Remember when Snowden's leaks were about blowing the whistle on illegal wiretapping of American citizens? Does anyone else feel like he's long lost all legitimacy?
Has anyone ever wondered why we buy cars the way we do? If you wanted to buy a banana, you wouldn't go to a banana store. You would go to a grocery store and pick from a multitude of different fruits. Yet with (new) cars, there is no grocery store equivalent. Why is that? Well the reason is that in all 50 states dealerships have established a legal monopoly which basically prohibits this.
Uh no, congress did not do that. Even if congress did do that you don't overturn a supreme court decision by writing another law. What congress did was more narrowly define what kind of child pornography is banned. It is now "such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." So if someone developed a image metrics child pornography, that might meet the standard of "virtually indistinguishable" and therefore be banned. A simple animation would not be.
The prohibition of virtual child pornography was overturned in the United States with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002). It is still illegal in the European Union however.
I don't presume to know the "evitability" of it. I was simply toning down the sensationalism of the headline. Of course this will make it easier in the future for the EU to transfer information to the US and concerned EU citizens should be worried over this fact. But to state that the EU has decided to hand over private information and that some sort of agreement has been reached to permit this is misleading.
Read further down and you will see this "agreement" is discussing privacy safeguards and standards that would make it lawful for the EU to transfer information to the US. This is why the article is titled "US and Europe Near Accord on Privacy", not EU to transfer private information to the US.
I RTFA. The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities. Rather the article informs readers that the two bodies of government are working towards a common set of privacy standards and safeguards that should be implemented if said bodies of government decided to one day share private information.
Obligatory video from CES 2008 for those who haven't seen it. Here's to you Big Bill. Thank you for your sense of humor and your charity. And thank you for inspiring so many including myself to pursue a career in computers and technology.
This is not a troll, but can anyone tell me what does it matter? Have the telecos been successfully sued in court for their indiscretions? Are we pursuing them in court? If the answer is no to both counts, then what does it matter if we grant them immunity.
The headline of the news article is "Hackers Assault Epilepsy Patients via Computer", yet all the perpetrators did was troll the message board with offensive links not unlike what happens here daily on Slashdot. The media never could grasp the correct usage of hackers (hackers versus crackers, hackers versus script kiddies, etc), and confusing Anonymous for hackers isn't likely to help.
It is interesting to note that the countries named as part of this Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group, are also part of the UKUSA community. This is significant because said community forms the alliance of nations that is responsible for ECHELON, a program that collects and analyzes signals intelligence from all over the globe.
It seems every time Google gets itself involved in something questionable, we as a community immediately scream "EVIL EVIL EVIL" and this occasion is no different. Several posters have already mentioned that Google has "gone over to the dark side" with their domain parking service. But can anyone explain to me how allowing people to make money off domain parking is evil? Surely it is not even remotely on the same level as Yahoo giving up the identities of Chinese dissidents to the PRC.
Have we as a community lost sight of what evil really is? I would agree with you that it is somewhat annoying to accidently stumble upon a link farm. But does that make it evil? Is the practice itself evil? I would say no on both counts. I think we don't give Google enough credit for accomplishing all that they have without succumbing to the predatory practices of large corporations a la Microsoft. I submit that we have really lowered the bar on what it takes to commit evil, and we should consider that a testament to the virtue of Google management.
Let's keep that in perspective. Slashdot discussions show that we don't even begin to hold our other sacred cow corporations (eg. Apple) to these extremely high standards.
As for Ron Paul's position on abortion, the federal government does have a right to step in IF it is a constitutional matter and the Supreme Court has dictated that it is a constitutional matter based of their reading of the constitution. The bill of rights exists so that minority rights can't be stripped even at the state level.
But if Ron Paul is such a large supporter of the constitution, then why does he want to betray that constitution with removing a woman's right to chose? Correct me if I'm wrong but the 10th amendment only defers to states in cases where the constitution doesn't have something to say about it.
"While I don't favor this, you would be hard pressed to argue that the UN has had a very productive impact in most of the activities they have undertaken. And even when their stuff has worked, it has usually been with the US doing most of the legwork. The UN is mainly an organization that allows its members to say they support international partnerships, while performing relatively few useful functions of its own."
How much have you really studied the UN to be qualified to make such a judgment? I don't want to come off as snobbish but I've found that people who say such things have done very little actual academic research in this field of study. Here I'll rip off some of the basic arguments for why international government organizations (IGOs) such as the UN can be forces of good from my International Relations 101 textbook (International Politics on the World Stage). These are just the claims of the arguments, if you want to read the reasoning behind them you can find the textbook in any college library on pages 192-194.
The UN creates and fosters norms against violence. Provides a debate alternative towards violence. Intervenes diplomatically to assist and encourage countries to settle their disputes peacefully. Promotes arms control and disarmament (IAEA). Provides peacekeeping forces. Promotes economic development (UNDP, World Bank, IMF, etc). Advocates human rights (UDOHR of 1948). Advances international law and norms. Advocate for the environment. Encourages independence.
"Last time I checked a woman's right to choose was protected by a Supreme Court decision, not the Constitution. Whether or not one supports abortion is another matter, but lets be clear on that."
I want you to follow me here. A document is meaningless unless it is interpreted. The Supreme Court is the final authority on who can interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court has decided that the 4th amendment of the constitution protects a woman's right to choose.
"Not a bad idea considering the Constitution provides no basis for the federal government to be involved in education, and our schools are failing anyway. Plus, our students did better comparatively against other nations before the US Dept of Education was instituted."
I bet those other nations that you are comparing the US to also have public education.
"While I don't favor this, you would be hard pressed to argue that the UN has had a very productive impact in most of the activities they have undertaken. And even when their stuff has worked, it has usually been with the US doing most of the legwork. The UN is mainly an organization that allows its members to say they support international partnerships, while performing relatively few useful functions of its own."
How much have you really studied the UN to be qualified to make such a judgment? I don't want to come off as snobbish but I've found that people who say such things have done very little actual academic research in this field of study. Here I'll rip off some of the basic arguments for why international government organizations (IGOs) such as the UN can be forces of good from my International Relations 101 textbook (International Politics on the World Stage). These are just the claims of the arguments, if you want to read the reasoning behind them you can find the textbook in any college library.
The UN creates and fosters norms against violence.
Provides a debate alternative towards violence.
Intervenes diplomatically to assist and encourage countries to settle their disputes peacefully.
Promotes arms control and disarmament (IAEA).
Provides peacekeeping forces.
Promotes economic development (UNDP, World Bank, IMF, etc).
Advocates human rights (UDOHR of 1948).
Advances international law and norms.
Advocate for the environment.
Encourages independence.
"Last time I checked a woman's right to choose was protected by a Supreme Court decision, not the Constitution. Whether or not one supports abortion is another matter, but lets be clear on that."
I want you to follow me here. A document is meaningless unless it is interpreted. The Supreme Court is the final authority on who can interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court has decided that the 4th amendment of the constitution protects a woman's right to choose.
"Not a bad idea considering the Constitution provides no basis for the federal government to be involved in education, and our schools are failing anyway. Plus, our students did better comparatively against other nations before the US Dept of Education was instituted."
I bet those other nations that you are comparing the US to also have public education.
Are you sure you know where Paul derives his ethics from? Here's what Paul wrote about on the alleged "secular left's war on christmas".
As for your arguments about public vs. private education, we really could go back and forth on that discussion all day. But what the discussion will eventually boil down to is that I believe every child deserves a fair chance of moving up the social ladder and public education gives him that chance. A child wouldn't have the same right to an education like he currently enjoys if the DOE was eradicated.
Ron Paul also wants to pull out of the UN, remove the constitutionally protected women's right to choose, remove public education and has a number of other insane ideas of how government should be runned. I don't like wireless wiretapping or our foreign policy much, but there more important issues out there which Paul loses most voters including this one on.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember when Snowden's leaks were about blowing the whistle on illegal wiretapping of American citizens? Does anyone else feel like he's long lost all legitimacy?
Has anyone ever wondered why we buy cars the way we do? If you wanted to buy a banana, you wouldn't go to a banana store. You would go to a grocery store and pick from a multitude of different fruits. Yet with (new) cars, there is no grocery store equivalent. Why is that? Well the reason is that in all 50 states dealerships have established a legal monopoly which basically prohibits this.
Planet Money did a podcast on this very issue.
Intel is a public company. They have a fiduciary duty to be profitable not charitable.
Because instability in the Middle East raises oil prices and as of 2009 Russia surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil exporter.
Uh no, congress did not do that. Even if congress did do that you don't overturn a supreme court decision by writing another law. What congress did was more narrowly define what kind of child pornography is banned. It is now "such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." So if someone developed a image metrics child pornography, that might meet the standard of "virtually indistinguishable" and therefore be banned. A simple animation would not be.
The prohibition of virtual child pornography was overturned in the United States with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002). It is still illegal in the European Union however.
Are you kidding? Mathematical multiplication tables have at most 100 items to memorize. Your mind is able to memorize a lot more than that.
You must have been one of those people who were never invited those those "places". I'm sorry to hear that. I hope your life improves.
I don't presume to know the "evitability" of it. I was simply toning down the sensationalism of the headline. Of course this will make it easier in the future for the EU to transfer information to the US and concerned EU citizens should be worried over this fact. But to state that the EU has decided to hand over private information and that some sort of agreement has been reached to permit this is misleading.
Read further down and you will see this "agreement" is discussing privacy safeguards and standards that would make it lawful for the EU to transfer information to the US. This is why the article is titled "US and Europe Near Accord on Privacy", not EU to transfer private information to the US.
I RTFA. The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities. Rather the article informs readers that the two bodies of government are working towards a common set of privacy standards and safeguards that should be implemented if said bodies of government decided to one day share private information.
Not as high quality as on the official site, but you take what you can get, eh?
Under the youtube video there's a "watch in high quality" link which will play it in similar quality to the official site.
Obligatory video from CES 2008 for those who haven't seen it. Here's to you Big Bill. Thank you for your sense of humor and your charity. And thank you for inspiring so many including myself to pursue a career in computers and technology.
no text.
This is not a troll, but can anyone tell me what does it matter? Have the telecos been successfully sued in court for their indiscretions? Are we pursuing them in court? If the answer is no to both counts, then what does it matter if we grant them immunity.
Seriously guys?
The headline of the news article is "Hackers Assault Epilepsy Patients via Computer", yet all the perpetrators did was troll the message board with offensive links not unlike what happens here daily on Slashdot. The media never could grasp the correct usage of hackers (hackers versus crackers, hackers versus script kiddies, etc), and confusing Anonymous for hackers isn't likely to help.
It is interesting to note that the countries named as part of this Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group, are also part of the UKUSA community. This is significant because said community forms the alliance of nations that is responsible for ECHELON, a program that collects and analyzes signals intelligence from all over the globe.
Have we as a community lost sight of what evil really is? I would agree with you that it is somewhat annoying to accidently stumble upon a link farm. But does that make it evil? Is the practice itself evil? I would say no on both counts. I think we don't give Google enough credit for accomplishing all that they have without succumbing to the predatory practices of large corporations a la Microsoft. I submit that we have really lowered the bar on what it takes to commit evil, and we should consider that a testament to the virtue of Google management.
Let's keep that in perspective. Slashdot discussions show that we don't even begin to hold our other sacred cow corporations (eg. Apple) to these extremely high standards.
Here is what Ron Paul wrote on the "secular left's war on religion".
As for Ron Paul's position on abortion, the federal government does have a right to step in IF it is a constitutional matter and the Supreme Court has dictated that it is a constitutional matter based of their reading of the constitution. The bill of rights exists so that minority rights can't be stripped even at the state level.
But if Ron Paul is such a large supporter of the constitution, then why does he want to betray that constitution with removing a woman's right to chose? Correct me if I'm wrong but the 10th amendment only defers to states in cases where the constitution doesn't have something to say about it.
How much have you really studied the UN to be qualified to make such a judgment? I don't want to come off as snobbish but I've found that people who say such things have done very little actual academic research in this field of study. Here I'll rip off some of the basic arguments for why international government organizations (IGOs) such as the UN can be forces of good from my International Relations 101 textbook (International Politics on the World Stage). These are just the claims of the arguments, if you want to read the reasoning behind them you can find the textbook in any college library on pages 192-194.
The UN creates and fosters norms against violence.
Provides a debate alternative towards violence.
Intervenes diplomatically to assist and encourage countries to settle their disputes peacefully.
Promotes arms control and disarmament (IAEA).
Provides peacekeeping forces.
Promotes economic development (UNDP, World Bank, IMF, etc).
Advocates human rights (UDOHR of 1948).
Advances international law and norms.
Advocate for the environment.
Encourages independence.
"Last time I checked a woman's right to choose was protected by a Supreme Court decision, not the Constitution. Whether or not one supports abortion is another matter, but lets be clear on that."
I want you to follow me here. A document is meaningless unless it is interpreted. The Supreme Court is the final authority on who can interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court has decided that the 4th amendment of the constitution protects a woman's right to choose.
"Not a bad idea considering the Constitution provides no basis for the federal government to be involved in education, and our schools are failing anyway. Plus, our students did better comparatively against other nations before the US Dept of Education was instituted."
I bet those other nations that you are comparing the US to also have public education.
"While I don't favor this, you would be hard pressed to argue that the UN has had a very productive impact in most of the activities they have undertaken. And even when their stuff has worked, it has usually been with the US doing most of the legwork. The UN is mainly an organization that allows its members to say they support international partnerships, while performing relatively few useful functions of its own." How much have you really studied the UN to be qualified to make such a judgment? I don't want to come off as snobbish but I've found that people who say such things have done very little actual academic research in this field of study. Here I'll rip off some of the basic arguments for why international government organizations (IGOs) such as the UN can be forces of good from my International Relations 101 textbook (International Politics on the World Stage). These are just the claims of the arguments, if you want to read the reasoning behind them you can find the textbook in any college library. The UN creates and fosters norms against violence. Provides a debate alternative towards violence. Intervenes diplomatically to assist and encourage countries to settle their disputes peacefully. Promotes arms control and disarmament (IAEA). Provides peacekeeping forces. Promotes economic development (UNDP, World Bank, IMF, etc). Advocates human rights (UDOHR of 1948). Advances international law and norms. Advocate for the environment. Encourages independence. "Last time I checked a woman's right to choose was protected by a Supreme Court decision, not the Constitution. Whether or not one supports abortion is another matter, but lets be clear on that." I want you to follow me here. A document is meaningless unless it is interpreted. The Supreme Court is the final authority on who can interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court has decided that the 4th amendment of the constitution protects a woman's right to choose. "Not a bad idea considering the Constitution provides no basis for the federal government to be involved in education, and our schools are failing anyway. Plus, our students did better comparatively against other nations before the US Dept of Education was instituted." I bet those other nations that you are comparing the US to also have public education.
Are you sure you know where Paul derives his ethics from? Here's what Paul wrote about on the alleged "secular left's war on christmas". As for your arguments about public vs. private education, we really could go back and forth on that discussion all day. But what the discussion will eventually boil down to is that I believe every child deserves a fair chance of moving up the social ladder and public education gives him that chance. A child wouldn't have the same right to an education like he currently enjoys if the DOE was eradicated.
Ron Paul also wants to pull out of the UN, remove the constitutionally protected women's right to choose, remove public education and has a number of other insane ideas of how government should be runned. I don't like wireless wiretapping or our foreign policy much, but there more important issues out there which Paul loses most voters including this one on.