Unfortunately, no, we can't yet do that. Obviously.
There are still far too many people who are all too willing to give up not only their liberty, but my liberty, just because some liar sells them a vague line about terrorism.
It's easy to preach about how to do what you love when you're independently wealthy.
Certainly Graham's own actions are a large part of the reason why he's independently wealthy, but if he or anyone else thinks that luck was not an incredibly huge portion of it, they're wrong. And yet he (and other people like him) constantly preach on "here's how to succeed", as if, following their own advice, they themselves would actually succeed in any meaningful number of independent test runs of reality.
I don't mean to denigrate Graham, what he accomplished, or the fact that his own talents and efforts helped tremendously in those accomplishments. But these sorts of articles always strike me as unwarranted general conclusions from absurdly small sample sizes.
I stopped using TOR when I discovered the name of one of the common exit nodes. I forget exactly what it was, but I kid you not, it was something like "datapirates.org".
I don't honestly believe that Mark Twain used the term incorrectly. I do, however, honestly believe that he used it to mean "figuratively" - not to mean "(intensifier)".
And that's fine with me, which is why I'm correcting myself here. I'm far from a prescriptivist. Languages change; that is the natural way of things. Our language has changed so that literal now has two meanings:
(1) Literal (2) Figurative
And that's fine with me. What bothers me, is the claim of the apologists that the two meanings are:
(1) Literal (2) (intensifier)
That's bullshit. It's an attempt to fit the facts to a theory, instead of a theory to the facts. "Literal" means "figurative". Either complain about it, as the original poster did, or deal with it. Don't go into this bullshit wishy-washy apologist mode.
The typical response, including from dictionaries and from articles showing examples from well-respected writers of a hundred years ago, is that "Literally has two meanings: 'not figurative' and 'an intensifier for true statements'".
Which is all well and good. But also, unfortunately, bullshit.
Literally is not used as an intensifier for true statements. It is used to mean "figuratively".
That is, there are two actual usages:
(1) Preceding a claim that sounds like it may be exaggerated or figurative, it is used to mean "The following is true and neither exaggerated or figurative".
(2) Preceding a claim that sounds like it may be exaggerated or figurative, it is used to mean "The following is true but exaggerated or figurative".
People do not use "literally" to merely precede arbitrary true statements. They only use it to precede true statements that sound like they may be exaggerated or figurative.
Hence, the typical argument that it's merely an intensifier for true statements is apologist bullshit.
Here's a clue: telecommunications didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written.
The founders intentionally designed the document to account for new situations. You cannot possibly be serious in your claim that the general theme of privacy against unwarranted government search does not apply to a specific means of communications that didn't exist when the document is written.
Yes freedom is important. I argee one hundred percent with that. But what use is freedom when everytime a car back fires, , or you see a plane in the sky should one hide for fear of death.
You live in fear. Okay. That's not my problem, and fuck all if I'll let the government take my civil liberties away because you're afraid.
Personally I find that one too many people qoute the founding fathers.
Too bad. Here's another: Give me liberty or give me death.
Pick up a "Dummies Guide to American Government" so that you can understand that the President just doesn't launch secret programs without anyone else knowing about it.
Point out the page on which "Dummies Guide to American Government" says that the President can order warrantless spying on Americans.
Stop skimming the headlines of articles and don't get stuck in that "read once, repeat many" syndrome. Do the research. It's not like this is the first time a program like this was launched.
Name another time that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans.
When did slashdot become so Anti-American?
When did defending the Bill of Rights become anti-American?
How many of our operative's identities were uncovered and made public by the news media?
I don't know, how many? And what does that have to do with the fact that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans?
No one seems to be shouting TREASON and yet when SUPPORT is there for the president to use any means possible to find terrorists some people want to help the terrorists instead.
Explain to me how not getting a warrant helps the terrorists. While doing so, keep in mind that the law allows you t retroactively get a warrant up to 72 hours after spying is initiated.
Strange. I guess you just have to lose someone in a building due to a terrorist attack to appreciate what this administration is doing for you.
To appreciate direct and unabashed violation of the Fourth Amendment? I'm afraid it will take a lot more than that for me to appreciate it.
Stop saying that America is not Free and is such a "Horrible" place to live in.
Exactly where did I say what you quote me as saying there?
Are you nuts? Have you been outside of the US lately and I don't mean some layover between flights? It's crazy out there. Take a walk in your local park and be grateful that you don't have to dodge bullets or worry about your 5 year old daughter being raped.
Explain to me exactly what my five year old daughter being raped has to do with the President ordering warrantless spying on Americans.
Most importantly, if you decide to use your wonderful freedom of free speech, use it wisely. Don't spew forth nonsense. Sheep are stupid.
Good thing to know that if downtown New York got bombed, and thousands of people died, nobody would want to know if someone was plotting another attack like that.
Explain to me why getting a warrant precludes investigating terrorist plots.
Keep in mind that the law allows for a warrant to be obtained up to seventy-two hours after spying is initiated.
What's the big deal. If you are doing nothing wrong who cares. If the president or the NSA wants to listen to me talk about my problems on the internet or on the telephone, with my friends and family, then have at it, maybe they have some good advice that can help me. If they can't help me, then maybe the least they have done is saved me, my wife, my kids, and everyone else from getting hurt and retain our right to bitch them out over everything they do.
My civil liberties are not yours to give away, you spineless unamerican coward.
In the words of Samuel Adams, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Yeah, that's terrific man. "I knew all about this years ago, so who cares?"
Indeed. Who cares that the President of the United States has directly ordered the violation of the Bill of Rights, and intends to continue doing so. After all, this is all old news to Anonymous Coward on Slashdot.
I would bet that if you gave the articles to two writing experts rather than two experts on the topic the articles are about, the Britannica articles would almost universally qualify as having better writing, better organization, less duplication, less tangentially related or even non-related discussion, and so forth.
If you actually read what Linus says - not just on this topic, but in general -, you'll notice one thing: he himself doesn't care. What he *does* care about is technical superiority and the like, but not politics; as such, he never has been afraid to speak his opinion, and he isn't right now, either, and - maybe most important! - he doesn't expect people to take it as anything except for the opinion of one guy.
Yeah, right.
A person who wasn't interested in politics, and who was merely speaking his opinion and expecting nothing but that it will be taken merely as one guy's opinion, would not say "Please, just tell people to use KDE."
The best part is the "biometrics" toilet seat that'll figure out who you are based on your weight and prints the news you want - not your roommates tabloid garbage.
Yeah, that's a friggin' fantastic idea. So some guy in my office loses three pounds, and suddenly he's presented with my feeds: "Dear Mr. Jesus 2.0, here is your fresh new abhorrently deviant pornography".
The problem with Google's "Don't Be Evil" philosophy is this:
Maybe they currently intend not to be evil. I don't really doubt it. But if they ever have a change of heart - and keep in mind that they are a public company that may have a change of heart due to a change of ownership - they can switch into "evil" mode on a knife switch.
And they are currently accumulating, indexing, and analyzing vast amounts of data, and integrating themselves further and deeper into more and more low-level aspects of people's everyday lives.
If they ever do switch into "evil" mode, they can be seriously evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, one thing is certain: Not 40001 is not the charm.
Unfortunately, no, we can't yet do that. Obviously.
There are still far too many people who are all too willing to give up not only their liberty, but my liberty, just because some liar sells them a vague line about terrorism.
Uh, yeah, that's, uh, what do you call it... oh yeah: bullshit.
Why didn't they just convert the STOPs to periods when typing them up / printing them out / whatever?
Bleh.
All publicly traded corporations are a democracy. They are reponsible to their shareholders
That makes them plutocracies, not democracies.
But I'll add one more comment:
Thank you, Paul Graham, for bringing Bayesian spam filters to the attention of the world.
It's easy to preach about how to do what you love when you're independently wealthy.
Certainly Graham's own actions are a large part of the reason why he's independently wealthy, but if he or anyone else thinks that luck was not an incredibly huge portion of it, they're wrong. And yet he (and other people like him) constantly preach on "here's how to succeed", as if, following their own advice, they themselves would actually succeed in any meaningful number of independent test runs of reality.
I don't mean to denigrate Graham, what he accomplished, or the fact that his own talents and efforts helped tremendously in those accomplishments. But these sorts of articles always strike me as unwarranted general conclusions from absurdly small sample sizes.
I stopped using TOR when I discovered the name of one of the common exit nodes. I forget exactly what it was, but I kid you not, it was something like "datapirates.org".
I should correct myself:
I don't honestly believe that Mark Twain used the term incorrectly. I do, however, honestly believe that he used it to mean "figuratively" - not to mean "(intensifier)".
And that's fine with me, which is why I'm correcting myself here. I'm far from a prescriptivist. Languages change; that is the natural way of things. Our language has changed so that literal now has two meanings:
(1) Literal
(2) Figurative
And that's fine with me. What bothers me, is the claim of the apologists that the two meanings are:
(1) Literal
(2) (intensifier)
That's bullshit. It's an attempt to fit the facts to a theory, instead of a theory to the facts. "Literal" means "figurative". Either complain about it, as the original poster did, or deal with it. Don't go into this bullshit wishy-washy apologist mode.
The typical response, including from dictionaries and from articles showing examples from well-respected writers of a hundred years ago, is that "Literally has two meanings: 'not figurative' and 'an intensifier for true statements'".
Which is all well and good. But also, unfortunately, bullshit.
Literally is not used as an intensifier for true statements. It is used to mean "figuratively".
That is, there are two actual usages:
(1) Preceding a claim that sounds like it may be exaggerated or figurative, it is used to mean "The following is true and neither exaggerated or figurative".
(2) Preceding a claim that sounds like it may be exaggerated or figurative, it is used to mean "The following is true but exaggerated or figurative".
People do not use "literally" to merely precede arbitrary true statements. They only use it to precede true statements that sound like they may be exaggerated or figurative.
Hence, the typical argument that it's merely an intensifier for true statements is apologist bullshit.
Yes, Mark Twain used it. He used it incorrectly.
Then you should find another job.
Yeah, that's a brilliant argument.
Here's a clue: telecommunications didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written.
The founders intentionally designed the document to account for new situations. You cannot possibly be serious in your claim that the general theme of privacy against unwarranted government search does not apply to a specific means of communications that didn't exist when the document is written.
Great. So now let's put Clinton in jail, and officially apologize to the families of MLK and Clement Vallandigham.
Yes freedom is important. I argee one hundred percent with that. But what use is freedom when everytime a car back fires, , or you see a plane in the sky should one hide for fear of death.
You live in fear. Okay. That's not my problem, and fuck all if I'll let the government take my civil liberties away because you're afraid.
Personally I find that one too many people qoute the founding fathers.
Too bad. Here's another: Give me liberty or give me death.
Nothing wrong was done.
Bullshit.
Pick up a "Dummies Guide to American Government" so that you can understand that the President just doesn't launch secret programs without anyone else knowing about it.
Point out the page on which "Dummies Guide to American Government" says that the President can order warrantless spying on Americans.
Stop skimming the headlines of articles and don't get stuck in that "read once, repeat many" syndrome. Do the research. It's not like this is the first time a program like this was launched.
Name another time that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans.
When did slashdot become so Anti-American?
When did defending the Bill of Rights become anti-American?
How many of our operative's identities were uncovered and made public by the news media?
I don't know, how many? And what does that have to do with the fact that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans?
No one seems to be shouting TREASON and yet when SUPPORT is there for the president to use any means possible to find terrorists some people want to help the terrorists instead.
Explain to me how not getting a warrant helps the terrorists. While doing so, keep in mind that the law allows you t retroactively get a warrant up to 72 hours after spying is initiated.
Strange. I guess you just have to lose someone in a building due to a terrorist attack to appreciate what this administration is doing for you.
To appreciate direct and unabashed violation of the Fourth Amendment? I'm afraid it will take a lot more than that for me to appreciate it.
Stop saying that America is not Free and is such a "Horrible" place to live in.
Exactly where did I say what you quote me as saying there?
Are you nuts? Have you been outside of the US lately and I don't mean some layover between flights? It's crazy out there. Take a walk in your local park and be grateful that you don't have to dodge bullets or worry about your 5 year old daughter being raped.
Explain to me exactly what my five year old daughter being raped has to do with the President ordering warrantless spying on Americans.
Most importantly, if you decide to use your wonderful freedom of free speech, use it wisely. Don't spew forth nonsense. Sheep are stupid.
They sure are.
Easy Big Fella...For the very fact that this has happened is to save your Civil Liberties.
Yeah.
Because the President not getting a warrant saves my civil liberties.
Bullshit. You're an apologist for despotism, and I'll call you what I want, whether you think I'm being "like a little school girl" or not.
Bullshit. Cite.
Good thing to know that if downtown New York got bombed, and thousands of people died, nobody would want to know if someone was plotting another attack like that.
Explain to me why getting a warrant precludes investigating terrorist plots.
Keep in mind that the law allows for a warrant to be obtained up to seventy-two hours after spying is initiated.
It's a simple question. Answer it.
What's the big deal. If you are doing nothing wrong who cares. If the president or the NSA wants to listen to me talk about my problems on the internet or on the telephone, with my friends and family, then have at it, maybe they have some good advice that can help me. If they can't help me, then maybe the least they have done is saved me, my wife, my kids, and everyone else from getting hurt and retain our right to bitch them out over everything they do.
My civil liberties are not yours to give away, you spineless unamerican coward.
In the words of Samuel Adams, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Yeah, that's terrific man. "I knew all about this years ago, so who cares?"
Indeed. Who cares that the President of the United States has directly ordered the violation of the Bill of Rights, and intends to continue doing so. After all, this is all old news to Anonymous Coward on Slashdot.
I would bet that if you gave the articles to two writing experts rather than two experts on the topic the articles are about, the Britannica articles would almost universally qualify as having better writing, better organization, less duplication, less tangentially related or even non-related discussion, and so forth.
If you actually read what Linus says - not just on this topic, but in general -, you'll notice one thing: he himself doesn't care. What he *does* care about is technical superiority and the like, but not politics; as such, he never has been afraid to speak his opinion, and he isn't right now, either, and - maybe most important! - he doesn't expect people to take it as anything except for the opinion of one guy.
Yeah, right.
A person who wasn't interested in politics, and who was merely speaking his opinion and expecting nothing but that it will be taken merely as one guy's opinion, would not say "Please, just tell people to use KDE."
The best part is the "biometrics" toilet seat that'll figure out who you are based on your weight and prints the news you want - not your roommates tabloid garbage.
Yeah, that's a friggin' fantastic idea. So some guy in my office loses three pounds, and suddenly he's presented with my feeds: "Dear Mr. Jesus 2.0, here is your fresh new abhorrently deviant pornography".
The problem with Google's "Don't Be Evil" philosophy is this:
Maybe they currently intend not to be evil. I don't really doubt it. But if they ever have a change of heart - and keep in mind that they are a public company that may have a change of heart due to a change of ownership - they can switch into "evil" mode on a knife switch.
And they are currently accumulating, indexing, and analyzing vast amounts of data, and integrating themselves further and deeper into more and more low-level aspects of people's everyday lives.
If they ever do switch into "evil" mode, they can be seriously evil.