(1) The FBI (and friends) can hack all popular devices, but they want us to believe they can't. (2) The FBI is using a politically convenient case to effectively outlaw encryption for regular citizens. (3) When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption--by circular definition. (4) If you haven't done anything wrong, then of course there's no harm if the FBI knows EVERYTHING about you! (5) All of the above.
Don't look at me. I'm so paranoid that I think Snowden is sincere and was deliberately picked to release exactly the information that the NSA (and friends) wanted us to see. If their psychological profiling didn't spot him many years ago, then we might as well surrender now, Dorothy.
Probably too late to matter, but this is another case for super-better-financial models!
How much would your company want as compensation for the development of the software? If only there were a mechanism by which the completed project could be described, and if enough 'charity shareholders" wanted to chip in $10 a share, then everyone could be happy. If too few people are interested, then your employer just has to eat it, which seems to be what's going to happen.
More details available upon request, but it doesn't look like Slashdot or Sourceforge is that innovative, eh?
What he said is precisely why the FBI picked this one. I think he was plenty smart in his youth, but now Shamir is just another silly old fool. Does he seriously think that the FBI won't use every wedge issue to outlaw encryption? After all, wanting to have ANY secret from the government PROVES you're up to no good.
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption. By circular definition.
Considering that Amazon's business model is centered on destroying your privacy, why are you surprised as they strip your last shreds of protection?
Personal story:
For about 8 months now some troll has been abusing my name and Gmail address with a fake Amazon account. There have been various fake bills and ebook loans and of course reams of troll-related spam directly from Amazon.
I did NOT validate my Gmail address for Amazon's use, and one of their so-called customer reps actually slipped up and admitted that there is a bug in the Android version that allows for validation of email addresses without a confirmation from the actual owner of the email account.
This seems to be a very simple problem to fix.
1. Nuke the fake account. 2. Put a block on the email address to make sure another fake is not created. 3. Profit!
Just joking on Step 3. I will NEVER again buy anything from Amazon, so no profit there.
However, the first two steps seem easy enough. Amazon cannot do them. That's because I cannot provide the physical address associated with the fake account. Once again, one of their people slipped and confirmed that it's in Indiana. I've never been in that state, but there is evidence in some of the spam that points there.
Anyway, in conclusion I was twice an Amazon customer, but NEVER again. Privacy does not exist in Amazon's book.
So when will the FBI arrest them? After all, if you have nothing to hide from the government, then you don't need encryption. Wanting encryption proves you MUST be a criminal. Creating encryption makes you the accomplice.
Even worse, if you want encryption you must be a future criminal planning how to hide the evidence!
Actually, you better wave bye-bye to what little privacy is left. Even the multi-millionaires and billionaires can't buy privacy now. Ask Mitt Romney, eh?
(Maybe I spoke too soon? I really wish everyone knew the truth about the big dick Cheney.)
When I heard the Donald calling for a boycott against Apple, my first thought was "Are any of Trump's supporters smart enough to use an iPhone?"
From that perspective, it might be a hollow threat. It seems certain that Apple wants to claim to be innovative, not authoritarian. If the people who like the Donald already hate Apple and love the FBI, then Apple should not care less about the threat.
Then again I see the use of Apple products as mostly being a fashion statement, and if Trumpism represents some sort of fashion statement, then it also confirms my low opinion of fashion.
My main conclusion is that this is political opportunism--by the FBI. They see this as a wedge they can use to outlaw encryption and destroy the last shreds of our privacy, and to heck with the Bill of Rights and anything else that interferes with their authoritarian mindset.
Present company excluded, of course. I proclaim that my own Mac is purely for research purposes not fashion. Mostly interested in voice dictation, not privacy. I'm just playing with the Tor networks, and of course I would never have anything to hide, such as sensitive medical information about myself or my family.
Remember, when encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption--and having the encryption will by definition make them outlaws no matter what else is going on.
No way to actually know. They won't tell us, and even if they got caught lying about it, then they would just point at some obscure law that required them to lie about it.
Going on the personalities, I believe that Bernie Sanders has the right philosophy on that issue, as on so many others. Most of the other candidates are corporatist tools who will do and say whatever the big companies want them to do and say. A couple of them are dangerous authoritarian lunatics, and it's just a matter of degree. I would say Cruz is worst, you might pick Trump. (None of them are as bad as the big dick Cheney, and it seems the country survived that...)
By the way, my one-handed theory is that the FBI already cracked the terrorist's smartphone in California, but they are pretending they didn't so we'll still think we have some secrets or privacy. Even the richest 0.1% can't afford real privacy these days...
On the other hand, I do think that there is such a thing as encryption that is effectively uncrackable, and no law can outlaw the ideas and the technologies. But when we look at the third hand, it sort of makes sense to outlaw it. Then the cops don't have to worry about whether or not the encryption is used for lawful or unlawful purposes, since using the encryption will already define you as an outlaw.
"When encryption is outlawed, only criminals will have encryption by definition."
On a more serious note, the headline was rather sensationalistic. My first thought was "pinhole", but perhaps I know too much about the history of optics and photography?
Still mulling over his death. I think his life is worth more consideration, but that seems unlikely in this venue. Conversations in slashdot die quickly, but that seems to be a case of broken as designed.
Mostly I've been wondering why I am not rejoicing. I like to think of myself as someone who is opposed to evil, and I think Scalia was one of the most supremely evil (and hypocritical) people I've ever heard of. It seems that I should celebrate, and yet, his death doesn't seem to be a cause for joy. Right now I think that is because his legacy of evil is essentially unaffected by his death. That's the nature of the judicial dictatorship America has become.
Right after Bush v Gore, I remember being involved with a law student who didn't feel too bad about it. However, in the course of our exchanges, he mentioned that the reason he was in law school was because he believed America was becoming (or had already become) a judicial dictatorship and he wanted to become one of the dictators. Pragmatic, eh?
In the decision of Bush v Gore, the majority actually put it in writing that they didn't want the case to be regarded as precedent. As if the main job of the Supreme Court was not the definition of legal precedent. I don't think they were being stupid. I think they just wanted to leave their hands free if they got another chance to play politics.
Anyway, at least Scalia died doing what he loved: Torturing and killing helpless animals. (At least that's how I feel about hunting and part of why I eat so little meat these decades.)
Another conclusion is that the timing really seems to reflect the incredibly good luck of President Obama. His entire life seems to have been charmed, and I still think the nation has largely benefited from his luck, including his lucky timing. For Scalia to suddenly drop dead right now insures that the politicization of the Supreme Court will be one of the largest issues in this election, and notwithstanding Citizens United, maybe the actual voters of the 99.9% can still have some say in the outcome.
Wow. Could you at least wait for the body to reach room temperature before insulting the man?
If I were religious, then I would be quite sure Scalia is already WAY above room temperature now. At least the soul part.
Remember Bush v Gore? Remember Citizens United? Just a few of the low lights of his miserable career of hypocrisy.
My new theory is the Pope did it. Scalia's last act was to block Obama's desperate effort to save the planet from massive climate change, and the Pope finally prayed, "Lord, this is too much. It's time to smite him." (Gawd did it while Scalia was sleeping because he knows the Pope is a kind of gentle guy.)
I think you're writing in a humorous vein and I hope you get your mod points (but the moderation system needs MAJOR improvements), but I do want to comment on one part of your post...
The Democratic Party was quite different in the South. There were some actual progressive Democrats like LBJ, but they were allied with the Dixiecrats, who were really anti-Republicans, not believers in anything positive. (Yes, they believed in racism, but I don't count that as a positive belief.) In today's lingo, the extremist Democrats (if there were any) would have called them DINOs (which is sort of the opposite of the neo-GOP fanatics calling Republican moderates RINOs).
You gave me a sort of crazy idea, but maybe it would push the neo-GOP lunatics away from the deadlock stalling?
Since the Supreme Court's main job (beyond the work of any other court) is to arbitrate the constitutionality of legislation, and since they cannot do that with deadlocked 4-4 decisions, we should modify the Constitution to prevent it. (Setting aside for the moment the fact that they will stall such a proposal to death.) Here's the suggestion:
If there are an even number of justices, then for each case, one justice will be picked by lottery to sit it out. There will always be an odd number of justices ruing on every case, and there will be no ties.
That means the fanatics on either side would be afraid to leave a closely balanced Supreme Court with a missing justice. If that happens, then they could lose on major decisions just by an unlucky draw.
Please read what I wrote before writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff which may well be meaningless trollage. If you can't understand something, then you should ask for clarification. Politely. The following brief response is more than your reply comment (or possibly you) are worth, but for the sake of clarity:
No, I want to help PAY someone to maintain the project. Because I am not rich, I can only afford to pay a small amount, but if a lot of people agree with me that a project (for a new feature, for support of an existing program, or for updating and old application, which are just a few of the examples I've mentioned) is worth supporting, then my small contribution pooled with their small contributions could be enough money to pay someone to do the tedious, difficult, and even skilled work. I think sourceforge should use such a model to help avoid project death.
By the way, I used to be a professional programmer, mostly for database stuff. Unfortunately, I was a second stringer who was lucky enough to work with some top tier people, and eventually concluded I'd never make it to their level. As a career move,it was the right decision, but I still respect the great programmers and would be glad to help support them.
You are wasting time playing with an obvious and flaming troll, but if you want to do that over Scalia, then you should start with Bush v Gore, a decision that was SO bad that even at the time they wrote it, they said that it should NOT be regarded as a legal precedent. As if setting precedent wasn't the main job of the so-called Supreme Court.
There are two aspects of Scalia that I find most interesting. One is how he became his own enemy. At least he claimed that "judicial activism" was a bad thing, only to become one of the most activist judges in the history of the court. His creative work on the Second Amendment was especially amazing in abusing and even destroying the intentions of the Founders he claimed to admire.
The other aspect was his voting power. As far as I know, there has never been a justice who had a shadow second vote like that of Clarence Thomas. Actually, this would be an easy topic to research, though the last part of it will have to wait until Thomas dies. (Gee, now there's a reason to hope Thomas lasts for at least a short while longer?) The votes of all of the Supreme Court justices could be correlated to see which justices vote the same way most often. It's probably already been done, now that we have these computer things, eh? I'm pretty sure that the correlation between Scalia and Thomas will be one of the highest ever recorded.
However, I can go farther and make a new prediction for Thomas without Scalia to tell him how to vote. I think Thomas will attach himself to some other justice, probably Alito if he is the most conservative replacement available, and now correlate extremely highly with that justice's votes. Whatever voting pattern signifies judicial leadership, I'm confident that Scalia's votes showed that pattern (even if he was leading in the wrong direction) and the votes of Thomas will never show such a pattern.
My prediction is that the neo-GOP fanatics are going to do EVERYTHING possible to stall the replacement of Scalia past the election, but I hope President Obama puts up a really good candidate and makes them look as bad as possible before the election. This could be another example of Obama's remarkable good luck, and the country needs LOTS of good luck now.
However, if Obama nominated Jesus Christ, you can be sure the neo-GOP fanatics would fight against the nomination to the bitter end.
Let me repeat, the brand has been hijacked and the hijackers need to be relabeled. They are NOT the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln or the GOP of Teddy or Ike. They are a mob of raging anti-government anarchist lunatics. Maybe you have a better label, but I think neo-GOP is good, largely because "neo" means new and the "O" stood for "Old", way back in the days when words had actual meanings... (These days words are framed for whatever lies the propagandists like.)
As Abe Lincoln said (according to the Donald), "So that government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% of Americans, shall rule the earth." Scalia thought so, too, but he was too cunning and diabolical to say it out loud.
Well, that was a dumb premise, but if they were, then I think the Democratic Senators would roll over and let the neo-GOP pass EVERYTHING they want through the Senate (with the obvious rubber-stamp from the House of so-called Representatives who actually represent a minority of the actual voters). Then President Obama should veto ALL of the terrible legislation. Maybe the voters would wake up and realize that it matters, eh?
I'm not saying that there aren't any bums on the Democratic side, but the neo-GOP is completely dominated by lunatics. The actual Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was progressive and liberal, and the GOP of Ike and Teddy was quite principled and pragmatic, not insane. This is a brand hijack, and Scalia was one of the most prominent hijackers.
Time for another bad joke based on the premise that Scalia did not deserve to die peacefully in his sleep. He should have been committed to an asylum, where this could have happened:
After Scalia was sent to the funny farm, he was standing by the fence one day when a driver stopped with a flat tire. The driver started changing the tire, but then he accidentally dropped the lug nuts into the storm sewer. He's standing there trying to figure out what to do, but Scalia says:
"Hey, just take one lug nut off each of the other three wheels, and you can drive to town."
"That's a great idea. What's a smart guy like you doing in the nuthouse?"
"I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid."
Now that I think about it, bad as the joke is (and as many people as it has featured over the years), the punchline could be his epitaph. The tombstone should also mention Bush v Gore and Citizens United (to destroy democracy in America) and some of his other "accomplishments" (for very negative values of accomplish).
Seems to be an invitation to make my pitch again? This is another variation on the ideas presented in several other threads, but...
One of the functional problems of slashdot is how quickly topics go stale. Maybe that is the feature I should put my $15 on? Actually, I am thinking more along the lines of $100/year split into 10 projects for features or continuing costs. (As usual, details available upon polite request. The magic keywords for this one is "dynamic multidimensional topic search in the background".)
However, first a word from our sponsor!
Just joking, no sponsor, but there is a need for some background here. Maybe my premises are mis-focused?
As a wannabe user, I have frequently visited sourceforge over the years. Usually I am looking for specific software to solve some problem, and I often find it. Dead, orphaned, obsolete, fractional, or incomplete. THAT is the problem I want to solve, but I think we have to consider why the projects died, and I wish the new powers-that-be would refer us to some statistics about project death?
I think almost all of the programmers who were driving the sourceforge projects are well intentioned, but somehow fail to live up to their altruism. However, I take the idea pretty broadly. I even think that hoping to strike it rich by creating good software can be a form of altruism... The vow of poverty approach definitely does not work.
Therefore I think that the sincere interest of wannabe users should be assessed BEFORE sourceforge projects get the green light. My suggested form of sincerity would be pledging a $10 charity share towards the budgeted cost of the project. The natural implementation would be for the new owners to set up a 'charity share brokerage' and the wannabe donors would put their donations in a 'charity share account' that can be allocated towards the projects they like. The basic idea would be to prevent orphaned and incomplete projects, or to pick up old projects or ongoing costs on a transparent basis.
I even think the brokerage should earn a commission on the funded projects by providing several important services. (1) Make sure the proposals are complete. (2) Realistic schedule. (3) Acceptable budget (possible effected by competition from competing proposals for similar projects). (4) Testing and other easy-to-forget items are included. (5) SUCCESS CRITERIA. After the project has finished creating the software or otherwise been completed, then they would evaluate the results and the donors know how it came out. (Au, daupr. Keywords "charity shares”.)
Assange's revelations embarrassed the US government and the US military, not "rich people".
You must be new around here. What planet did you come from?
I'm not particularly interested in Assange or those specific documents. I'm intensely interested in why people like you (or the role you are pretending to play, perhaps as a paid shill) want the government to have MORE control what LITTLE you know. They are obviously already doing a sufficiently good job.
Okay, then in that case, it would seem isolating the paragraph should have increased the relative lameness of the comment, but that is not what happened. In isolation, the paragraph did not trigger any complaint.
I think the creators of slashdot were sincere, though I don't yet have any impressions about the intentions or sincerity of the newest owners. However, I also think that slashdot should stop abusing the English language. It has enough problems.
New subject question about how long, the answer is "The google don't care, just like the honey badger." Or you could reword it in terms of the google's new motto: "All your attention are belong to us."
However, the post by OverlordQ that I'm responding to said:
Some sites get ridiculous with that.
No, it is NOT the websites or even the app, though there are things an app developer can do that can make it easier or harder for scammers to use that sort of misleading ad. The REAL problem is that the google don't care about scams or the victims thereof. The only concern of the google is MONEY. These days that is driving them to ever nastier exploitations of our private information, but it does NOT have to be that way.
For example of a possible constructive solution:
Add a "Business model" or "Financials" tab in Google Play. Let the developer explain how the money works, most often by selecting one of the more common options. Then the google would add a secure comment about the evidence.
No, this would not eliminate all scams, but it would let us make better choices AGAINST scammy the business models. Again, details available upon polite request.
Oh yeah and by the way, I've been trying to call the google's attention to these sorts of scams for some years, but it's just one of a LONG list of google-supported scams. With great power the google accepts NO responsibility.
Why did this part of that last reply trigger the so-called lameness filter:
Now about that meta-modding thing. Years since I had noticed it, and it's just as stupid as it ever was. To evaluate the moderation of a comment, to form ANY meaningful opinion about the moderation, I need CONTEXT. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I don't feel like searching in other tabs to see the rest of the thread and the moderation itself is worth the effort, and without the effort, any meta-moderation is worthless. I should have looked for that in the recent discussion of slashdot's future... Make that "possible future".
Now that is truly bizarre. I cut and pasted the last bit into this new comment so I could figure out which word or words were problematic, but in isolation, there is apparently no problem. I think that is sufficient evidence of the importance of context, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you believe:
(1) The FBI (and friends) can hack all popular devices, but they want us to believe they can't.
(2) The FBI is using a politically convenient case to effectively outlaw encryption for regular citizens.
(3) When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption--by circular definition.
(4) If you haven't done anything wrong, then of course there's no harm if the FBI knows EVERYTHING about you!
(5) All of the above.
Don't look at me. I'm so paranoid that I think Snowden is sincere and was deliberately picked to release exactly the information that the NSA (and friends) wanted us to see. If their psychological profiling didn't spot him many years ago, then we might as well surrender now, Dorothy.
Probably too late to matter, but this is another case for super-better-financial models!
How much would your company want as compensation for the development of the software? If only there were a mechanism by which the completed project could be described, and if enough 'charity shareholders" wanted to chip in $10 a share, then everyone could be happy. If too few people are interested, then your employer just has to eat it, which seems to be what's going to happen.
More details available upon request, but it doesn't look like Slashdot or Sourceforge is that innovative, eh?
What he said is precisely why the FBI picked this one. I think he was plenty smart in his youth, but now Shamir is just another silly old fool. Does he seriously think that the FBI won't use every wedge issue to outlaw encryption? After all, wanting to have ANY secret from the government PROVES you're up to no good.
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption. By circular definition.
Corrected Subject: above. Even the Preview is not sufficient...
Maybe I should have said "supremely EVIL", but there is so much competition for that title among various fabulously profitable companies.
Considering that Amazon's business model is centered on destroying your privacy, why are you surprised as they strip your last shreds of protection?
Personal story:
For about 8 months now some troll has been abusing my name and Gmail address with a fake Amazon account. There have been various fake bills and ebook loans and of course reams of troll-related spam directly from Amazon.
I did NOT validate my Gmail address for Amazon's use, and one of their so-called customer reps actually slipped up and admitted that there is a bug in the Android version that allows for validation of email addresses without a confirmation from the actual owner of the email account.
This seems to be a very simple problem to fix.
1. Nuke the fake account.
2. Put a block on the email address to make sure another fake is not created.
3. Profit!
Just joking on Step 3. I will NEVER again buy anything from Amazon, so no profit there.
However, the first two steps seem easy enough. Amazon cannot do them. That's because I cannot provide the physical address associated with the fake account. Once again, one of their people slipped and confirmed that it's in Indiana. I've never been in that state, but there is evidence in some of the spam that points there.
Anyway, in conclusion I was twice an Amazon customer, but NEVER again. Privacy does not exist in Amazon's book.
So when will the FBI arrest them? After all, if you have nothing to hide from the government, then you don't need encryption. Wanting encryption proves you MUST be a criminal. Creating encryption makes you the accomplice.
Even worse, if you want encryption you must be a future criminal planning how to hide the evidence!
Actually, you better wave bye-bye to what little privacy is left. Even the multi-millionaires and billionaires can't buy privacy now. Ask Mitt Romney, eh?
(Maybe I spoke too soon? I really wish everyone knew the truth about the big dick Cheney.)
Are there problems at slashdot under the new management, or should I get all paranoid again?
My above reply post originally appeared, but without its signature, then it disappeared, and then it reappeared, but with the signature...
Surely the FBI wouldn't be so clumsy, but what else is going on here? Or maybe they would be?
When I heard the Donald calling for a boycott against Apple, my first thought was "Are any of Trump's supporters smart enough to use an iPhone?"
From that perspective, it might be a hollow threat. It seems certain that Apple wants to claim to be innovative, not authoritarian. If the people who like the Donald already hate Apple and love the FBI, then Apple should not care less about the threat.
Then again I see the use of Apple products as mostly being a fashion statement, and if Trumpism represents some sort of fashion statement, then it also confirms my low opinion of fashion.
My main conclusion is that this is political opportunism--by the FBI. They see this as a wedge they can use to outlaw encryption and destroy the last shreds of our privacy, and to heck with the Bill of Rights and anything else that interferes with their authoritarian mindset.
Present company excluded, of course. I proclaim that my own Mac is purely for research purposes not fashion. Mostly interested in voice dictation, not privacy. I'm just playing with the Tor networks, and of course I would never have anything to hide, such as sensitive medical information about myself or my family.
Remember, when encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption--and having the encryption will by definition make them outlaws no matter what else is going on.
No way to actually know. They won't tell us, and even if they got caught lying about it, then they would just point at some obscure law that required them to lie about it.
Going on the personalities, I believe that Bernie Sanders has the right philosophy on that issue, as on so many others. Most of the other candidates are corporatist tools who will do and say whatever the big companies want them to do and say. A couple of them are dangerous authoritarian lunatics, and it's just a matter of degree. I would say Cruz is worst, you might pick Trump. (None of them are as bad as the big dick Cheney, and it seems the country survived that...)
By the way, my one-handed theory is that the FBI already cracked the terrorist's smartphone in California, but they are pretending they didn't so we'll still think we have some secrets or privacy. Even the richest 0.1% can't afford real privacy these days...
On the other hand, I do think that there is such a thing as encryption that is effectively uncrackable, and no law can outlaw the ideas and the technologies. But when we look at the third hand, it sort of makes sense to outlaw it. Then the cops don't have to worry about whether or not the encryption is used for lawful or unlawful purposes, since using the encryption will already define you as an outlaw.
"When encryption is outlawed, only criminals will have encryption by definition."
Convenient, eh?
Actually it's more like the compound eye of insects, but 'wired' differently.
I was looking for the "Nothing to see here" joke.
Who is responsible for this hideous omission?
On a more serious note, the headline was rather sensationalistic. My first thought was "pinhole", but perhaps I know too much about the history of optics and photography?
It was long in coming, but in the end, I see the quail got their revenge.
Do they suspect fowl play?
At least he died doing what he loved: Torturing and killing small and helpless animals.
(Sorry, but I admit that I lack sympathy for recreational hunters and I feel increasingly bad about eating any meat these years...)
Still mulling over his death. I think his life is worth more consideration, but that seems unlikely in this venue. Conversations in slashdot die quickly, but that seems to be a case of broken as designed.
Mostly I've been wondering why I am not rejoicing. I like to think of myself as someone who is opposed to evil, and I think Scalia was one of the most supremely evil (and hypocritical) people I've ever heard of. It seems that I should celebrate, and yet, his death doesn't seem to be a cause for joy. Right now I think that is because his legacy of evil is essentially unaffected by his death. That's the nature of the judicial dictatorship America has become.
Right after Bush v Gore, I remember being involved with a law student who didn't feel too bad about it. However, in the course of our exchanges, he mentioned that the reason he was in law school was because he believed America was becoming (or had already become) a judicial dictatorship and he wanted to become one of the dictators. Pragmatic, eh?
In the decision of Bush v Gore, the majority actually put it in writing that they didn't want the case to be regarded as precedent. As if the main job of the Supreme Court was not the definition of legal precedent. I don't think they were being stupid. I think they just wanted to leave their hands free if they got another chance to play politics.
Anyway, at least Scalia died doing what he loved: Torturing and killing helpless animals. (At least that's how I feel about hunting and part of why I eat so little meat these decades.)
Another conclusion is that the timing really seems to reflect the incredibly good luck of President Obama. His entire life seems to have been charmed, and I still think the nation has largely benefited from his luck, including his lucky timing. For Scalia to suddenly drop dead right now insures that the politicization of the Supreme Court will be one of the largest issues in this election, and notwithstanding Citizens United, maybe the actual voters of the 99.9% can still have some say in the outcome.
Wow. Could you at least wait for the body to reach room temperature before insulting the man?
If I were religious, then I would be quite sure Scalia is already WAY above room temperature now. At least the soul part.
Remember Bush v Gore? Remember Citizens United? Just a few of the low lights of his miserable career of hypocrisy.
My new theory is the Pope did it. Scalia's last act was to block Obama's desperate effort to save the planet from massive climate change, and the Pope finally prayed, "Lord, this is too much. It's time to smite him." (Gawd did it while Scalia was sleeping because he knows the Pope is a kind of gentle guy.)
I think you're writing in a humorous vein and I hope you get your mod points (but the moderation system needs MAJOR improvements), but I do want to comment on one part of your post...
The Democratic Party was quite different in the South. There were some actual progressive Democrats like LBJ, but they were allied with the Dixiecrats, who were really anti-Republicans, not believers in anything positive. (Yes, they believed in racism, but I don't count that as a positive belief.) In today's lingo, the extremist Democrats (if there were any) would have called them DINOs (which is sort of the opposite of the neo-GOP fanatics calling Republican moderates RINOs).
You gave me a sort of crazy idea, but maybe it would push the neo-GOP lunatics away from the deadlock stalling?
Since the Supreme Court's main job (beyond the work of any other court) is to arbitrate the constitutionality of legislation, and since they cannot do that with deadlocked 4-4 decisions, we should modify the Constitution to prevent it. (Setting aside for the moment the fact that they will stall such a proposal to death.) Here's the suggestion:
If there are an even number of justices, then for each case, one justice will be picked by lottery to sit it out. There will always be an odd number of justices ruing on every case, and there will be no ties.
That means the fanatics on either side would be afraid to leave a closely balanced Supreme Court with a missing justice. If that happens, then they could lose on major decisions just by an unlucky draw.
Please read what I wrote before writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff which may well be meaningless trollage. If you can't understand something, then you should ask for clarification. Politely. The following brief response is more than your reply comment (or possibly you) are worth, but for the sake of clarity:
No, I want to help PAY someone to maintain the project. Because I am not rich, I can only afford to pay a small amount, but if a lot of people agree with me that a project (for a new feature, for support of an existing program, or for updating and old application, which are just a few of the examples I've mentioned) is worth supporting, then my small contribution pooled with their small contributions could be enough money to pay someone to do the tedious, difficult, and even skilled work. I think sourceforge should use such a model to help avoid project death.
By the way, I used to be a professional programmer, mostly for database stuff. Unfortunately, I was a second stringer who was lucky enough to work with some top tier people, and eventually concluded I'd never make it to their level. As a career move,it was the right decision, but I still respect the great programmers and would be glad to help support them.
You are wasting time playing with an obvious and flaming troll, but if you want to do that over Scalia, then you should start with Bush v Gore, a decision that was SO bad that even at the time they wrote it, they said that it should NOT be regarded as a legal precedent. As if setting precedent wasn't the main job of the so-called Supreme Court.
There are two aspects of Scalia that I find most interesting. One is how he became his own enemy. At least he claimed that "judicial activism" was a bad thing, only to become one of the most activist judges in the history of the court. His creative work on the Second Amendment was especially amazing in abusing and even destroying the intentions of the Founders he claimed to admire.
The other aspect was his voting power. As far as I know, there has never been a justice who had a shadow second vote like that of Clarence Thomas. Actually, this would be an easy topic to research, though the last part of it will have to wait until Thomas dies. (Gee, now there's a reason to hope Thomas lasts for at least a short while longer?) The votes of all of the Supreme Court justices could be correlated to see which justices vote the same way most often. It's probably already been done, now that we have these computer things, eh? I'm pretty sure that the correlation between Scalia and Thomas will be one of the highest ever recorded.
However, I can go farther and make a new prediction for Thomas without Scalia to tell him how to vote. I think Thomas will attach himself to some other justice, probably Alito if he is the most conservative replacement available, and now correlate extremely highly with that justice's votes. Whatever voting pattern signifies judicial leadership, I'm confident that Scalia's votes showed that pattern (even if he was leading in the wrong direction) and the votes of Thomas will never show such a pattern.
My prediction is that the neo-GOP fanatics are going to do EVERYTHING possible to stall the replacement of Scalia past the election, but I hope President Obama puts up a really good candidate and makes them look as bad as possible before the election. This could be another example of Obama's remarkable good luck, and the country needs LOTS of good luck now.
However, if Obama nominated Jesus Christ, you can be sure the neo-GOP fanatics would fight against the nomination to the bitter end.
Let me repeat, the brand has been hijacked and the hijackers need to be relabeled. They are NOT the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln or the GOP of Teddy or Ike. They are a mob of raging anti-government anarchist lunatics. Maybe you have a better label, but I think neo-GOP is good, largely because "neo" means new and the "O" stood for "Old", way back in the days when words had actual meanings... (These days words are framed for whatever lies the propagandists like.)
As Abe Lincoln said (according to the Donald), "So that government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% of Americans, shall rule the earth." Scalia thought so, too, but he was too cunning and diabolical to say it out loud.
Well, that was a dumb premise, but if they were, then I think the Democratic Senators would roll over and let the neo-GOP pass EVERYTHING they want through the Senate (with the obvious rubber-stamp from the House of so-called Representatives who actually represent a minority of the actual voters). Then President Obama should veto ALL of the terrible legislation. Maybe the voters would wake up and realize that it matters, eh?
I'm not saying that there aren't any bums on the Democratic side, but the neo-GOP is completely dominated by lunatics. The actual Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was progressive and liberal, and the GOP of Ike and Teddy was quite principled and pragmatic, not insane. This is a brand hijack, and Scalia was one of the most prominent hijackers.
Time for another bad joke based on the premise that Scalia did not deserve to die peacefully in his sleep. He should have been committed to an asylum, where this could have happened:
After Scalia was sent to the funny farm, he was standing by the fence one day when a driver stopped with a flat tire. The driver started changing the tire, but then he accidentally dropped the lug nuts into the storm sewer. He's standing there trying to figure out what to do, but Scalia says:
"Hey, just take one lug nut off each of the other three wheels, and you can drive to town."
"That's a great idea. What's a smart guy like you doing in the nuthouse?"
"I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid."
Now that I think about it, bad as the joke is (and as many people as it has featured over the years), the punchline could be his epitaph. The tombstone should also mention Bush v Gore and Citizens United (to destroy democracy in America) and some of his other "accomplishments" (for very negative values of accomplish).
Seems to be an invitation to make my pitch again? This is another variation on the ideas presented in several other threads, but...
One of the functional problems of slashdot is how quickly topics go stale. Maybe that is the feature I should put my $15 on? Actually, I am thinking more along the lines of $100/year split into 10 projects for features or continuing costs. (As usual, details available upon polite request. The magic keywords for this one is "dynamic multidimensional topic search in the background".)
However, first a word from our sponsor!
Just joking, no sponsor, but there is a need for some background here. Maybe my premises are mis-focused?
As a wannabe user, I have frequently visited sourceforge over the years. Usually I am looking for specific software to solve some problem, and I often find it. Dead, orphaned, obsolete, fractional, or incomplete. THAT is the problem I want to solve, but I think we have to consider why the projects died, and I wish the new powers-that-be would refer us to some statistics about project death?
I think almost all of the programmers who were driving the sourceforge projects are well intentioned, but somehow fail to live up to their altruism. However, I take the idea pretty broadly. I even think that hoping to strike it rich by creating good software can be a form of altruism... The vow of poverty approach definitely does not work.
Therefore I think that the sincere interest of wannabe users should be assessed BEFORE sourceforge projects get the green light. My suggested form of sincerity would be pledging a $10 charity share towards the budgeted cost of the project. The natural implementation would be for the new owners to set up a 'charity share brokerage' and the wannabe donors would put their donations in a 'charity share account' that can be allocated towards the projects they like. The basic idea would be to prevent orphaned and incomplete projects, or to pick up old projects or ongoing costs on a transparent basis.
I even think the brokerage should earn a commission on the funded projects by providing several important services. (1) Make sure the proposals are complete. (2) Realistic schedule. (3) Acceptable budget (possible effected by competition from competing proposals for similar projects). (4) Testing and other easy-to-forget items are included. (5) SUCCESS CRITERIA. After the project has finished creating the software or otherwise been completed, then they would evaluate the results and the donors know how it came out. (Au, daupr. Keywords "charity shares”.)
Assange's revelations embarrassed the US government and the US military, not "rich people".
You must be new around here. What planet did you come from?
I'm not particularly interested in Assange or those specific documents. I'm intensely interested in why people like you (or the role you are pretending to play, perhaps as a paid shill) want the government to have MORE control what LITTLE you know. They are obviously already doing a sufficiently good job.
Okay, then in that case, it would seem isolating the paragraph should have increased the relative lameness of the comment, but that is not what happened. In isolation, the paragraph did not trigger any complaint.
I think the creators of slashdot were sincere, though I don't yet have any impressions about the intentions or sincerity of the newest owners. However, I also think that slashdot should stop abusing the English language. It has enough problems.
New subject question about how long, the answer is "The google don't care, just like the honey badger." Or you could reword it in terms of the google's new motto: "All your attention are belong to us."
However, the post by OverlordQ that I'm responding to said:
Some sites get ridiculous with that.
No, it is NOT the websites or even the app, though there are things an app developer can do that can make it easier or harder for scammers to use that sort of misleading ad. The REAL problem is that the google don't care about scams or the victims thereof. The only concern of the google is MONEY. These days that is driving them to ever nastier exploitations of our private information, but it does NOT have to be that way.
For example of a possible constructive solution:
Add a "Business model" or "Financials" tab in Google Play. Let the developer explain how the money works, most often by selecting one of the more common options. Then the google would add a secure comment about the evidence.
No, this would not eliminate all scams, but it would let us make better choices AGAINST scammy the business models. Again, details available upon polite request.
Oh yeah and by the way, I've been trying to call the google's attention to these sorts of scams for some years, but it's just one of a LONG list of google-supported scams. With great power the google accepts NO responsibility.
Why did this part of that last reply trigger the so-called lameness filter:
Now about that meta-modding thing. Years since I had noticed it, and it's just as stupid as it ever was. To evaluate the moderation of a comment, to form ANY meaningful opinion about the moderation, I need CONTEXT. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I don't feel like searching in other tabs to see the rest of the thread and the moderation itself is worth the effort, and without the effort, any meta-moderation is worthless. I should have looked for that in the recent discussion of slashdot's future... Make that "possible future".
Now that is truly bizarre. I cut and pasted the last bit into this new comment so I could figure out which word or words were problematic, but in isolation, there is apparently no problem. I think that is sufficient evidence of the importance of context, eh?