs don't make a right"? The Constitution lays out the framework for our courts. They are the ones that are supposed to be reviewing the constitutionality of laws & actions of the federal government. Breaking a law that has not been flagged as unconstitutional is violating the Constitution. Bypassing the courts (& congress as the OP says) is not in any way upholding the Constitution, it is bypassing it.
Disagreeing with a moron is not a reason to mod someone down
Calling them a moron is somehow better? Bigotry such as yours is arguably the cause of much of the woes in politics today. Believe it or not, two people can have diametrically opposed opinions and yet, somehow, both be correct.
Its sad that discussion stopping posts like yours are regularly modded up here just because you sheepishly agree with the mob, no matter the insults, condescension, or other anti-social, anti-intellectual garbage you spew.
Next time, try inviting disagreement. Ask for clarification or facts to back up an unpopular opinion. It is an opportunity to learn, think, and grow. If you just want people to agree with you, there are a variety of TV personalities like Rush Limbaugh, that serve that purpose well.
Sorry in advance for appearing to pick on you. You earned my wrath for simply being the first "I'm an elitist jerk" post I've seen today. Have a glorious day.
I know PC hardware beefed up fast, but I remember most of the hubbub was clock speeds. USB upgrades, same thing. Just have to pick the version/speed you want your software to be able to handle.
It took PCs 25 years to get from a common 640x480 resolution to a common 2560x1600 today.
It took phones 3 years to get from a common 320x240 to a common (Galaxy S4 I think is common enough now) 1920x1080. Resolution won't go up much more I don't think with small screens, but it still is a bigger jump in less time.
I have a 2 year old LG Shine Plus that can still run nearly all of the applications I use, just slower.
And how about your 4 year old phone? I think 2 years is about the upper limit for anybody that can save $300 / year for a new phone every 2 years. Ya, you *can* use a 3 or 4 year old phone, but can you use it regularly without ripping your hair out? I think the carriers know you can't, hence the 2 year contract requirements.
My 4 year old PC is still quite usable. But then, I did put in a new video card. So I would add expandability to the argument. Doubling your RAM or upgrading a video card can make a huge difference on a slightly out of date PC, but you can't do that to a slightly out of date phone.
Meh, I don't know what I'm talking about. Its just my perception. Its the wild-west, disagree and we'll have to meet at high-noon.
For instance, anecdotes that support Linux/Android over Windows/Mac on Slashdot can often be reverse order and achieve the same "Insightful" ranking.
While the same arguments on appleinsider, even as a first post, would continue to get downvotes years later after a thorough study was conducted proving them true.
If having different manufacturers use the same OS is a problem, how did DOS/Windows maintain market share? AMD vs Intel, different sound card manufacturers, different video card manufacturers, different BIOSes and motherboards. A far worse deal than with a phone. Same thing, new platform: Apple vs Microsoft, Apple vs Android, same thing.
I'd venture its a combination of:
IBM, Dell, Compaq, Acer, etc. providing limited, controlled setups to the majority of Windows (i.e. business) users.
Since most businesses would spend the same amount of money, the majority of PCs had a limited range of hardware that was supported for several years. All the fringe hardware was only purchased by home users, who suffered the consequences.
Speed of hardware improvement: Hardware improvements are moving a lot faster for phones than PCs. 4 year old PCs are still usable if they were mid to high range when new. Phones... not so much.
# of Versions to support. From 1998 to today (15 years), Windows has gone through 6 major versions; All with a HUGE emphasis on backwards compatibility.
From 2009 to today (just 4 years), Android has gone through 9 major revisions. I have no idea how much effort they put in backwards compatibility.
And then there is just plain old marketing.
Why is everyone talking like there even is a problem? In August Android had almost 80% of the market. Yeah, it must be incredibly boring and horrible to use if so many people want it.
And how many times was the market share argument used to espouse the superiority of Windows, the iPhone, COBOL, or alternating current?
But now you want that to be a valid argument for Android?
They need to ban the bible as well. A minister at school in HSS once told the class that the bible has more sex in it then most erotic books. Most people just don't realize it because of the way it is worded, not to mention incest, etc.
The bible contains (and indeed advocates): slavery, misogyny, murder, rape, capriciousness, cruelty, incest, theft, human sacrifice, and brutal dictators ... actually pretty much anything a modern society finds abhorrent today except for beastiality and cannibalism. But ya, it reads like a boring history book or instruction manual instead of a graphic novel.
TFA takes a forum, conference, seminar, or something like that, calls it a "meeting" when it's clearly not, and tries to shoehorn all cyber-meetings into having the same problems that the conference did. Overall, just shitty reporting trying to make a point that doesn't mesh with reality.
Did you miss this part?
Institute officials tried to cushion the shock by preserving the forum's usual format. But instead of welcoming some 500 scientists to the Ames campus, the hosts invited participants to log on each day, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Pacific time. In addition to the scientific talks, the forum included virtual poster sessions with an introductory video or audio from the author and a chat window to submit questions and get feedback. Participants were also encouraged to create virtual "hubs" at home to facilitate interactions. The forum even offered a virtual version of its traditional 1-day mini meeting for graduate students and postdocs.
The seminar included numerous smaller meetings, presumably some of those with even few people than you normally have in yours. While this all stemmed from the conference of 500 individuals, can't you see the similarity to a 500-person company where near everybody works from home?
One of the quotes from the article
you get a much better sense of how the audience is reacting to what you're saying, especially any negative feedback
falls perfectly in line with what I remember from my sociology studies and the lack of emotion inspired inflection in most online writing. Personal connections with people enhance the quality of discussions between them. Online media do not currently allow the same level of connectedness that in-person meetings provide. Subtle actions such as unconsciously leaning in towards the speaker when you're interested in what they have to say are often lost even in dedicated virtual meeting rooms with top-of-the-line technology.
Nothing here is definitive, but it does suggest support to recent decisions by Yahoo, HP, and others (including my own employer) to limit their remote workforce.
The part that is more frightening is how small groups (almost always religious and conservative) seem to have disproportionate sway over how those companies behave.
About 75% of Americans identify as some sort of Christian. 1/3 of those are self-identified Catholic, and the other 2/3 are some other denomination. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a congregation that would speak out against this kind of censorship. Even individuals that may be personally interested in such content would not admit to that in front of their church-going peers (which is 3/4 of the entire nation before you include Jews & Muslims); especially if that meant admitting they were ok with children having access to it. Recent court rulings concerning violent video game bans have also mentioned American's historical opposition to smut to explain why banning smut is Constitutional while banning violent content may not be.
Even this survey, which seems to show an overwhelming opposition to any censorship, I don't think supports your argument of disproportionate influence. 62% believe the Bible should definitely be available in school libraries, but only 31% believe the Koran should definitely be available. Likewise, 62% believe that books with "explicit language" should not be available. Yes this is school libraries as opposed to "In a major store accessible by children without age verification"; but the jump in #s I think clearly shows the willingness of average Americans to at least passively support through lack of opposition smut bans in ebook stores.
I'd guess the nerds here probably do agree (I do) that banning books like this is silly... Especially considering some of the cinematic smut they still offer: from Hollywood quality flicks like Bound to the Skinemax-direct garbage you have to watch when your internet connection is down. But nationwide, I think we're in the minority still.
The only difference in the US is that this would be a civil matter instead of criminal. But with a government & laws based in non-capitalist ideals I imagine there are a lot more criminal than civil offenses there when compared to the US.
Hey prick, I was offering a scenario where it was a legitimate concern. Neither you nor I did any investigative work to find out if it is actually a concern here. But if keep-alive was such a fucking perfect solution to the connection problems then Google and others wouldn't bother to combine or embed their javascript, Yahoo wouldn't bother recommending sprites, and indeed neither of those changes to site design would notice any significant benefits.
So fuck off.
Telecommuting is nice for the workers, and I too like it, but is absolute shit for creating quality work in a timely manner. Slag at this all you want, but that is my perspective from two projects implementing the same system using two different management policies: telecommuting versus 'no telecommuting'. And 'no telecommuting' produced better work.
You're using personal experience to make your argument. Well, good for you. Glad it worked out in your case. However, not everyone agrees.
The article you're linking does not disagree with the poster at all. It merely lists some benefits of telecommuting to consider. It does not even mention quality of work as a point. There is no comparison being done and no context being offered. Per your claim, telecommuting is absolutely awesome for everybody from CEO to building maintenance workers.
Furthermore, the article lists not even 1 single source. "Telecommuters have reported" is not very scientific for an article written by a PhD.
Lastly, it was published in 1996. Really? You're using 20 year old "research" data published about the same time the 56k modem was invented to justify it being better?
Provide something relevant and recent that actually shows telecommuting does not detract from collective intelligence.
Blanket policies are universally bad
All blanket policies are universally bad? Does that include the blanket policy that all blanket policies are universally bad?