Exactly. Democrats are the new Nixons: perpetual war, Nixon's health care plan, mass surveillance beyond Nixon's fantasies. That liberals are not voting for Democrats is called being logical, and not voting against your beliefs.
I'm honestly very interested in openBSD and it is obviously better to have fewer rather than more vulnerabilities. How would a person figure out which parts of openBSD go through the auditing they're famous for? I wouldn't want to be one of those people who installs openBSD and then believes myself invulnerable because of that fact alone -- that is just smug ignorance. So for example, the openBSD website advertises "Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!" How much worse is that figure if I also install Gnome or KDE; xine or mplayer and all the codecs; etc. etc.? Anyway, is there a list of what is and what is not subjected to the openBSD audit process? I can't imagine they have the resources to look at absolutely everything.
So is there a point to using OpenBSD if you install flash? I'm not trolling, I'm curious and open to the fact that there is almost certainly something I haven't considered, but running OpenBSD and then installing flash feels like spending a million bucks on a safe, and then writing the combination code to open it on a sticky note attached to the backside of a painting hung on the wall next to the safe's door.
I finally googled "comma inside quotes not logical" and wouldn't you know it, there are two standards:
American style is to put commas and periods inside quotes (but not colons, semi-colons, question marks, etc.) and British style, also called interestingly enough "logical" style, is to put the punctuation inside the quotes if it existed in the original, but not to if it did not.
Anyway, this was sort of interesting, at least insofar as I am at work and avoiding seriously boring stuff by reading stuff that could be considered interesting in that context:
I'm not the above AC but I still don't understand why punctuation that is not a part of the quote, goes inside the quote. I purposely violate this "all punctuation inside the quote marks" rule because it simply makes no logical sense.
Here are three examples:
1. AC said "The comma goes inside the quotes." 2. AC used the word "comma". 3. AC used the word "comma."
The first is true, the second is true, but #3 is false because the AC did not _end_ his/her sentence on the word "comma" and so including the period (EOL marker) inside the quote marks is completely inaccurate because that is _not_ where AC ended the line. There is no reason to let illogical tradition be the rule and in reality, the rules of English follow usage to a large extent. You can fix this over time by using quotes logically.
Yes, but it is so much easier to just collect that info if it is all done on your own server through an interface you have total control over. It becomes possible, probably not easy, to blend in with the noise of the internet in general through a distributed system.
There is no central server system making user tracking trivial and no central entity who might behave not-evil today, but once they sellout, all bets are off on how users get treated and how that collected data gets used.
Buy focusing on the lack of transaction fees for selling stuff, you are looking solely at the surface and totally missing the underlying structure.
This is the reason why we can't have anything nice. Is because their are too many jerks out there who will use a new technology as a way to do illegal activities!
You're talking about the Feds of course, and their massive violation of the highest law of the land (constitution) and by such, a complete subversion of American values. It's as if the greatest threat to everything America stands for, is the US Federal Government. Or are you talking about people harming nobody except *maybe* themselves by using various substances currently described as illegal in a shifting regulatory framework (e.g., alcohol: legal, illegal, legal; pot: legal, illegal, legal some places)?
Who has actually benefited from ObamaCare? That would be the for-profit private insurance industry to which Obama sold out even while continuing to say he supported the public option.
That's annoying. If we can't prove a piece of software is backdoor free, how can we justify trusting it with important information (medical records, financial records, legal records, secret recipes, etc. etc.)?
Cry me a fucking river. When the Feds started violating the constitution, they lost all legitimacy and became nothing better than thugs. Mere gangbangers. A fetid swamp of pestilent human garbage.
But of course, as their greatest apologist -- and if you aren't getting paid you're a total retard -- they can do no wrong. If the NSA said they needed to eat baby brains to boost their mental ability to crack codes, you'd be donating your sperm to them on an hourly basis. I'm sure it takes little more than a picture of Clapper committing perjury to get you to jiz in your pants.
I used to think like this but I'm not so sure anymore. If we had planetary rule, it might be all rosy and ponies like the Federation of Planets, but it might also (maybe more probably) be corrupt and abusive. With multiple exclusive jurisdictions, at least there are areas to which one can escape (if escape is possible) when things get too bad because there is a border drawn around the corruption and abuse. It's almost certainly true though, that all governments are just institutionalized repositories for the corruptible and abusive elements of society -- like mafias.
It sounds like you are thinking the drawings encourage pedophilia when perhaps, allowing drawings protects real children. There is probably a genetic predisposition or sometimes, organic brain diseases that in most cases, won't be "cured" ( http://articles.latimes.com/20... ). So, if instead we look toward harm reduction, using drawings is a perfect solution because it gives an outlet that harms absolutely nobody and may well serve as an alternative to actually hurting kids for those infected with this disease.
There is a distinction in how you interact with a browser, and the actual content of your searches. Blurring this line is pretty ugly. Apple needs to know stuff like: The user clicked in the search field, typed stuff, and then because of a 60s delay in executing the search, probably couldn't see or understand the search icon, and clearly didn't know to press return (or the phone rang). To get this, Apple doesn't need to know what the person typed. But if that is the claim -- the need to know what is typed -- why not just enable the video camera and microphone too -- that would make it easier to figure out if the person is having problems with the Safari interface, or just answering a text on his phone. I'm guessing people would be sort of grossed out by that, but it fits right in with what you say they need, so why not go total surveillance?
Are you joking? Why not have the local program test the server itself with the usual prefixes for mail servers? Then the local app can try the usual ports for SSL. Then it can tell the user the results. After a failure, it could even say, "hey, that server isn't responding to the usual requests, would you like me to check with Apple to see if there is something special about it and Apple knows that secret sauce?"
Do you want to tell me with a straight face that this interaction could not be programmed into a local application that sends nothing to Apple (except by express request on the user's part)? That this interaction is so amazingly hard, it has to be done remotely on a bank Apple's servers?
In TFA, the author claims he did turn stuff off. Have you run a network sniffer to watch your computer's behavior, or are you trusting that "off" means off.
I think I understand -- you are saying the software operates as designed, so no problems here.
I think what you aren't getting is that the way the software is designed is what ticks off people who care about their privacy.
Seriously, why should mail.app inform apple that I set up an account randomMailHost.com? That the software does leads you to write [closed: behaves correctly]. This is not at all "correct" from many users' points of view -- you should use a phrase that is more factual and uses words with less judgment involved, for example: [closed: behaves as _designed_ (and if you don't like the design, suck it)].
Having read DuckDuckGo's privacy statements, you might decide to switch Safari's default search to DuckDuckGo. If we enter a new search in Safari, we can then search the logged data to see who the search terms are actually sent to.
The logs show that a copy of your Safari searches are still sent to Apple, even when selecting DuckDuckGo as your search provider, and 'Spotlight Suggestions' are disabled in System Preferences > Spotlight.
Or why when setting up an email account does the mail app send the domain name you enter to apple?
I say all this as a person who has been using mac laptops for the last 9 or 10 years. I'm obviously not an apple hater but this seriously makes me question whether I'll buy another one. It's a pretty astounding intrusion demonstrating some rather staggering hubris.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm anti-partisan. We basically have a single monolithic GOP: the Blue GOP favors gay rights and abortion, the Red GOP does not.
Exactly. Democrats are the new Nixons: perpetual war, Nixon's health care plan, mass surveillance beyond Nixon's fantasies. That liberals are not voting for Democrats is called being logical, and not voting against your beliefs.
I'm honestly very interested in openBSD and it is obviously better to have fewer rather than more vulnerabilities. How would a person figure out which parts of openBSD go through the auditing they're famous for? I wouldn't want to be one of those people who installs openBSD and then believes myself invulnerable because of that fact alone -- that is just smug ignorance. So for example, the openBSD website advertises "Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!" How much worse is that figure if I also install Gnome or KDE; xine or mplayer and all the codecs; etc. etc.? Anyway, is there a list of what is and what is not subjected to the openBSD audit process? I can't imagine they have the resources to look at absolutely everything.
So is there a point to using OpenBSD if you install flash? I'm not trolling, I'm curious and open to the fact that there is almost certainly something I haven't considered, but running OpenBSD and then installing flash feels like spending a million bucks on a safe, and then writing the combination code to open it on a sticky note attached to the backside of a painting hung on the wall next to the safe's door.
I finally googled "comma inside quotes not logical" and wouldn't you know it, there are two standards:
American style is to put commas and periods inside quotes (but not colons, semi-colons, question marks, etc.) and British style, also called interestingly enough "logical" style, is to put the punctuation inside the quotes if it existed in the original, but not to if it did not.
Anyway, this was sort of interesting, at least insofar as I am at work and avoiding seriously boring stuff by reading stuff that could be considered interesting in that context:
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
I'm not the above AC but I still don't understand why punctuation that is not a part of the quote, goes inside the quote. I purposely violate this "all punctuation inside the quote marks" rule because it simply makes no logical sense.
Here are three examples:
1. AC said "The comma goes inside the quotes."
2. AC used the word "comma".
3. AC used the word "comma."
The first is true, the second is true, but #3 is false because the AC did not _end_ his/her sentence on the word "comma" and so including the period (EOL marker) inside the quote marks is completely inaccurate because that is _not_ where AC ended the line. There is no reason to let illogical tradition be the rule and in reality, the rules of English follow usage to a large extent. You can fix this over time by using quotes logically.
Yes, but it is so much easier to just collect that info if it is all done on your own server through an interface you have total control over. It becomes possible, probably not easy, to blend in with the noise of the internet in general through a distributed system.
No it is not like craigslist because:
There is no central server system making user tracking trivial and no central entity who might behave not-evil today, but once they sellout, all bets are off on how users get treated and how that collected data gets used.
Buy focusing on the lack of transaction fees for selling stuff, you are looking solely at the surface and totally missing the underlying structure.
You're talking about the Feds of course, and their massive violation of the highest law of the land (constitution) and by such, a complete subversion of American values. It's as if the greatest threat to everything America stands for, is the US Federal Government. Or are you talking about people harming nobody except *maybe* themselves by using various substances currently described as illegal in a shifting regulatory framework (e.g., alcohol: legal, illegal, legal; pot: legal, illegal, legal some places)?
How odd that today's Democrats (*) are perfectly aligned with Nixon on just about every issue conceivable:
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/2...
Who has actually benefited from ObamaCare? That would be the for-profit private insurance industry to which Obama sold out even while continuing to say he supported the public option.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
(*) not to be confused with people who are liberals.
That's annoying. If we can't prove a piece of software is backdoor free, how can we justify trusting it with important information (medical records, financial records, legal records, secret recipes, etc. etc.)?
TL:DR?
One of the more amusing trolls I've read. There's a lot nice subtle and not-so subtle humor in that thing. Well worth the read.
Don't be an idiot. Food is important, even foods that only 99.999% of the population can eat. Secondly: Lactaid.
How very Kim Jong Un of you. Obviously, the civics classes didn't stick and you have no understanding of American values.
Cry me a fucking river. When the Feds started violating the constitution, they lost all legitimacy and became nothing better than thugs. Mere gangbangers. A fetid swamp of pestilent human garbage.
But of course, as their greatest apologist -- and if you aren't getting paid you're a total retard -- they can do no wrong. If the NSA said they needed to eat baby brains to boost their mental ability to crack codes, you'd be donating your sperm to them on an hourly basis. I'm sure it takes little more than a picture of Clapper committing perjury to get you to jiz in your pants.
I used to think like this but I'm not so sure anymore. If we had planetary rule, it might be all rosy and ponies like the Federation of Planets, but it might also (maybe more probably) be corrupt and abusive. With multiple exclusive jurisdictions, at least there are areas to which one can escape (if escape is possible) when things get too bad because there is a border drawn around the corruption and abuse. It's almost certainly true though, that all governments are just institutionalized repositories for the corruptible and abusive elements of society -- like mafias.
Cold Fjord is a Fed or a shill for the Feds, thus, he doesn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution.
Sorry about that. If I responded in a civil manner to you, it was because I didn't look at who I was responding to.
Asshole.
What makes you think Cold Fjord is for small government? He's the NSA's most prolific /. shill.
It sounds like you are thinking the drawings encourage pedophilia when perhaps, allowing drawings protects real children. There is probably a genetic predisposition or sometimes, organic brain diseases that in most cases, won't be "cured" ( http://articles.latimes.com/20... ). So, if instead we look toward harm reduction, using drawings is a perfect solution because it gives an outlet that harms absolutely nobody and may well serve as an alternative to actually hurting kids for those infected with this disease.
There is a distinction in how you interact with a browser, and the actual content of your searches. Blurring this line is pretty ugly. Apple needs to know stuff like: The user clicked in the search field, typed stuff, and then because of a 60s delay in executing the search, probably couldn't see or understand the search icon, and clearly didn't know to press return (or the phone rang). To get this, Apple doesn't need to know what the person typed. But if that is the claim -- the need to know what is typed -- why not just enable the video camera and microphone too -- that would make it easier to figure out if the person is having problems with the Safari interface, or just answering a text on his phone. I'm guessing people would be sort of grossed out by that, but it fits right in with what you say they need, so why not go total surveillance?
Are you joking? Why not have the local program test the server itself with the usual prefixes for mail servers? Then the local app can try the usual ports for SSL. Then it can tell the user the results. After a failure, it could even say, "hey, that server isn't responding to the usual requests, would you like me to check with Apple to see if there is something special about it and Apple knows that secret sauce?"
Do you want to tell me with a straight face that this interaction could not be programmed into a local application that sends nothing to Apple (except by express request on the user's part)? That this interaction is so amazingly hard, it has to be done remotely on a bank Apple's servers?
In TFA, the author claims he did turn stuff off. Have you run a network sniffer to watch your computer's behavior, or are you trusting that "off" means off.
I think I understand -- you are saying the software operates as designed, so no problems here.
I think what you aren't getting is that the way the software is designed is what ticks off people who care about their privacy.
Seriously, why should mail.app inform apple that I set up an account randomMailHost.com? That the software does leads you to write [closed: behaves correctly]. This is not at all "correct" from many users' points of view -- you should use a phrase that is more factual and uses words with less judgment involved, for example: [closed: behaves as _designed_ (and if you don't like the design, suck it)].
From TFA:
Or why when setting up an email account does the mail app send the domain name you enter to apple?
I say all this as a person who has been using mac laptops for the last 9 or 10 years. I'm obviously not an apple hater but this seriously makes me question whether I'll buy another one. It's a pretty astounding intrusion demonstrating some rather staggering hubris.