It's not the viewing of the picture which is offensive, but the making of the picture. Distributing it is rubbing salt in the wounds, and makes the difference between a secret, private image of Muhammad (which were quite common in Islam), and a public spectacle. The secret, private images were tolerated because the owners would know that the image was not being worshipped or being used to degrade Muhammad. When it's public and all over the place, that security is lost.
It's just a respect thing - when a religion has been pushed into the corner by the meddling of other countries, often with no regard to their sensibilities, they will fight tooth and nail to secure that which is the most important thing to them. We've seen this with other religions and cultures, too, so it's not just an Islam thing.
If someone respects the hell out of something I'll not go out of my way to show how free I am to disrespect it, or show how much I dislike people being offended by disrespect, by disrespecting it - "told you so" is not productive. That's just me, though.
There you go again - any opportunity for you to throw in some casual xenophobia in a completely unrelated article, and you jump at the chance, showing us just how scared and little you are.
Your intelligence is about as high as your morals.
The Skylon project is aiming to reduce the price to ~$1000 per kilo (to begin with), and then further reduce that through the life of the project. They've made some amazing progress, and they don't need to use nuclear fuel (just hydrogen), which means there's less for anyone to complain about. Couple that with being entirely reusable (and possibly capable of flying a second mission within 2 days), and it looks simply genius.
Some work exceptionally well. You'd know that if you'd bother to actually read the real research, instead of simply plugging your brain into a site whose attitude gels with your own, and letting them think for you.
You really don't understand how the web works, do you? You are saying that everyone needs to write and maintain an app for each and every OS out there, instead of having an interface which they can support, which in turn is supported by each and every OS. You are calling for the web to return to the incredibly-limited mid-90s. "How it should be" for you is not how the rest of the world wants it.
With a proper SLA and a good backup solution it is no more risky than putting your data in any other system. For example, there are thousands of companies who use hosted CRMs for their entire sales workflow, generating billions of dollars in the process. I guess they're all dumb?
The security services infiltrate the group, which causes the group to talk to them. That is far more valuable than just sitting round hoovering up the entire internet and trying to filter out what you're looking for, as they can actually ask for specific pieces of information which might not have been shared. It also means that even if the terrorists use ultra-mega-super-secure one time pads, for example, the intelligence is collected. With your dystopian view of intelligence work, those messages would not be readable. The rest of your issues stem from this simple ignorance of actual intelligence work - you assume mass collection is the only way to achieve results, when decades of history before and after the birth of the internet shows otherwise.
Of those hundreds of years there has only been thirty where large numbers of people can communucate and plan operations without ever meeting. The criminals are allowed to use modern technology by the police are not?
The police can use the same technology - they can cooperate with their counterparts the world over, they can communicate with their agents in the field, they can send video and images around the world in seconds. Being able to use modern technology and being able to subvert its use are completely different things. Bank robbers used dynamite to blow open banks and their safes - by your logic you have no problem with police using dynamite to blow up your house looking for robbers.
Surveillance does not make people less free. Does an audience at a theater make an actor less free? If repressive things happen with the gathered data then that would be a problem but not the surveillance itself.
So you'd have no problem with government-sanctioned cameras in your bathroom filming everything. Good to know. After all, if nothing bad will come from the recording of your personal activities, nothing bad happened.
Physically intrusive searches are very different than electronic surveillance.
Electronic surveillance is intrusive none the less. You can play games of semantics if you wish, but when the state rifles through your private property, you not only risk them finding things you've done which they might not like (either now or in the future), but you give them the opportunity to put things there for them to find. Once that barrier is down you can no longer be sure of what is what, and what was once your property becomes property of dubious origin.
It's called "intelligence work", and it requires well-trained people gathering intelligence on these targets. They can infiltrate the groups, befriend suspected terrorists, etc, and gather information. This is how it was done for decades, and no-one had to have their entire lives rummaged through by default until they were shown to not be a "bad guy".
It's not a Catch-22 - it's abject laziness on the part of the security services. Plugging in servers is easy. Asking for money to protect people from "scary people who want to kill you!!!111" is easy. Strong-arming ISPs to allow data gathering is easy. That's why they do it - because they can. If they had to return to the old ways of human intelligence gathering, it would be harder work, but we'd not be fucked over constantly.
Your attitude is just as dangerous as the NSA hoovering up every bit that crosses their path. I hope for your sake it was born from a lack of information and not some irrational zeal or compulsion, and that it can be changed through learning.
If "They" are actually "Us", the only thing that changes is that instead of "them" needing to do more to redress the balance of wealth, "we" need to do more. I don't care if it hurts me financially or not - if it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. Selfish attitudes such as your "Fuck you I got mine" are what cause this situation in the first place. Trying to surprise people into realising they're in the top X% is a pathetic tactic which will help absolutely no-one.
The pick a European country and a US state of equivalent size & population. I'll wait. The end result is precisely the same.
Why is it so difficult to admit that internet access in the US is a first world joke? Does it hurt your feelings? There's no rational excuse to have this opinion.
You seem to be forgetting WWII, the repercussions of which are still - to this day - haunting many countries, especially in Europe. The US sauntered through WWII with barely a scratch, owing to its geographical location, a history quite unlike most other developed countries at the time.
Ignoring that little fact kind of puts the rest of your post in doubt... Your anecdotal data set of 1 also doesn't exactly portray you in the most rational of lights...
OK, then compare Sweden to California, as has been done above. If what you say is true, California's internet should be far better than Sweden's, as California is roughly the same size, with a far larger population (and therefore more money to be gained from customers). California's climate is also far more suited to building out utilities, as Sweden's climate is closer to Alaska's.
Wait, what? Internet access in California sucks? No waaaay! It's almost as if you had a knee-jerk reaction to someone criticizing the US and had to put a stop to it, regardless of whether the criticism was accurate or not! USA #1! USA #1! USA #1!
Sweden: 450,295 sq mi / 9,716,962 people (55.6 per sq mi)
California: 423,970 sq mi / 38,802,500 people (246 per sq mi)
So Sweden is slightly larger, with far fewer people, and yet trounces California with regard to internet access. I have no idea how you can argue that somehow it's an unfair comparison - if anything, Sweden should be lagging far behind California simply due to the relative size of their internet markets, and the fact it has a climate more like Alaska's. As it is, Sweden is making the US look a right muppet in this regard.
But I'm sure you can find some excuse as to why the Sweden example doesn't count, and that the US is #1 in internets.
So much opinion masquerading as fact. Incredible. You should probably stay out of these threads, as all you seem to do is harp on about OSX like your life depends on it, which seems a bit desperate. I feel bad for you if you have to hang out in Windows threads to make yourself feel better by pointing out to everyone why they're retarded and you (and your OS of choice) is awesome.
Just accept that you are you, and others are others. What you like might not be what they like, and vice versa. Getting all upset because not everyone agrees with you is only serving to make you look like a jealous school kid, regardless of whether that is true or not, or maybe some sort of egocentric lunatic who simply can not fathom why others might disagree with them.
"Insanely clumsy" is clicking a button? How do you use a computer without choking to death on the mouse? You sound like you shouldn't be left unsupervised around technology.
Then explain why public transport in US cities (and outlying areas) can be so horrific, then? You can't claim "we so biiig!" when talking about cities, as they are directly comparable to those in Europe...
Stop thinking about borders - telecoms doesn't give two hoots about them. If what you say is true, internet in US cities should be the best and cheapest around, with the boondocks suffering. As it is, it's mainly crap across the board. Making excuses for shoddy US infrastructure is only helping it continue - I know you might feel upset at not being #1 #1 #1, but without accepting that you're not going to improve anything.
Plus your map is not showing 'continental Europe' - Europe is larger than the US, so it appears you are merely furthering the stereotype of geographically-hindered Americans. Shame on you. You got so much wrong in one post it's bordering on the hilarious.
I pay well less than that in Germany, and get 160mb/s down. It was 160, anyway - they keep increasing it. I've not checked in a while what I've currently got.
People in areas of Sweden with a population density of ~4 per square KM still get better internet than in many US cities. Your argument is old and busted.
Slashdot Mirror
The vast majority of the cameras in the UK are privately-owned, and governed by strict data protection laws. Just saying.
Just ask Chareth Cutestory. He studied maritime law for years.
You're a crook, Captain Hook. Judge, won't you throw the book at the pirate.
It's not the viewing of the picture which is offensive, but the making of the picture. Distributing it is rubbing salt in the wounds, and makes the difference between a secret, private image of Muhammad (which were quite common in Islam), and a public spectacle. The secret, private images were tolerated because the owners would know that the image was not being worshipped or being used to degrade Muhammad. When it's public and all over the place, that security is lost.
It's just a respect thing - when a religion has been pushed into the corner by the meddling of other countries, often with no regard to their sensibilities, they will fight tooth and nail to secure that which is the most important thing to them. We've seen this with other religions and cultures, too, so it's not just an Islam thing.
If someone respects the hell out of something I'll not go out of my way to show how free I am to disrespect it, or show how much I dislike people being offended by disrespect, by disrespecting it - "told you so" is not productive. That's just me, though.
There you go again - any opportunity for you to throw in some casual xenophobia in a completely unrelated article, and you jump at the chance, showing us just how scared and little you are.
Your intelligence is about as high as your morals.
The Skylon project is aiming to reduce the price to ~$1000 per kilo (to begin with), and then further reduce that through the life of the project. They've made some amazing progress, and they don't need to use nuclear fuel (just hydrogen), which means there's less for anyone to complain about. Couple that with being entirely reusable (and possibly capable of flying a second mission within 2 days), and it looks simply genius.
Some work exceptionally well. You'd know that if you'd bother to actually read the real research, instead of simply plugging your brain into a site whose attitude gels with your own, and letting them think for you.
You really don't understand how the web works, do you? You are saying that everyone needs to write and maintain an app for each and every OS out there, instead of having an interface which they can support, which in turn is supported by each and every OS. You are calling for the web to return to the incredibly-limited mid-90s. "How it should be" for you is not how the rest of the world wants it.
With a proper SLA and a good backup solution it is no more risky than putting your data in any other system. For example, there are thousands of companies who use hosted CRMs for their entire sales workflow, generating billions of dollars in the process. I guess they're all dumb?
No one is forcing you to use it. Don't use it, and then you won't feel compelled to complain about an option you can easily ignore.
The security services infiltrate the group, which causes the group to talk to them. That is far more valuable than just sitting round hoovering up the entire internet and trying to filter out what you're looking for, as they can actually ask for specific pieces of information which might not have been shared. It also means that even if the terrorists use ultra-mega-super-secure one time pads, for example, the intelligence is collected. With your dystopian view of intelligence work, those messages would not be readable. The rest of your issues stem from this simple ignorance of actual intelligence work - you assume mass collection is the only way to achieve results, when decades of history before and after the birth of the internet shows otherwise.
You made some good points.
The police can use the same technology - they can cooperate with their counterparts the world over, they can communicate with their agents in the field, they can send video and images around the world in seconds. Being able to use modern technology and being able to subvert its use are completely different things. Bank robbers used dynamite to blow open banks and their safes - by your logic you have no problem with police using dynamite to blow up your house looking for robbers.
So you'd have no problem with government-sanctioned cameras in your bathroom filming everything. Good to know. After all, if nothing bad will come from the recording of your personal activities, nothing bad happened.
Electronic surveillance is intrusive none the less. You can play games of semantics if you wish, but when the state rifles through your private property, you not only risk them finding things you've done which they might not like (either now or in the future), but you give them the opportunity to put things there for them to find. Once that barrier is down you can no longer be sure of what is what, and what was once your property becomes property of dubious origin.
It's called "intelligence work", and it requires well-trained people gathering intelligence on these targets. They can infiltrate the groups, befriend suspected terrorists, etc, and gather information. This is how it was done for decades, and no-one had to have their entire lives rummaged through by default until they were shown to not be a "bad guy".
It's not a Catch-22 - it's abject laziness on the part of the security services. Plugging in servers is easy. Asking for money to protect people from "scary people who want to kill you!!!111" is easy. Strong-arming ISPs to allow data gathering is easy. That's why they do it - because they can. If they had to return to the old ways of human intelligence gathering, it would be harder work, but we'd not be fucked over constantly.
Your attitude is just as dangerous as the NSA hoovering up every bit that crosses their path. I hope for your sake it was born from a lack of information and not some irrational zeal or compulsion, and that it can be changed through learning.
If "They" are actually "Us", the only thing that changes is that instead of "them" needing to do more to redress the balance of wealth, "we" need to do more. I don't care if it hurts me financially or not - if it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. Selfish attitudes such as your "Fuck you I got mine" are what cause this situation in the first place. Trying to surprise people into realising they're in the top X% is a pathetic tactic which will help absolutely no-one.
The pick a European country and a US state of equivalent size & population. I'll wait. The end result is precisely the same.
Why is it so difficult to admit that internet access in the US is a first world joke? Does it hurt your feelings? There's no rational excuse to have this opinion.
You seem to be forgetting WWII, the repercussions of which are still - to this day - haunting many countries, especially in Europe. The US sauntered through WWII with barely a scratch, owing to its geographical location, a history quite unlike most other developed countries at the time.
Ignoring that little fact kind of puts the rest of your post in doubt... Your anecdotal data set of 1 also doesn't exactly portray you in the most rational of lights...
OK, then compare Sweden to California, as has been done above. If what you say is true, California's internet should be far better than Sweden's, as California is roughly the same size, with a far larger population (and therefore more money to be gained from customers). California's climate is also far more suited to building out utilities, as Sweden's climate is closer to Alaska's.
Wait, what? Internet access in California sucks? No waaaay! It's almost as if you had a knee-jerk reaction to someone criticizing the US and had to put a stop to it, regardless of whether the criticism was accurate or not! USA #1! USA #1! USA #1!
"I'm New Around Here" doesn't understand Europe or the EU, apparently. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Sweden: 450,295 sq mi / 9,716,962 people (55.6 per sq mi)
California: 423,970 sq mi / 38,802,500 people (246 per sq mi)
So Sweden is slightly larger, with far fewer people, and yet trounces California with regard to internet access. I have no idea how you can argue that somehow it's an unfair comparison - if anything, Sweden should be lagging far behind California simply due to the relative size of their internet markets, and the fact it has a climate more like Alaska's. As it is, Sweden is making the US look a right muppet in this regard.
But I'm sure you can find some excuse as to why the Sweden example doesn't count, and that the US is #1 in internets.
So much opinion masquerading as fact. Incredible. You should probably stay out of these threads, as all you seem to do is harp on about OSX like your life depends on it, which seems a bit desperate. I feel bad for you if you have to hang out in Windows threads to make yourself feel better by pointing out to everyone why they're retarded and you (and your OS of choice) is awesome.
Just accept that you are you, and others are others. What you like might not be what they like, and vice versa. Getting all upset because not everyone agrees with you is only serving to make you look like a jealous school kid, regardless of whether that is true or not, or maybe some sort of egocentric lunatic who simply can not fathom why others might disagree with them.
That has to be some sort of perverse joke, right? Did you use Linux 10 years ago? It sure doesn't sound like it!
"Insanely clumsy" is clicking a button? How do you use a computer without choking to death on the mouse? You sound like you shouldn't be left unsupervised around technology.
Then explain why public transport in US cities (and outlying areas) can be so horrific, then? You can't claim "we so biiig!" when talking about cities, as they are directly comparable to those in Europe...
Stop thinking about borders - telecoms doesn't give two hoots about them. If what you say is true, internet in US cities should be the best and cheapest around, with the boondocks suffering. As it is, it's mainly crap across the board. Making excuses for shoddy US infrastructure is only helping it continue - I know you might feel upset at not being #1 #1 #1, but without accepting that you're not going to improve anything.
Plus your map is not showing 'continental Europe' - Europe is larger than the US, so it appears you are merely furthering the stereotype of geographically-hindered Americans. Shame on you. You got so much wrong in one post it's bordering on the hilarious.
I pay well less than that in Germany, and get 160mb/s down. It was 160, anyway - they keep increasing it. I've not checked in a while what I've currently got.
People in areas of Sweden with a population density of ~4 per square KM still get better internet than in many US cities. Your argument is old and busted.