I can understand colleges and corporations, but why the hell would ISPs block this? I'm sure pornography accounts for a large amount of the bandwidth they sell their customers. Doing this would be shooting themselves in the foot.
If there was a sizable body of such material on the net, you can be people probably would be pushing for that. I mean, you can occasionally find suicide photos, or alleged crime scene photos or some such if frequent particularly sick forums, but the quantity is many orders of magnitude less than porn on the net.
No, it's more like bitching that because a cinema kicks you out when you start making a political speech in the middle of a movie, your free speech is being abridged. You can say whatever you want, but nobody has to provide you with a forum to say it.
Are you complaining because you're not allowed to put your blog on.mil,.gov,.edu? The situation is just the same.
Well, gee, I hope they get the font right next time. And make sure its the same tone of magenta as he uses on his chat program. And get a monitor calibrated to match the settings of his own. In fact, the whole jury should have to dogpile onto his chair in front of his computer, in his house, just so it matches the evidence precisely.
None of which is relevant to what the OP is talking about, which is the data received from insecure Wi-Fi APs, not Google's cookies online. They weren't deliberately listening in, as much as they were listening to everything. You can argue they recorded it, but that's because computer's cannot listen without recording it in some fashion.
They definitely didn't follow people around, they didn't upload them to the web, they didn't analyze the data, and they didn't sell it. They deleted it. Hell, they would have preferred deleting it, instead of handing it over to the government, when they found the data they had and told people about it off their own bat.
Modding someone down does not stop them expressing an opinion. It does not even stop people who want to from viewing that opinion. Modding down is not silencing people, censoring them, or violating their freedom of speech.
"Judaism" may be a religion, but "Jewish" is an ethnic designation. "Jew" and "Jewish" wered used as such before the term Judaism was coined, although the actual religion predates them. "Jew" is used to describe a member of either the ethnos or the religion, and thus there can be some confusion. The confusion is reinforced by the fact that you Judaism itself conflates the concept of religion and ethnos - if you convert to Judaism, you are also adopted into the Jewish ethnos.
Funny, I thought his fellow service members were busy betraying their principles by colluding in the organised rape of children that Manning helped expose.
Yeah, finding out my country was funding that could quite possibly put me "in a bad place emotionally" and lead to a "fit of pique". Of course, I'd probably call it "righteous anger" and "exposing corruption", but spin it however you will. After all, it's easier to call people "drama queens" and "ego maniacs" than it is to actually believe that your saintly government could be involved in corruption.
Bah, "real life" politicians, actors, athletes and other celebrities have been having their comments taken out of context, printed and distributed across the world for years. Even an unlucky joe shmoe could have the same done, if they happen to say the wrong thing and just the wrong time (with the wrong reporter around). The internet just makes public stupidity egalitarian.
Yeah, I'd agree. I wonder what the percentage of people are who divulge "highly personal" info to everyone in the country (and on the web) by allowing their phone number, name and postal address to be listed in the White Pages? Shocking isn't it?
It makes it a stupid method of legislating, from anyone's perspective. You can't really blame the legislators; the system shouldn't allow what they're doing. Trusting the legislators is like "trusting" the end-user when developing a public-fronting web app. It shouldn't be done. In both cases, you need a system that's designed to be run by untrustworthy people.
Not saying it's a bad thing. People just have a habit of thinking that if "the government" pays for it, it's free. If people felt more like the source of government funds was their own pocket, maybe we'd have more responsible government spending.
Which is way capitalism is an economic system, not a government system. Government should be the balancing counter-weight against capitalism. The problem with the US is that your capitalists own your government.
So do government-run services. The cost is just spread out over the entire tax-base. You do realise the money the government spends comes out of your pocket, right?
I believe you are illiterate. Reading the contents of links is even more important than posting them:
"The current LORAN system has been phased out in the United States and Canada. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) and Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) ceased transmitting LORAN-C (and joint CHAYKA) signals in 2010."
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand colleges and corporations, but why the hell would ISPs block this? I'm sure pornography accounts for a large amount of the bandwidth they sell their customers. Doing this would be shooting themselves in the foot.
If there was a sizable body of such material on the net, you can be people probably would be pushing for that. I mean, you can occasionally find suicide photos, or alleged crime scene photos or some such if frequent particularly sick forums, but the quantity is many orders of magnitude less than porn on the net.
No, it's more like bitching that because a cinema kicks you out when you start making a political speech in the middle of a movie, your free speech is being abridged. You can say whatever you want, but nobody has to provide you with a forum to say it.
Are you complaining because you're not allowed to put your blog on .mil, .gov, .edu? The situation is just the same.
If they're allowed on .XXX, their free speech isn't being violated.
Sorry, meant to reply to OP, not you.
Well, gee, I hope they get the font right next time. And make sure its the same tone of magenta as he uses on his chat program. And get a monitor calibrated to match the settings of his own. In fact, the whole jury should have to dogpile onto his chair in front of his computer, in his house, just so it matches the evidence precisely.
None of which is relevant to what the OP is talking about, which is the data received from insecure Wi-Fi APs, not Google's cookies online. They weren't deliberately listening in, as much as they were listening to everything. You can argue they recorded it, but that's because computer's cannot listen without recording it in some fashion.
They definitely didn't follow people around, they didn't upload them to the web, they didn't analyze the data, and they didn't sell it. They deleted it. Hell, they would have preferred deleting it, instead of handing it over to the government, when they found the data they had and told people about it off their own bat.
Modding someone down does not stop them expressing an opinion. It does not even stop people who want to from viewing that opinion. Modding down is not silencing people, censoring them, or violating their freedom of speech.
"Judaism" may be a religion, but "Jewish" is an ethnic designation. "Jew" and "Jewish" wered used as such before the term Judaism was coined, although the actual religion predates them. "Jew" is used to describe a member of either the ethnos or the religion, and thus there can be some confusion. The confusion is reinforced by the fact that you Judaism itself conflates the concept of religion and ethnos - if you convert to Judaism, you are also adopted into the Jewish ethnos.
Because the term "Jew" has been a racial designation far longer than it's been a religious one? Jew => Descendant of Judah.
Funny, I thought his fellow service members were busy betraying their principles by colluding in the organised rape of children that Manning helped expose.
Yeah, finding out my country was funding that could quite possibly put me "in a bad place emotionally" and lead to a "fit of pique". Of course, I'd probably call it "righteous anger" and "exposing corruption", but spin it however you will. After all, it's easier to call people "drama queens" and "ego maniacs" than it is to actually believe that your saintly government could be involved in corruption.
Bah, "real life" politicians, actors, athletes and other celebrities have been having their comments taken out of context, printed and distributed across the world for years. Even an unlucky joe shmoe could have the same done, if they happen to say the wrong thing and just the wrong time (with the wrong reporter around). The internet just makes public stupidity egalitarian.
Privileges can be revoked. They are not something you deserve, they are something granted to you that can be taken away essentially arbitrarily.
Yeah, I'd agree. I wonder what the percentage of people are who divulge "highly personal" info to everyone in the country (and on the web) by allowing their phone number, name and postal address to be listed in the White Pages? Shocking isn't it?
...and everywhere they manage to strongarm into signing their ACTA.
Working around it is easy; don't buy US-run domains.
It makes it a stupid method of legislating, from anyone's perspective. You can't really blame the legislators; the system shouldn't allow what they're doing. Trusting the legislators is like "trusting" the end-user when developing a public-fronting web app. It shouldn't be done. In both cases, you need a system that's designed to be run by untrustworthy people.
I don't know what you expected Obama to do, short of declaring himself emperor and ruling by decree.
How about not making election sound-bite promises he doesn't have the authority to implement?
Which doesn't make it any less stupid. Trading favours to get legislation passed is as undemocratic as paying for them outright.
You are
Not saying it's a bad thing. People just have a habit of thinking that if "the government" pays for it, it's free. If people felt more like the source of government funds was their own pocket, maybe we'd have more responsible government spending.
Which is way capitalism is an economic system, not a government system. Government should be the balancing counter-weight against capitalism. The problem with the US is that your capitalists own your government.
So do government-run services. The cost is just spread out over the entire tax-base. You do realise the money the government spends comes out of your pocket, right?
I believe you are illiterate. Reading the contents of links is even more important than posting them:
"The current LORAN system has been phased out in the United States and Canada. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) and Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) ceased transmitting LORAN-C (and joint CHAYKA) signals in 2010."
Who would have thought hacking threading on top of a threadless protocol might not work perfectly? Your problem, not the senders