Just what they're doing now - serving as the medium for conscientious journalists and other concerned individuals to publish accounts of the bullshit going on in their corner of the world. Anonymity is tough, but it can be attained for such purposes. Such techniques should not be the responsibility of Facebook. And yes, anonymity tends to dampen credibility, so there's a balancing act to be performed if one wants to avoid the violent response of the corrupt little men being exposed, but let us give thanks that there there are those willing to take such risks for the sake of truth.
You forgot the sarcasm tags, there, Skippy. Surely, you aren't seriously suggesting that all the crimes that the NSA and their colleagues in the intelligence and law enforcement communities are guilty of are not at least as dangerous as Russia and China's economic "threats". Right?
Piss off, you mere citizen. If you're not a corporate citizen, you're little people, and little people don't have the same rights as corporate citizens. We will tell you what you can do with your property, and you'll like it, because the bread and circuses will continue to flow.
I only have your phone number, and you don't answer (yes, I'm over 25, I actually call people on the phone), now what?
Dumb fucking emo hipsters, the rest of the world doesn't live on Instagram.
TFTFY
...and, no shit. Put down the iPhone, you little dorks and recognize that the world still communicates verbally, sometimes using a feature that your magic text box has actually had from the start. It's efficacy at communicating useful information larger than something like "lol" is unparalleled when compared to the other shitty input devices on mobile devices.
There are tens of thousands of fax machines and fax systems still in use today because, despite all of our technological advances, the fax machine is still the most secure way of delivering medical and legal documents between locations, where one or both locations can't figure out anything more complicated than stick the papers in it and dial a phone number, in a compact time frame.
TFTFY
Internally, our company uses several different mechanisms for securely transferring sensitive documents, all of which are superior to fax in speed and reliability, but we interact with hundreds of other businesses that refuse to abandon this mid-last-century technology for the same job.
Faith, the belief in things not provable, is extremely powerful and it doesn't help one bit when science relies on it for some of their biggest theories, such as string theory and a few others.
You were doing fine up until the point where you equated religious faith with scientific hypothesis. The two are alike in only the most superficial way. They are unalike in the most important ways. Only a fool would fail (or refuse) to note such distinctions.
Attacking his every statement with an ad hominem only hurts your argument.
If I observe that you seem to not understand the definition of ad hominem, I am not engaging in an ad hominem attack. Likewise, if I observe that a particular observation is "daft", it is the observation I've addressed, not the observer.
You are an idiot, and your mother dresses you funny. There. Now that was an ad hominem attack.
Because the list of things she knows clearly does not include the concept of "community based threat intelligence". The sharing of threat intel, especially among industry peers (financial services, healthcare, etc.) can be a very powerful tool. If the security people at Acme Widgets and Cogswel Cogs alert me that their seeing a specific attack coming from a particular IP address, we here at Spacely Sprockets can proactively take steps to defend against that attack.
FTFA:
"Opening debate of the bill on Wednesday, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, noted that the legislation “does not provide the government with any new surveillance authorities.”
“It only authorizes the sharing of cyber threat indicators and defensive measures – technical information like malware signatures and malicious code,” he said. “In fact, before companies share with the federal government, they must remove all personal information that might be attached to cyber threats. If companies don’t follow those requirements, they will not receive liability protection.”
By what stretch does Ms. Cohn call such activity "surveillance"?
Well some of us live in the real world and can't just hide under a rock because, ya know, we need to interact with people for personal and professional reasons via popular social media sites.
No. You do not "need" to do those things anymore than the dozens of fuckwits I see every day driving, walking, eating, pissing, with their heads bowed down to their smart phone "need" to communicate in such an awkward medium. Do those services make certain things easier? Of course, but that's the deal - "Here's your 'easy', now give me your life. Oh, and fuck your privacy." That, my friend is "the real world".
Mostly it exposes that people love to believe stories they like. And of course journalists love to publish stories that their readers like.
I just don't think that qualifies as news, though.
Perhaps not news, but as a topic worthy of consideration and discussion, you bet. Consider Fox News. It's veracity and accuracy are so poor that almost an entire industry has been built up around calling "bullshit" on so many of their "facts", and yet millions of viewers rely on it to help build their world-view every day. Those ratings wouldn't be there without Fox's heavy emphasis on "stories that people love to believe". Frankly, I find such phenomena fascinating, and often more than a little troubling. Before the chocolate hoax was the whole anti-vaxer phenomenon. To this day, otherwise reasonable people cling to the notion that routine childhood vaccinations are a bad idea, despite overwhelming credible evidence to the contrary and the plain fact that the notion itself was spawned by miscreant for personal gain. Why do they choose to believe bullshit in the face of plainly evident truth? What should we do about it? Can we do anything about it? Should we? It's excellent grist for the discussion mill, IMO.
Utter bullshit. The welfare of the citizens affected is not really a consideration to anyone with a dog in this fight. Let's get that part right, at least.
Everyone knows that it's a powerful telecommunications lobby flexing it's muscle in a state where there are lots federal dollars being spent on that industry's services. You don't piss off the industry who paid for your last election, be that for local, state, or federal office, so the whole argument about who has the "right" to look out for those citizens is nothing more than a deliberate distraction for the suckers (voters) who continue to act against their own best interests by electing Big Telco's whores to public office.
Cars are not PC's, but the author of TFA tries to argue that they are little more than a computing "platform". Automobiles are, of course, much more than that. Most of that "much more" is totally unrelated to computer-related functions or features, so to suggest that the auto industry will follow some parallel of the PC industry is just silly.
What do you say of the cybersecurity surrounding Hillary Clinton? The real solution is to elect a rock ribbed conservative to the Presidency like Ted Cruz who won't be squeamish about bustin' some heads.
You don't have any idea how moronic that sounds, do you?
People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.
Disagree. Only the arrogant ones who feel the need to make others conform to their chosen religion's "moral laws" should be treated so. I have no objection at all to Christians, Muslims, Pastafarians, or even atheists indulging their peculiar beliefs, as long as that indulgence does not do even so much as inconvenience me.
So..., you're saying that all the Old Testament crap is right out the window? Cool. Please tell all your fellow "Christians". Until then, GP's point is valid.
Customers create demand but only at certain prices does that demand turn into a transaction. Ignoring the capital required to turn theoretical demand into actual demand is dumb. People who say customers create jobs have an an agenda and don't really believe that follows logically, because how could they be that dumb?
Wow. You flunked Econ 101, didn't you? You've left out a couple of critical factors in your sophomoric analysis here.
While there is a proper definition of the term "libertarian", most slashdotters who identify as such do not understand it. Indeed, the same can be said for most anyone who self-identifies as "libertarian". Most would seem to fall into the "I should be able to get rich at others expense and smoke weed" camp. Then there are the Rand fanboys who still believe that labor is a "free market". I don't know which group is more self-deluded but they are both out of touch with reality.
And if it were me, I would think twice or thrice about getting on the bad side of the local police department, being arrested (and who knows what else). Of course I would be vindicated, but that can occur after I spent some time in jail, got charged with some bullshit, spent who knows how much money on laywers and called ACLU for help...
I mean, look -- there were a bunch of recent stories with suspects getting killed or beaten, and if one is lucky, the police is charged afterwards. Sometimes not even that. Basically, most of us cannot afford to stand on principle. Many have family to support or career to preserve, or both.
Yeah. You're right, of course. It's much safer to just roll over and pee on yourself than to actually stand up for the rights we all share. /sarcasm
Organise a "draw Jesus sodomizing Mary" contest in Texas and you'll get crazy Christian jihadists doing the same thing. If you set up an event specifically designed to insult/offend/antagonise a particular religion, you're always going to get a response like this from someone.
Highly unlikely. While such a depiction would horrify a good many xtians, there is no explicit commandment to kill anyone making such a depiction. There is certainly no group of clergymen suggesting that anyone take such action. Not that there hasn't been such madness, on the part of xtians, in the past, but western society has largely recovered from that level of insanity.
Slashdot Mirror
Store it on "the cloud"! Everything will be fine!
And guess what? If you used even the most basic security hygiene, especially with your LastPass master password, it still is.
Just what they're doing now - serving as the medium for conscientious journalists and other concerned individuals to publish accounts of the bullshit going on in their corner of the world. Anonymity is tough, but it can be attained for such purposes. Such techniques should not be the responsibility of Facebook. And yes, anonymity tends to dampen credibility, so there's a balancing act to be performed if one wants to avoid the violent response of the corrupt little men being exposed, but let us give thanks that there there are those willing to take such risks for the sake of truth.
What is this "competitor" thing that you speak of?
You forgot the sarcasm tags, there, Skippy. Surely, you aren't seriously suggesting that all the crimes that the NSA and their colleagues in the intelligence and law enforcement communities are guilty of are not at least as dangerous as Russia and China's economic "threats". Right?
Localhost is my home. You DO NOT touch my home.
Piss off, you mere citizen. If you're not a corporate citizen, you're little people, and little people don't have the same rights as corporate citizens. We will tell you what you can do with your property, and you'll like it, because the bread and circuses will continue to flow.
The idea that voicemail is dead is asinine.
I only have your phone number, and you don't answer (yes, I'm over 25, I actually call people on the phone), now what?
Dumb fucking emo hipsters, the rest of the world doesn't live on Instagram.
TFTFY
...and, no shit. Put down the iPhone, you little dorks and recognize that the world still communicates verbally, sometimes using a feature that your magic text box has actually had from the start. It's efficacy at communicating useful information larger than something like "lol" is unparalleled when compared to the other shitty input devices on mobile devices.
There are tens of thousands of fax machines and fax systems still in use today because, despite all of our technological advances, the fax machine is still the most secure way of delivering medical and legal documents between locations, where one or both locations can't figure out anything more complicated than stick the papers in it and dial a phone number, in a compact time frame.
TFTFY
Internally, our company uses several different mechanisms for securely transferring sensitive documents, all of which are superior to fax in speed and reliability, but we interact with hundreds of other businesses that refuse to abandon this mid-last-century technology for the same job.
Faith, the belief in things not provable, is extremely powerful and it doesn't help one bit when science relies on it for some of their biggest theories, such as string theory and a few others.
You were doing fine up until the point where you equated religious faith with scientific hypothesis. The two are alike in only the most superficial way. They are unalike in the most important ways. Only a fool would fail (or refuse) to note such distinctions.
Attacking his every statement with an ad hominem only hurts your argument.
If I observe that you seem to not understand the definition of ad hominem, I am not engaging in an ad hominem attack. Likewise, if I observe that a particular observation is "daft", it is the observation I've addressed, not the observer.
You are an idiot, and your mother dresses you funny. There. Now that was an ad hominem attack.
No. Vaccination rates are highest in the Bible belt, while they are lowest on the west coast.
[citation needed]
We keep hearing this. Please substantiate your assertion.
Because the list of things she knows clearly does not include the concept of "community based threat intelligence". The sharing of threat intel, especially among industry peers (financial services, healthcare, etc.) can be a very powerful tool. If the security people at Acme Widgets and Cogswel Cogs alert me that their seeing a specific attack coming from a particular IP address, we here at Spacely Sprockets can proactively take steps to defend against that attack.
FTFA:
"Opening debate of the bill on Wednesday, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, noted that the legislation “does not provide the government with any new surveillance authorities.” “It only authorizes the sharing of cyber threat indicators and defensive measures – technical information like malware signatures and malicious code,” he said. “In fact, before companies share with the federal government, they must remove all personal information that might be attached to cyber threats. If companies don’t follow those requirements, they will not receive liability protection.”
By what stretch does Ms. Cohn call such activity "surveillance"?
Well some of us live in the real world and can't just hide under a rock because, ya know, we need to interact with people for personal and professional reasons via popular social media sites.
No. You do not "need" to do those things anymore than the dozens of fuckwits I see every day driving, walking, eating, pissing, with their heads bowed down to their smart phone "need" to communicate in such an awkward medium. Do those services make certain things easier? Of course, but that's the deal - "Here's your 'easy', now give me your life. Oh, and fuck your privacy." That, my friend is "the real world".
See, there's your problem. You don't believe it's an opinion piece unless the broadcaster is honest enough to say it is.
Mostly it exposes that people love to believe stories they like. And of course journalists love to publish stories that their readers like.
I just don't think that qualifies as news, though.
Perhaps not news, but as a topic worthy of consideration and discussion, you bet. Consider Fox News. It's veracity and accuracy are so poor that almost an entire industry has been built up around calling "bullshit" on so many of their "facts", and yet millions of viewers rely on it to help build their world-view every day. Those ratings wouldn't be there without Fox's heavy emphasis on "stories that people love to believe". Frankly, I find such phenomena fascinating, and often more than a little troubling. Before the chocolate hoax was the whole anti-vaxer phenomenon. To this day, otherwise reasonable people cling to the notion that routine childhood vaccinations are a bad idea, despite overwhelming credible evidence to the contrary and the plain fact that the notion itself was spawned by miscreant for personal gain. Why do they choose to believe bullshit in the face of plainly evident truth? What should we do about it? Can we do anything about it? Should we? It's excellent grist for the discussion mill, IMO.
Utter bullshit. The welfare of the citizens affected is not really a consideration to anyone with a dog in this fight. Let's get that part right, at least.
Everyone knows that it's a powerful telecommunications lobby flexing it's muscle in a state where there are lots federal dollars being spent on that industry's services. You don't piss off the industry who paid for your last election, be that for local, state, or federal office, so the whole argument about who has the "right" to look out for those citizens is nothing more than a deliberate distraction for the suckers (voters) who continue to act against their own best interests by electing Big Telco's whores to public office.
Cars are not PC's, but the author of TFA tries to argue that they are little more than a computing "platform". Automobiles are, of course, much more than that. Most of that "much more" is totally unrelated to computer-related functions or features, so to suggest that the auto industry will follow some parallel of the PC industry is just silly.
What do you say of the cybersecurity surrounding Hillary Clinton? The real solution is to elect a rock ribbed conservative to the Presidency like Ted Cruz who won't be squeamish about bustin' some heads.
You don't have any idea how moronic that sounds, do you?
People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.
Disagree. Only the arrogant ones who feel the need to make others conform to their chosen religion's "moral laws" should be treated so. I have no objection at all to Christians, Muslims, Pastafarians, or even atheists indulging their peculiar beliefs, as long as that indulgence does not do even so much as inconvenience me.
So..., you're saying that all the Old Testament crap is right out the window? Cool. Please tell all your fellow "Christians". Until then, GP's point is valid.
Customers create demand but only at certain prices does that demand turn into a transaction. Ignoring the capital required to turn theoretical demand into actual demand is dumb. People who say customers create jobs have an an agenda and don't really believe that follows logically, because how could they be that dumb?
Wow. You flunked Econ 101, didn't you? You've left out a couple of critical factors in your sophomoric analysis here.
While there is a proper definition of the term "libertarian", most slashdotters who identify as such do not understand it. Indeed, the same can be said for most anyone who self-identifies as "libertarian". Most would seem to fall into the "I should be able to get rich at others expense and smoke weed" camp. Then there are the Rand fanboys who still believe that labor is a "free market". I don't know which group is more self-deluded but they are both out of touch with reality.
And if it were me, I would think twice or thrice about getting on the bad side of the local police department, being arrested (and who knows what else). Of course I would be vindicated, but that can occur after I spent some time in jail, got charged with some bullshit, spent who knows how much money on laywers and called ACLU for help...
I mean, look -- there were a bunch of recent stories with suspects getting killed or beaten, and if one is lucky, the police is charged afterwards. Sometimes not even that. Basically, most of us cannot afford to stand on principle. Many have family to support or career to preserve, or both.
Yeah. You're right, of course. It's much safer to just roll over and pee on yourself than to actually stand up for the rights we all share.
/sarcasm
Organise a "draw Jesus sodomizing Mary" contest in Texas and you'll get crazy Christian jihadists doing the same thing. If you set up an event specifically designed to insult/offend/antagonise a particular religion, you're always going to get a response like this from someone.
Highly unlikely. While such a depiction would horrify a good many xtians, there is no explicit commandment to kill anyone making such a depiction. There is certainly no group of clergymen suggesting that anyone take such action. Not that there hasn't been such madness, on the part of xtians, in the past, but western society has largely recovered from that level of insanity.
Sounds like Ted Cruz!
But without the sad-clown eyebrows.
How much more "native" could I be?
Anyone who has never sent an email using bang path routing, is a "digital immigrant". Now get off my lawn...