Yeah. Seeing a gatekeeper bypass I was expecting, well, you know, something that actually *bypassed* gatekeeper. This in no way shape or form is a bypass.
It *would* be considered a bypass on iOS, but that is because that platform attempts to prevent any unapproved code from executing. That is not a design goal of OS X. Irrelevant.
i have no idea about the program in question, but many moons ago when I was in school there was a "gifted" program that I was disappointed that I did not get into. Although I was not "disadvantaged" in the way most people here are discussing, my father was not the "right kind of person" and when I saw who was admitted into the program it immediately became clear that it was for the *parents* and not the children (who saw little, if any, benefit from being in the program).
Personally I think "gifted" programs are a waste. In the best case they provide opportunity to those who test well for whatever they are testing* but this group will be made up of those who already have ample opportunity. The incremental gain in opportunity will be insignificant.
There will always be opportunity gaps and deficiencies, but for society as a whole it is better to put the resources for such programs into equalizing opportunity. Which means doing the *opposite* of what these programs are designed to do. Instead of selecting those who have had ample opportunity you select for those who lack it. In other words, take the low scoring students rather than the high scoring. Sure, it may be an uphill battle with students whose home life devalues education and may even discourage its pursuit. But that is a battle that is worth fighting.
* and in most cases it is likely not what they think they are testing for
Um, no, your "intellectual" exercise isn't all that interesting. What you suggest is a typical sophomoric exercise and focuses only on details that it "solves" while ignoring the entirety of the problem. In particular you are overlooking the *obvious* fact that if they have a key that can be used to backdoor then anyone who can obtain a copy of the key can use the backdoor.
In other words, you can handwave all you want about "unbreakable" keys and it doesn't matter.
For a more interesting intellectual exercise consider that the US government has apparently decided to co-locate all collected intelligence in the Utah facility (satellite, intercepted Internet, SIGINT, whatever). Now, does that make a nice, juicy target for China? Russia? Israel? (All three of those actively spy on the US, not counting additional players.)
During the cold war a Soviet embassy was constructed in Canada. The Canadians asked British intelligence for assistance. Plans were acquired, analyzed, and the location of equipment deduced. Then data acquisition was built into the building. To be fair, the Soviets played the Canadians and British -- the compromised locations were then not utilized.
But where do you think the storage media for the Utah facility originated from? The controller cards for the media? There is no conceivable way that such a facility could avoid Chinese and Korean parts. Methods of jumping air gaps have been demonstrated, some of which only require control over chips.
Now, how comfortable are you -- given the high level of motivation *any* self-respecting intelligence agency would have in penetrating the facility -- that such data facilities will be the sole purview of US intelligence? Is it even plausible that *any* back door that was going to be built in to devices manufactured in China would not be known to and exploitable by the Chinese? How about them simply building in their own back doors?
100% correct on Star Wars being a space opera. In point of fact, Star Wars was created because George Lucas had been turned down on making a Flash Gordan movie. I found the prequel trilogy to be somewhat more palatable when viewed in that frame. I think the first of the prequel movies at least was really more of what Lucas wanted to do, but that special effects and CGI weren't up for.
Ignorance of the market gets modded insightful? Other than Stratasys buying Makerbot (a single purchase), what leads you to say that Stratasys' business model was "rapid expansion via buyouts"? You should also inform yourself about the value of Stratasys vs Makerbot. Yes, Stratasys paid a lot more for Makerbot than it was worth, but that amount is dwarfed by Stratasys' value. They were not, and are not, anywhere close to the same league.
For the record, Stratasys' strategy has been to sell outdated technology at hyperinflated prices. Buying Makerbot in no way qualifies as rapid expansion, it was only a minor purchase for political reasons. Makerbot had nothing, other than cachet, that Stratasys needed or could use. In fact they have proceeded to "stratays-ize" the Makerbot lineup.
Your comment about technology devaluation may sound nice, but is utterly irrelevant. Stratasys technology has been outdated for a *long* time and has absolutely nothing to do with "acquisitions" or "rapid expansion".
Stratasys problem is that they are having a harder and harder time convincing corporations to pay tens of thousands of dollars (or more) for machines based on twenty year old technology.
so in other words you do not have any other criticisms of the movie.
Just so you know, when you mono-manically focus on a small number of details and handwave that the rest is bad it makes it look like the rest of the movie is accurate and honest. Is that really the impression you want to make?
I don't care enough on the subject to dig for it, but *surely* one of the many posters here who have a crusade against Michael Moore have the energy and will ton find *something* more to criticize.
The much vaunted tumbling effect of the M16 is for the old round and does not necessarily apply to the newer loads (e.g., the SS109). Also, the tumbling isn't that big of a deal (though it does broaden the wound path slightly), but the original round had a thin canelure which resulted in it breaking during the tumble due to stresses and the fragments enabled creation of a larger permanent wound cavity.
However, the tumbling requires some feet of penetration to occur, it doesn't tip on its side as soon as it hits or even within a few inches. If you really want to compare the M16 to the AK47 you can note that (at least some) AK47 loads tumble *twice* (though again it isn't relevant when talking about personal injury due to penetration distance required for the effect). And in both cases the effects are shown by shooting into ordnance gelatin as if human bodies were a homogeneous substance without bones, etc. The reality is a high powered round (e.g., any rifle or carbine) is going to simply punch through the target with the exception of bone and armor. There is no tumbling, no fragmentation, etc. Most hollow points can't expand meaningfully because they are either too low velocity (fired from pistols) or penetrate too quickly (fired from rifles).
There is so much fantasy and folklore with respect to firearms that it isn't funny. Not funny at all. False stories about the stopping power of the M1911 and its.45ACP round. The sad stories fantasizing about the supposed durability and reliability of the AK47. Lack of understanding of physics (people don't understand the terms involved and unknowingly believe in suspension of conservation of energy). Thinking that shooting a water melon is in any way comparable to shooting a person. And on and on and on.
The problem for you is that you think it matters that *you* never cheated on a test or taxes. What matters is if the powers that be *think* everyone has.
For example, if you answer negative to the following:
1) have you ever drunk alcohol 2) have you ever smoked tobacco 3) have you ever smoked marijuana
You are not going to be believed (the fact that the first two are legal above a certain age is irrelevant, it is "well known" that every adult drinks either beer or wine). My own clearance had issues because I was *too* clean. "No one is that good" was the reaction. In the end I got a clearance because no matter how far they dug there was never any dirt. But it didn't mean the agents liked it and the final personal interview was grueling complete with another pseudoscience (neuro-linguistic programming).
(On the flip side, people often think that you have to be clean to get a clearance. On the contrary, mostly you just have to not lie to them about what you have done.)
other than your rather naive notion that a polygraph has anything other than random accuracy, your post is fairly informative. It is common belief that asking your name and such are control questions. They are not.
Another common belief is that a polygraph is used to tell *when* someone is lying. It is not. At the end of the day you answer a lot of questions, which are matched to your physiological responses, and two "experts" review them in order deliver an overall "pass" or "fail". There is no individual scoring, no fine tuning of the grade. You pass or fail, nothing else.
Because the government needs a security blanket and the poly offers that.
When you have intelligence operatives at all levels selling secrets it can get pretty scary. You want some form of certainty that you can trust all of the thousands (tens of thousands at least, if not hundreds of thousands) of operatives. The polygraphy provides a distinct procedure for doing this. It is bureaucratic.
Consider: why does management put things as contractual requirements with no provisions for auditing or enforcement? Many times all they really want is a security blanket that the third party is contractually liable in the event of malfeasance without any concern for enforceability. Its the same thing, really.
When you do a government poly it is independently "read" by two experts. If their findings (which are limited to an overall yes/no assessment) differ then a third expert is brought in and his finding is used. Polys are more about rolling dice to see if you pass or fail than anything else.
For the folks who talk about the stress of taking a poly... I suppose it depends a lot about the circumstances under which the polygraph is being given. I know two people who have fallen asleep during their polys [1]. I've never talked with anyone who was stressed by it. Duped? Sure, its part of the psychology of operating them and some people are suckers.[2]
1) despite portrayal in movies and TV, polygraphs are boring, tedious affairs. You are wired up, told not to move, and occasionally asked questions over a long period of time. Question, response, lag (for the needles to settle out), repeat ad nauseum.
2) to establish the infallibility of the polygraph, operators will use different tricks on their subjects. For example, the operator may ask you to pick a number between one and ten, then slowly go through the numbers, after which the operator tells you the number. There's a natural tension build up as the selected number is approached, followed by release when the number is passed. Its a simple parlor trick.
you kid (I think), but as it so happens I've got mod points (again, seems I have them ost of the time anymore) and so I'm looking more at the moderation of posts. And I've noticed an unhappy amount of this phenomena. Right now I can counter mod (and I do), but it is a problem.
Years ago I had a post modded into oblivion because I pointed out Microsoft's video controller was not the first (Sony's eye toy was the example used). I'm assuming that meta moderation cleared it up because I've always had excellent karma despite the ocassional Troll/disagree.
I'd rather post than mod, and since I bothered started to logging in again I'm getting mod points. That often go unused because I'm posting. Personally, if I've modded in an article and there's a post I disagree with I'll look for a counterpost to mod up. If there isn't I'll decide between posting anonymously or undoing the moderation. I never down mod.
You aren't right though. They do not manually maintain the "No Fly" list, that would be too much effort. They recently admitted that the rules for inclusion are arcane, arbitrary and they can by no means admit to them. Assuredly, anyone who speaks out against the tyrants will be included, for they have adjusted their rules such that it will be inevitable. But there is no personal malice here. No one checked the votes and assigned each party to a "naught" or "nice" outcome.
Nay, the results are objectively determined by secret machinations programmed in the depths of a stygian nightmare. When the bureaucrat calls you forth and summons you to your hidden doom far from the public view it will not be for some sentimental reason, no feeling or emotion on his part. Rather, it will be an entirely sane and rational decision that, for the greater good of the Republic, you be no longer permitted to take part in it.
Its pretty clear that our intel community* ignores the constitution where ever possible and considers all americans to be (at best) one step away from terrorism (especially anyone discussing matters like this). So I'm not really giving them the benefit of any doubt -- just slightly surprised that they act like they had no irons in the fire after going OMG evil! The normal response to any resistance is to double down, but here they seem to have just shrugged their shoulders. "Did he buy it?" asks one, "nah" says the other.
* not to be confused with the individuals that comprise it. It is a mistake to even think that the "average" member reflects the community. That simply isn't how group dynamics work. So just because the community sees the constitution as an annoyance that does not mean a significant number of the individuals do. I say this because it is all too easy to conflate the two, but it should never be forgotten that the community is made of up individuals.
Normally I don't mod AC's up, but this one should be (I even have mod points but I already posted...).
TFS is wrong (why am I surprised) because it clearly states that it is an "exit" node, but TFA is equally clear that it is a *relay* node. Maybe that's why the police/dhs didn't fight this harder, but it doesn't change the fact that they opposed a mere relay node.
FWIW, I think libraries *should* host exit nodes. A very appropriate place for them as they have a long tradition of upholding privacy, including against government incursions. But it is also easier to get an exit node taken down through association with criminal acts. Though the people in TFA have it right: a city doesn't shut down roads simply because some people choose to drive drunk. Or the fact that they are used as escape routes by bank robbers. Or facilitate interstate crime by transporting stolen goods.
Just because a resource can, and is, being used for nefarious purposes is not reason to shut it down. Somewhere well north of 90% of all email is spam or phishing. It may be frustrating, but we don't shut down mail servers.
I'm not suggesting they didn't want the outcome, but they don't seem to have been invested in it. Just like the student in my example would've liked a higher grade, but as he had no case he wasn't going to actually *fight* for it. But see what he could get with minimal effort? Sure.
Maybe as time goes on they'll turn up the heat on Tor. Probably will, unless they can find an effective way to defeat it.
So they really weren't that concerned about having an open tor relay? When they invoked OMG terrorists! children! it was just so the board would make an informed decision? Sorry, but for them to claim no stake in the outcome belies their attempt to shut it down.
Not that their response is bad, it just isn't all that believable. Now, if they had said, "I'm disappointed, but at least they made an informed decision" it would come across like they actually believed in what they told the board. This makes it seem like they are acknowledging the fud didn't work.
It reminds me of a story a prof told me about a student who went in to argue about a grade, unsuccessfully. When the student left a friend in the hall asked, "did he buy it?" and the response was "nah." Just like here, didn't really have anything invested in it, and wasn't perturbed when the story didn't get traction.
"Homeopathic medicine is fucking water, that's it, plain old water."
Except for when it isn't. Actually, IIRC, it would be mostly a light alcohol, but that's being picky. What annoys me about most of the anti-homeopaths is that they conflate homeopathic remedies with homeopathic philosophy. While the philosophy is complete bunk (and I really liked a comment about proponents in office resigning so that their "imprint" would be more potent) the fact of the matter is that the ingredients may well have beneficial properties -- at least if they aren't diluted to nothing.
However, my favorite is Edgar Allen Poe's quip, "The homoeopathists did not give him little enough physic, and what little they did give him he hesitated to take." [http://www.online-literature.com/poe/2199/]
That's right, homeopaths have been disrespected for a *long* time (and deserve it). The folk medicine employed is a separate matter and each "remedy" would have to be evaluated separately.
There is a common misconception about DMCA complaints that they are sworn under penalty of perjury. Like most misconceptions there is an element of truth to it. In this case, it is a matter of the *scope* of what is being attested to under penalty of perjury. Specifically, that the person filing the complaint is in fact a duly authorized agent of the copyright holder for the work that is claimed to being infringed.
This allows the absurdity of filing a complaint for infringement against... oh, I don't know, one of the Star Wars movies... against an image of Mickey Mouse. As long as the filer is, in fact, a duly authorized representative of Disney (current owner of the Star Wars franchise) then the claim is good. There is *no* standard for the claim of infringement.
My "favorite" cases are where someone gets a complaint (or lawsuit) because they gave credit to a person or work as inspiration. Perhaps the most famous one (which was settled privately) was over the twenty six seconds of silence (or whatever length it was). But I've personally seen it as well. The lesson? Never give credit to anyone for anything unless you are paying them a previously agreed on amount. Which is horrible, IMO.
they broke the laws of morality and ethics -- but pretty much everything they did (that I know of anyway) is technically legal according to US law.
I think what GP was referring to with the "pay themselves bonuses" is that the bailout enabled banks to pay high performance bonuses to managers that had contributed to the disaster. That is pretty directly rewarding the unethical scum via government intervention.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Seeing a gatekeeper bypass I was expecting, well, you know, something that actually *bypassed* gatekeeper. This in no way shape or form is a bypass.
It *would* be considered a bypass on iOS, but that is because that platform attempts to prevent any unapproved code from executing. That is not a design goal of OS X. Irrelevant.
i have no idea about the program in question, but many moons ago when I was in school there was a "gifted" program that I was disappointed that I did not get into. Although I was not "disadvantaged" in the way most people here are discussing, my father was not the "right kind of person" and when I saw who was admitted into the program it immediately became clear that it was for the *parents* and not the children (who saw little, if any, benefit from being in the program).
Personally I think "gifted" programs are a waste. In the best case they provide opportunity to those who test well for whatever they are testing* but this group will be made up of those who already have ample opportunity. The incremental gain in opportunity will be insignificant.
There will always be opportunity gaps and deficiencies, but for society as a whole it is better to put the resources for such programs into equalizing opportunity. Which means doing the *opposite* of what these programs are designed to do. Instead of selecting those who have had ample opportunity you select for those who lack it. In other words, take the low scoring students rather than the high scoring. Sure, it may be an uphill battle with students whose home life devalues education and may even discourage its pursuit. But that is a battle that is worth fighting.
* and in most cases it is likely not what they think they are testing for
dang. its a shame I don't have mod points. My rule is always to find posts to mod up, never mod down. But this drivel should be modded down.
go apk! fight the power! you are not alone! (well, yes, you are very very alone in that basement)
Um, no, your "intellectual" exercise isn't all that interesting. What you suggest is a typical sophomoric exercise and focuses only on details that it "solves" while ignoring the entirety of the problem. In particular you are overlooking the *obvious* fact that if they have a key that can be used to backdoor then anyone who can obtain a copy of the key can use the backdoor.
In other words, you can handwave all you want about "unbreakable" keys and it doesn't matter.
For a more interesting intellectual exercise consider that the US government has apparently decided to co-locate all collected intelligence in the Utah facility (satellite, intercepted Internet, SIGINT, whatever). Now, does that make a nice, juicy target for China? Russia? Israel? (All three of those actively spy on the US, not counting additional players.)
During the cold war a Soviet embassy was constructed in Canada. The Canadians asked British intelligence for assistance. Plans were acquired, analyzed, and the location of equipment deduced. Then data acquisition was built into the building. To be fair, the Soviets played the Canadians and British -- the compromised locations were then not utilized.
But where do you think the storage media for the Utah facility originated from? The controller cards for the media? There is no conceivable way that such a facility could avoid Chinese and Korean parts. Methods of jumping air gaps have been demonstrated, some of which only require control over chips.
Now, how comfortable are you -- given the high level of motivation *any* self-respecting intelligence agency would have in penetrating the facility -- that such data facilities will be the sole purview of US intelligence? Is it even plausible that *any* back door that was going to be built in to devices manufactured in China would not be known to and exploitable by the Chinese? How about them simply building in their own back doors?
100% correct on Star Wars being a space opera. In point of fact, Star Wars was created because George Lucas had been turned down on making a Flash Gordan movie. I found the prequel trilogy to be somewhat more palatable when viewed in that frame. I think the first of the prequel movies at least was really more of what Lucas wanted to do, but that special effects and CGI weren't up for.
Ignorance of the market gets modded insightful? Other than Stratasys buying Makerbot (a single purchase), what leads you to say that Stratasys' business model was "rapid expansion via buyouts"? You should also inform yourself about the value of Stratasys vs Makerbot. Yes, Stratasys paid a lot more for Makerbot than it was worth, but that amount is dwarfed by Stratasys' value. They were not, and are not, anywhere close to the same league.
For the record, Stratasys' strategy has been to sell outdated technology at hyperinflated prices. Buying Makerbot in no way qualifies as rapid expansion, it was only a minor purchase for political reasons. Makerbot had nothing, other than cachet, that Stratasys needed or could use. In fact they have proceeded to "stratays-ize" the Makerbot lineup.
Your comment about technology devaluation may sound nice, but is utterly irrelevant. Stratasys technology has been outdated for a *long* time and has absolutely nothing to do with "acquisitions" or "rapid expansion".
Stratasys problem is that they are having a harder and harder time convincing corporations to pay tens of thousands of dollars (or more) for machines based on twenty year old technology.
so in other words you do not have any other criticisms of the movie.
Just so you know, when you mono-manically focus on a small number of details and handwave that the rest is bad it makes it look like the rest of the movie is accurate and honest. Is that really the impression you want to make?
I don't care enough on the subject to dig for it, but *surely* one of the many posters here who have a crusade against Michael Moore have the energy and will ton find *something* more to criticize.
The much vaunted tumbling effect of the M16 is for the old round and does not necessarily apply to the newer loads (e.g., the SS109). Also, the tumbling isn't that big of a deal (though it does broaden the wound path slightly), but the original round had a thin canelure which resulted in it breaking during the tumble due to stresses and the fragments enabled creation of a larger permanent wound cavity.
However, the tumbling requires some feet of penetration to occur, it doesn't tip on its side as soon as it hits or even within a few inches. If you really want to compare the M16 to the AK47 you can note that (at least some) AK47 loads tumble *twice* (though again it isn't relevant when talking about personal injury due to penetration distance required for the effect). And in both cases the effects are shown by shooting into ordnance gelatin as if human bodies were a homogeneous substance without bones, etc. The reality is a high powered round (e.g., any rifle or carbine) is going to simply punch through the target with the exception of bone and armor. There is no tumbling, no fragmentation, etc. Most hollow points can't expand meaningfully because they are either too low velocity (fired from pistols) or penetrate too quickly (fired from rifles).
There is so much fantasy and folklore with respect to firearms that it isn't funny. Not funny at all. False stories about the stopping power of the M1911 and its .45ACP round. The sad stories fantasizing about the supposed durability and reliability of the AK47. Lack of understanding of physics (people don't understand the terms involved and unknowingly believe in suspension of conservation of energy). Thinking that shooting a water melon is in any way comparable to shooting a person. And on and on and on.
The problem for you is that you think it matters that *you* never cheated on a test or taxes. What matters is if the powers that be *think* everyone has.
For example, if you answer negative to the following:
1) have you ever drunk alcohol
2) have you ever smoked tobacco
3) have you ever smoked marijuana
You are not going to be believed (the fact that the first two are legal above a certain age is irrelevant, it is "well known" that every adult drinks either beer or wine). My own clearance had issues because I was *too* clean. "No one is that good" was the reaction. In the end I got a clearance because no matter how far they dug there was never any dirt. But it didn't mean the agents liked it and the final personal interview was grueling complete with another pseudoscience (neuro-linguistic programming).
(On the flip side, people often think that you have to be clean to get a clearance. On the contrary, mostly you just have to not lie to them about what you have done.)
other than your rather naive notion that a polygraph has anything other than random accuracy, your post is fairly informative. It is common belief that asking your name and such are control questions. They are not.
Another common belief is that a polygraph is used to tell *when* someone is lying. It is not. At the end of the day you answer a lot of questions, which are matched to your physiological responses, and two "experts" review them in order deliver an overall "pass" or "fail". There is no individual scoring, no fine tuning of the grade. You pass or fail, nothing else.
Because the government needs a security blanket and the poly offers that.
When you have intelligence operatives at all levels selling secrets it can get pretty scary. You want some form of certainty that you can trust all of the thousands (tens of thousands at least, if not hundreds of thousands) of operatives. The polygraphy provides a distinct procedure for doing this. It is bureaucratic.
Consider: why does management put things as contractual requirements with no provisions for auditing or enforcement? Many times all they really want is a security blanket that the third party is contractually liable in the event of malfeasance without any concern for enforceability. Its the same thing, really.
When you do a government poly it is independently "read" by two experts. If their findings (which are limited to an overall yes/no assessment) differ then a third expert is brought in and his finding is used. Polys are more about rolling dice to see if you pass or fail than anything else.
For the folks who talk about the stress of taking a poly... I suppose it depends a lot about the circumstances under which the polygraph is being given. I know two people who have fallen asleep during their polys [1]. I've never talked with anyone who was stressed by it. Duped? Sure, its part of the psychology of operating them and some people are suckers.[2]
1) despite portrayal in movies and TV, polygraphs are boring, tedious affairs. You are wired up, told not to move, and occasionally asked questions over a long period of time. Question, response, lag (for the needles to settle out), repeat ad nauseum.
2) to establish the infallibility of the polygraph, operators will use different tricks on their subjects. For example, the operator may ask you to pick a number between one and ten, then slowly go through the numbers, after which the operator tells you the number. There's a natural tension build up as the selected number is approached, followed by release when the number is passed. Its a simple parlor trick.
i probably should've stuck with my original line of "... but done on a computer makes it different!" :)
you kid (I think), but as it so happens I've got mod points (again, seems I have them ost of the time anymore) and so I'm looking more at the moderation of posts. And I've noticed an unhappy amount of this phenomena. Right now I can counter mod (and I do), but it is a problem.
Years ago I had a post modded into oblivion because I pointed out Microsoft's video controller was not the first (Sony's eye toy was the example used). I'm assuming that meta moderation cleared it up because I've always had excellent karma despite the ocassional Troll/disagree.
I'd rather post than mod, and since I bothered started to logging in again I'm getting mod points. That often go unused because I'm posting. Personally, if I've modded in an article and there's a post I disagree with I'll look for a counterpost to mod up. If there isn't I'll decide between posting anonymously or undoing the moderation. I never down mod.
join the club... there are moderators that use "-1 Troll" for "I didn't like or agree with"
... but done on a mobile device makes it different!
Apple, think different.
You aren't right though. They do not manually maintain the "No Fly" list, that would be too much effort. They recently admitted that the rules for inclusion are arcane, arbitrary and they can by no means admit to them. Assuredly, anyone who speaks out against the tyrants will be included, for they have adjusted their rules such that it will be inevitable. But there is no personal malice here. No one checked the votes and assigned each party to a "naught" or "nice" outcome.
Nay, the results are objectively determined by secret machinations programmed in the depths of a stygian nightmare. When the bureaucrat calls you forth and summons you to your hidden doom far from the public view it will not be for some sentimental reason, no feeling or emotion on his part. Rather, it will be an entirely sane and rational decision that, for the greater good of the Republic, you be no longer permitted to take part in it.
Its pretty clear that our intel community* ignores the constitution where ever possible and considers all americans to be (at best) one step away from terrorism (especially anyone discussing matters like this). So I'm not really giving them the benefit of any doubt -- just slightly surprised that they act like they had no irons in the fire after going OMG evil! The normal response to any resistance is to double down, but here they seem to have just shrugged their shoulders. "Did he buy it?" asks one, "nah" says the other.
* not to be confused with the individuals that comprise it. It is a mistake to even think that the "average" member reflects the community. That simply isn't how group dynamics work. So just because the community sees the constitution as an annoyance that does not mean a significant number of the individuals do. I say this because it is all too easy to conflate the two, but it should never be forgotten that the community is made of up individuals.
Normally I don't mod AC's up, but this one should be (I even have mod points but I already posted...).
TFS is wrong (why am I surprised) because it clearly states that it is an "exit" node, but TFA is equally clear that it is a *relay* node. Maybe that's why the police/dhs didn't fight this harder, but it doesn't change the fact that they opposed a mere relay node.
FWIW, I think libraries *should* host exit nodes. A very appropriate place for them as they have a long tradition of upholding privacy, including against government incursions. But it is also easier to get an exit node taken down through association with criminal acts. Though the people in TFA have it right: a city doesn't shut down roads simply because some people choose to drive drunk. Or the fact that they are used as escape routes by bank robbers. Or facilitate interstate crime by transporting stolen goods.
Just because a resource can, and is, being used for nefarious purposes is not reason to shut it down. Somewhere well north of 90% of all email is spam or phishing. It may be frustrating, but we don't shut down mail servers.
I'm not suggesting they didn't want the outcome, but they don't seem to have been invested in it. Just like the student in my example would've liked a higher grade, but as he had no case he wasn't going to actually *fight* for it. But see what he could get with minimal effort? Sure.
Maybe as time goes on they'll turn up the heat on Tor. Probably will, unless they can find an effective way to defeat it.
So they really weren't that concerned about having an open tor relay? When they invoked OMG terrorists! children! it was just so the board would make an informed decision? Sorry, but for them to claim no stake in the outcome belies their attempt to shut it down.
Not that their response is bad, it just isn't all that believable. Now, if they had said, "I'm disappointed, but at least they made an informed decision" it would come across like they actually believed in what they told the board. This makes it seem like they are acknowledging the fud didn't work.
It reminds me of a story a prof told me about a student who went in to argue about a grade, unsuccessfully. When the student left a friend in the hall asked, "did he buy it?" and the response was "nah." Just like here, didn't really have anything invested in it, and wasn't perturbed when the story didn't get traction.
"Homeopathic medicine is fucking water, that's it, plain old water."
Except for when it isn't. Actually, IIRC, it would be mostly a light alcohol, but that's being picky. What annoys me about most of the anti-homeopaths is that they conflate homeopathic remedies with homeopathic philosophy. While the philosophy is complete bunk (and I really liked a comment about proponents in office resigning so that their "imprint" would be more potent) the fact of the matter is that the ingredients may well have beneficial properties -- at least if they aren't diluted to nothing.
However, my favorite is Edgar Allen Poe's quip, "The homoeopathists did not give him little enough physic, and what little they did give him he hesitated to take." [http://www.online-literature.com/poe/2199/]
That's right, homeopaths have been disrespected for a *long* time (and deserve it). The folk medicine employed is a separate matter and each "remedy" would have to be evaluated separately.
There is a common misconception about DMCA complaints that they are sworn under penalty of perjury. Like most misconceptions there is an element of truth to it. In this case, it is a matter of the *scope* of what is being attested to under penalty of perjury. Specifically, that the person filing the complaint is in fact a duly authorized agent of the copyright holder for the work that is claimed to being infringed.
This allows the absurdity of filing a complaint for infringement against ... oh, I don't know, one of the Star Wars movies ... against an image of Mickey Mouse. As long as the filer is, in fact, a duly authorized representative of Disney (current owner of the Star Wars franchise) then the claim is good. There is *no* standard for the claim of infringement.
My "favorite" cases are where someone gets a complaint (or lawsuit) because they gave credit to a person or work as inspiration. Perhaps the most famous one (which was settled privately) was over the twenty six seconds of silence (or whatever length it was). But I've personally seen it as well. The lesson? Never give credit to anyone for anything unless you are paying them a previously agreed on amount. Which is horrible, IMO.
they broke the laws of morality and ethics -- but pretty much everything they did (that I know of anyway) is technically legal according to US law.
I think what GP was referring to with the "pay themselves bonuses" is that the bailout enabled banks to pay high performance bonuses to managers that had contributed to the disaster. That is pretty directly rewarding the unethical scum via government intervention.
take a strip of paper, rotate one end 180 degrees, tape ends together. Voila! You now have an infinite strip of paper :)
and the AC said "decent peripherals" not cheap crap that will break when you look at it...