Thank you AC for saying what I didn't have the words to.
Of course there is nuance. It's unavoidable to have to think about the problems genocidal dictators present for the world. Child soldiers, just general oppression and just generally terrible people in positions of power.
War should never, ever be necessary, but sometimes it's less bad than the alternatives of inaction. Getting sane human beings to willingly kill other people is difficult and comes with consequences. Commenters here seem to be mostly uniform in the idea that trying to kill people without getting killed is cowardice, but it's just what war is about.
War is about killing the other guy who also loves his country, has a family and is fighting for what he believes in. It is might makes right. And it sucks. It just sucks slightly less than the alternatives.
Shame on you for thinking of ways to abuse the system! Next thing you know somebody will start making kits to build drones that can deliver contraband in spite of defensive measures. They'll use stealth (looks like a bird) and materials resistant to radar. Of course they'll also use a repeater that actually sends the control commands on varying pre-programmed and unusual frequencies and relay through wifi so that the operator can drop a drone off in one place (like a local McDonalds) and then control it from a thousand miles away (like the parking lot of a Starbucks in a different state.) The repeater will include a small incendiary device that triggers if it doesn't receive the pre-programmed encrypted keep-alive packets so that even if someone can pinpoint the control device, they won't be able to recover it or discover the operator. The successful contraband delivery operator will just land the drone on a building roof nearby and pay a local stooge to pick it up for them if the police are smart enough to stake out the drone rather than taking it.
When somebody does this stuff, they'll make a ton of money selling the products to "hobbyists" through the dark web. It'll cost a couple hundred dollars to make and sell for a couple thousand and it'll be all your fault for thinking of it.
What a warped mind you must have to put that idea for a highly lucrative criminal endeavor into the public discussion. To be fair though, it's partly Airbus' fault for creating the market.
Wait, you're just talking about Google results right? Or do you honestly expect Google to fix Bing and Yahoo and DuckDuckGo and the others?
I've been wondering if there is a place to point out that some people actually don't understand how the internet works. Maybe this is it.
I suspect TFA is about a guy who thinks somebody has to get permission in order to create web pages. He thinks Google has an arrangement with all the websites it indexes. He thinks that if Google takes search results out, then those websites won't get visitors. Many people don't realize that search engines aren't necessary. Most people don't realize that web domain names aren't necessary. Few people realize that Google can't tell what web sites are offering if the site designer doesn't open it up to allow Google to see that.
But lets pretend for a moment that Google figures out how to hack into every computer connected to the internet. (That's what it would take in order to actually recognize sites engaged in piracy, so lets pretend Google did that.) For the sake of this discussion, lets also pretend it wouldn't be MASSIVELY illegal. Also, lets pretend the dark web doesn't exist. For this argument, Google is able to completely index every computer connected to the internet and all the governments are okay with that: What then?
Google takes out any results it doesn't want to include due to piracy. So what? I get Yahoo or Bing to show me any piracy related links I'm interested in.
So lets pretend that Google is so awesome/terrifying/magical that not only are they breaking into every computer connected to the internet, they're letting anybody use their anti-piracy filter and the government makes Yahoo and Bing do the same thing.
So I use DuckDuckGo and then the US government makes them do the same thing.
So I go to Yandex.com because the US can't do anything about them. But in this alternate reality, lets say Russia's government gets on board too. What then?
And if *that* doesn't do it, I can write my own search engine. It won't be as slick or as fast as Google, but I can do it.
You're thinking "everybody goes to Google" but that wasn't true just a couple decades ago. A hundred companies would love for Google search to get (more) censored so they could take (more of) it's customers.
Google is the go to place for search today because they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, pumping money and research into keeping that position. Make no mistake, if they screw up and die tomorrow, the internet and web searching will continue with scarcely a stumble.
If Google and Bing and Yahoo and DuckDuckGo and Yandex and Ask and all the others get taken over by governments, it will mean that the internet as it exists today has ended, but not only that, it will mean that first time in all of human history (excepting the *maybe* the Toba catastrophe) that humanity has finally reached a point of single world governance.
And on that day, if I'm still alive, I'll be building my own internet. I have everything necessary to get started in my own home, as do most Americans. My new internet will have privacy built in (just like the guy who invented the one we use now wished he'd done.) Also, blackjack and persons of negotiable affection.... although to be honest I'm not sure I could stop those last two even if I wanted to and was in charge of the whole of humanity.
People don't need anything except to accomplish something else. Example: People don't need air unless they want to breathe. People don't need to breathe unless they want to live.
People need fucking toy airplanes exactly the same way you need a home or car or running water. All those things accomplish is giving a person some satisfaction in life. You can live without any of them.
Your "solution" is stupid for several basic reasons. 1) Maps managed in the fashion you describe would become stale too fast to accomplish the goal described by your scenario. 2) It's insane to expect a 30 yr old model airplane to stop being used or to get said imaginary software 3) It isn't done for things that have much higher risk, like cars, boats, guns and idiots.
America is marching towards becoming a tyrannical state by choice
Yeah. That's the problem. We talk about it and complain about it and vote based on it, but those of us who care are a tiny minority. At this point, I fear there is no hope of reversing the process.
Alternatively do what other multi-factor systems do: create backup options. Don't have the phone/app/dongle? Use the printed out one time codes. Send a code to the associated email address or the backup email address. Set up authentication questions (no free text.) Require a backup phone number to be set up at the same time.
I very rarely chat with anyone but my wife and kids online. What I look for in a chat client are these features: fast, easy to chat, easy to send pics, easy to tell when someone has read your message.
I don't typically look for encryption, but I would prefer if everything was encrypted by default. Do you use a smartphone app that does OTR?
The reason I specified that I was only interested in cases in the US was because I figured there might be just such a thing. I can't read German so I can't tell if that is a list like you say or not. I'll assume it is, but being in German and from your comment I will assume it doesn't apply directly to me.
Thanks nonetheless for the confirmation of my suspicion that Germany was different.
Does it really work like that? I understand that the obvious extension of this ruling is to apply it to other cases, but will it be? This was a case of "person is jerk, court takes steps to limit jerk." Does common sense and decency actually fail in practice as a standard for court cases?
I can sue you because I think you're a martian. You can sue anybody for anything but that doesn't mean there is any merit or even that you can get a judge to hear the case.
Can you point to someone who wasn't already an actor or model winning such a court case? (For my purposes I'm only interested in cases in the US under current law, but outside of CA because their laws are "special.")
Really? I'm aware that California and a few other places have laws restricting commercial use of photography, but I don't believe those laws are common elsewhere. I believe that you can take a picture of a person on the street and put up a billboard saying "Bob needed a V8" without breaking any laws, even if Bob was completely unaware of the picture being taken. Even if Bob has an allergy to V8. Even if Bob's name is Cindy.
There are a lot of people who think the law prohibits photography when it doesn't. Essentially, you can figure out what the law actually says by asking whether a tabloid would ever run such a picture. If they can take it and publish it, you can too.
About the only US wide restrictions on photography and use of likeness are for "expectation of privacy," "under clothes," and for people who have an established commercial interest in their image.
(Not to be confused with copyright laws, which are a different beast.)
I'd be quite interested to learn that I'm wrong, so feel free to reference any laws that contradict that.
"I'm scared and lonely!" I yelled into the darkness. My echo came back to me, "I'm scared and lonely!"
"It's okay, I'm here with you" I replied. My echo came back "It's okay, I'm here with you."
And so we found comfort in each other, my echo and I. I was not really alone because I could always repeat myself and take comfort in the idea that at least someone felt the way I did, even if it was only me, echoing.
"In tests, Brouchkov says the bacteria allowed female mice to reproduce at ages far older than typical mice. Fruit flies, he told the Siberian Times, also experienced a 'positive impact' from exposure to the bacteria."
Those are two very different species, both (apparently) receiving measurable positive impact with (presumably) no measurable negative impact. The hypothesis that the same might be true for other species, including humans, is plausible. Certainly I wouldn't want to be the first it gets tried on and honestly I'd rather see incremental testing on other mammals and primates in particular, but if the result is consistent, it could be quite interesting, a breakthrough even. If a man with formal training and experience in the area wants to fast forward the process dramatically, that's one way to do it. The guy who proved ulcers were bacterial, Barry Marshall, did something similar.
Nobody is saying this isn't whackadoodle science. But it does have the potential for valid scientific results.
Good is as good does. I mean, people don't have to be one hundred percent good in order to do good things. People don't even have to be trying to do good in order to accomplish good things.
One thing that a motto or a persona can do is encourage people to try to live up to it.
It's the same reason why gay marriage isn't universal
It's universal in the US since the Supreme Court said so in June... have you been asleep for the last six months?
What would it be like if you could only be declared married in a single state
It was that way until very, very recently. What it meant was that benefits only allowed spouses were available in some states and not others. That's how state laws work.
It's really not that hard to manage actually. States can have different laws and you're subject to the laws of the state you're in. The states (like the one I'm in) can legislatively ban municipal broadband.
The reasoning is heavily discussed in depth for banning municipal broadband so there are better places to learn of it than here. However, to save you research time, here's a short summary of the reasoning: There is something some people want, but it is unfair to make everyone pay for something only some people want, so the ones who want it can pay the companies that are willing to offer it. Additionally, if the government competes against private enterprise, private enterprise is unable to compete fairly since government has the right to confiscate property, put people in jail or even kill them.
The FCC has decided that it has the authority to tell states their laws banning municipal broadband are invalid. (Just a few months ago.) The FCC has that authority? That's not an easy argument to win, but so far the Supreme Court seems to think Congress has given the FCC that right. Bear in mind though, what Congress has given, it can also take away.
If the judge had shut down a company, their product wouldn't be working. It is working, everywhere except where internet access to specific domains and IPs (part of the internet) has been blocked. Shutting down the company is beyond the judge's ability because the company isn't in his jurisdiction.
If WhatsApp were like thepiratebay, they would have already bypassed the ability of the judge because, and this seems to be the key point you're missing, WhatsApp hasn't been shut down. The access has been blocked, in one country, by blocking internet access.
I don't use WhatsApp and prefer XMPP and IRC, but if WhatsApp were using either protocol, the effect on users would have been exactly the same. That's why TFA says "cut off access to WhatsApp" and "blocking of WhatsApp" rather than pretending the company was actually shut down.
If WhatsApp were using XMPP, blocking access to their servers would have had the same result. Ditto for IRC.
One day I will tell my grand-children about what the internet used to be, how you could get to sites in other countries and communicate internationally without having to go through approved government channels.
Sure, this is Brazil, so most Americans won't notice or care. But you can bet a bunch of USA congressmen and presidential candidates just got an idea. If they didn't on their own, their friendly acronym agency will make sure they do.
eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change
What my brain interpreted was:
eating a vegetarian could contribute to climate change
Quite different actually. How fatty is your typical vegetarian? How do you avoid the poisoning that comes from cannibalism? Is garlic applied directly or in a barbecue sauce during cooking? Exactly what improvements can be seen per vegetarian consumed? All questions that are ignored and confusing until I realize which word I didn't see the first read through.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you AC for saying what I didn't have the words to.
Of course there is nuance. It's unavoidable to have to think about the problems genocidal dictators present for the world. Child soldiers, just general oppression and just generally terrible people in positions of power.
War should never, ever be necessary, but sometimes it's less bad than the alternatives of inaction. Getting sane human beings to willingly kill other people is difficult and comes with consequences. Commenters here seem to be mostly uniform in the idea that trying to kill people without getting killed is cowardice, but it's just what war is about.
War is about killing the other guy who also loves his country, has a family and is fighting for what he believes in. It is might makes right. And it sucks. It just sucks slightly less than the alternatives.
Sometimes.
Shame on you for thinking of ways to abuse the system! Next thing you know somebody will start making kits to build drones that can deliver contraband in spite of defensive measures. They'll use stealth (looks like a bird) and materials resistant to radar. Of course they'll also use a repeater that actually sends the control commands on varying pre-programmed and unusual frequencies and relay through wifi so that the operator can drop a drone off in one place (like a local McDonalds) and then control it from a thousand miles away (like the parking lot of a Starbucks in a different state.) The repeater will include a small incendiary device that triggers if it doesn't receive the pre-programmed encrypted keep-alive packets so that even if someone can pinpoint the control device, they won't be able to recover it or discover the operator. The successful contraband delivery operator will just land the drone on a building roof nearby and pay a local stooge to pick it up for them if the police are smart enough to stake out the drone rather than taking it.
When somebody does this stuff, they'll make a ton of money selling the products to "hobbyists" through the dark web. It'll cost a couple hundred dollars to make and sell for a couple thousand and it'll be all your fault for thinking of it.
What a warped mind you must have to put that idea for a highly lucrative criminal endeavor into the public discussion. To be fair though, it's partly Airbus' fault for creating the market.
Classy. I was a dick and you took an apology like a gentleman. Thank you.
No, worse. I didn't go back up through the previous discussion thread and misunderstood your reference to "it" to be the topic in TFA. Sorry.
Wait, you're just talking about Google results right? Or do you honestly expect Google to fix Bing and Yahoo and DuckDuckGo and the others?
I've been wondering if there is a place to point out that some people actually don't understand how the internet works. Maybe this is it.
I suspect TFA is about a guy who thinks somebody has to get permission in order to create web pages. He thinks Google has an arrangement with all the websites it indexes. He thinks that if Google takes search results out, then those websites won't get visitors. Many people don't realize that search engines aren't necessary. Most people don't realize that web domain names aren't necessary. Few people realize that Google can't tell what web sites are offering if the site designer doesn't open it up to allow Google to see that.
But lets pretend for a moment that Google figures out how to hack into every computer connected to the internet. (That's what it would take in order to actually recognize sites engaged in piracy, so lets pretend Google did that.) For the sake of this discussion, lets also pretend it wouldn't be MASSIVELY illegal. Also, lets pretend the dark web doesn't exist. For this argument, Google is able to completely index every computer connected to the internet and all the governments are okay with that: What then?
Google takes out any results it doesn't want to include due to piracy. So what? I get Yahoo or Bing to show me any piracy related links I'm interested in.
So lets pretend that Google is so awesome/terrifying/magical that not only are they breaking into every computer connected to the internet, they're letting anybody use their anti-piracy filter and the government makes Yahoo and Bing do the same thing.
So I use DuckDuckGo and then the US government makes them do the same thing.
So I go to Yandex.com because the US can't do anything about them. But in this alternate reality, lets say Russia's government gets on board too. What then?
I go to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And if *that* doesn't do it, I can write my own search engine. It won't be as slick or as fast as Google, but I can do it.
You're thinking "everybody goes to Google" but that wasn't true just a couple decades ago. A hundred companies would love for Google search to get (more) censored so they could take (more of) it's customers.
Google is the go to place for search today because they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, pumping money and research into keeping that position. Make no mistake, if they screw up and die tomorrow, the internet and web searching will continue with scarcely a stumble.
If Google and Bing and Yahoo and DuckDuckGo and Yandex and Ask and all the others get taken over by governments, it will mean that the internet as it exists today has ended, but not only that, it will mean that first time in all of human history (excepting the *maybe* the Toba catastrophe) that humanity has finally reached a point of single world governance.
And on that day, if I'm still alive, I'll be building my own internet. I have everything necessary to get started in my own home, as do most Americans. My new internet will have privacy built in (just like the guy who invented the one we use now wished he'd done.) Also, blackjack and persons of negotiable affection.... although to be honest I'm not sure I could stop those last two even if I wanted to and was in charge of the whole of humanity.
People don't need anything except to accomplish something else. Example: People don't need air unless they want to breathe. People don't need to breathe unless they want to live.
People need fucking toy airplanes exactly the same way you need a home or car or running water. All those things accomplish is giving a person some satisfaction in life. You can live without any of them.
Your "solution" is stupid for several basic reasons. 1) Maps managed in the fashion you describe would become stale too fast to accomplish the goal described by your scenario. 2) It's insane to expect a 30 yr old model airplane to stop being used or to get said imaginary software 3) It isn't done for things that have much higher risk, like cars, boats, guns and idiots.
America is marching towards becoming a tyrannical state by choice
Yeah. That's the problem. We talk about it and complain about it and vote based on it, but those of us who care are a tiny minority. At this point, I fear there is no hope of reversing the process.
Any suggestions on a better country to move to?
That's one possible solution.
Alternatively do what other multi-factor systems do: create backup options. Don't have the phone/app/dongle? Use the printed out one time codes. Send a code to the associated email address or the backup email address. Set up authentication questions (no free text.) Require a backup phone number to be set up at the same time.
You stole my line.
I came to this discussion expressly to point out the same thing. I don't think I could have said it as well.
The Police State wins, I lose.
I very rarely chat with anyone but my wife and kids online. What I look for in a chat client are these features: fast, easy to chat, easy to send pics, easy to tell when someone has read your message.
I don't typically look for encryption, but I would prefer if everything was encrypted by default. Do you use a smartphone app that does OTR?
The reason I specified that I was only interested in cases in the US was because I figured there might be just such a thing. I can't read German so I can't tell if that is a list like you say or not. I'll assume it is, but being in German and from your comment I will assume it doesn't apply directly to me.
Thanks nonetheless for the confirmation of my suspicion that Germany was different.
Does it really work like that? I understand that the obvious extension of this ruling is to apply it to other cases, but will it be? This was a case of "person is jerk, court takes steps to limit jerk." Does common sense and decency actually fail in practice as a standard for court cases?
I can sue you because I think you're a martian. You can sue anybody for anything but that doesn't mean there is any merit or even that you can get a judge to hear the case.
Can you point to someone who wasn't already an actor or model winning such a court case? (For my purposes I'm only interested in cases in the US under current law, but outside of CA because their laws are "special.")
Really? I'm aware that California and a few other places have laws restricting commercial use of photography, but I don't believe those laws are common elsewhere. I believe that you can take a picture of a person on the street and put up a billboard saying "Bob needed a V8" without breaking any laws, even if Bob was completely unaware of the picture being taken. Even if Bob has an allergy to V8. Even if Bob's name is Cindy.
There are a lot of people who think the law prohibits photography when it doesn't. Essentially, you can figure out what the law actually says by asking whether a tabloid would ever run such a picture. If they can take it and publish it, you can too.
About the only US wide restrictions on photography and use of likeness are for "expectation of privacy," "under clothes," and for people who have an established commercial interest in their image.
(Not to be confused with copyright laws, which are a different beast.)
I'd be quite interested to learn that I'm wrong, so feel free to reference any laws that contradict that.
"I'm scared and lonely!" I yelled into the darkness. My echo came back to me, "I'm scared and lonely!"
"It's okay, I'm here with you" I replied. My echo came back "It's okay, I'm here with you."
And so we found comfort in each other, my echo and I. I was not really alone because I could always repeat myself and take comfort in the idea that at least someone felt the way I did, even if it was only me, echoing.
"In tests, Brouchkov says the bacteria allowed female mice to reproduce at ages far older than typical mice. Fruit flies, he told the Siberian Times, also experienced a 'positive impact' from exposure to the bacteria."
Those are two very different species, both (apparently) receiving measurable positive impact with (presumably) no measurable negative impact. The hypothesis that the same might be true for other species, including humans, is plausible. Certainly I wouldn't want to be the first it gets tried on and honestly I'd rather see incremental testing on other mammals and primates in particular, but if the result is consistent, it could be quite interesting, a breakthrough even. If a man with formal training and experience in the area wants to fast forward the process dramatically, that's one way to do it. The guy who proved ulcers were bacterial, Barry Marshall, did something similar.
Nobody is saying this isn't whackadoodle science. But it does have the potential for valid scientific results.
Good is as good does. I mean, people don't have to be one hundred percent good in order to do good things. People don't even have to be trying to do good in order to accomplish good things.
One thing that a motto or a persona can do is encourage people to try to live up to it.
It's the same reason why gay marriage isn't universal
It's universal in the US since the Supreme Court said so in June... have you been asleep for the last six months?
What would it be like if you could only be declared married in a single state
It was that way until very, very recently. What it meant was that benefits only allowed spouses were available in some states and not others. That's how state laws work.
It's really not that hard to manage actually. States can have different laws and you're subject to the laws of the state you're in. The states (like the one I'm in) can legislatively ban municipal broadband.
The reasoning is heavily discussed in depth for banning municipal broadband so there are better places to learn of it than here. However, to save you research time, here's a short summary of the reasoning: There is something some people want, but it is unfair to make everyone pay for something only some people want, so the ones who want it can pay the companies that are willing to offer it. Additionally, if the government competes against private enterprise, private enterprise is unable to compete fairly since government has the right to confiscate property, put people in jail or even kill them.
The FCC has decided that it has the authority to tell states their laws banning municipal broadband are invalid. (Just a few months ago.) The FCC has that authority? That's not an easy argument to win, but so far the Supreme Court seems to think Congress has given the FCC that right. Bear in mind though, what Congress has given, it can also take away.
If T-Mobile can't easily manage to separate throttled bandwidth from unthrottled, maybe they rely instead on the third party to do it.
If the judge had shut down a company, their product wouldn't be working. It is working, everywhere except where internet access to specific domains and IPs (part of the internet) has been blocked. Shutting down the company is beyond the judge's ability because the company isn't in his jurisdiction.
If WhatsApp were like thepiratebay, they would have already bypassed the ability of the judge because, and this seems to be the key point you're missing, WhatsApp hasn't been shut down. The access has been blocked, in one country, by blocking internet access.
I don't use WhatsApp and prefer XMPP and IRC, but if WhatsApp were using either protocol, the effect on users would have been exactly the same. That's why TFA says "cut off access to WhatsApp" and "blocking of WhatsApp" rather than pretending the company was actually shut down.
If WhatsApp were using XMPP, blocking access to their servers would have had the same result. Ditto for IRC.
No, the judge shut down part of the internet, not the company.
Did you just make the case for following other countries laws? Is that you Kim Jong-un?
And actually, just for the example you thought was hard to find: http://www.datacenterdynamics....
TL;DR version: Microsoft refused to give an American court user data.
One day I will tell my grand-children about what the internet used to be, how you could get to sites in other countries and communicate internationally without having to go through approved government channels.
Sure, this is Brazil, so most Americans won't notice or care. But you can bet a bunch of USA congressmen and presidential candidates just got an idea. If they didn't on their own, their friendly acronym agency will make sure they do.
Ironic. When I saw:
eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change
What my brain interpreted was:
eating a vegetarian could contribute to climate change
Quite different actually. How fatty is your typical vegetarian? How do you avoid the poisoning that comes from cannibalism? Is garlic applied directly or in a barbecue sauce during cooking? Exactly what improvements can be seen per vegetarian consumed? All questions that are ignored and confusing until I realize which word I didn't see the first read through.
"Chief say, DEATH BY JSON!"
Nooooo000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!