Wait, "dismiss the evidence"? The evidence shows that the government is more dangerous than the terrorists, hands down. The threat of terrorism involves short, brief, intentionally spectacular, but on the whole, isolated disruption and death. The government, on the other hand, is constant, realistically unchecked, operates behind closed doors, and has a de-facto unlimited budget to accomplish their goals, on top of their track record of abusing their position in ways that qualify as both immoral and inhumane by general and international standards. And they have the ability to create sustained, long-term abuses for years or even decades.
I'm less terrified by the possibility of terrorists than I am of the potential for government to exceed its authority by hiding behind the veil of terrorist threats.
Facebook doesn't seem to understand that, while the "users" are the product and the advertisers/leeches/dataminers are the customers, the "product" has legs that can and will be used when they make it bad enough to leave. SocialFixer, if it did nothing else, kept me on there a bit longer than I otherwise would have stayed. At this point, I pop in briefly to make sure I don't have messages from cousins. While using a fake name and hoping to get banned so I don't have to constantly debate how long before I finally leave.
I view it as a compliment rather than an insult. He seems to be confusing the negative ends of proprietary software development with its biggest problems.
That's where it gets tricky. Your abortion example is about a method used as a solution, as opposed to a problem to be "solved." The problem in this case would be how to handle unwanted or unintentional pregnancy, not abortion itself. To me, it comes down more to each side having certain views on what is effective and what is counterproductive. I think a better example would be reducing gun violence.
Everyone wants to see an end to these senseless shootings, but both sides disagree on what will be effective.
Some people want to outlaw or heavily restrict guns, which some believe would make the shootings less likely by reducing the availability to those who would commit acts, while others believe it leaves potential victims unable to fight back and increase the number of victims when shootings occur.
Others believe that having more people armed is more effective, believing it would deter shootings by making victims more likely to fight back, while opponents of this idea believe it would just make it easier for these mass shootings to happen.
For me, it boils down to the need to not become so entrenched that you cannot look at your position or the opposing position honestly. I consider it vital to pay close attention to whether the effect matches the intent.
I find that most people can agree on what goals we admire and hope for. What they tend to disagree upon, particularly politically, is how to achieve them. When it comes to protecting freedoms and liberties, the goals generally necesitate preventing the government from getting a foot in the door in the first place. Once the government is in, they refuse to get out.
While I appreciate the effort you've put into your attempt to put words in my mouth, I'm going to have to require you to do better than that if you want any questions answered.
Terrorism-related offences. Right. Sort of like how our DHS includes materials in its courses that teach public safety officers that anyone who displays any libertarian symbols or who believes they have civil liberties is a potential terrorist, eh?
It was barely a year ago where I easily dismissed my conspiracy-minded friends saying this stuff. today it makes more sense than any official story I've heard in months.
Between Cameron's insistence upon an approach that sounds an awful lot like a police state and the fact that this attack was "not imminent," you'll have to pardon me for speculating that this is a new episode of the hit sitcom "Security Theatre." After the pilot episode "TSA at the Airport," they've moved through a few seasons of bland, uninspired episodes, followed by their made-for-TV movie "PRISM" and now what appears to have been an action-packed feature film, "These Guys Might Have Roots in the Middle East: Save the Mall!"
I think I'll watch a new series. This one jumped the shark long ago.
That was my first thought upon seeing this. This is a pure violation of HIPAA. If my company did this, we'd be sued into oblivion in no time, provided anyone bothered to read what they signed.
I'm a car person, but when it comes down to it, I'm an old VW guy. And yes, most of the engines actually were component-compatible if not completely swappable between certain models and over a number of years. For VW, there were still minor trim-level changes, but most came with functional ones (kombi vs. campmobile, that sort of thing).
But you're absolutely right. There is no excuse for thousands upon thousands of dollars for extra trim. I actually hate most useless pieces of trim, and they don't put it on there for car people. They put it on there for people who aren't car people, they just want to impress other non-car people with their car. When GM got bailed out and cancelled Hummer, Pontiac, and Saturn (and nearly Saab, before managing to sell them), I was actually surprised when GM stopped at only those marques and continued to dual-brand so many GM/Chevy trucks separately while continuing the Buick line at all.
I'm sick of hearing that just because there are evil people in the world we must all be treated as suspect. There is no difference in how the NSA treats you as a foreigner and us as citizens. Only in how they describe it to the press.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen and amen. You, sir, have a bit of common sense in that head of yours.
Considering LavaBit is intended for the high-priority-needs user, I find it hard to suspect that this is a very large demographic.
How, exactly, is direct taxation fair?
Ironically, you're proving my point by looking at only one argument from only one side.
Wait, "dismiss the evidence"? The evidence shows that the government is more dangerous than the terrorists, hands down. The threat of terrorism involves short, brief, intentionally spectacular, but on the whole, isolated disruption and death. The government, on the other hand, is constant, realistically unchecked, operates behind closed doors, and has a de-facto unlimited budget to accomplish their goals, on top of their track record of abusing their position in ways that qualify as both immoral and inhumane by general and international standards. And they have the ability to create sustained, long-term abuses for years or even decades.
I'm less terrified by the possibility of terrorists than I am of the potential for government to exceed its authority by hiding behind the veil of terrorist threats.
That certainly seems the easiest way to quit.
Facebook doesn't seem to understand that, while the "users" are the product and the advertisers/leeches/dataminers are the customers, the "product" has legs that can and will be used when they make it bad enough to leave. SocialFixer, if it did nothing else, kept me on there a bit longer than I otherwise would have stayed. At this point, I pop in briefly to make sure I don't have messages from cousins. While using a fake name and hoping to get banned so I don't have to constantly debate how long before I finally leave.
I can't endorse your fallacious and unsubstantiated reasoning.
Abortion also isn't the core problem. The core problem is unwanted pregnancies and/or babies. Abortion is just one of the solutions proposed.
I believe we agree on this point.
I view it as a compliment rather than an insult. He seems to be confusing the negative ends of proprietary software development with its biggest problems.
They're the ones with the biggest penises and/or breasts.
That's where it gets tricky. Your abortion example is about a method used as a solution, as opposed to a problem to be "solved." The problem in this case would be how to handle unwanted or unintentional pregnancy, not abortion itself. To me, it comes down more to each side having certain views on what is effective and what is counterproductive. I think a better example would be reducing gun violence.
Everyone wants to see an end to these senseless shootings, but both sides disagree on what will be effective.
Some people want to outlaw or heavily restrict guns, which some believe would make the shootings less likely by reducing the availability to those who would commit acts, while others believe it leaves potential victims unable to fight back and increase the number of victims when shootings occur.
Others believe that having more people armed is more effective, believing it would deter shootings by making victims more likely to fight back, while opponents of this idea believe it would just make it easier for these mass shootings to happen.
For me, it boils down to the need to not become so entrenched that you cannot look at your position or the opposing position honestly. I consider it vital to pay close attention to whether the effect matches the intent.
I find that most people can agree on what goals we admire and hope for. What they tend to disagree upon, particularly politically, is how to achieve them. When it comes to protecting freedoms and liberties, the goals generally necesitate preventing the government from getting a foot in the door in the first place. Once the government is in, they refuse to get out.
Clearly you have more confidence in the veracity of what we are told by governments than I do.
While I appreciate the effort you've put into your attempt to put words in my mouth, I'm going to have to require you to do better than that if you want any questions answered.
Claiming a religion and actually practising it are very different things.
Terrorism-related offences. Right. Sort of like how our DHS includes materials in its courses that teach public safety officers that anyone who displays any libertarian symbols or who believes they have civil liberties is a potential terrorist, eh?
It was barely a year ago where I easily dismissed my conspiracy-minded friends saying this stuff. today it makes more sense than any official story I've heard in months.
Between Cameron's insistence upon an approach that sounds an awful lot like a police state and the fact that this attack was "not imminent," you'll have to pardon me for speculating that this is a new episode of the hit sitcom "Security Theatre." After the pilot episode "TSA at the Airport," they've moved through a few seasons of bland, uninspired episodes, followed by their made-for-TV movie "PRISM" and now what appears to have been an action-packed feature film, "These Guys Might Have Roots in the Middle East: Save the Mall!"
I think I'll watch a new series. This one jumped the shark long ago.
That was my first thought upon seeing this. This is a pure violation of HIPAA. If my company did this, we'd be sued into oblivion in no time, provided anyone bothered to read what they signed.
I'm a car person, but when it comes down to it, I'm an old VW guy. And yes, most of the engines actually were component-compatible if not completely swappable between certain models and over a number of years. For VW, there were still minor trim-level changes, but most came with functional ones (kombi vs. campmobile, that sort of thing).
But you're absolutely right. There is no excuse for thousands upon thousands of dollars for extra trim. I actually hate most useless pieces of trim, and they don't put it on there for car people. They put it on there for people who aren't car people, they just want to impress other non-car people with their car. When GM got bailed out and cancelled Hummer, Pontiac, and Saturn (and nearly Saab, before managing to sell them), I was actually surprised when GM stopped at only those marques and continued to dual-brand so many GM/Chevy trucks separately while continuing the Buick line at all.
I don't think I would give them the benefit of being called police.
"There are rules for policemen." - Tony, Die Hard
I'm sick of hearing that just because there are evil people in the world we must all be treated as suspect. There is no difference in how the NSA treats you as a foreigner and us as citizens. Only in how they describe it to the press.
The ISP changed their policy enough not to get the FCC involved. It's like settling out of court to avoid a patent being invalidated.