No, you are confusing technology with economics, which is why I think (1) We need to use new economic models to drive better journalism, and (2) We need to completely rethink the field of economics in terms of time, which is truly more important than money, but harder to count. I think the new field of study might be called ekronomics, but for now, let me focus (just a bit) on one possible economic model that could motivate better comments and even let slashdot support real journalism (if it wanted to).
Imagine that an article about a problem was followed with some short solution project summaries. If you click on one of those links, you would be able to read all of the details (such as the schedule, the budget, the resources (including humans and their compensation), and the success criteria. If enough people want to fund the project, then it gets funded and all the donors get included on the donor page, and later on they get to read how well it actually satisfied the criteria. The project might be an internal project to support journalism or an external project to something in the real world. My working hashtag is #CharityShares, and if slashdot were acting as the "charity share brokerage", then I think they would earn an agent's commission for making sure the proposals are complete, for publicizing the projects, for holding the money, and then for evaluating and reporting on the results.
The Donald's real plan is completely orthogonal to any public policy including concerns about the national debt:
!. Win the so-called Republican nomination. Easy to fool some of the (stupid) people all of the time. 2. Pick a VP who loves Ford's pardon of Nixon. 3. Win the election by fooling most (51%) of the people some of the time (one election day). 4. Phuck up, get impeached, resign, get pardoned. (Step 2 was important.) 5. PROFIT.
Everyone is getting so delusional these days. Nigel Farage can't remember his own campaign promises and I can't remember why I once thought slashdot was a source of amusing comments and even a bit of insight. (My searches in the comments so far came up completely dry.)
I've never been able to earn many funny points, and the more insightful and thought-provoking my comments, the more they attract the game-playing trolls and their sad little mod points (trying to compensate for their small penises and inability to respond with stronger ideas).
Anyway, in this case the article is typically misleading. The problem isn't technology, but the will to believe as amplified by technology. The truths are out there, and you can use search technologies to find them, or you can go on believing exactly what you want to believe, and the search technologies will help you do that, too. Since most people already know EXACTLY what they prefer to believe, they can search for "proof" of exactly that, and thanks to today's google ("All your attention are belong to us.") they can find as much evidence as needed. However much "research" time you have, the google can stuff it with the evidence you like while allowing you to ignore any evidence you don't like. (If the google didn't do that, you might run away, which would be terrible for the google's advertising revenues.)
"Believing what you want to believe" might not be a fatal flaw of democracy. It would depend if most people are nice and want to believe nice things--but there's no profit in encouraging that sort of thing. Not sure of the best example for England, but in America we have the Second Amendment and it's hard to believe nice things when that's probably a gun in his pocket, even if he is pretending to be happy to see you.
Thanks for the more specific URL, but I still lack the motivation to invest the time in that one right now. You have piqued my interest a bit about the Tides Foundation.
About the "charity shares" suggestion, I have to complement you for jumping directly to that important issue on such a thin outline. Or maybe I'm getting better at elevator explanations?
I think the main way to prevent that problem is to make it clear that the principle is democratic and create rules towards that effect. For example, by limiting each "vote" to a minimal share at a time, perhaps on the order of $10, and limiting each donor to one share per project, you make it clear that the votes are supposed to be equal, at least on a per project basis. It's not just the money, but that a sufficient number of real people support the project.
I think the charity share brokerage should also use technical measures against sock puppets and covert donors, but they will have a pretty good identity verification mechanism at the time of purchase of shares. I'm doubtful that even rich bastards like the Koch brothers could actually create an army of sock puppets with credit cards. However, if you do catch such scammers, the penalty is obvious: They lose control of their secretively donated money and the charity share brokerage would be able to support a few more projects. (I even think priority in that case should go to large and expensive projects that are just a relatively few donors shy of being funded.)
However, I also think that visible support by wealthier people or organizations is not necessarily bad, as long as everyone can see what is going on. One obvious approach would be with share matching, where a corporation might help sponsor features they like by donating one bonus share for each donor share. It's actually attractive from the perspective of finding out what people want, even if it distorts the apparent cost of the project.
FINALLY. Yes, I suppose you would regard that as articulate. Or are you now going to claim that I looked at the wrong part of the video?
I'd been trying to figure out why you supported Trump, and the only question for a Trump supporter is who you hate most. So you hate Muslims.
Next question: Are you a bigot or a racist? The difference is basically whether you regard Islam as an acquired trait or primarily a matter of birth.
If you choose to reply, I'll probably check to see if you can answer any questions honestly or in an articulate fashion, but I think this "dialog" has reached its inevitable conclusion.
Oh wait. Obviously you didn't see it, but perhaps it was just such a minor interview that she felt she could freely admit that it was a mistake to use the private email server. I admit that I was a bit surprised, considering how unnicely most of the media treats her these days. I'm sure you'll eventually see it in the full and complete context. Or not.
I think you should stop snorting so much cool-aid. I also think it's laughable that I feel obliged to defend Hillary. I don't particularly like her, but I can easily see when someone is being shafted and it annoys me. (Actually less so when it's for partisan political reasons, since that's part of the price of admission to that game, but I think it's especially tragic insofar as it helps push good people away from politics. "Look what they did to Hillary this week.")
In contrast, if you're waiting for the Donald to admit to (or learn from) any kind of mistake, I think you have a long wait coming. He won't even admit that it took a special talent for failure to bankrupt a casino. (Lewis Black is doing a specially funny routine on that part.)
Then you know that the moderation on Soylent News is about the same as slashdot. Actually seems to be based on the slashdot code, probably with some thinning down. Do you want to tell me more about this Pipedot thing? My exploratory energies are kind of low these days...
However, I can tell you what I'm looking for: SOLUTIONS to the problems.
I think that journalism is using terrible economic models. Essentially seeking eyeballs to sell to advertisers, with the resulting "news" driven down to disaster porn levels. That is what has happened to CNN, but the alternative of selling propaganda is even worse, if'n your eyeballs can stand FAUX "news". Mine can't.
So far the best model I can imagine (but I haven't been able to find anything remotely close) would have solution projects after the articles or videos that teach me about the problems. I would be able to buy a "charity share" if I saw a project I liked, and if enough donors agreed with me, the project would get funded. I think the publisher (perhaps a website or even a newspaper) should handle the money in a "charity share brokerage", because that would make it convenient if a project doesn't get enough support. You could simply pledge the same money to a different project. I also think the brokerage should get a commission for the funded projects as part of paying for the entire system, but the brokerage would earn the commission by making sure the proposals were complete (including budgets, schedules, and success criteria) and by evaluating the results and reporting them back to the donors.
Drop me a line when you improve your reading and analytic skills. Obviously too late for me to improve mine, because every time I look back at the posts you claim to be replying to, it appears that you are basically ignoring them in favor of what you prefer to believe.
So time to change the topic to reading skills? Actually have to start with good writing and why I'm not. A good writer understands the reader's mind, but I rarely care, and especially not when I'm not being paid for the extra effort. In contrast, a great writer understands the collective minds of many readers and smoothly and effectively transmits complicated ideas to them.
However, on the reader side, I think the good reader assumes the author's mindset, and I have always found that to be the most efficient way to learn new things. There's even a simple metric of how well I'm doing it as my reading speed increases. For most books, I'm really blazing by the time I get to the last 100 pages or so. However, once again I fall short of greatness. Some of the metrics of greatness are how quickly the great reader can get into the author's head and the range of authors the great reader can handle. For example, mystery novels from a hundred years ago are quite different, and translations can be quite challenging, whether the translation is close or free.
Now about you [shakrai]. I think you're a poor reader or a worse writer, but I get to dismiss you as a fanatic in either case. I actually wrote this so I can extract the middle part for my journal. You are not welcome, and you have convinced me that any further attempts at discussion with you are pointless. Congratulations on your victory.
To answer the question of the original topical question with an actual solution:
Yes, and you should own ALL of your personal information. You should be able to store it where you want it and ANY use of your personal information should be according to your preferences. Retention of someone else's personal information without their permission should be regarded as a crime, and when that information is held without permission by a government authority, it should be regarded as a violation of the Fourth Amendment (in America).
Technically speaking, much of the personal information might require signatures by other parties (to insure that it is not tampered with), but the information should only be accessed and used in accord with your wishes. Requests for the information should require authentication of the identity of the requester and specification of the purposes to which the information will be used, and in most routine cases can be approved or denied by reference to your personal privacy policies. Once the approved information has been used and the purpose has been satisfied, then the copies should be deleted.
Lots of uses of "should" there, but don't hold your breath. The big corporations will NEVER allow that to happen, and even though it is an anthropomorphic lie to attribute any human attribute or behavior to a corporation or government entity.
So before I made that comment I searched for anything along those line. The article has been up for some hours and I think it's an important topic. Unable to find anything of relevance or even a single funny-moderated comment. Where have all the funny and insightful commenters gone? Long time passing...
Actually, one of the most important tricks of liars is to be specific, but the skilled liars are especially clever about creating impressive-sounding details that cannot be checked. I'm ready to wager there is no public database of who failed the bar exam organized by test dates and sites. If they don't throw away the records for failures, it's just because they are commingled with the passes, and they might need to confirm the passes if someone loses the document with their passing score. Must be some kind of certificate?
I rather doubt that any graduate of the Harvard Law School would have much trouble with the bar exam in Arkansans, and I'm pretty sure that's where she was practicing law at first. I have NO problem imaging some of her enemies would claim she did.
On that one I really think you are completely detached from reality and I would even switch to a private channel if I knew how to do that within the slashdot website. Under the public constraints, I'm going to resort to a bit of vagueness just to make sure the lawyer in question doesn't wind up suing me.
The way it works in today's America, you cannot admit that you made a mistake or apologize. You will get phucked. Royally, but quite legally. No one is perfect, but no one can apologize.
I was once involved in a minor traffic accident. It was clearly my fault. My vehicle was not damaged, but his was slightly damaged. I apologized for my mistake and even gave him a lift so he wouldn't be late to wherever he was going and because he wanted his car to be checked before driving it. I think that part of it, the damage to his car, was on the order of a few hundred bucks, but... Turned out he was a lawyer and he took my insurance company to town for many thousands of dollars. No defense possible because I had apologized. I can only be glad he apparently decided it wasn't profitable enough to come after me for some extra cash. (To be contrasted with another traffic accident where I was encouraged to sue the other driver for causing an accident that had seriously injured me. The lawyer claimed I could get twice his insurance coverage, but I declined to phuck him for his wife's mistake.)
Now it seems you think Hillary is especially imperfect and has made bigger mistakes and you want to demand bigger apologies. I think she's about average as human beings go, probably a bit smarter than average, but because she has been involved in big things and because she has nasty enemies her mistakes are relatively more visible. I think it would be great if she could just apologize, but that's not how America works these days and probably forever. However, the important thing is whether she learns from her mistakes, and I think there is plenty of evidence that she has learned and continues to learn, but I think she could even learn more if she didn't have so many enemies like you leaning on her (and even though you are obviously an extremely minor enemy compared to Trump or Rushbaugh).
Perhaps the main thing I like about living in Japan is that everyone has to apologize for everything, but that is NOT how America works.
P.S. If I still had a vote, she would get it, but not with enthusiasm. I think my last enthusiastic vote was for Carter, but now I can dismiss that as a youthful indiscretion. At this point I'm inclined to agree with Bill Maher's joke about the Constitution needing a page-one rewrite.
Been so long that I can't say for sure, but I think that most of my mods were positive. I know that I like funny comments and wish they were more visible, but I also know that I dislike stupidity...
Is there some productive place for such discussions on slashdot?
That's a pretty good argument if you have never told a lie or made a misleading statement. It would also help if you acknowledged the vast amount of propaganda directed against her and how much of it is false.
My first degree actually included philosophy. I still read quite a number of philosophical books and even took Michael Sandel's excellent EdX course a few years ago. Such notions as "good" and "truth" or "bad" and "lies" are usually epistemologically challenged, at least in common usage--and your usage seems to be on the scale from common to crazy.
I feel like we have to make certain allowances for professionals... Much of their professional training is in conformance to the standards of their profession, and in the case of lawyers that largely involves ignoring such trivialities as "right" and "wrong" and just focusing on providing the best possible services to your clients. The "right" and "wrong" stuff belongs to the judges and juries. Of course that's why I am not enamored of Hillary's primary identity as "lawyer" or "corporate lawyer".
However, she has a clear record of public service on top of her legal work. I certainly don't agree with her on every issue, but I think that even when she's wrong, she's wrong within normal parameters and she's willing to negotiate, too.
In contrast, Trump managed to bankrupt a casino. That takes a special level of incompetence that would be quite dangerous with power behind it.
That is NOT what you quoted last time. That is actually something I did write.
Your point is? You seem to imply you disagree with some part of it, but you've fooled me again. Perhaps the crack about Reagan? (I actually speculated about the fairness of attributing it to "senility" rather than a lack of will or any sort of moral compass. I could make a strong case that Reagan's was simply being expedient.)
I certainly would not describe myself as "in the tank for Hillary" at any point. I'm just unable to understand the suckers who are snorting the cool-aid. The propagandists who are brewing the cool-aid are easy enough to understand, but I think they are putting their personal advantage and sometimes their political party way ahead of the good of the country. I suppose I should have a stronger reaction to their lying about it, but what else do you expect from professional propagandists?
Hmm... Well in that case you didn't voice your concerns in a way that supported any other hypothesis.
In my case, my vote has been removed, so it seems academic to me. However, if I still had a vote, I'd be increasingly enthusiastic to vote for her just based on the low and vicious qualities of her enemies.
I myself have three non-sexist grounds for not liking her much, but I actually count her gender in her favor. I don't like the family name thing, even if it's only by marriage to a president. I don't like lawyers on principle (or rather their lack of any principles), but the system has been rigged to the degree that we're unlikely to get any better options, and I think that Trump proves my point. Lastly and leastly, I would prefer a younger candidate since I feel that most older people tend to become too habitual and too inflexible to deal with changes in a sufficiently innovative way.
As regards TDS, first, they are not partisan in the way you seem to think, but are glad to make fun of anyone, and second, I actually suspect they are trying to inoculate her with a bit of hyperbole. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to work.
Now I wonder how much money the players made by shorting Donald's companies. I didn't think it was possible to bankrupt a casino, but is it possible to short T-Bills?
Whenever I see a comment of such profound lack of imagination or ignorance or both, I tend to leap to the conclusion "Trump supporter". I'm not saying it would be a clever plan or a plausible plan, but I am saying that finding out more is usually a good thing. At the time I wrote that comment, I didn't even know he had claimed to be a lone wolf, but I still don't believe him, and now we may never know. In addition, with a bit more reflection I think it would also be useful to have found out what set him off, possibly in hopes of detecting someone like him before they explode.
However, since your reply only supports the dull-witted Trumpist hypothesis, the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?"
Spent some time trying to find something constructive in your long comment. Unable to do so, but maybe I'm just failing to figure out your mental framework so I can't find an orientation point. At this point I'd guess that you're some kind of anarchist or Libertarian, but there are some bits in there that suggest you probably aren't an overt nihilist.
Maybe there is some basis for a philosophic discussion. My own interest is in time over money.
It's at least possible that I could figure out what you are trying to write if I spent more time on it, but right now I've decided my time is better spent elsewhere. Not even sure if I should thank you for the interesting reply, but perhaps you can file it under pearls before swine? (If it's just a cut-and-paste, perhaps with a bit of customization, then it would scarcely be worth the thanks, would it?)
Not quite sure what part you are agreeing with, but I'm guessing it has to do with one of my comment about political science rather than wannabe lawyers?
On the other part, I would like to see a citation that she had trouble with the bar exam. Seems like a typical rumor from the Hillary haters. My recollection is that she had some success as a corporate lawyer but was basically forced to give it up as Bill's political influence increased.
There's a special problem in trying to figure out a person who has been in the public limelight for so many years. With so much data available, you can find evidence of anything you prefer to believe. Greatly ramped up by today's Internet, where you can get all the derivative speculations, too.
Uh, no. I did not post that. It seems more and more likely that you are a typically incoherent Trump supporter, and we come back to the only relevant question for such: Who do you hate most?
What's bothering me about this is that we really needed to find out more. Was he acting alone? Bad enough, but a much worse case might be if he was working for DAESH as part of a possibly larger plan to incite a race war in America. Probably worse possibilities, but my imagination often fails me when you get to such levels of insanity.
It might have been impossible to capture him, but the suicide-robot approach that they chose makes it clear that they had no desire for that. (Assuming the bomb was a biggish one and they knew his location well enough.)
Now I'm wondering if the entire story was BS. Slashdot has no insight, no humor, and no credibility. Heaven forbid, I need to follow the links in the original article and try to assess if the story has any truth in it...
However, that reminded me of another search strategy: Look for the high humor or high insight comments. Long ago, that used to be worth something, but in recent years it has become so fruitless that it's easy to forget the attempt.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are confusing technology with economics, which is why I think (1) We need to use new economic models to drive better journalism, and (2) We need to completely rethink the field of economics in terms of time, which is truly more important than money, but harder to count. I think the new field of study might be called ekronomics, but for now, let me focus (just a bit) on one possible economic model that could motivate better comments and even let slashdot support real journalism (if it wanted to).
Imagine that an article about a problem was followed with some short solution project summaries. If you click on one of those links, you would be able to read all of the details (such as the schedule, the budget, the resources (including humans and their compensation), and the success criteria. If enough people want to fund the project, then it gets funded and all the donors get included on the donor page, and later on they get to read how well it actually satisfied the criteria. The project might be an internal project to support journalism or an external project to something in the real world. My working hashtag is #CharityShares, and if slashdot were acting as the "charity share brokerage", then I think they would earn an agent's commission for making sure the proposals are complete, for publicizing the projects, for holding the money, and then for evaluating and reporting on the results.
If I had found this comment earlier, I would have attached my comment here, and I agree that you deserve the insightful mod.
The Donald's real plan is completely orthogonal to any public policy including concerns about the national debt:
!. Win the so-called Republican nomination. Easy to fool some of the (stupid) people all of the time.
2. Pick a VP who loves Ford's pardon of Nixon.
3. Win the election by fooling most (51%) of the people some of the time (one election day).
4. Phuck up, get impeached, resign, get pardoned. (Step 2 was important.)
5. PROFIT.
Talk about building your brand recognition.
Everyone is getting so delusional these days. Nigel Farage can't remember his own campaign promises and I can't remember why I once thought slashdot was a source of amusing comments and even a bit of insight. (My searches in the comments so far came up completely dry.)
I've never been able to earn many funny points, and the more insightful and thought-provoking my comments, the more they attract the game-playing trolls and their sad little mod points (trying to compensate for their small penises and inability to respond with stronger ideas).
Anyway, in this case the article is typically misleading. The problem isn't technology, but the will to believe as amplified by technology. The truths are out there, and you can use search technologies to find them, or you can go on believing exactly what you want to believe, and the search technologies will help you do that, too. Since most people already know EXACTLY what they prefer to believe, they can search for "proof" of exactly that, and thanks to today's google ("All your attention are belong to us.") they can find as much evidence as needed. However much "research" time you have, the google can stuff it with the evidence you like while allowing you to ignore any evidence you don't like. (If the google didn't do that, you might run away, which would be terrible for the google's advertising revenues.)
"Believing what you want to believe" might not be a fatal flaw of democracy. It would depend if most people are nice and want to believe nice things--but there's no profit in encouraging that sort of thing. Not sure of the best example for England, but in America we have the Second Amendment and it's hard to believe nice things when that's probably a gun in his pocket, even if he is pretending to be happy to see you.
Thanks for the more specific URL, but I still lack the motivation to invest the time in that one right now. You have piqued my interest a bit about the Tides Foundation.
About the "charity shares" suggestion, I have to complement you for jumping directly to that important issue on such a thin outline. Or maybe I'm getting better at elevator explanations?
I think the main way to prevent that problem is to make it clear that the principle is democratic and create rules towards that effect. For example, by limiting each "vote" to a minimal share at a time, perhaps on the order of $10, and limiting each donor to one share per project, you make it clear that the votes are supposed to be equal, at least on a per project basis. It's not just the money, but that a sufficient number of real people support the project.
I think the charity share brokerage should also use technical measures against sock puppets and covert donors, but they will have a pretty good identity verification mechanism at the time of purchase of shares. I'm doubtful that even rich bastards like the Koch brothers could actually create an army of sock puppets with credit cards. However, if you do catch such scammers, the penalty is obvious: They lose control of their secretively donated money and the charity share brokerage would be able to support a few more projects. (I even think priority in that case should go to large and expensive projects that are just a relatively few donors shy of being funded.)
However, I also think that visible support by wealthier people or organizations is not necessarily bad, as long as everyone can see what is going on. One obvious approach would be with share matching, where a corporation might help sponsor features they like by donating one bonus share for each donor share. It's actually attractive from the perspective of finding out what people want, even if it distorts the apparent cost of the project.
FINALLY. Yes, I suppose you would regard that as articulate. Or are you now going to claim that I looked at the wrong part of the video?
I'd been trying to figure out why you supported Trump, and the only question for a Trump supporter is who you hate most. So you hate Muslims.
Next question: Are you a bigot or a racist? The difference is basically whether you regard Islam as an acquired trait or primarily a matter of birth.
If you choose to reply, I'll probably check to see if you can answer any questions honestly or in an articulate fashion, but I think this "dialog" has reached its inevitable conclusion.
So that means you saw her interview yesterday.
Oh wait. Obviously you didn't see it, but perhaps it was just such a minor interview that she felt she could freely admit that it was a mistake to use the private email server. I admit that I was a bit surprised, considering how unnicely most of the media treats her these days. I'm sure you'll eventually see it in the full and complete context. Or not.
I think you should stop snorting so much cool-aid. I also think it's laughable that I feel obliged to defend Hillary. I don't particularly like her, but I can easily see when someone is being shafted and it annoys me. (Actually less so when it's for partisan political reasons, since that's part of the price of admission to that game, but I think it's especially tragic insofar as it helps push good people away from politics. "Look what they did to Hillary this week.")
In contrast, if you're waiting for the Donald to admit to (or learn from) any kind of mistake, I think you have a long wait coming. He won't even admit that it took a special talent for failure to bankrupt a casino. (Lewis Black is doing a specially funny routine on that part.)
Then you know that the moderation on Soylent News is about the same as slashdot. Actually seems to be based on the slashdot code, probably with some thinning down. Do you want to tell me more about this Pipedot thing? My exploratory energies are kind of low these days...
However, I can tell you what I'm looking for: SOLUTIONS to the problems.
I think that journalism is using terrible economic models. Essentially seeking eyeballs to sell to advertisers, with the resulting "news" driven down to disaster porn levels. That is what has happened to CNN, but the alternative of selling propaganda is even worse, if'n your eyeballs can stand FAUX "news". Mine can't.
So far the best model I can imagine (but I haven't been able to find anything remotely close) would have solution projects after the articles or videos that teach me about the problems. I would be able to buy a "charity share" if I saw a project I liked, and if enough donors agreed with me, the project would get funded. I think the publisher (perhaps a website or even a newspaper) should handle the money in a "charity share brokerage", because that would make it convenient if a project doesn't get enough support. You could simply pledge the same money to a different project. I also think the brokerage should get a commission for the funded projects as part of paying for the entire system, but the brokerage would earn the commission by making sure the proposals were complete (including budgets, schedules, and success criteria) and by evaluating the results and reporting them back to the donors.
Drop me a line when you improve your reading and analytic skills. Obviously too late for me to improve mine, because every time I look back at the posts you claim to be replying to, it appears that you are basically ignoring them in favor of what you prefer to believe.
So time to change the topic to reading skills? Actually have to start with good writing and why I'm not. A good writer understands the reader's mind, but I rarely care, and especially not when I'm not being paid for the extra effort. In contrast, a great writer understands the collective minds of many readers and smoothly and effectively transmits complicated ideas to them.
However, on the reader side, I think the good reader assumes the author's mindset, and I have always found that to be the most efficient way to learn new things. There's even a simple metric of how well I'm doing it as my reading speed increases. For most books, I'm really blazing by the time I get to the last 100 pages or so. However, once again I fall short of greatness. Some of the metrics of greatness are how quickly the great reader can get into the author's head and the range of authors the great reader can handle. For example, mystery novels from a hundred years ago are quite different, and translations can be quite challenging, whether the translation is close or free.
Now about you [shakrai]. I think you're a poor reader or a worse writer, but I get to dismiss you as a fanatic in either case. I actually wrote this so I can extract the middle part for my journal. You are not welcome, and you have convinced me that any further attempts at discussion with you are pointless. Congratulations on your victory.
To answer the question of the original topical question with an actual solution:
Yes, and you should own ALL of your personal information. You should be able to store it where you want it and ANY use of your personal information should be according to your preferences. Retention of someone else's personal information without their permission should be regarded as a crime, and when that information is held without permission by a government authority, it should be regarded as a violation of the Fourth Amendment (in America).
Technically speaking, much of the personal information might require signatures by other parties (to insure that it is not tampered with), but the information should only be accessed and used in accord with your wishes. Requests for the information should require authentication of the identity of the requester and specification of the purposes to which the information will be used, and in most routine cases can be approved or denied by reference to your personal privacy policies. Once the approved information has been used and the purpose has been satisfied, then the copies should be deleted.
Lots of uses of "should" there, but don't hold your breath. The big corporations will NEVER allow that to happen, and even though it is an anthropomorphic lie to attribute any human attribute or behavior to a corporation or government entity.
So before I made that comment I searched for anything along those line. The article has been up for some hours and I think it's an important topic. Unable to find anything of relevance or even a single funny-moderated comment. Where have all the funny and insightful commenters gone? Long time passing...
Soylent News? Now that's a joke and a half.
Sad joke insofar as it could be repaired. Maybe I could even help if I didn't have an EQ below Nomad's.
Actually, one of the most important tricks of liars is to be specific, but the skilled liars are especially clever about creating impressive-sounding details that cannot be checked. I'm ready to wager there is no public database of who failed the bar exam organized by test dates and sites. If they don't throw away the records for failures, it's just because they are commingled with the passes, and they might need to confirm the passes if someone loses the document with their passing score. Must be some kind of certificate?
I rather doubt that any graduate of the Harvard Law School would have much trouble with the bar exam in Arkansans, and I'm pretty sure that's where she was practicing law at first. I have NO problem imaging some of her enemies would claim she did.
On that one I really think you are completely detached from reality and I would even switch to a private channel if I knew how to do that within the slashdot website. Under the public constraints, I'm going to resort to a bit of vagueness just to make sure the lawyer in question doesn't wind up suing me.
The way it works in today's America, you cannot admit that you made a mistake or apologize. You will get phucked. Royally, but quite legally. No one is perfect, but no one can apologize.
I was once involved in a minor traffic accident. It was clearly my fault. My vehicle was not damaged, but his was slightly damaged. I apologized for my mistake and even gave him a lift so he wouldn't be late to wherever he was going and because he wanted his car to be checked before driving it. I think that part of it, the damage to his car, was on the order of a few hundred bucks, but... Turned out he was a lawyer and he took my insurance company to town for many thousands of dollars. No defense possible because I had apologized. I can only be glad he apparently decided it wasn't profitable enough to come after me for some extra cash. (To be contrasted with another traffic accident where I was encouraged to sue the other driver for causing an accident that had seriously injured me. The lawyer claimed I could get twice his insurance coverage, but I declined to phuck him for his wife's mistake.)
Now it seems you think Hillary is especially imperfect and has made bigger mistakes and you want to demand bigger apologies. I think she's about average as human beings go, probably a bit smarter than average, but because she has been involved in big things and because she has nasty enemies her mistakes are relatively more visible. I think it would be great if she could just apologize, but that's not how America works these days and probably forever. However, the important thing is whether she learns from her mistakes, and I think there is plenty of evidence that she has learned and continues to learn, but I think she could even learn more if she didn't have so many enemies like you leaning on her (and even though you are obviously an extremely minor enemy compared to Trump or Rushbaugh).
Perhaps the main thing I like about living in Japan is that everyone has to apologize for everything, but that is NOT how America works.
P.S. If I still had a vote, she would get it, but not with enthusiasm. I think my last enthusiastic vote was for Carter, but now I can dismiss that as a youthful indiscretion. At this point I'm inclined to agree with Bill Maher's joke about the Constitution needing a page-one rewrite.
Been so long that I can't say for sure, but I think that most of my mods were positive. I know that I like funny comments and wish they were more visible, but I also know that I dislike stupidity...
Is there some productive place for such discussions on slashdot?
That's a pretty good argument if you have never told a lie or made a misleading statement. It would also help if you acknowledged the vast amount of propaganda directed against her and how much of it is false.
My first degree actually included philosophy. I still read quite a number of philosophical books and even took Michael Sandel's excellent EdX course a few years ago. Such notions as "good" and "truth" or "bad" and "lies" are usually epistemologically challenged, at least in common usage--and your usage seems to be on the scale from common to crazy.
I feel like we have to make certain allowances for professionals... Much of their professional training is in conformance to the standards of their profession, and in the case of lawyers that largely involves ignoring such trivialities as "right" and "wrong" and just focusing on providing the best possible services to your clients. The "right" and "wrong" stuff belongs to the judges and juries. Of course that's why I am not enamored of Hillary's primary identity as "lawyer" or "corporate lawyer".
However, she has a clear record of public service on top of her legal work. I certainly don't agree with her on every issue, but I think that even when she's wrong, she's wrong within normal parameters and she's willing to negotiate, too.
In contrast, Trump managed to bankrupt a casino. That takes a special level of incompetence that would be quite dangerous with power behind it.
That is NOT what you quoted last time. That is actually something I did write.
Your point is? You seem to imply you disagree with some part of it, but you've fooled me again. Perhaps the crack about Reagan? (I actually speculated about the fairness of attributing it to "senility" rather than a lack of will or any sort of moral compass. I could make a strong case that Reagan's was simply being expedient.)
I certainly would not describe myself as "in the tank for Hillary" at any point. I'm just unable to understand the suckers who are snorting the cool-aid. The propagandists who are brewing the cool-aid are easy enough to understand, but I think they are putting their personal advantage and sometimes their political party way ahead of the good of the country. I suppose I should have a stronger reaction to their lying about it, but what else do you expect from professional propagandists?
Hmm... Well in that case you didn't voice your concerns in a way that supported any other hypothesis.
In my case, my vote has been removed, so it seems academic to me. However, if I still had a vote, I'd be increasingly enthusiastic to vote for her just based on the low and vicious qualities of her enemies.
I myself have three non-sexist grounds for not liking her much, but I actually count her gender in her favor. I don't like the family name thing, even if it's only by marriage to a president. I don't like lawyers on principle (or rather their lack of any principles), but the system has been rigged to the degree that we're unlikely to get any better options, and I think that Trump proves my point. Lastly and leastly, I would prefer a younger candidate since I feel that most older people tend to become too habitual and too inflexible to deal with changes in a sufficiently innovative way.
As regards TDS, first, they are not partisan in the way you seem to think, but are glad to make fun of anyone, and second, I actually suspect they are trying to inoculate her with a bit of hyperbole. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to work.
Now I wonder how much money the players made by shorting Donald's companies. I didn't think it was possible to bankrupt a casino, but is it possible to short T-Bills?
Whenever I see a comment of such profound lack of imagination or ignorance or both, I tend to leap to the conclusion "Trump supporter". I'm not saying it would be a clever plan or a plausible plan, but I am saying that finding out more is usually a good thing. At the time I wrote that comment, I didn't even know he had claimed to be a lone wolf, but I still don't believe him, and now we may never know. In addition, with a bit more reflection I think it would also be useful to have found out what set him off, possibly in hopes of detecting someone like him before they explode.
However, since your reply only supports the dull-witted Trumpist hypothesis, the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?"
Maybe the mod points are related to your low user number?
(I hope this is a dead enough conversation that we won't wind up in the race to the bottom there.)
Spent some time trying to find something constructive in your long comment. Unable to do so, but maybe I'm just failing to figure out your mental framework so I can't find an orientation point. At this point I'd guess that you're some kind of anarchist or Libertarian, but there are some bits in there that suggest you probably aren't an overt nihilist.
Maybe there is some basis for a philosophic discussion. My own interest is in time over money.
It's at least possible that I could figure out what you are trying to write if I spent more time on it, but right now I've decided my time is better spent elsewhere. Not even sure if I should thank you for the interesting reply, but perhaps you can file it under pearls before swine? (If it's just a cut-and-paste, perhaps with a bit of customization, then it would scarcely be worth the thanks, would it?)
Not quite sure what part you are agreeing with, but I'm guessing it has to do with one of my comment about political science rather than wannabe lawyers?
On the other part, I would like to see a citation that she had trouble with the bar exam. Seems like a typical rumor from the Hillary haters. My recollection is that she had some success as a corporate lawyer but was basically forced to give it up as Bill's political influence increased.
There's a special problem in trying to figure out a person who has been in the public limelight for so many years. With so much data available, you can find evidence of anything you prefer to believe. Greatly ramped up by today's Internet, where you can get all the derivative speculations, too.
Uh, no. I did not post that. It seems more and more likely that you are a typically incoherent Trump supporter, and we come back to the only relevant question for such: Who do you hate most?
What's bothering me about this is that we really needed to find out more. Was he acting alone? Bad enough, but a much worse case might be if he was working for DAESH as part of a possibly larger plan to incite a race war in America. Probably worse possibilities, but my imagination often fails me when you get to such levels of insanity.
It might have been impossible to capture him, but the suicide-robot approach that they chose makes it clear that they had no desire for that. (Assuming the bomb was a biggish one and they knew his location well enough.)
Until robots get a vote, they will always be abused like this.
Actually shouldn't even look for a Funny mod on a story like this one, but I'm afraid you have led me to a bit of sick humor... Why didn't you see it?
Robot lives don't matter.
"Apart from being a joke, it really is what I hope." (Did I quote Stewart Lee correctly? Maybe the Top Gear routine?)
Searches completed, and NO comments discovered.
Now I'm wondering if the entire story was BS. Slashdot has no insight, no humor, and no credibility. Heaven forbid, I need to follow the links in the original article and try to assess if the story has any truth in it...
However, that reminded me of another search strategy: Look for the high humor or high insight comments. Long ago, that used to be worth something, but in recent years it has become so fruitless that it's easy to forget the attempt.