Look, I hate to say this because we know for certain that the CIA has done some very bad things which should indeed result in convictions of that nature. But this particular woman was accused, not convicted. So while we know that something bad happened, continuing to hold this woman accountable for that is unjust.
Demonizing her and assuming her guilt, despite a lengthy investigation which turned up nothing prosecutable, is no better than those people who continue to pillory Hillary Clinton, despite a lengthy investigation (multiple investigations) which turned up nothing prosecutable.
Well it's certainly a reason to not use MoviePass... Which is what, exactly? Never mind, I'll just look that up... Apparently it's a company which used to offer an interesting subscription-based ticketing system for movie theaters, until it was purchased by an analytics firm.They still sell subsciption-based movie tickets, but now their primary product is user data.
I guess this is a typical business model nowadays...
I may be late to the party, but I've only just recently learned about White Day - a holiday by and for Japanese confectionery companies, which occurs one month after Valentine's Day. Then idea is that girls should give boys chocolate on Valentine's Day, and boys should give girls reciprocal white chocolate (or marshmallows) one month later on White Day.
In other words, it's a cynical manufactured holiday intended to sell candy, built on top of another cynical manufactured holiday intended to sell greeting cards. Apparently it got so popular in Japan that it has now spread to quite a few other Asian countries.
This is my submission for "most manufactured" holiday.
That is not a contradictory statement, though it's not impossible that he's a true believer even without compensation. There are a decent number of people here on Slashdot parroting the various talking points about the evils of regulation and regulatory bodies, and I can't believe that all of them are telco shills. This kind of crap is effective because people genuinely buy into it.
He's just using the term "strong encryption" in a non-technical way - he's using strong in a subjective sense. He means "sort of strong-ish." If you just leave out that part of what he said then there's nothing weird about his comment.
Also, calling the director of the FBI an "FBI mouthpiece" is not really what the word mouthpiece is intended to convey.
Rather than ditching Android you could always just use one of the many firewall options. AFWall+, for example, is open source and lets me deny network access on a per-application basis. It also lets me allow access only through a VPN, which accomplishes part of what you're talking about. It doesn't allow spoofing your location through location services, only through IP geolocation via VPN, but... you can always just turn off location services and use a more trusted program for maps if you need it. (Admittedly, I never use maps so this is something that I don't care about.)
It would take more than that, I assume. The whole point of using a DDoS attack, instead of DoS, is that you're making your attack from many vectors. If there's only a small number of misbehaving servers than those can just be blocked.
The article doesn't say anything about their degree of partisanship, they could be moderates or extremists, it only talks about the conspiracy theories that they were promoting. If some of them were moderates, you should see that as a good sign - it shows that they were not banned for their politics, but rather for their deception.
As many people in this thread have already said, the word "trafficking" just means selling something illegal. "Drug trafficking" is selling illegal drugs, "sex trafficking" is selling sex in those places where selling sex is illegal (most of the United States). In other words, it's prostitution. In this case they're taking advantage of public confusion over the term in order to come down hard on prostitution in a way that the majority of the public doesn't support.
However, that's already been said elsewhere in this thread. What I'd like to point out is that you are calling for prostitutes to be thrown into a volcano, slowly. I assume that this is hyperbole, you weren't really calling for anyone to be literally tortured to death, and I assume that you didn't realize that you were actually talking about prostitutes rather than human traffickers (slavers). So I'm assuming that you're not so extreme in your viewpoint that you want a relatively minor crime, prostitution, to be punished by tortuous death.
None the less, that is what you just called for....::sigh:: I guess I just wanted to point that out.
Why the hell are they allowing obviously untrained people the power to wipe out entire channels on a whim?
No one said "on a whim" but, from the summary, there are more than 10,000 people newly assigned to moderate. Are you seriously expecting them to all be experts who never make mistakes? Since the videos/channels were reinstated, it looks like they've implemented some sort of review or appeals process. This is an improvement over how things used to be.
It doesn't even sound like much of a mistake, the article says that the mentioned channels were pretty much all conspiracy theorist / fake news people. It's just a couple of videos that Youtube reinstated.
It really just takes a natural disaster. Negligence happens on an ongoing basis, and is a particular problem with nuclear plants due to their enormous up-front cost.
Also, for the NIMBY thing... Yucca Mountain is as much "in the middle of nowhere" as you can practically be, and it still has NIMBYs and they have been very successful in preventing its use. Also #2) if you read the article, one of the given reasons for needed non-renewable power sources is the lack of ability to transport power over long distances at low cost. If we could do that then we wouldn't need the nuke plant in the first place.
You keep trying to sidestep the actual argument that they made. This here:
Pointing out the very real differences between sexes cannot be considered bullshit stereotyping.
is irrelevant. They didn't say, "We don't like the truth and want to silence it." That was not part of their claim, you have refuted nothing. If you wanted to refute what they actually said, you would need to show that what Damore wrote wasn't bullshit. And you would need would need to do a much better job of that than he did.
Go write a paper that's actually subject to peer-review, instead of complaining in a forum where most people don't have the expertise to correct you.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. The Labor Board said nothing about whether biological differences existed, or why we have two sexes, etc. l mean, clearly you're trying to use hyperbole to dismiss them, I do understand that, but what you're talking about isn't what they were talking about. They were talking about using pseudo-scientific bullshit to justify stereotyping, they were not talking about actual differences between men and women.
This isn't true, you can be genuinely depressed as a result of your circumstances or shitty life. A chronically depressed person can't overcome their depression by changing their circumstances, but that's the only difference in symptoms - circumstantial depression is still real depression, and it can be just as bad.
Is there a mistake in the title, or are we doing the same annoying thing with bitcoins that we do with legos? I'm going to assume that it's a mistake, since the summary says "bitcoins" in multiple places.
The common lay discussion--where people cry about PACs in general and demand only small-donors to candidates--is both unstructured and terrifying, because it implies both that nobody should be allowed to speak about anything politics-related except candidates and that the only thing PACs do is donate enormous sums to candidates.
I'm not sure that it implies what you're suggesting. First of all, I don't think they're talking about PACs in general. I'm probably projecting, but I think that just as I was talking about super PACs, they are also talking about super PACs. I imagine this to be true even if they don't know the difference between the two; I make this assumption because regular PACs just don't matter anymore and they're not widely discussed. As you said earlier, "A lot of people don't understand what a PAC is and think it means big corporate money buying politicians." That's a super PAC.
Also, eliminating PACs doesn't mean prohibiting speech or advocacy by non-candidates, even if we're limiting our definition of "speech" to "spending money." If we look at how McCain-Feingold did it, it did not prohibit all political advertisements in the sixty days prior to an election, it only prohibited those which clearly identified a candidate. Meaning that, if we wished to follow that model, we could in principle have organizations which limited themselves to promoting ideals (these are not PACs), and candidates who competed over who would be best at implementing those ideals. This is no different from the competitive system that we follow in our courts: the two sides make their case and then a decision is made based on their arguments, and not on whatever the audience is yelling.
Or, you know, it could instead imply that people just don't believe political spending should qualify as speech. That's another possibility. I don't find that so terrifying, but it does leave open the question of what, exactly, speech is.
You touch on this, where you criticize the dissenting opinion to the Citizen's United decision. I haven't read it, maybe I should, but where you say that it's everyone recognizing a problem but no one offering a solution - this question of what speech is, without providing a specific answer, is what I'm imagining you're talking about. When faced with a tough question like this I find that it usually helps to reframe it: Instead of asking what speech is, we can ask what speech isn't. In other words I can say confidently that while I don't know every way in which political speech can be expressed, I do know that spending money isn't (or shouldn't be) a part of it. I think this for the same reason that I I'm against giving rich people more votes than other people - it is contrary to the democratic principle and, more importantly, it is ultimately destabilizing.
I will anticipate a couple possible criticisms that you may have of this approach: "What about TV personalities?" you might ask. "They have more speech than other people, should we limit them as well? Or news anchors? Now we're not just talking about speech, we're also talking about freedom of the press."
To which I respond: "Laws are never as complete as we'd like them to be, it's enough to address this issue to say that money is not speech. This means that we have more to deal with in the future, that the definition of speech is not and never will be fully settled, but even if we don't fully achieve an ideal in a single step we can recognize when a change represents a move in the right direction. We can recognize that the Citizen's United decision has had a detrimental impact, and act to reverse it, without necessitating any discussion of ideals."
I don't know much about the amendment proposals. I've seen a few, and didn't recognize any big problems with any of them, and that's all. I have nothing to contribute there.
Yes of course those were separate contracts. What the hell? Is that your counter argument? Pointing out obvious and irrelevant trivialities?
All right all right, I'll adapt the parent's claim just for you: "The research conducted for the dossier was initiated and paid for by Republicans as part of their opposition research." Really though, you should be able to figure this stuff out for yourself.
Maybe instead of reading his court filing, in which he attempts to depict himself in the best possible light, you should read the National Labor Relations Board evaluation of his case. They point out that not only did he, himself, share the memo on two separate company forums, but in their opinion he "reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace."
They also make much ado about the fact that he wasn't fired for offering suggestions about how the workplace could be improved, only for his "use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences" "notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with 'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding 'not all women' disclaimers."
Okay, well this concept of a PAC is a discussion that I can work with anyway. It's not wrong, PACs certainly are a way to bring people of similar interests together, it's just that this is their least important quality. Let's be clear though, we're not talking about regular PACs, we're talking about super PACs. Regular PACs have been around for seventy years have nothing to do with the Institute for Justice or their suit, and nothing to do with Citizen's United or the resulting changes in campaign finance. Regular PACs are still around, it's just that they're limited to accepting $5,000 from any individual donor so nobody cares about them anymore. You could perhaps make the argument that regular PACs have some role in bringing people together, but... they're still mostly about money. And anyway, they just don't matter.
So I just wanted to clarify that: at no point in this conversation have I been talking about regular PACs.
Does that change the argument at all? Super PACs are one of the results of Citizen's United and exist solely to increase the influence of people and corporations with more than $5,000 to donate. So the Mayday PAC, for example, is a super PAC which exists to undo Citizen's United and thus eliminate itself.
Slashdot Mirror
One bitcoin should be worth a few trillion dollars by then.
This is a certainty. Hodl.
Whoops, I think I replied to the wrong person there. Sorry. Yes, there's nothing strong about destroying evidence.
Look, I hate to say this because we know for certain that the CIA has done some very bad things which should indeed result in convictions of that nature. But this particular woman was accused, not convicted. So while we know that something bad happened, continuing to hold this woman accountable for that is unjust.
Demonizing her and assuming her guilt, despite a lengthy investigation which turned up nothing prosecutable, is no better than those people who continue to pillory Hillary Clinton, despite a lengthy investigation (multiple investigations) which turned up nothing prosecutable.
Well it's certainly a reason to not use MoviePass... Which is what, exactly? Never mind, I'll just look that up... Apparently it's a company which used to offer an interesting subscription-based ticketing system for movie theaters, until it was purchased by an analytics firm.They still sell subsciption-based movie tickets, but now their primary product is user data.
I guess this is a typical business model nowadays...
I may be late to the party, but I've only just recently learned about White Day - a holiday by and for Japanese confectionery companies, which occurs one month after Valentine's Day. Then idea is that girls should give boys chocolate on Valentine's Day, and boys should give girls reciprocal white chocolate (or marshmallows) one month later on White Day.
In other words, it's a cynical manufactured holiday intended to sell candy, built on top of another cynical manufactured holiday intended to sell greeting cards. Apparently it got so popular in Japan that it has now spread to quite a few other Asian countries.
This is my submission for "most manufactured" holiday.
That is not a contradictory statement, though it's not impossible that he's a true believer even without compensation. There are a decent number of people here on Slashdot parroting the various talking points about the evils of regulation and regulatory bodies, and I can't believe that all of them are telco shills. This kind of crap is effective because people genuinely buy into it.
Whatever happened to those dual-mode e-ink / LCD screens? Would be perfect* for this.
*Not actually perfect, since color e-ink sucks.
He's just using the term "strong encryption" in a non-technical way - he's using strong in a subjective sense. He means "sort of strong-ish." If you just leave out that part of what he said then there's nothing weird about his comment.
Also, calling the director of the FBI an "FBI mouthpiece" is not really what the word mouthpiece is intended to convey.
Rather than ditching Android you could always just use one of the many firewall options. AFWall+, for example, is open source and lets me deny network access on a per-application basis. It also lets me allow access only through a VPN, which accomplishes part of what you're talking about. It doesn't allow spoofing your location through location services, only through IP geolocation via VPN, but... you can always just turn off location services and use a more trusted program for maps if you need it. (Admittedly, I never use maps so this is something that I don't care about.)
It would take more than that, I assume. The whole point of using a DDoS attack, instead of DoS, is that you're making your attack from many vectors. If there's only a small number of misbehaving servers than those can just be blocked.
The article doesn't say anything about their degree of partisanship, they could be moderates or extremists, it only talks about the conspiracy theories that they were promoting. If some of them were moderates, you should see that as a good sign - it shows that they were not banned for their politics, but rather for their deception.
As many people in this thread have already said, the word "trafficking" just means selling something illegal. "Drug trafficking" is selling illegal drugs, "sex trafficking" is selling sex in those places where selling sex is illegal (most of the United States). In other words, it's prostitution. In this case they're taking advantage of public confusion over the term in order to come down hard on prostitution in a way that the majority of the public doesn't support.
... ::sigh:: I guess I just wanted to point that out.
However, that's already been said elsewhere in this thread. What I'd like to point out is that you are calling for prostitutes to be thrown into a volcano, slowly. I assume that this is hyperbole, you weren't really calling for anyone to be literally tortured to death, and I assume that you didn't realize that you were actually talking about prostitutes rather than human traffickers (slavers). So I'm assuming that you're not so extreme in your viewpoint that you want a relatively minor crime, prostitution, to be punished by tortuous death.
None the less, that is what you just called for.
Why the hell are they allowing obviously untrained people the power to wipe out entire channels on a whim?
No one said "on a whim" but, from the summary, there are more than 10,000 people newly assigned to moderate. Are you seriously expecting them to all be experts who never make mistakes? Since the videos/channels were reinstated, it looks like they've implemented some sort of review or appeals process. This is an improvement over how things used to be.
It doesn't even sound like much of a mistake, the article says that the mentioned channels were pretty much all conspiracy theorist / fake news people. It's just a couple of videos that Youtube reinstated.
It really just takes a natural disaster. Negligence happens on an ongoing basis, and is a particular problem with nuclear plants due to their enormous up-front cost.
Also, for the NIMBY thing... Yucca Mountain is as much "in the middle of nowhere" as you can practically be, and it still has NIMBYs and they have been very successful in preventing its use. Also #2) if you read the article, one of the given reasons for needed non-renewable power sources is the lack of ability to transport power over long distances at low cost. If we could do that then we wouldn't need the nuke plant in the first place.
Pointing out the very real differences between sexes cannot be considered bullshit stereotyping.
is irrelevant. They didn't say, "We don't like the truth and want to silence it." That was not part of their claim, you have refuted nothing. If you wanted to refute what they actually said, you would need to show that what Damore wrote wasn't bullshit. And you would need would need to do a much better job of that than he did.
Go write a paper that's actually subject to peer-review, instead of complaining in a forum where most people don't have the expertise to correct you.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. The Labor Board said nothing about whether biological differences existed, or why we have two sexes, etc. l mean, clearly you're trying to use hyperbole to dismiss them, I do understand that, but what you're talking about isn't what they were talking about. They were talking about using pseudo-scientific bullshit to justify stereotyping, they were not talking about actual differences between men and women.
This isn't true, you can be genuinely depressed as a result of your circumstances or shitty life. A chronically depressed person can't overcome their depression by changing their circumstances, but that's the only difference in symptoms - circumstantial depression is still real depression, and it can be just as bad.
Is there a mistake in the title, or are we doing the same annoying thing with bitcoins that we do with legos? I'm going to assume that it's a mistake, since the summary says "bitcoins" in multiple places.
The common lay discussion--where people cry about PACs in general and demand only small-donors to candidates--is both unstructured and terrifying, because it implies both that nobody should be allowed to speak about anything politics-related except candidates and that the only thing PACs do is donate enormous sums to candidates.
I'm not sure that it implies what you're suggesting. First of all, I don't think they're talking about PACs in general. I'm probably projecting, but I think that just as I was talking about super PACs, they are also talking about super PACs. I imagine this to be true even if they don't know the difference between the two; I make this assumption because regular PACs just don't matter anymore and they're not widely discussed. As you said earlier, "A lot of people don't understand what a PAC is and think it means big corporate money buying politicians." That's a super PAC.
Also, eliminating PACs doesn't mean prohibiting speech or advocacy by non-candidates, even if we're limiting our definition of "speech" to "spending money." If we look at how McCain-Feingold did it, it did not prohibit all political advertisements in the sixty days prior to an election, it only prohibited those which clearly identified a candidate. Meaning that, if we wished to follow that model, we could in principle have organizations which limited themselves to promoting ideals (these are not PACs), and candidates who competed over who would be best at implementing those ideals. This is no different from the competitive system that we follow in our courts: the two sides make their case and then a decision is made based on their arguments, and not on whatever the audience is yelling.
Or, you know, it could instead imply that people just don't believe political spending should qualify as speech. That's another possibility. I don't find that so terrifying, but it does leave open the question of what, exactly, speech is.
You touch on this, where you criticize the dissenting opinion to the Citizen's United decision. I haven't read it, maybe I should, but where you say that it's everyone recognizing a problem but no one offering a solution - this question of what speech is, without providing a specific answer, is what I'm imagining you're talking about. When faced with a tough question like this I find that it usually helps to reframe it: Instead of asking what speech is, we can ask what speech isn't. In other words I can say confidently that while I don't know every way in which political speech can be expressed, I do know that spending money isn't (or shouldn't be) a part of it. I think this for the same reason that I I'm against giving rich people more votes than other people - it is contrary to the democratic principle and, more importantly, it is ultimately destabilizing.
I will anticipate a couple possible criticisms that you may have of this approach: "What about TV personalities?" you might ask. "They have more speech than other people, should we limit them as well? Or news anchors? Now we're not just talking about speech, we're also talking about freedom of the press."
To which I respond: "Laws are never as complete as we'd like them to be, it's enough to address this issue to say that money is not speech. This means that we have more to deal with in the future, that the definition of speech is not and never will be fully settled, but even if we don't fully achieve an ideal in a single step we can recognize when a change represents a move in the right direction. We can recognize that the Citizen's United decision has had a detrimental impact, and act to reverse it, without necessitating any discussion of ideals."
I don't know much about the amendment proposals. I've seen a few, and didn't recognize any big problems with any of them, and that's all. I have nothing to contribute there.
Five Thirty Eight says he has an 80% approval rating among Republicans, it's likely that the people who you know are not representative.
Yes of course those were separate contracts. What the hell? Is that your counter argument? Pointing out obvious and irrelevant trivialities?
All right all right, I'll adapt the parent's claim just for you: "The research conducted for the dossier was initiated and paid for by Republicans as part of their opposition research." Really though, you should be able to figure this stuff out for yourself.
We see what the court will say.
No we won't, Damore dropped his suit in response to the NLRB evaluation.
Maybe instead of reading his court filing, in which he attempts to depict himself in the best possible light, you should read the National Labor Relations Board evaluation of his case. They point out that not only did he, himself, share the memo on two separate company forums, but in their opinion he "reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace."
They also make much ado about the fact that he wasn't fired for offering suggestions about how the workplace could be improved, only for his "use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences" "notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with 'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding 'not all women' disclaimers."
Orwell hated communism, but was a firm supporter of socialism. So... do with that what you will.
Okay, well this concept of a PAC is a discussion that I can work with anyway. It's not wrong, PACs certainly are a way to bring people of similar interests together, it's just that this is their least important quality. Let's be clear though, we're not talking about regular PACs, we're talking about super PACs. Regular PACs have been around for seventy years have nothing to do with the Institute for Justice or their suit, and nothing to do with Citizen's United or the resulting changes in campaign finance. Regular PACs are still around, it's just that they're limited to accepting $5,000 from any individual donor so nobody cares about them anymore. You could perhaps make the argument that regular PACs have some role in bringing people together, but... they're still mostly about money. And anyway, they just don't matter.
So I just wanted to clarify that: at no point in this conversation have I been talking about regular PACs.
Does that change the argument at all? Super PACs are one of the results of Citizen's United and exist solely to increase the influence of people and corporations with more than $5,000 to donate. So the Mayday PAC, for example, is a super PAC which exists to undo Citizen's United and thus eliminate itself.