I've been here for a while and it's my go to site for news or just to f*** around for a minute at work. If this site bites the dust (as in permanently assumes beta), I'll definitely be looking for a new site.
While I generally think of the Dems as the lesser of two evils, I don't really think they're out to help anybody with this. I don't see this situation as good (Net Neutrality) vs. evil (no neutrality). It's political football instead. Net Neutrality will require an even heavier hand from the government in the internet. This may be as undesirable as the corporations' idea of a "level playing field". The Dems' attempt to make it look like they are heroes rings false with me.
Seems like it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, with this situation.
1. Fuck you very much, facialnetwork.com and any other company that wants to deanonymize everyone.
2. Why the sex offender registry for starters? Is facialnetwork.com trying to scare everyone into thinking that the country is overrun by sex offenders? You can piss in an alley (not that that's generally a pleasant thing) and end up on a list with people who have committed violent sexual assaults. To me there is a huge gap in the moral turpitude between the two. The latter of the two examples is probably someone to be weary of, but I don't know if the former is necessarily someone any worse than someone who uses illegal drugs.
While one or two people on the committee were probably lawyers, I don't know if it's really up to them to declare the program illegal. They can give an opinion saying they think it's illegal, but really, it can only be declared illegal, or in other words, struck down, by a court. It'd be nice if the article made that distinction. It leads one to think that this committee has just done all the heavy lifting for the libertarians protesting the NSA's activities.
Since this was a committee appointed by government, the appointees' opinions should carry weight, but like all the other commissions, it can only present findings and recommendations. And besides, Barry is too concerned with our safety to entertain the idea that our civil liberties and laws should take precedence in making policy.
Do you mean something like this? On the one hand, the government blatantly tips its hand about being able to track people and the protestors shouldn't be surprised. On the other, I bet it was still a bit of a shock nonetheless to be one of the people receiving the text, realizing that the govt knows your steps.
Perhaps it would be better to just use walkie talkies and leave the phone somewhere "safe" if one is planning on going to a protest. This way, a mass movement can still be kind of coordinated without revealing participants individual IDs and locations? I realize it's not a perfect solution, but it solves the anonymity conundrum.
Not sure what would be a "safe" place for one's phone, except at home, but that's not gonna help when the cops suspect you're at the protest and bust down your door while you're getting your strike on.
Customer, one month after purchase , "Hi, yeah, for some reason, my door won't unlock. Can you guys do a remote open for me? I'm late for work."
Dealer: "Sorry, Mr. Smith, your door unlock feature was only available for an introductory month. Would you care to renew for the $99.99 / qtr lease at this point?"
The previous story on/. about the low morale at NSA? It's not low enough in my opinion. The employees need to start feelin' shitty enough that they stop doing all this bullshit.
I think the distinction between the two is pretty blurred. I'm too lazy to look, but there have been plenty of stories just on/. about law enforcement agencies that have totally ignored laws and/or acted without regard for morals. I almost think this whole discussion is moot due to this situation.
Science asks questions. It is skeptical. This means being skeptical of authority too. This will make the government nervous. They would probably prefer official "scientists" to a bunch of "hacks". This doesn't mean they are right. The government is great at bureaucracy and officiousness, especially if it means they can then exclude otherwise able people who don't toe the party line.
I was thinking the same. Instantaneous gratification probably played a hand in this. People are getting used thinking everything is a 24/7 operation and there can't ever be a hiccup.
I don't want to work on Thanksgiving or New Year's or any other major holiday and I feel bad for people who have to because there are customers to satisfy. I'm not talking about police or fire department. But does someone really need to go shopping or to see a movie on a holiday?
I'm not sure it will go as smoothly as you think. I think what would probably happen instead is that Google would lobby states (or probably feds, they got enough pull) to pass laws similar to hate crimes, i.e. punch someone wearing Google glass and the prosecutor will throw an additional charge at you specifically intended to punish would-be glassassins. Google can't have a sub-population threatening the cachet of their new shiny.
Let's see, 3 out of 4 of those species were also revived by humans. So it seems to me that you've opened your mouth to put in your foot.
Humans have altered the environment in myriad ways. And attempted to alleviate some of the worse changes. Cats on the other hand? I don't see a defense for letting them seriously threaten, possibly eradicate, several species; not just birds. Amphibians, reptiles, small mammals.
If you don't see my point, look at where the "wanton killing" is happening by reading the paper I linked to. Then if you still don't, go ahead and make another personal attack, since you don't seem capable of much else.
Right now, we pump - oh sorry "inject"- our wastewater from fracking underground. That water contains heavy metals and radioactive components. (Nothing like just making the problem 'go away'.)
Now that these large potential sources are revealed, what's the implications for their purity with that waste being underground also? There is no way to be sure that the wastewater won't find a channel or crack that will let it flow into those reserves.
I don't think those people need to commit suicide. I don't feel any sympathy for them at all if they feel like crap.
However, they could start to redeem themselves in my eyes if they PUBLICLY revealed all the wrong-doing. And made it a point to get our public officials to fix the agency and legal system, i.e. courts, that permitted this b.s. in the first place. That'd be a start.
If these people are as good as all the stories say they are, and I'm not saying they aren't, you have to wonder, and worry a little, where they will end up. Are they just moving over to a former contracting company and doing the same thing? If so, would that really hamper the NSA? It probably means that former NSA employee, now NSA contractor, is doing the same thing, only getting more money. That doesn't really do anything to rein in the NSA's activity via attrition.
I doubt those former employees will leave the field altogether, since they're probably aces in the field. I'm sure they have ND clauses and other restrictions, but that doesn't mean the security apparatus will shrink a whole lot.
There are actual endangered birds that the writers could have used to make the point that turbines might cause some population problems among birds. Whooping Cranes in the Central Flyway (Texas) for example. Or the proposed listing for Red Knot in the Atlantic Flyway (Maryland).
And lots of songbirds migrate at night. I know winds seem to die down at night, but if there is enough of a breeze, especially along a coast, a slow-turning turbine might possibly be quite harmful.
I'm not arguing your bigger point about other sources killing birds. I'm writing more about why worry about eagles, when they're not listed or declining as quickly?
What are they scared of? The few public officials who think what the NSA and other agencies do is illegal are mostly powerless to stop the offending agencies. There sure isn't a huge popular outcry against the offenders.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of politicians who are more than happy to let the NSA run rampant. Take that idiot Mike Rogers (minute 4:20) for example. Or that guy that wanted all that "transparency" and "change". Where is he now? Oh, yeah, he's pushing them on.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how to find it, but there was a thread from several years back where a commenter wrote something like a hockey play-by-play with Jesus as the goalie. I can't do any justice to the thread, but there was something like... 'he gets the glove on it and Jesus saves for the win!' That was probably the best thread I've ever seen on/.
I don't use either of the platforms the project is based on, but I would contribute if I could.
I can understand the concerns of the people who don't support the project because of the involvement of fb, but not those who oppose the NSA invasion, yet don't want to voluntarily give their info. The results could end up being one of the best arguments against the NSA's practices. Further, by volunteering to contribute their data to the project, while opposing the NSA's activities, they augment the position that their information is theirs and shouldn't just be there for the NSA or anyone to just take at any agency's pleasure.
Given the general intelligence level of the average criminal, "utter moron" probably isn't much of a stretch for a lot of the silk road users. Committing crimes in a medium that can conceivably record most, if not all, of your actions is crazy.
Someone will attempt to correct me with a comment about how conniving criminals are, but for the most part, they are dumber than a sack of bricks. Sure there is a genius or two, but even the smart ones can get caught if they keep at it and eventually slip up.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been here for a while and it's my go to site for news or just to f*** around for a minute at work. If this site bites the dust (as in permanently assumes beta), I'll definitely be looking for a new site.
While I generally think of the Dems as the lesser of two evils, I don't really think they're out to help anybody with this. I don't see this situation as good (Net Neutrality) vs. evil (no neutrality). It's political football instead. Net Neutrality will require an even heavier hand from the government in the internet. This may be as undesirable as the corporations' idea of a "level playing field". The Dems' attempt to make it look like they are heroes rings false with me.
Seems like it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, with this situation.
1. Fuck you very much, facialnetwork.com and any other company that wants to deanonymize everyone.
2. Why the sex offender registry for starters? Is facialnetwork.com trying to scare everyone into thinking that the country is overrun by sex offenders? You can piss in an alley (not that that's generally a pleasant thing) and end up on a list with people who have committed violent sexual assaults. To me there is a huge gap in the moral turpitude between the two. The latter of the two examples is probably someone to be weary of, but I don't know if the former is necessarily someone any worse than someone who uses illegal drugs.
The U.S. govt. probably already has had this meeting. The back doors start in the U.S. on July 4th. Happy Independence!
While one or two people on the committee were probably lawyers, I don't know if it's really up to them to declare the program illegal. They can give an opinion saying they think it's illegal, but really, it can only be declared illegal, or in other words, struck down, by a court. It'd be nice if the article made that distinction. It leads one to think that this committee has just done all the heavy lifting for the libertarians protesting the NSA's activities.
Since this was a committee appointed by government, the appointees' opinions should carry weight, but like all the other commissions, it can only present findings and recommendations. And besides, Barry is too concerned with our safety to entertain the idea that our civil liberties and laws should take precedence in making policy.
Do you mean something like this? On the one hand, the government blatantly tips its hand about being able to track people and the protestors shouldn't be surprised. On the other, I bet it was still a bit of a shock nonetheless to be one of the people receiving the text, realizing that the govt knows your steps.
Perhaps it would be better to just use walkie talkies and leave the phone somewhere "safe" if one is planning on going to a protest. This way, a mass movement can still be kind of coordinated without revealing participants individual IDs and locations? I realize it's not a perfect solution, but it solves the anonymity conundrum.
Not sure what would be a "safe" place for one's phone, except at home, but that's not gonna help when the cops suspect you're at the protest and bust down your door while you're getting your strike on.
Customer, one month after purchase , "Hi, yeah, for some reason, my door won't unlock. Can you guys do a remote open for me? I'm late for work."
Dealer: "Sorry, Mr. Smith, your door unlock feature was only available for an introductory month. Would you care to renew for the $99.99 / qtr lease at this point?"
I hope the conference has a good turnout and results in something useful that pisses off the feds.
The previous story on /. about the low morale at NSA? It's not low enough in my opinion. The employees need to start feelin' shitty enough that they stop doing all this bullshit.
I think the distinction between the two is pretty blurred. I'm too lazy to look, but there have been plenty of stories just on /. about law enforcement agencies that have totally ignored laws and/or acted without regard for morals. I almost think this whole discussion is moot due to this situation.
Science asks questions. It is skeptical. This means being skeptical of authority too. This will make the government nervous. They would probably prefer official "scientists" to a bunch of "hacks". This doesn't mean they are right. The government is great at bureaucracy and officiousness, especially if it means they can then exclude otherwise able people who don't toe the party line.
I was thinking the same. Instantaneous gratification probably played a hand in this. People are getting used thinking everything is a 24/7 operation and there can't ever be a hiccup.
I don't want to work on Thanksgiving or New Year's or any other major holiday and I feel bad for people who have to because there are customers to satisfy. I'm not talking about police or fire department. But does someone really need to go shopping or to see a movie on a holiday?
I'm not sure it will go as smoothly as you think. I think what would probably happen instead is that Google would lobby states (or probably feds, they got enough pull) to pass laws similar to hate crimes, i.e. punch someone wearing Google glass and the prosecutor will throw an additional charge at you specifically intended to punish would-be glassassins. Google can't have a sub-population threatening the cachet of their new shiny.
can NOT be comfortable on that thing. Imagine all the little lego impressions on your bum.
Still, that's a pretty nifty project, imho.
Let's see, 3 out of 4 of those species were also revived by humans. So it seems to me that you've opened your mouth to put in your foot.
Humans have altered the environment in myriad ways. And attempted to alleviate some of the worse changes. Cats on the other hand? I don't see a defense for letting them seriously threaten, possibly eradicate, several species; not just birds. Amphibians, reptiles, small mammals.
If you don't see my point, look at where the "wanton killing" is happening by reading the paper I linked to. Then if you still don't, go ahead and make another personal attack, since you don't seem capable of much else.
Right now, we pump - oh sorry "inject"- our wastewater from fracking underground. That water contains heavy metals and radioactive components. (Nothing like just making the problem 'go away'.)
Now that these large potential sources are revealed, what's the implications for their purity with that waste being underground also? There is no way to be sure that the wastewater won't find a channel or crack that will let it flow into those reserves.
I don't think those people need to commit suicide. I don't feel any sympathy for them at all if they feel like crap.
However, they could start to redeem themselves in my eyes if they PUBLICLY revealed all the wrong-doing. And made it a point to get our public officials to fix the agency and legal system, i.e. courts, that permitted this b.s. in the first place. That'd be a start.
I was at an air force base where I saw a bumper sticker that said "I read your email". How is that for power tripping?
If these people are as good as all the stories say they are, and I'm not saying they aren't, you have to wonder, and worry a little, where they will end up. Are they just moving over to a former contracting company and doing the same thing? If so, would that really hamper the NSA? It probably means that former NSA employee, now NSA contractor, is doing the same thing, only getting more money. That doesn't really do anything to rein in the NSA's activity via attrition.
I doubt those former employees will leave the field altogether, since they're probably aces in the field. I'm sure they have ND clauses and other restrictions, but that doesn't mean the security apparatus will shrink a whole lot.
There are actual endangered birds that the writers could have used to make the point that turbines might cause some population problems among birds. Whooping Cranes in the Central Flyway (Texas) for example. Or the proposed listing for Red Knot in the Atlantic Flyway (Maryland).
I'm not aware of any whoopers colliding with a turbine yet. Beside the birds that are listed. there are still several species of birds that are declining.
And lots of songbirds migrate at night. I know winds seem to die down at night, but if there is enough of a breeze, especially along a coast, a slow-turning turbine might possibly be quite harmful.
I'm not arguing your bigger point about other sources killing birds. I'm writing more about why worry about eagles, when they're not listed or declining as quickly?
Cats are an non-native species. The animals native to North America haven't had the time to adapt to predation by cats. And cats have had a huge impact on the bird life on the North American continent. Just because you think it's "an animal" and thus "natural", doesn't mean it actually is.
What are they scared of? The few public officials who think what the NSA and other agencies do is illegal are mostly powerless to stop the offending agencies. There sure isn't a huge popular outcry against the offenders.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of politicians who are more than happy to let the NSA run rampant. Take that idiot Mike Rogers (minute 4:20) for example. Or that guy that wanted all that "transparency" and "change". Where is he now? Oh, yeah, he's pushing them on.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how to find it, but there was a thread from several years back where a commenter wrote something like a hockey play-by-play with Jesus as the goalie. I can't do any justice to the thread, but there was something like ... 'he gets the glove on it and Jesus saves for the win!' That was probably the best thread I've ever seen on /.
I don't use either of the platforms the project is based on, but I would contribute if I could.
I can understand the concerns of the people who don't support the project because of the involvement of fb, but not those who oppose the NSA invasion, yet don't want to voluntarily give their info. The results could end up being one of the best arguments against the NSA's practices. Further, by volunteering to contribute their data to the project, while opposing the NSA's activities, they augment the position that their information is theirs and shouldn't just be there for the NSA or anyone to just take at any agency's pleasure.
Given the general intelligence level of the average criminal, "utter moron" probably isn't much of a stretch for a lot of the silk road users. Committing crimes in a medium that can conceivably record most, if not all, of your actions is crazy.
Someone will attempt to correct me with a comment about how conniving criminals are, but for the most part, they are dumber than a sack of bricks. Sure there is a genius or two, but even the smart ones can get caught if they keep at it and eventually slip up.