Any other viewing of my private communications is a violation of my privacy you authoritarian shit bag, and requires a warrant and a damn good reason.
And what if they have a warrant but still can't access the information?
What if that lack of access results in people dying?
We're all aware of the danger of too much surveillance, but there also exists an issue of too little. The use of the an independent court system has been very effective at maintaining a healthy balance of law and order, but encryption is putting this at risk. How do you propose we mitigate this risk?
Last time I checked, privacy is a human right. This is true in the US, and it is equally true in the UK (until Brexit is completed, at the very least).
If the right to privacy cannot cover something as basic as free speech, what good is it?
Maybe the issue is a little more complex than a one line statement?
And I need end to end encryption, for things like...
And more so, I also WANT end to end encryption.
.
Exactly. You want it, you don't need it. How do you think the world got by 25 years ago when next to no-one used encryption?
You can still do all those things you listed without it, just as humans have for millennia before it existed.
Not knowing who votes for you or being ashamed of the people voting for you is just ridiculously incompetent.
A career in business and politics evaporates for one ill thought out comment at a dinner party? Look I don't like the guy, but everyone says stupid shit sometimes, and if that's the benchmark for failure what does that say about the current clown-chief?
Also, Kelly needs to take away #PresidentTweety's Twitter machine and put a leash on him.
Always thought it would be funny if Twitter blocked his account. He'd be lost without it. They could then hand it out to late night comedians each week for lulz.
The phrase "reality show" is understood to mean televised nonscripted surreality. Not actual reality.
"Reality show" means scripted to look unscripted with actors you can pay much less for and replace a lot more easily. Nothing about Reality TV is real.
"The fact that somebody like Trump could even get elected is a death-sentence. The problem isn't the guy in the captain's chair. The problem is all the guys who wanted him in the captain's chair"
This is point I've been making since that orange-tinted fucknut with the Pomeranian on his head descended down the golden escalator. Trump is entitled to be a raging lunatic asshole; that's his right in a free country..
+1.
Lunatics will be lunatics, but who votes them into power, and what environment allows that to happen? Symptom, cause etc...
Don't let the media fool you, most people's 'side' is sanity. Most Western democracies have sane candidates on both sides of politics, but the US is unique as all of their right candidates are completely fucking nuts. The current guy goes beyond words. GWB was a moron. GHWB was almost passable. Reagan was a fucking looney... etc. The ones that seem ok (eg Romney) never get the vote.
Government jerks found a new excuse to steal $15 to $99 from random people walking around minding their own business.
"The government" here is you and me. They simply represent us. And since "we" (as a society) need revenue to function, "we" need to decide where best to get this income.
Personally I am happy for it to be taken from stupid people rather than myself. And they are not "minding their own business" they are being injured and negatively impacting the lives of others. This is the best type of reason for taking money off citizens and into the public purse.
In response to American football players being injured, they developed better helmet technology to soften the blow. This resulted in football players hitting each other harder,
I always wondered why American football was so obsessed with pads and helmets. Being a Rugby player I'd be interested in watching an NFL game with all the same rules but no protection. I think it would make the game more interesting because it requires more technique to execute a big hit on the other guy without injuring yourself.
I'm guessing it would also lead to a net reduction in serious injuries since self preservation would now become a concern (maybe?)
But I would be willing to gamble that 90% or more of cyclists who are killed by cars are actually in the wrong, per traffic laws..
I'll take that bet. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/...
Sure this is from my neck of the woods, but I'm sure road user behaviour in your location isn't that much different.
(people) looking at their phones while crossing the street aren't a problem..
the problem is people crossing a street while looking at their phones
.
Wait. What?
It's the sidewalk that's dangerous, because people who are looking down at their phones don't necessarily realize when the sidewalk ends and the road begins.
Our council has installed flashing red lights embedded into the road right on the kerbside specifically to target screen zombies. It still doesn't help.
The problem is absolutely people concentrating on their devices instead of the potential danger around them. I ride a motorbike and I almost hit these people every_single_day. I've actually broken my horn button from using it so much to get these fuckwits to pay attention.
Umm, there are a lot of poor people though. A lot. I have a gun and could get more quite easily if I started flaking on some of my credit debt or skipped a mortgage payment. No big deal there.
A million people with small arms and hunting rifles, not to mention all the illegally modified weapons, in each major US city actively mad and engaging the US government would be a worst case scenario for said US government.
If such a scenario eventuated most 'militia' would end up killing each other before getting anywhere near a government facility.
An organised force with a strategy will beat a disorganised rabble every time, it's why most criminals end up in jail and even riots tend not to last more than a few days.
This is not the 18th century (or a b grade action movie) anymore that stuff would simply not work in this day and age.
This default position is easily observable, what you propose runs contrary to obvious observations.
I haven't proposed anything, you are the one claiming gender is firmly locked into only two possible positions. I argue that gender is not adequately explained by just two possibilities, and that this is obvious since even a fool like Donald Trump can see it.
I've seen hypotheses that support these observations, but I am yet to see any science that supports your viewpoint other than "it just is mmmkay"? Maybe you could post a link? That is how science generally works.
but the burden of proof is on the side making extraordinary claims.
All claims need some sort of basis. You are claiming there to be only two genders when clearly this hypothesis doesn't fit the observations.
Your position of only two genders is analogous to the geocentric model of the solar system. It is the classical position, backed up by nothing other than "most people think so".
Just because some science requires more effort than looking through a telescope, doesn't make it any less valid.
I suggest you read this: http://www.nationalgeographic....
The ACA is an attempt to apply capitalistic principles to universal healthcare. Many conservatives would back it if it wasn't called Obamacare.
This is the funny part, Obamacare really is Romneycare, but Republicans will oppose simply because it was Obama that introduced even though Romney did it first.
Fuck the Taxes and all that bullshit... Just grab our guns and take what we want from from you rich fucks...
The problem is, and I know you're joking, but some people actually do think like this, is that the rich people have bigger guns.
This 18th century idea that an armed militia can keep the government (or anything) under control is ridiculous in this day and age. Those countries with the most civilian empowerment tend to focus more on educating their people rather than arming them. Pen and sword etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, all those millennia of purchases on the net...
Remote payments aren't new, nor do you *need* encryption to transact online.
No. There is not.
Good well thought out response....
I'm okay with it. I'll accept the risk.
That's nice. Unfortunately for you, this is democracy and other people's opinions count too.
Any other viewing of my private communications is a violation of my privacy you authoritarian shit bag, and requires a warrant and a damn good reason.
And what if they have a warrant but still can't access the information?
What if that lack of access results in people dying?
We're all aware of the danger of too much surveillance, but there also exists an issue of too little. The use of the an independent court system has been very effective at maintaining a healthy balance of law and order, but encryption is putting this at risk. How do you propose we mitigate this risk?
Last time I checked, privacy is a human right. This is true in the US, and it is equally true in the UK (until Brexit is completed, at the very least).
If the right to privacy cannot cover something as basic as free speech, what good is it?
Maybe the issue is a little more complex than a one line statement?
Real Government doesn't need to spy on it's citizens.
They do if you want some sort of law and order.
Like with the Laffer curve, too much and too little both produce sub optimal results. The trick is how much...
And I need end to end encryption, for things like...
And more so, I also WANT end to end encryption .
.
Exactly. You want it, you don't need it. How do you think the world got by 25 years ago when next to no-one used encryption?
You can still do all those things you listed without it, just as humans have for millennia before it existed.
Thirdly, if she thinks banning encryption does anything to stop criminals who, by definition, do things illegally, I'd suggest she's awful at her job.
I'd suggest based on that comment that you don't really understand how crime works.
WeChat is about 90% the size of WhatsApp.
In what way, physical dimensions? Liquid volume? Furlongs per libraries of congress?
Not knowing who votes for you or being ashamed of the people voting for you is just ridiculously incompetent.
A career in business and politics evaporates for one ill thought out comment at a dinner party? Look I don't like the guy, but everyone says stupid shit sometimes, and if that's the benchmark for failure what does that say about the current clown-chief?
Most accurate comment of the day.
Also, Kelly needs to take away #PresidentTweety's Twitter machine and put a leash on him.
Always thought it would be funny if Twitter blocked his account. He'd be lost without it. They could then hand it out to late night comedians each week for lulz.
The phrase "reality show" is understood to mean televised nonscripted surreality. Not actual reality.
"Reality show" means scripted to look unscripted with actors you can pay much less for and replace a lot more easily. Nothing about Reality TV is real.
"The fact that somebody like Trump could even get elected is a death-sentence. The problem isn't the guy in the captain's chair. The problem is all the guys who wanted him in the captain's chair"
This is point I've been making since that orange-tinted fucknut with the Pomeranian on his head descended down the golden escalator. Trump is entitled to be a raging lunatic asshole; that's his right in a free country..
+1. Lunatics will be lunatics, but who votes them into power, and what environment allows that to happen? Symptom, cause etc...
Sure you want your side to win...
Don't let the media fool you, most people's 'side' is sanity. Most Western democracies have sane candidates on both sides of politics, but the US is unique as all of their right candidates are completely fucking nuts. The current guy goes beyond words. GWB was a moron. GHWB was almost passable. Reagan was a fucking looney... etc. The ones that seem ok (eg Romney) never get the vote.
Government jerks found a new excuse to steal $15 to $99 from random people walking around minding their own business.
"The government" here is you and me. They simply represent us. And since "we" (as a society) need revenue to function, "we" need to decide where best to get this income.
Personally I am happy for it to be taken from stupid people rather than myself. And they are not "minding their own business" they are being injured and negatively impacting the lives of others. This is the best type of reason for taking money off citizens and into the public purse.
In response to American football players being injured, they developed better helmet technology to soften the blow. This resulted in football players hitting each other harder,
I always wondered why American football was so obsessed with pads and helmets. Being a Rugby player I'd be interested in watching an NFL game with all the same rules but no protection. I think it would make the game more interesting because it requires more technique to execute a big hit on the other guy without injuring yourself.
I'm guessing it would also lead to a net reduction in serious injuries since self preservation would now become a concern (maybe?)
But I would be willing to gamble that 90% or more of cyclists who are killed by cars are actually in the wrong, per traffic laws. .
I'll take that bet. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/... Sure this is from my neck of the woods, but I'm sure road user behaviour in your location isn't that much different.
(people) looking at their phones while crossing the street aren't a problem. .
the problem is people crossing a street while looking at their phones
. Wait. What?
It's the sidewalk that's dangerous, because people who are looking down at their phones don't necessarily realize when the sidewalk ends and the road begins.
Our council has installed flashing red lights embedded into the road right on the kerbside specifically to target screen zombies. It still doesn't help.
The problem is absolutely people concentrating on their devices instead of the potential danger around them. I ride a motorbike and I almost hit these people every_single_day. I've actually broken my horn button from using it so much to get these fuckwits to pay attention.
Umm, there are a lot of poor people though. A lot. I have a gun and could get more quite easily if I started flaking on some of my credit debt or skipped a mortgage payment. No big deal there.
A million people with small arms and hunting rifles, not to mention all the illegally modified weapons, in each major US city actively mad and engaging the US government would be a worst case scenario for said US government.
If such a scenario eventuated most 'militia' would end up killing each other before getting anywhere near a government facility. An organised force with a strategy will beat a disorganised rabble every time, it's why most criminals end up in jail and even riots tend not to last more than a few days.
This is not the 18th century (or a b grade action movie) anymore that stuff would simply not work in this day and age.
Rarely do the wealthy have "bigger guns".
Who do you think controls the police and military?
This default position is easily observable, what you propose runs contrary to obvious observations.
I haven't proposed anything, you are the one claiming gender is firmly locked into only two possible positions. I argue that gender is not adequately explained by just two possibilities, and that this is obvious since even a fool like Donald Trump can see it.
I've seen hypotheses that support these observations, but I am yet to see any science that supports your viewpoint other than "it just is mmmkay"? Maybe you could post a link? That is how science generally works.
but the burden of proof is on the side making extraordinary claims.
All claims need some sort of basis. You are claiming there to be only two genders when clearly this hypothesis doesn't fit the observations.
Your position of only two genders is analogous to the geocentric model of the solar system. It is the classical position, backed up by nothing other than "most people think so".
Just because some science requires more effort than looking through a telescope, doesn't make it any less valid.
I suggest you read this: http://www.nationalgeographic....
The ACA is an attempt to apply capitalistic principles to universal healthcare. Many conservatives would back it if it wasn't called Obamacare.
This is the funny part, Obamacare really is Romneycare, but Republicans will oppose simply because it was Obama that introduced even though Romney did it first.
I also think the front is a styling miss
Yep it looks dated already. Reminds me of an mix between and old 90's Ford Laser and an early 2000's Mazda 3
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
http://carphotos.cardomain.com...
Fuck the Taxes and all that bullshit... Just grab our guns and take what we want from from you rich fucks...
The problem is, and I know you're joking, but some people actually do think like this, is that the rich people have bigger guns.
This 18th century idea that an armed militia can keep the government (or anything) under control is ridiculous in this day and age. Those countries with the most civilian empowerment tend to focus more on educating their people rather than arming them. Pen and sword etc...