Modern digital surveillance technology is a kind of space-and-time machine, giving once-fleeting localised events permanence and transporting them around the world for all to see; 'forever'.
My bets guess is that after a period of destroying ourselves with this 'evidence', we will either learn to become more tolerant and fogiving of foibles and stupidity and such behaviour (the utopian version) or double-down (possibly furthered by certain exploitative political interests) and become more like societies of the past with their strict (and hypoctitical) public moralities (the dystopian one).
The Tories are more than happy to sell out everything in the UK to foreign businesses and countries. They're little more than 'lucrative business opportunity arrangers'. (To be fair this applied the the Blairite neoliberals as well).
They portray themselves to the general public as the most patriotic, but they're really only loyal to the rich and the corporations that have the cash to give them nice consultancy fees and board memberships. Even our public services are owned and exploited by foreign corportions as well as the nationalised industries of other countries who take the profits abroad to subsidise their own country's services.
These jokers allowed Cadbury's to be sold off to Kraft (well, their parent company) with "promises" of jobs remaining once the sale went through. Nothing written down; sale went through; it was 'merely an aspiration to keep the uk factory open'.
They don't give a shit. Someone will scratch their back later on. They're happy for the UK to be little more than a client state for foreign businesses.
The idea that businesses should actually train the workforce that they need, such as with apprenticeships, sponsoring employees in education on the job, or whatever, seems to be lost on Spanish businesses, I guess?
"We thought there'd just be the employees we needed out there somewhere. We didn't think we'd have to take responsibility for any of it!" seems to be their take.
I can forsee a world where everyone has an official Facebook/Twitter/social media account and a real one, so you can give access to the official one to scumbag companies like this.
And then shortly thereafter an official one, a dummy real one and then the *real* real one: give them access to the offical one, then the dummy real one (slightly more 'gritty' and believeable) when they say 'oh, we know this is fake, give us the real one'.
What they do to people who say thet don't do social media, I do not know. Straight-up deny service?
Microsoft doesn't care because the legal institutions that supposedly protect users from this kind of misuse of their computing hardware apparently don't care.
I don't think I've heard a peep out of them on this. Not a single quote.
This site depresses me sometimes. Look at this comment getting voted up. I mean, aside from the dodgy analogy housebreaking vs penetration testing (which may be similar or not, depending on the specifics) look at this: "Regardless of his objective, he broke the law." --- as if your intentions can not be an absolute defence - punching someone is illegal; punching someone in self-defence is **not** - but "regardless of his objective" is somehow a valid statement? C'mon.
Score:4, Interesting (at time of writing). Seriously.
And here's another name for them: intolerant moral authoritarians, which I think better reflects the inevitable end-game of their offendedness and demands for the world and its dog to comply with their 'values'.
Yep, that's their modus operandi alright. They want everything in the hands of their party donors and to rule the UK (or what remains of it) as their personal fiefdom.
What gets me is how supine the BBC is. Surely they know the person beating them about the head and body daily is going to kill them as soon as they think they can get away with it? Yet they bow and scrape, acquiesce, and attack the Labour party following Lynton Crosby's agenda to the letter.
George Osborne, the chancellor, apparently wants to take a slice of the Beeb's license fee to prop up the newspaper industry. That'd be the champion of the free market, then, attacking the Beeb which operates on a public service remit by cutting into its revenues and using a bit of corporate socialism to prop up a newspaper industry whose loyalty is to its rich, tax-dodging proprietors and which has little or no interest to fair or balanced reportage (but generally loves the Tories).
Don't even get me started on the NHS. The Conservative party wants all of the post-war (II) settlement gone to be replaced with rampant inequality.
The Conservatine party: taking the Great out of Great Britain and selling it off for pennies on the dollar.
I think the rule the judge is pontificating is that you can cock a snook at religion, but you have to do it against *A* specific religion and you can't have a sense of humour about it. ie. Protestantism is OK.
I'd like to see a theological debate. I think this judge might be severely embarrassed.
The best response is to see this as an attack vector and develop Pastafarianism 2.0
What if you view not taking religious institutions too seriously as a serious religious tennet? (Which I think I could genuinely and sincerely argue, in point of fact)
Well the insteresting dilemma is - is it ok to say you, as a female, don't feel safe being driven by a male, given that some males may pose a threat, while it's genrally thought not ok to say you don't feel safe being driven by a person of a certain race/religion (eg. black/muslim)?
The NSA were (and proabbly still are) snarfing up people's unencrypted sexy webcam Yahoo sessions.
People need end-to-end encryption because of such unwarranted, unjustifiable spying on ordinary citizens by the state - and that's just from the governments who like to portray themselves as the 'good guys' and 'trustworthy'.
Slashdot Mirror
n/t
Modern digital surveillance technology is a kind of space-and-time machine, giving once-fleeting localised events permanence and transporting them around the world for all to see; 'forever'.
My bets guess is that after a period of destroying ourselves with this 'evidence', we will either learn to become more tolerant and fogiving of foibles and stupidity and such behaviour (the utopian version) or double-down (possibly furthered by certain exploitative political interests) and become more like societies of the past with their strict (and hypoctitical) public moralities (the dystopian one).
I thought you said they'd be striking.
The Tories are more than happy to sell out everything in the UK to foreign businesses and countries. They're little more than 'lucrative business opportunity arrangers'. (To be fair this applied the the Blairite neoliberals as well).
They portray themselves to the general public as the most patriotic, but they're really only loyal to the rich and the corporations that have the cash to give them nice consultancy fees and board memberships. Even our public services are owned and exploited by foreign corportions as well as the nationalised industries of other countries who take the profits abroad to subsidise their own country's services.
These jokers allowed Cadbury's to be sold off to Kraft (well, their parent company) with "promises" of jobs remaining once the sale went through. Nothing written down; sale went through; it was 'merely an aspiration to keep the uk factory open'.
They don't give a shit. Someone will scratch their back later on. They're happy for the UK to be little more than a client state for foreign businesses.
China is what the political class of the UK would very much like the country to become, IMO.
A rich, privelliged upper class, rolling in filthy lucre, lording it over an oppressed and uneducated, expendable and exploitable underclass.
I think that's the Conservative party's wet dream. A few of them have actually said as much. In public!
The idea that businesses should actually train the workforce that they need, such as with apprenticeships, sponsoring employees in education on the job, or whatever, seems to be lost on Spanish businesses, I guess?
"We thought there'd just be the employees we needed out there somewhere. We didn't think we'd have to take responsibility for any of it!" seems to be their take.
I can forsee a world where everyone has an official Facebook/Twitter/social media account and a real one, so you can give access to the official one to scumbag companies like this.
And then shortly thereafter an official one, a dummy real one and then the *real* real one: give them access to the offical one, then the dummy real one (slightly more 'gritty' and believeable) when they say 'oh, we know this is fake, give us the real one'.
What they do to people who say thet don't do social media, I do not know. Straight-up deny service?
Badly worded snippet, really. What they mean is the .torrent file, not the size of the actual torrented data to torrent file points to.
The confusing terminology (to someone unfamiliar with the protocol) has been a (minor) problem with torrents from the beginning.
Microsoft doesn't care because the legal institutions that supposedly protect users from this kind of misuse of their computing hardware apparently don't care.
I don't think I've heard a peep out of them on this. Not a single quote.
This site depresses me sometimes. Look at this comment getting voted up. I mean, aside from the dodgy analogy housebreaking vs penetration testing (which may be similar or not, depending on the specifics) look at this: "Regardless of his objective, he broke the law." --- as if your intentions can not be an absolute defence - punching someone is illegal; punching someone in self-defence is **not** - but "regardless of his objective" is somehow a valid statement? C'mon.
Score:4, Interesting (at time of writing). Seriously.
And here's another name for them: intolerant moral authoritarians, which I think better reflects the inevitable end-game of their offendedness and demands for the world and its dog to comply with their 'values'.
>Which makes such evidence inadmissible...
That's what 'parallel construction' is for.
It's probably just a face-saving excuse.
Microsoft, still trying to leverage their monopoly to the detriment of all.
The Bill used to be the only ITV show I watched without fail. Once they butcherd that then killed it ... nothing.
ITV is the purveyor of banal, LCD, mass-market mediocrity, and nothing else. They don't even balance it with a bit high-brow stuff these days.
Yep, that's their modus operandi alright. They want everything in the hands of their party donors and to rule the UK (or what remains of it) as their personal fiefdom.
What gets me is how supine the BBC is. Surely they know the person beating them about the head and body daily is going to kill them as soon as they think they can get away with it? Yet they bow and scrape, acquiesce, and attack the Labour party following Lynton Crosby's agenda to the letter.
George Osborne, the chancellor, apparently wants to take a slice of the Beeb's license fee to prop up the newspaper industry. That'd be the champion of the free market, then, attacking the Beeb which operates on a public service remit by cutting into its revenues and using a bit of corporate socialism to prop up a newspaper industry whose loyalty is to its rich, tax-dodging proprietors and which has little or no interest to fair or balanced reportage (but generally loves the Tories).
Don't even get me started on the NHS. The Conservative party wants all of the post-war (II) settlement gone to be replaced with rampant inequality.
The Conservatine party: taking the Great out of Great Britain and selling it off for pennies on the dollar.
I think the rule the judge is pontificating is that you can cock a snook at religion, but you have to do it against *A* specific religion and you can't have a sense of humour about it. ie. Protestantism is OK.
I'd like to see a theological debate. I think this judge might be severely embarrassed.
The best response is to see this as an attack vector and develop Pastafarianism 2.0
What if you view not taking religious institutions too seriously as a serious religious tennet? (Which I think I could genuinely and sincerely argue, in point of fact)
The difference? Scientology is not taking the piss out of religion, merely it's followers.
I think they just lack an organised mob lawyers.
Seemed to work for Scientology.
Judges are not the pope; they're not infallible.
[DISCLAIMER: this text is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
I don't think anyone's not a scientist as much as Sarah Palin's not one.
Well the insteresting dilemma is - is it ok to say you, as a female, don't feel safe being driven by a male, given that some males may pose a threat, while it's genrally thought not ok to say you don't feel safe being driven by a person of a certain race/religion (eg. black/muslim)?
The NSA were (and proabbly still are) snarfing up people's unencrypted sexy webcam Yahoo sessions.
People need end-to-end encryption because of such unwarranted, unjustifiable spying on ordinary citizens by the state - and that's just from the governments who like to portray themselves as the 'good guys' and 'trustworthy'.
Fuck him, indeed.
Heaven forbid the people who would foist guns on everyone else should be forced to eat their own dogfood.
Hoisted by their own petard. Poetic justice. Chickens coming home to roost. Take your pick.