Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, how many times can you guys talk in circles, here?
His point is that the NSA has justified all of the institutionalized violations of privacy because it somehow prevents terrorism (and for while, they were claiming they've stopped over 50 acts of terrorism when it turns out it was actually only two . . . and maybe not even that), yet with all of this surveillance and violation of people's rights, they weren't even able to stop an angry teenage boy with a pressure cooker.
You keep saying they weren't "tasked with this case", which has fuck all to do with anything. The FBI was tasked with hunting the kid down (and it took the shutdown of an entire city and yanking people out of their homes at rifle-point for several days to hunt down the teenager). The NSA and all of its nefarious sister organizations were tasked with preventing attacks. You know, the thing they keep using to justify their disregard for the Constitution. And, yet, they were not aware of this pending "act of terrorism".
But go ahead and reply with "but the NSA wasn't tasked with this case" for the sixth time.
Bandwidth is not a finite resource that can be conserved. A highway can not carry double the traffic on Tuesday, because you didn't have any traffic at all on Monday. This is a lie the telecommunications industry and lobbyists and many others have perpetuated onto politicians and the public who have stupidly bought into it. The only concern should be that you are not impacting other customers with your usage at a given moment, which should presumably be accomplished with traffic shaping and throttling. The guy on at 3am when nobody else is on should not be limited to any sort of a cap, since he isn't impacting anyone.
The government already tried this. Remember their $18m Drupal websites over the last few years? Just because it *can* improve the process and *can* reduce the costs doesn't mean government will manage to accomplish that. They can make the best open source just as shitty and expensive as the worst proprietary, with great ease.
The words used may imply some sort of motivation inherent in the mechanics, but it isn't unreasonable to address the issue of film (or lighting or what have you) not picking up the way certain skin tones appear in real life, quite as well. Actually, the word "bias" doesn't seem to be used with the intention to imply any such thing, but I guess a lot of you have chosen to interpret it that way.
"This is about scientific knowledge. Not IQ. They are not the same."
Interesting, because your response to my comment about it being a stupid assumption to say that obviously people who disagree with scientific points can't have knowledge of scientific points is exactly counter to "knowledge is not IQ". You just confirmed my original statement, which you countered, in the first place. That just because one group of people or another disagree with a scientific point doesn't mean they lack knowledge of it. In fact, when it comes to the very religious and those who try desperately to insist the world is only a few thousand years old and that there is an intelligent creator tend to be very knowledgeable about science and they then utilize that knowledge to pervert it to support their own crazy claims.
"That's usually how it works with scientific subjects".
Clearly that isn't the case. At any rate, the point still stands that people can understand something and still disagree with it. In fact, that is quite common in the scientific community. Just because crazy people believe jesus was reborn after three days or whatever or that astrology is a real thing doesn't mean they don't comprehend the explanation between known science and the conclusions science has derived from them.
Your seeming attitude of "if you know the truth, then it is all obvious and clear and you could not disagree!" is the exact same mindset that religious nuts have. Obviously, you just don't understand baby jesus, so if I just explain it to you one more time or read you the right parable or do the right magic dance, you'll finally see it clearly, because once you know the truth, it all makes sense, because it's the truth!
Also, I'll wait for a more meaningful study before I let my bias against stupid conservatives override my bias for stupid liberals. In the meantime, I'll continue to operate under the assumption that despite this small representative survey, the stupidity and ignorance is quite strong in both courts.
I guess the assumption was that if you don't agree with something, you couldn't possibly know about it or understand it? I guess that's why there are so many atheists better versed in one or more bibles and religions than the supposedly devout followers of them?
Additionally, I could probably count as many "durp i done been abducted by aliens" and "angels are real!" morons from almost every political spectrum.
You have adequately explained why old fogies may still often refer to it as "sequel", but it doesn't change the fact that SEQUEL is an acronym and SQL is an initialism.
I've mostly just seen banks use the "is this your icon?!" image that you have to input a password next to so you know it's really the legitimate banking website. I never understood the point of that, though, since a nefarious site could just as well be passing along your username to the real site and then returning the verification icon to you on the other end...?
I don't see anything connecting Gibson to the NSA in that "article". Just more of the same old "Steve is a hyperbolic go-to-expert for the media" stuff that has been around for years.
My understanding is that, among other things, the intention is to address man-in-the-middle compromises, but I'm not certain how that is actually guaranteed here. (Then again, I am not even remotely a security expert).
Wasn't Gibson one of the first people we heard a reasonable explanation of the NSA tapping from? When we were all blaming Facebook and Google and Facebook and Google were denying direct feeds to the NSA, he asserted that what was probably happening was tapping of the trunk just externally to the private points of these entities, such that they may never have even known it was going on. Then, it turns out, that is pretty much what was happening in many of the cases.
I don't know a whole lot about the guy, but he sure seems to have an awful lot of anti NSA and pro-privacy stances, as far as I can tell.
I recently checked out the two podcasts where he went into extensive detail on SQRL and he made it pretty clear that he isn't looking to make money on this concept if it were to take off and that he "doesn't really even have time to do much with it". He presented his idea, documented it, opened up some discussion about it and a forum for people to discuss it in and left it at that. Say what you may about him, but I don't get any sort of "erhmagerd, I'm gonna get rich off this" going on here. I'm sure if clear flaws are demonstrated to him, he'd readily discuss them and admit them when they were uncovered.
I've honestly never heard anyone debate this. It's called My ESS CUE ELL and PostgrESS CUE ELL, because SQL is pronounced as each letter. Yes, people sometimes mispronounced it, but that is due to ignorance. The same way we all used to know people just coming to the web for the first time who thought that URLs were pronounced like they were part of the monarchy.
No. That's where the QR code also being a clickable link comes into play.
This SQRL thing is documented on his site and he has a forum open to critique it and expose flaws in it, so this stuff is all easily accessible to anyone who wants to take a half hour to read it.
Yes. If she were an adult saying shitty things, people would have to just tolerate it. I'm not sure what part of free speech is so complicated, here.
I can tell you that you are a piece of shit and should kill yourself, because the world would be better without you all I want, but I am not responsible for you choosing to do so. As shitty as it would make me to say those things -- and to then say I didn't give a flying fuck that you killed yourself after you did it -- I did not force you to harm yourself anymore than my words could force you to commit vandalism or larceny. We live in a society where you have the right to unrestricted speech. Even the most vile of it. We also live in a society where individuals are responsible for the actions they take.
Just because you are a shitty person doesn't mean you are a criminal or that you are criminally responsible for someone doing something to themselves. However, society around you could still feel that you are hideous and shun you as a result.
You need to get control of your emotions and apply sense to this situation. It's natural to react to all of these stories with "oh my god, that's fucking heartbreaking! -- STRING UP THE PERSON WHO SAID MEAN THINGS!", but it isn't right. It doesn't change what happened and it doesn't change the fact that this stupid little girl didn't put a gun to the other girl's head or a knife to her throat or push her off a building. Further, children are physically harassed constantly in school. Probably more of them are than are not. And they do not harm themselves. So to suggest that *words* should be responsible for someone harming themselves is ridiculous. These are fringe incidents and while the atmosphere of verbal abuse (which should not be tolerated in school) probably made things worse, they did not manifest themselves into corporeal form and murder this girl.
Ultimately, she is responsible for her choice and it is fucked up that nobody really stepped in to do something about it, while it was happening. Notice a pattern, here? This is what happened with the last story about this. And the one before that. In every instance, parents and teachers and administrators and friends were aware of problems. Maybe even took very minor steps to address them. However, somehow the kids were still always online, constantly plugged in, and using social networking, and seeing those mean things that supposedly forced themselves to end their lives. Great, you changed schools for your kid. Great, you homeschooled them. Why didn't you put a stop to their Facebook use, if that was the direct avenue these mean things were being said through?! A little sense, here, people.
Otherwise, if we go about your rationalization, the victims of Columbine are responsible for being killed. After all, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were supposed bullied in school and people said horrible things to them. Therefore, the bullies in school are responsible for the shooting rampage that ensued, right? Or do we just pick and choose when words magically take form and force others to take actions and when they don't?
But, hey, if you want to start stomping all over free speech to the point that your little nephew is going to have a criminal record for telling someone at school how much they stink and how much they suck and let some little kid become the scapegoat for the suicide of another little kid so that the school system, parents, and other adults and authorities that should have put their foot down and *FUCKING DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SHIT WHEN IT WAS HAPPENING* can continue on with their lives changing nothing and feeling that "justice was done" on the back of a dumb little girl, then so be it.
Personally, I'd rather we acknowledge that words are words. They are not actions. They do not force anyone to do anything, even if they plant seeds or compel thoughts about things. I'd rather teachers stop looking the other way at physical and verbal harassment in an environment where people are supposed to be safely educated. I'd rather pare
I'm sure there's some super clever way to deal with it in a database, but in a mailstore, it would generally identify a same message if it were a single message with many addresses in the envelope (during address list expansion) and therefore only store one copy, linking the rest to it. If it were a million messages sent individually to one person at a time, then it would probably be treated by a mailstore as a unique message, each time.
Nobody is saying that bullying should be considered protected speech. People are saying speech should be protected speech. YOU are the one trying to change what bullying means to "any time someone is a poopy-head to you and makes you sad about stuffs".
If someone is physically threatening or harming you, then fuck yes that should be addressed and parents and schools should put a god damn stop to it. But they don't -- instead, they let it go on right in front of their eyes and ignore it, until something happens outside of school and then instead of accepting responsibility for negligence, they decide they want to stick a pre-teen girl in prison for inciting the actions.
Going down the road of "if you say something mean or even hideous and someone later does something bad to themselves, you are culpable for their actions with your WORDS" is a really fucking dangerous road to tread.
Unfortunately, too many people can't seem to fucking grasp that this girl could be a shitty person who said shitty things (unless we're missing more to the story) and that what the other girl did to herself was horrible and heartbreaking AND that there might not be someone you can directly snag by the neck and force to "pay for it".
Quit being hyperbolic. Slashdot has grown up and realized that getting retribution against a hideous person for hideous things isn't itself justification of shrugging off our principals and rights. Children should not be subjected to harassment at school and staff should enforce the policies instead of looking the other way *AND* people should retain the right to all forms of free speech. Suggesting that, because people aren't saying "yeah, throw the bitch in prison for the rest of her life for being a meany-head!" that they're in favor of just letting kids in school be shoved into lockers or incessantly harassed is absurd and disingenuous.
If we can accept that free speech allows Westboro to be a bunch of cunts in public (and we can find ways to deal with it like protesting against them when they show up or having massive hoards of bikers separate them from funerals), then I think we can accept that someone can be shitty on Facebook when they're a teenager and if you don't like it, block them, ignore them, ground them from the internet, address the behavior at school, address the behavior between parents, and so on.
Unfortunately, the common reaction is all too often "oh my god, a little kid! SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN! Put everyone in jail who doesn't have something nice to say!".
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, how many times can you guys talk in circles, here?
His point is that the NSA has justified all of the institutionalized violations of privacy because it somehow prevents terrorism (and for while, they were claiming they've stopped over 50 acts of terrorism when it turns out it was actually only two . . . and maybe not even that), yet with all of this surveillance and violation of people's rights, they weren't even able to stop an angry teenage boy with a pressure cooker.
You keep saying they weren't "tasked with this case", which has fuck all to do with anything. The FBI was tasked with hunting the kid down (and it took the shutdown of an entire city and yanking people out of their homes at rifle-point for several days to hunt down the teenager). The NSA and all of its nefarious sister organizations were tasked with preventing attacks. You know, the thing they keep using to justify their disregard for the Constitution. And, yet, they were not aware of this pending "act of terrorism".
But go ahead and reply with "but the NSA wasn't tasked with this case" for the sixth time.
Both of those things will be okay -- as long as there's no *gasp* side-boob!
The other 76% want to be Youtube channel millionaires.
Right. Because resources like electricity and water are exactly like bandwidth. . . . . . . .
Bandwidth is not a finite resource that can be conserved. A highway can not carry double the traffic on Tuesday, because you didn't have any traffic at all on Monday. This is a lie the telecommunications industry and lobbyists and many others have perpetuated onto politicians and the public who have stupidly bought into it. The only concern should be that you are not impacting other customers with your usage at a given moment, which should presumably be accomplished with traffic shaping and throttling. The guy on at 3am when nobody else is on should not be limited to any sort of a cap, since he isn't impacting anyone.
The government already tried this. Remember their $18m Drupal websites over the last few years? Just because it *can* improve the process and *can* reduce the costs doesn't mean government will manage to accomplish that. They can make the best open source just as shitty and expensive as the worst proprietary, with great ease.
You really dropped the ball, Anonymous.
The words used may imply some sort of motivation inherent in the mechanics, but it isn't unreasonable to address the issue of film (or lighting or what have you) not picking up the way certain skin tones appear in real life, quite as well. Actually, the word "bias" doesn't seem to be used with the intention to imply any such thing, but I guess a lot of you have chosen to interpret it that way.
Same thing happened with Microsoft's Kinect for XBOX 360.
"This is about scientific knowledge. Not IQ. They are not the same."
Interesting, because your response to my comment about it being a stupid assumption to say that obviously people who disagree with scientific points can't have knowledge of scientific points is exactly counter to "knowledge is not IQ". You just confirmed my original statement, which you countered, in the first place. That just because one group of people or another disagree with a scientific point doesn't mean they lack knowledge of it. In fact, when it comes to the very religious and those who try desperately to insist the world is only a few thousand years old and that there is an intelligent creator tend to be very knowledgeable about science and they then utilize that knowledge to pervert it to support their own crazy claims.
"That's usually how it works with scientific subjects".
Clearly that isn't the case. At any rate, the point still stands that people can understand something and still disagree with it. In fact, that is quite common in the scientific community. Just because crazy people believe jesus was reborn after three days or whatever or that astrology is a real thing doesn't mean they don't comprehend the explanation between known science and the conclusions science has derived from them.
Your seeming attitude of "if you know the truth, then it is all obvious and clear and you could not disagree!" is the exact same mindset that religious nuts have. Obviously, you just don't understand baby jesus, so if I just explain it to you one more time or read you the right parable or do the right magic dance, you'll finally see it clearly, because once you know the truth, it all makes sense, because it's the truth!
Also, I'll wait for a more meaningful study before I let my bias against stupid conservatives override my bias for stupid liberals. In the meantime, I'll continue to operate under the assumption that despite this small representative survey, the stupidity and ignorance is quite strong in both courts.
I guess the assumption was that if you don't agree with something, you couldn't possibly know about it or understand it? I guess that's why there are so many atheists better versed in one or more bibles and religions than the supposedly devout followers of them?
Additionally, I could probably count as many "durp i done been abducted by aliens" and "angels are real!" morons from almost every political spectrum.
Shush! Someone is busy trying to push their political bias, on the back of Bitcoin. Stop interrupting them!
You have adequately explained why old fogies may still often refer to it as "sequel", but it doesn't change the fact that SEQUEL is an acronym and SQL is an initialism.
I've mostly just seen banks use the "is this your icon?!" image that you have to input a password next to so you know it's really the legitimate banking website. I never understood the point of that, though, since a nefarious site could just as well be passing along your username to the real site and then returning the verification icon to you on the other end...?
I don't see anything connecting Gibson to the NSA in that "article". Just more of the same old "Steve is a hyperbolic go-to-expert for the media" stuff that has been around for years.
My understanding is that, among other things, the intention is to address man-in-the-middle compromises, but I'm not certain how that is actually guaranteed here. (Then again, I am not even remotely a security expert).
Wasn't Gibson one of the first people we heard a reasonable explanation of the NSA tapping from? When we were all blaming Facebook and Google and Facebook and Google were denying direct feeds to the NSA, he asserted that what was probably happening was tapping of the trunk just externally to the private points of these entities, such that they may never have even known it was going on. Then, it turns out, that is pretty much what was happening in many of the cases.
I don't know a whole lot about the guy, but he sure seems to have an awful lot of anti NSA and pro-privacy stances, as far as I can tell.
I recently checked out the two podcasts where he went into extensive detail on SQRL and he made it pretty clear that he isn't looking to make money on this concept if it were to take off and that he "doesn't really even have time to do much with it". He presented his idea, documented it, opened up some discussion about it and a forum for people to discuss it in and left it at that. Say what you may about him, but I don't get any sort of "erhmagerd, I'm gonna get rich off this" going on here. I'm sure if clear flaws are demonstrated to him, he'd readily discuss them and admit them when they were uncovered.
I've honestly never heard anyone debate this. It's called My ESS CUE ELL and PostgrESS CUE ELL, because SQL is pronounced as each letter. Yes, people sometimes mispronounced it, but that is due to ignorance. The same way we all used to know people just coming to the web for the first time who thought that URLs were pronounced like they were part of the monarchy.
No. That's where the QR code also being a clickable link comes into play.
This SQRL thing is documented on his site and he has a forum open to critique it and expose flaws in it, so this stuff is all easily accessible to anyone who wants to take a half hour to read it.
Yes. If she were an adult saying shitty things, people would have to just tolerate it. I'm not sure what part of free speech is so complicated, here.
I can tell you that you are a piece of shit and should kill yourself, because the world would be better without you all I want, but I am not responsible for you choosing to do so. As shitty as it would make me to say those things -- and to then say I didn't give a flying fuck that you killed yourself after you did it -- I did not force you to harm yourself anymore than my words could force you to commit vandalism or larceny. We live in a society where you have the right to unrestricted speech. Even the most vile of it. We also live in a society where individuals are responsible for the actions they take.
Just because you are a shitty person doesn't mean you are a criminal or that you are criminally responsible for someone doing something to themselves. However, society around you could still feel that you are hideous and shun you as a result.
You need to get control of your emotions and apply sense to this situation. It's natural to react to all of these stories with "oh my god, that's fucking heartbreaking! -- STRING UP THE PERSON WHO SAID MEAN THINGS!", but it isn't right. It doesn't change what happened and it doesn't change the fact that this stupid little girl didn't put a gun to the other girl's head or a knife to her throat or push her off a building. Further, children are physically harassed constantly in school. Probably more of them are than are not. And they do not harm themselves. So to suggest that *words* should be responsible for someone harming themselves is ridiculous. These are fringe incidents and while the atmosphere of verbal abuse (which should not be tolerated in school) probably made things worse, they did not manifest themselves into corporeal form and murder this girl.
Ultimately, she is responsible for her choice and it is fucked up that nobody really stepped in to do something about it, while it was happening. Notice a pattern, here? This is what happened with the last story about this. And the one before that. In every instance, parents and teachers and administrators and friends were aware of problems. Maybe even took very minor steps to address them. However, somehow the kids were still always online, constantly plugged in, and using social networking, and seeing those mean things that supposedly forced themselves to end their lives. Great, you changed schools for your kid. Great, you homeschooled them. Why didn't you put a stop to their Facebook use, if that was the direct avenue these mean things were being said through?! A little sense, here, people.
Otherwise, if we go about your rationalization, the victims of Columbine are responsible for being killed. After all, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were supposed bullied in school and people said horrible things to them. Therefore, the bullies in school are responsible for the shooting rampage that ensued, right? Or do we just pick and choose when words magically take form and force others to take actions and when they don't?
But, hey, if you want to start stomping all over free speech to the point that your little nephew is going to have a criminal record for telling someone at school how much they stink and how much they suck and let some little kid become the scapegoat for the suicide of another little kid so that the school system, parents, and other adults and authorities that should have put their foot down and *FUCKING DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SHIT WHEN IT WAS HAPPENING* can continue on with their lives changing nothing and feeling that "justice was done" on the back of a dumb little girl, then so be it.
Personally, I'd rather we acknowledge that words are words. They are not actions. They do not force anyone to do anything, even if they plant seeds or compel thoughts about things. I'd rather teachers stop looking the other way at physical and verbal harassment in an environment where people are supposed to be safely educated. I'd rather pare
I'm sure there's some super clever way to deal with it in a database, but in a mailstore, it would generally identify a same message if it were a single message with many addresses in the envelope (during address list expansion) and therefore only store one copy, linking the rest to it. If it were a million messages sent individually to one person at a time, then it would probably be treated by a mailstore as a unique message, each time.
Nobody is saying that bullying should be considered protected speech. People are saying speech should be protected speech. YOU are the one trying to change what bullying means to "any time someone is a poopy-head to you and makes you sad about stuffs".
If someone is physically threatening or harming you, then fuck yes that should be addressed and parents and schools should put a god damn stop to it. But they don't -- instead, they let it go on right in front of their eyes and ignore it, until something happens outside of school and then instead of accepting responsibility for negligence, they decide they want to stick a pre-teen girl in prison for inciting the actions.
Going down the road of "if you say something mean or even hideous and someone later does something bad to themselves, you are culpable for their actions with your WORDS" is a really fucking dangerous road to tread.
Unfortunately, too many people can't seem to fucking grasp that this girl could be a shitty person who said shitty things (unless we're missing more to the story) and that what the other girl did to herself was horrible and heartbreaking AND that there might not be someone you can directly snag by the neck and force to "pay for it".
Quit being hyperbolic. Slashdot has grown up and realized that getting retribution against a hideous person for hideous things isn't itself justification of shrugging off our principals and rights. Children should not be subjected to harassment at school and staff should enforce the policies instead of looking the other way *AND* people should retain the right to all forms of free speech. Suggesting that, because people aren't saying "yeah, throw the bitch in prison for the rest of her life for being a meany-head!" that they're in favor of just letting kids in school be shoved into lockers or incessantly harassed is absurd and disingenuous.
If we can accept that free speech allows Westboro to be a bunch of cunts in public (and we can find ways to deal with it like protesting against them when they show up or having massive hoards of bikers separate them from funerals), then I think we can accept that someone can be shitty on Facebook when they're a teenager and if you don't like it, block them, ignore them, ground them from the internet, address the behavior at school, address the behavior between parents, and so on.
Unfortunately, the common reaction is all too often "oh my god, a little kid! SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN! Put everyone in jail who doesn't have something nice to say!".