I realize how ridiculous it sounds to be turning connections on and off all the time, but that's only until I think about how ridiculous it is that every device is trying to grab my MAC addresses and make a profile on me.
So automate it. I use Locale for my android; I can setup various rules telling it to enable and disable various services based on time, geographical location, etc.
Remember when creating high quality open source software didn't require a Kickstarter campaign?
Uh, yeah. I remember that time. It was yesterday. Or did Linus start a "Linux Kickstarter" when I wasn't looking? The fact that some people who launch projects via Kickstarter choose to license their project under an Open Source licence doesn't mean that every open source project is.
I'm sorry, but I have to tell you: I consider your view of the justice system to be fundamentally wrong and immoral. Your approach leads to abuse of power, corruption, and arbitrary enforcement.
I'm perfectly happy to tell you that I consider your view of the justice system to be the same. The existing system is already riddled with abuse of power, corruption and arbitrary enforcement, and you're apparently quite content with that. Long live the status quo!
We have mechanisms by which people who are legally guilty but morally innocent can be freed: they can be pardoned
If they're politically well-connected enough to pull in the favour you mean; pardons frequently have nothing to do with morality either.
and occasionally there may be jury nullification.
Except that if you mention you're aware of your ability to nullify, you'll be excluded from the jury, and nobody in the judicial system will inform you of that power - of under threat of contempt of court.
The other aspect of the judicial system is the prosecutor - the prosecutor chooses which cases are worth prosecuting. That should include an analysis of the moral dimension of the crime. Of course, it doesn't usually = cases are instead selected for the likelihood of a win, or the political exposure a win will get the prosecutor.
Likewise, a highly public case in which a moral action was being punished by law would, in a system concerned with justice, result in the legislature re-examining the law in question, and either annulling or amending it. Neither of which is going to happen in Assange, Manning or Snowden's cases.
just because you consider somebody morally right, the justice system should simply give him a free pass. That is not the way any justice system should work.
If I'm correct, and that person is morally right, then that's exactly how a justice system should work. Not prosecuting someone who has done nothing morally wrong isn't "giving them a free pass".
You still haven't given any reason what motivation Swedish prosecutors would have for doing so. If I were the Swedish prosecutors, I'd say "great, let the guy rot in his self-imposed imprisonment, saves us money and hassle".
Ideally, they'd be motivated by getting the truth and dispensing justice, but obviously that's not the case, since they haven't even attempted to interview him. They're more concerned with getting him on Swedish soil than finding the facts of the matter.
As it is, you're right, they don't have a motivation. But that's more a condemnation of them than an excuse.
he is a suspect in a rape case in Sweden, and a suspect in an espionage case in the US. There is ample evidence to support these charges, and the laws are valid.
And that's where your mentality is fundamentally flawed. You assume that if it's against the law, it's wrong. At best, law and morality are intersecting sets.
Maybe the laws should be different, but they won't change as long as the guy doesn't face the law.
They've got just as much chance of changing if he does as if he doesn't. Law is made in the legislature, not the judiciary. In any event, it's not a foreign nationals responsibility to offer himself up as sacrifice just so the USA can fix their legal system.
Furthermore, if Assange actually wanted to make a political difference, he'd come out and face the charges in Sweden. Then, if he gets charged in the US, the resulting court case would be enormously important and precedent setting.
Because giving the US an opportunity to make him their whipping boy would be so politically earth-shattering.
I don't know what you're arguing for. "I would be completely overjoyed that people could have a good clue as to my genomic sequences without a warrant." Is that what you're wanting?
How big is that family? You assert that the children of the donor should also give permission. What about grandchildren? What about great-granchildren? Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren?
If I donate my DNA, that also reveals my parents DNA, and therefore my aunts and uncles, cousins, grandparents, great aunts, great uncles, second cousins, great-great-grandparents, etc. It doesn't take too many generations to create a barrier that effectively its impossible to get authorisation to study any human DNA at all.
But which provider will I choose? I still don't trust Google.
Running your own mail system isn't particularly tricky. I've run mine for almost a decade now, off my podunk little ADSL account (I think you USers have trouble with TOS not allowing you to run services - not sure if that's still the case?) I have an MX backup running with no-ip, which collects my mail if my server's down for a spell, so the unreliability of my system's not an issue.
It doesn't really give me any immunity from government actions (they can come take my personal box just as easily, or seize my domain name) but it does mean I'm not going to lose access due to government's attention on some random person who happens to use my provider.
Geography lesson: New Zealand is NOT a state of Australia.
However, we've got provision for you in our constitution, just waiting:P
6..."The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australi
Part of that genome is the genome of every member of the species. Do you really think we should get sign-off on all current and future members of the human race before we can publish a genome?
He should be receiving a Congressional Medal of Honor and a Nobel Peace Prize for having shown the world not just what the US government, but numerous allied governments have been up to, and finally stirring the pot sufficiently
That's the problem with the Nobel Peace Prize, really. It assumes that peace is a good thing. That's not an unreasonable assumption, but sometimes, creating conflict (as Snowden, Manning, Assange, and basically all whistleblowers in history have done) is sometimes more desirable. Peace at all costs eventually becomes a worship of the status quo.
Politicians should sign their platform as a contract and be held criminally liable when they deviate from non-ambiguous promises as soon as they actually are elected.
It's very easy to argue against something when you only read half of it.
The Tea Party had huge successes, while Occupy was effectively suppressed.
The Tea Party had about as much success as Occupy. One was well, you say suppressed, I say ignored until it went away. The other was amalgamated into the political machinery. Net effect of both is effectively nil.
The whole of Europe is pushing austerity instead of bailing out the little guy.
...because they've spend the last few decades bailing out the little guy with money they didn't have.
You say that as if right-wing politics is so much more successful.
No, he says that as if right-wing politics is unsuccessful for different reasons. I agree with what you say about politicians, but politicians these days are neither right-wing or left-wing. They appear to have no particular beliefs, other than that sufficient differentiation is required to get them elected.
The GPs post was about why left-wing popular political pressure fails - because it's too diffuse. In my opinion, right-wing popular political pressure fails because it attempts too much - even if the prospect of a right-wing small government is good in the end, trying to shrink the government to match that ideal as rapidly as the right would like is impossible.
Considering that all Samsung's other competitors have had to pay to use their patent, and Samsung has had to pay to use all the other RAND patents, yes, it's more than a little annoying to see Apple get a free pass for ignoring its licensing requirements all these years, just because it's the president's little love muffin.
Ok, there's no way this could have been written by anyone who didn't have a terminal case of reality distortion field withdrawal symptom:
Apple seems to recognize everything that seemed to elude Microsoft's corporate thinking six years ago: namely, that even the most successful companies need to keep breaking into new categories, and keep innovating, if they want to stay ahead of hungry rivals.
There may be reasons why Apple isn't going to be "the next Microsoft" (whatever that is), but this is most assuredly not one of them. Apple is one of the most narrowly-focussed companies for its size around. It sells, what, a handful of different lines of devices that vary mostly based on screen resolution?
Microsoft has realised that diversifying is necessary, whereas Apple still apparently has not. Sure, Microsoft's has generally sucked at it, but they've been involved in gaming (Xbox, Kinect, game studios), personal devices (Zune, smart phones), peripherals (Keyboards, mice, etc), server software (IIS, MSSQL, etc), and a bunch of other areas, outside their big three of Windows, Office and Exchange.
Whereas Apple is innovatively breaking into new categories because there are rumours they might be making a smart watch (i.e. another iOS device with a different form factor)? Please.
Assange wasn't granted refuge because he was an activist, he was granted refuge because he was a refugee - that is, he was at risk of unjust persecution from a state power. By acknowledging that Sweden may intend to further pass him off to the United States, you're only helping demonstrate the validity of his case.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize how ridiculous it sounds to be turning connections on and off all the time, but that's only until I think about how ridiculous it is that every device is trying to grab my MAC addresses and make a profile on me.
So automate it. I use Locale for my android; I can setup various rules telling it to enable and disable various services based on time, geographical location, etc.
Cut off the seal with a hot knife. When you're done violating someone's confidentiality, stick it back on.
Remember when creating high quality open source software didn't require a Kickstarter campaign?
Uh, yeah. I remember that time. It was yesterday. Or did Linus start a "Linux Kickstarter" when I wasn't looking? The fact that some people who launch projects via Kickstarter choose to license their project under an Open Source licence doesn't mean that every open source project is.
Prophet of doom, much?
I'm sorry, but I have to tell you: I consider your view of the justice system to be fundamentally wrong and immoral. Your approach leads to abuse of power, corruption, and arbitrary enforcement.
I'm perfectly happy to tell you that I consider your view of the justice system to be the same. The existing system is already riddled with abuse of power, corruption and arbitrary enforcement, and you're apparently quite content with that. Long live the status quo!
We have mechanisms by which people who are legally guilty but morally innocent can be freed: they can be pardoned
If they're politically well-connected enough to pull in the favour you mean; pardons frequently have nothing to do with morality either.
and occasionally there may be jury nullification.
Except that if you mention you're aware of your ability to nullify, you'll be excluded from the jury, and nobody in the judicial system will inform you of that power - of under threat of contempt of court.
The other aspect of the judicial system is the prosecutor - the prosecutor chooses which cases are worth prosecuting. That should include an analysis of the moral dimension of the crime. Of course, it doesn't usually = cases are instead selected for the likelihood of a win, or the political exposure a win will get the prosecutor.
Likewise, a highly public case in which a moral action was being punished by law would, in a system concerned with justice, result in the legislature re-examining the law in question, and either annulling or amending it. Neither of which is going to happen in Assange, Manning or Snowden's cases.
Incompetent == less able to actuate their lack of morality or awfulness
just because you consider somebody morally right, the justice system should simply give him a free pass. That is not the way any justice system should work.
If I'm correct, and that person is morally right, then that's exactly how a justice system should work. Not prosecuting someone who has done nothing morally wrong isn't "giving them a free pass".
And you're a hopelessly brainwashed one.
You still haven't given any reason what motivation Swedish prosecutors would have for doing so. If I were the Swedish prosecutors, I'd say "great, let the guy rot in his self-imposed imprisonment, saves us money and hassle".
Ideally, they'd be motivated by getting the truth and dispensing justice, but obviously that's not the case, since they haven't even attempted to interview him. They're more concerned with getting him on Swedish soil than finding the facts of the matter.
As it is, you're right, they don't have a motivation. But that's more a condemnation of them than an excuse.
he is a suspect in a rape case in Sweden, and a suspect in an espionage case in the US. There is ample evidence to support these charges, and the laws are valid.
And that's where your mentality is fundamentally flawed. You assume that if it's against the law, it's wrong. At best, law and morality are intersecting sets.
Maybe the laws should be different, but they won't change as long as the guy doesn't face the law.
They've got just as much chance of changing if he does as if he doesn't. Law is made in the legislature, not the judiciary. In any event, it's not a foreign nationals responsibility to offer himself up as sacrifice just so the USA can fix their legal system.
Furthermore, if Assange actually wanted to make a political difference, he'd come out and face the charges in Sweden. Then, if he gets charged in the US, the resulting court case would be enormously important and precedent setting.
Because giving the US an opportunity to make him their whipping boy would be so politically earth-shattering.
I don't know what you're arguing for. "I would be completely overjoyed that people could have a good clue as to my genomic sequences without a warrant." Is that what you're wanting?
It'll do. I would have settled for apathetic.
How big is that family? You assert that the children of the donor should also give permission. What about grandchildren? What about great-granchildren? Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren?
If I donate my DNA, that also reveals my parents DNA, and therefore my aunts and uncles, cousins, grandparents, great aunts, great uncles, second cousins, great-great-grandparents, etc. It doesn't take too many generations to create a barrier that effectively its impossible to get authorisation to study any human DNA at all.
But which provider will I choose? I still don't trust Google.
Running your own mail system isn't particularly tricky. I've run mine for almost a decade now, off my podunk little ADSL account (I think you USers have trouble with TOS not allowing you to run services - not sure if that's still the case?) I have an MX backup running with no-ip, which collects my mail if my server's down for a spell, so the unreliability of my system's not an issue.
It doesn't really give me any immunity from government actions (they can come take my personal box just as easily, or seize my domain name) but it does mean I'm not going to lose access due to government's attention on some random person who happens to use my provider.
Really depends on what you've seen. A show that's spanned half a century has some good ones and some bad ones.
If you want to check out the best of what the new series can offer, try The Girl in the Fireplace, or Blink.
The clue is in the title. Who ever heard of a "Time Lady"?!
Um, everyone who ever watched season 16?
Geography lesson: New Zealand is NOT a state of Australia.
However, we've got provision for you in our constitution, just waiting :P
6..."The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australi
No, that's for Russia's asylum processing criteria to decide - and hey look, turns out they decided it is unjust!
Part of that genome is the genome of every member of the species. Do you really think we should get sign-off on all current and future members of the human race before we can publish a genome?
He should be receiving a Congressional Medal of Honor and a Nobel Peace Prize for having shown the world not just what the US government, but numerous allied governments have been up to, and finally stirring the pot sufficiently
That's the problem with the Nobel Peace Prize, really. It assumes that peace is a good thing. That's not an unreasonable assumption, but sometimes, creating conflict (as Snowden, Manning, Assange, and basically all whistleblowers in history have done) is sometimes more desirable. Peace at all costs eventually becomes a worship of the status quo.
Politicians should sign their platform as a contract and be held criminally liable when they deviate from non-ambiguous promises as soon as they actually are elected.
It's very easy to argue against something when you only read half of it.
The Tea Party had huge successes, while Occupy was effectively suppressed.
The Tea Party had about as much success as Occupy. One was well, you say suppressed, I say ignored until it went away. The other was amalgamated into the political machinery. Net effect of both is effectively nil.
The whole of Europe is pushing austerity instead of bailing out the little guy.
...because they've spend the last few decades bailing out the little guy with money they didn't have.
You say that as if right-wing politics is so much more successful.
No, he says that as if right-wing politics is unsuccessful for different reasons. I agree with what you say about politicians, but politicians these days are neither right-wing or left-wing. They appear to have no particular beliefs, other than that sufficient differentiation is required to get them elected.
The GPs post was about why left-wing popular political pressure fails - because it's too diffuse. In my opinion, right-wing popular political pressure fails because it attempts too much - even if the prospect of a right-wing small government is good in the end, trying to shrink the government to match that ideal as rapidly as the right would like is impossible.
Considering that all Samsung's other competitors have had to pay to use their patent, and Samsung has had to pay to use all the other RAND patents, yes, it's more than a little annoying to see Apple get a free pass for ignoring its licensing requirements all these years, just because it's the president's little love muffin.
Ok, there's no way this could have been written by anyone who didn't have a terminal case of reality distortion field withdrawal symptom:
Apple seems to recognize everything that seemed to elude Microsoft's corporate thinking six years ago: namely, that even the most successful companies need to keep breaking into new categories, and keep innovating, if they want to stay ahead of hungry rivals.
There may be reasons why Apple isn't going to be "the next Microsoft" (whatever that is), but this is most assuredly not one of them. Apple is one of the most narrowly-focussed companies for its size around. It sells, what, a handful of different lines of devices that vary mostly based on screen resolution?
Microsoft has realised that diversifying is necessary, whereas Apple still apparently has not. Sure, Microsoft's has generally sucked at it, but they've been involved in gaming (Xbox, Kinect, game studios), personal devices (Zune, smart phones), peripherals (Keyboards, mice, etc), server software (IIS, MSSQL, etc), and a bunch of other areas, outside their big three of Windows, Office and Exchange.
Whereas Apple is innovatively breaking into new categories because there are rumours they might be making a smart watch (i.e. another iOS device with a different form factor)? Please.
Assange wasn't granted refuge because he was an activist, he was granted refuge because he was a refugee - that is, he was at risk of unjust persecution from a state power. By acknowledging that Sweden may intend to further pass him off to the United States, you're only helping demonstrate the validity of his case.