I personally fail to see how it is some great inconvenience to have telemarketers calling you every so often. Its putting food on someone's table, and is better than them being on welfare.
I despise telemarketers. They call, they yap-yap-yap without even breaking for breath, they offer trinkets to gullible saps who think free-with-order 5-cent watches really do have a value of $59.95, they use subtle tricks to corner people, they lie, they try to make people feel bad, they are assholes.
If you don't mind them, then you don't value yourself highly enough, because your time is more valuable than their shitty job. Saying they are not on welfare being better is a fallacy, because they are still parasites!
He's a former Libertarian candidate for President, and reflexively votes against anything that expands government regulation.
This context is important, because this means he very well could be a keeper (the value of having a Constitional defender in Congress shouldn't be underestimated, even if he is annoying).
I'm looking for some realistic and practical solutions...
Well, a little over 200 years ago in the USA a group of guys got together and developed a few rules that allowed a lot of privacy. However, those rules also had extension clauses, meaning freedom to live free from fear of tyranny also means having the freedom to put a bullet in one's own foot. Well, our feet are starting to get a bit heavy, now, from all the lead.
It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
I don't know, they'll probably just create ID cards that cannot be degaussed. What about a card whose entire surface is a hologram, where any portion of the card is as valid as the whole. You'd have to vaporise such a card to bypass it, which means you'd just have to go get a new card.
once pro-privacy representatives start winning elections
So, uh, who do we vote for?!? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are pro-privacy. I'd love to hear someone make a case for either party, because I'll come right back with either "war on terrorism" or "national healthcare" or "income tax". Citizens are giving up privacy by the bushel by voting for these parties.
Further, the consequence of this could be having systems like TIA declared illegal such that they couldn't even be constructed. This could be a case of the Supreme Court trumping Congress and the President, right? Or am I naive?
Wasn't the Second Amendment written for the purpose of allowing the People to protect themselves and, if absolutely necessary as a last resort, overthrow a tyrannical government? Doesn't, then, the Second Amendment demand privacy, which only reinforces arguments for privacy based on the other amendments?
Would there be a way to argue that these domestic spying systems, at least in the USA, are actually illegal in light of the Constitution?
This could prevent any government system from keeping persistent records tying people to times and places (like tollway transponders, subway cards, camera tapes, etc.)
Think about how well routes could be planned if the Dept of Transportation had extensive data on the public's use of transportation around the city.
You do know this can be done without violating privacy, right? It's called aggregate statisics. For example, a person (whose identity is truly irrelevant) gets on a point A and gets off at point B, and the system records that fact. The fact that it was Mr. Smith, with a family of four kids, one of whom was picked up for underage drinking last Thursday, is not important for the sake of traffic planning.
What's the big deal unless you're going to kill someone, and you're worried that they'll track your movements...
The big deal is that the database could become a witness in a jury trial, and it could be up to you to prove the inaccuracy of the data, if it were modified by a public official to incriminate you (sort of like a digital version of a cop planing pot on someone before arresting them--it's you against the cop, buddy).
Dunno about Solaris, but I imagine it's pretty scalable as well.
Sun advertises near-linear scaling, which seems limited mainly by how large a box Sun is willing to construct. Perhaps the UltraSPARC IV will allow 212 CPUs in the Sun Fire 15K (just don't ask me to pay the power bill for a 1696-CPU cluster!).
No, they both are. Any highly automated process can have errors that are exploitable on a very large scale. No matter how good a voting machine appears to be, there have to be transparent and sufficient checks and balenes to ensure some integrity. Right now, the technology is so immature that integrity is non-existent.
But what about all the companies that sell voting machinery?
Fuck them and hang them out to dry. Voting is among the most fundamental aspects of our country. There really should be no reason for even debating this. IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS!
But as for voting, I don't think there's a lot that can be done.
1) Vote for a canidate who is not a Republican or a Democrat.
To this end, there would probably be a lot of good done if third parties could find enough common ground to run a "unified" canidate. I know it would be really hard for the Libertarians and the Greens, for example, to agree on details, but the general theme behind these parties is reining in the government. Let the debates over universal healthcare, tarriffs, and corporate taxation occur later; just get someone else into office.
Because the voting public has already refused to use their democratic rights inherent in the Constitutional system to prevent it from becoming this broken.
Yet they will not hesitate to spend $8 to see a space movie by George Lucas. The irony, here, is thicker than molasses at the south pole in winter and just as sickening to eat undiluted.
Big Brother (not the crappy TV show) is a much more subtle--but much more powerful--thug that will ensure the outcome of future elections: "Our data shows Canidate Smith made donations to a suspected terrorist charity on June 15, 2014. Do you want a canidate who might be a terrorist?"
This is even worse than calling him a "commie faggot bastard" in the subconsciousnesses of the public.
At least two people will be fairly represented. None of the rest of us though.
How is this any different than the last 100 years?
We've got the Democraps and the Repugnicans, and all is well. If sages like Britney Spears tell us to trust in our president, why should we ask questions? We have to have faith in the the massive power a federal government wields over the people! Only they are so wise to guide each of us in our daily tasks. It is great that there are millions of laws to provide clarity and reason behind our chaotic and aimless lives! Our compassionate administration will only make things better! Don't you see?!?!
(I really like how polarized many people get about corrupt and insatiable corporations, when their beloved government-based social justice system is absolutely no better)
Corporations are evil in a small way touching theirm employees and customers; government is evil in a big all-encompassing touching-every-citizen's life way.
I'd rather tell a corporation to piss off than the federal government. At least the corporation won't throw me in prison for several years for my insolence.
So the problem, as I see it, is that the US government has some severe, indemic, structual problems relating to IT policy which makes citizen privacy, national security, and proprietary knowledge at risk.
So, instead of at least using different systems that implement standard communication methods, they choose Microsoft's lock-em-up-and-fuck-em software for their infrastructure "upgrade".
These people really are morons, but they are too moronic to realize it. This is really sad.
There are downsides as well: tougher administration, increased chance that any particular vulnerability will be present in your organization, etc.
These really are irrelevant. Which would you rather have: fighting small grass fires from an occastional camper snafu, or fighting a fire that is consuming every forest on a continent?
Diversity is good (following the "moderation in all things" philosophy). Also, you can now have an organization that can use each platform to their advantages. If you have a particular type of application that can be vectorized...go ask Betty Sue Sally Jean to use her G5 (and since it's UNIX, you can just telnet/SSH on in without throwing her out of her chair).
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, my government went against a bussiness interest for the sake of the people?
It's a pretty trivial business interest. Your government is still corrupt. Sorry.
You're comparing the loss of 500 jobs to 50 million people being inconvenienced.
500 peoples lifetimes pales in comparison to the aggregate "inconvenience" of 50 million people.
May they burn in hell forever
May they burn in hell forever times infinity!
I personally fail to see how it is some great inconvenience to have telemarketers calling you every so often. Its putting food on someone's table, and is better than them being on welfare.
I despise telemarketers. They call, they yap-yap-yap without even breaking for breath, they offer trinkets to gullible saps who think free-with-order 5-cent watches really do have a value of $59.95, they use subtle tricks to corner people, they lie, they try to make people feel bad, they are assholes.
If you don't mind them, then you don't value yourself highly enough, because your time is more valuable than their shitty job. Saying they are not on welfare being better is a fallacy, because they are still parasites!
He's a former Libertarian candidate for President, and reflexively votes against anything that expands government regulation.
This context is important, because this means he very well could be a keeper (the value of having a Constitional defender in Congress shouldn't be underestimated, even if he is annoying).
I'm looking for some realistic and practical solutions...
Well, a little over 200 years ago in the USA a group of guys got together and developed a few rules that allowed a lot of privacy. However, those rules also had extension clauses, meaning freedom to live free from fear of tyranny also means having the freedom to put a bullet in one's own foot. Well, our feet are starting to get a bit heavy, now, from all the lead.
It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
I don't know, they'll probably just create ID cards that cannot be degaussed. What about a card whose entire surface is a hologram, where any portion of the card is as valid as the whole. You'd have to vaporise such a card to bypass it, which means you'd just have to go get a new card.
I.e., perhaps the card itself is the issue.
once pro-privacy representatives start winning elections
So, uh, who do we vote for?!? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are pro-privacy. I'd love to hear someone make a case for either party, because I'll come right back with either "war on terrorism" or "national healthcare" or "income tax". Citizens are giving up privacy by the bushel by voting for these parties.
Further, the consequence of this could be having systems like TIA declared illegal such that they couldn't even be constructed. This could be a case of the Supreme Court trumping Congress and the President, right? Or am I naive?
Wasn't the Second Amendment written for the purpose of allowing the People to protect themselves and, if absolutely necessary as a last resort, overthrow a tyrannical government? Doesn't, then, the Second Amendment demand privacy, which only reinforces arguments for privacy based on the other amendments?
Would there be a way to argue that these domestic spying systems, at least in the USA, are actually illegal in light of the Constitution?
This could prevent any government system from keeping persistent records tying people to times and places (like tollway transponders, subway cards, camera tapes, etc.)
Think about how well routes could be planned if the Dept of Transportation had extensive data on the public's use of transportation around the city.
You do know this can be done without violating privacy, right? It's called aggregate statisics. For example, a person (whose identity is truly irrelevant) gets on a point A and gets off at point B, and the system records that fact. The fact that it was Mr. Smith, with a family of four kids, one of whom was picked up for underage drinking last Thursday, is not important for the sake of traffic planning.
What's the big deal unless you're going to kill someone, and you're worried that they'll track your movements...
The big deal is that the database could become a witness in a jury trial, and it could be up to you to prove the inaccuracy of the data, if it were modified by a public official to incriminate you (sort of like a digital version of a cop planing pot on someone before arresting them--it's you against the cop, buddy).
I've got nothing against Linux improving at SMP in essence, but there is something very bad going on here it seems to me.
I don't understand...scalability to hundreds of CPUs will provide much penis enhancement for geeks everywhere (even the ladies).
Dunno about Solaris, but I imagine it's pretty scalable as well.
Sun advertises near-linear scaling, which seems limited mainly by how large a box Sun is willing to construct. Perhaps the UltraSPARC IV will allow 212 CPUs in the Sun Fire 15K (just don't ask me to pay the power bill for a 1696-CPU cluster!).
Machine voting isn't the problem, Diebold is.
No, they both are. Any highly automated process can have errors that are exploitable on a very large scale. No matter how good a voting machine appears to be, there have to be transparent and sufficient checks and balenes to ensure some integrity. Right now, the technology is so immature that integrity is non-existent.
But what about all the companies that sell voting machinery?
Fuck them and hang them out to dry. Voting is among the most fundamental aspects of our country. There really should be no reason for even debating this. IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS!
But as for voting, I don't think there's a lot that can be done.
1) Vote for a canidate who is not a Republican or a Democrat.
To this end, there would probably be a lot of good done if third parties could find enough common ground to run a "unified" canidate. I know it would be really hard for the Libertarians and the Greens, for example, to agree on details, but the general theme behind these parties is reining in the government. Let the debates over universal healthcare, tarriffs, and corporate taxation occur later; just get someone else into office.
Because the voting public has already refused to use their democratic rights inherent in the Constitutional system to prevent it from becoming this broken.
Yet they will not hesitate to spend $8 to see a space movie by George Lucas. The irony, here, is thicker than molasses at the south pole in winter and just as sickening to eat undiluted.
armed thugs kept things going smoothly for him
Big Brother (not the crappy TV show) is a much more subtle--but much more powerful--thug that will ensure the outcome of future elections: "Our data shows Canidate Smith made donations to a suspected terrorist charity on June 15, 2014. Do you want a canidate who might be a terrorist?"
This is even worse than calling him a "commie faggot bastard" in the subconsciousnesses of the public.
At least two people will be fairly represented. None of the rest of us though.
How is this any different than the last 100 years?
We've got the Democraps and the Repugnicans, and all is well. If sages like Britney Spears tell us to trust in our president, why should we ask questions? We have to have faith in the the massive power a federal government wields over the people! Only they are so wise to guide each of us in our daily tasks. It is great that there are millions of laws to provide clarity and reason behind our chaotic and aimless lives! Our compassionate administration will only make things better! Don't you see?!?!
(I really like how polarized many people get about corrupt and insatiable corporations, when their beloved government-based social justice system is absolutely no better)
A nice anti-corporate rant.
Corporations are evil in a small way touching theirm employees and customers; government is evil in a big all-encompassing touching-every-citizen's life way.
I'd rather tell a corporation to piss off than the federal government. At least the corporation won't throw me in prison for several years for my insolence.
The systems we install are mission-critical to the companies that buy them (downtime simply isn't tolerated.)
Yet they choose PCs....and Windows...configured in a way that is different than your development environment....
There is a good word for this: "absolutely fucking stupid."
Good day.
Is Windows adoption by itself a danger to national security?
Yes. Microsoft's QA is so lax relative to the size of their codebase, Windows really should have the MILSPEC folks shitting in their boots.
So the problem, as I see it, is that the US government has some severe, indemic, structual problems relating to IT policy which makes citizen privacy, national security, and proprietary knowledge at risk.
So, instead of at least using different systems that implement standard communication methods, they choose Microsoft's lock-em-up-and-fuck-em software for their infrastructure "upgrade".
These people really are morons, but they are too moronic to realize it. This is really sad.
There are downsides as well: tougher administration, increased chance that any particular vulnerability will be present in your organization, etc.
These really are irrelevant. Which would you rather have: fighting small grass fires from an occastional camper snafu, or fighting a fire that is consuming every forest on a continent?
Diversity is good (following the "moderation in all things" philosophy). Also, you can now have an organization that can use each platform to their advantages. If you have a particular type of application that can be vectorized...go ask Betty Sue Sally Jean to use her G5 (and since it's UNIX, you can just telnet/SSH on in without throwing her out of her chair).