It's because we have politicians running the country, not leaders. They dare not speak the truth because they are not leaders. This country does not elect people who speak the truth, only people who say what we want to hear.
What politicians won't say: want to win the drug war? Lose it!
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
I have a "limited profile" group, into which I place people who ask to be a "friend", when I feel it would be rude to ignore them, but don't really want them to see everything.
If, at this point, you are putting things on Facebook that you don't want people (just about everyone) to see... well that's just plain silly.
Facebook's never-ending privacy concerns are making some kind of a national law or regulation more and more likely.
Looks like Facebook isn't ponying up enough lobbyists and campaign contributions. If they'd just do this and data-mine for the government, they'd probably be allowed to do everything they do plus install anal/brain probes on us.
The result is that Google knows what is being searched for, but doesn't know where the requests are coming from. The GoogleSharing proxy can tell where requests are coming from, but can't tell what the content of the requests is.
It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for the internet!
Okay, this is a trend that Slashdot has been a little slow to adopt so it's understandable the editors don't understand it fully.
Application Programmer Interfaces or APIs for short is a concept on the web that means sites with large databases make most of their data available to programmers in machine-friendly requests and answers. Facebook and Myspace do this, so does Google and Yahoo!. There's several huge directories of all the APIs that are out there, and even companies such as The Mashery that help companies make their data available via APIs.
There's presently no Slashdot API but there really should be. Slashdot supports OpenID logins, but not the outbound usage of Slashdot user accounts on other sites. Really not keeping up with the times.
So, now that I've explained that concept, here's the question: How is Twitter going to sell follower info when it's easy enough to create free API requests that will return any recent tweet that mentioned whatever the programmer is interested in finding out about, complete with the username so the program can DM, @reply or retweet right away or forward the tweet to a human for review.
Companies that actively use Twitter the right way don't have to pay a cent to Twitter, the API is free. Only if you're clueless or not interesting enough do you have to pay for your promoted topic... just like those who do the web right get free search traffic from Google without needing AdWords. More or less, this new service translates to "We'll write your API app to find users likely to be interested in hearing from you so you don't have to." Uhm, isn't that also a fancy way of saying "your followers list"?
tl;dr:
Google does this, so does Yahoo. They sell your data that you are freely giving to them (and of course they're giving you FREE use of their services). Of course you don't care otherwise you wouldn't be freely giving it to them right? RIGHT?! You've shown that you just don't give a fuck so Slashdot will be doing this shortly.
As an evolution "accepter", I still understand that evolution deniers for the most part don't have a problem with repeatable-in-the-lab natural selection, and are clear on the difference between that and speciation, which unfortunately is more difficult in that respect.
So what you are saying is that although they believe and understand that the light is produced when the switch is turned to "on", they don't believe that it is electricity that causes the light, and that this is somehow reasonable... hmm.
Wth? I tried it and all it did was lengthen the URL Read why it was discontinued. Getting the ability to track who is clicking on what must be worth a lot of money, because I'm sure that Google has done their homework.
Unless you complained then, complaining now has no credibility.
While I agree with the rest of your comments, I take exception with this one. It is never too late to start opposing the abuse of human rights by any government. People change, hopefully for the better, and we should encourage that.
Say you are googling "Amateur Astronomy" with someone looking over your shoulder - do they really need to see "Amateur As" partial result (lots of porn links on that page)?
I actually played around with this. If you pause, whatever google instant is suggesting that you search for becomes part of your browser history. So yeah, that could be a problem, especially at work.
A fighter would understand, for instance, if an enemy had penetrated the networks and changed coordinates or target times
Only if the enemy wasn't skilled enough to leave in the correct coordinates and target times, and just slightly change and obfuscate the code to the point where the warrior wouldn't understand that different coordinates or target times were being loaded at the last critical point.
My reaction to it was the same as with the AwesomeBar:
First I loathed it[...]
But I was too lazy to disable it[...] I then started (without even noticing) to adapt
Don't worry, it'll be the same when they come out with the new and improved Search/BloodMonit/AnalProbe/NeuralInt Nanny-Brother.
Oh my god, Google wants to make money from it's advertising arm. This is shocking news, we should all boycott them now for someone who provides all services for free.
I certainly get that they are in the business of making money. (Aren't we all?) But with how much they attempt to and actually track me I'm just not comfortable with giving them all of my info anymore. You see this with almost every (large) company out there: they start out with a pretty good product that sprang from some ideals (other search engines suck, interfaces for devices should be simple). They truly seem to want to improve products and experiences for people while making a buck to boot. They continue with these ideals to the point where their product becomes the top of the market. Shortly thereafter a subtle shift in priorities happens: making the buck moves to the top of the priority list. Then begins the long slow decline, and pretty soon they're just another run of the mill large company that is out to see just how much money they can wring from their customers. I see it over and over. It's sad.
I was trying to point out how we have elevated corporations over individuals to the point of absurdity. It was also commentary on how fucked up what we value sometimes is. It's ridiculous that a CEO can make over 1000 times that of his lowest paid worker. PHds in Computational Linguistics are in general more valuable to society than MBAs, and should be remunerated thusly.
Keeping wages artificially low is hardly "just some companies making a deal". It's anti-competitive and disrupts the marketplace. It's also illegal.
Yeah, but not the "true" marketplace. This is just some lowlife "individuals" wanting to make more than they deserve (anything that doesn't involve an MBA should be capped at $100k). It shouldn't be too hard for these god-like beings (corporations) to get this to silently go away.
Courts have held that Internet subscribers do not have an expectation of privacy once they convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled.
Why do you have such a hard time following the judge's logic? She is NOT saying that there is no expectation of privacy when you commit a crime. She is saying that there is no expectation of privacy when you subscribe to an ISP. THAT'S IT. No fucking crime needed.
Let me state it once again in case you missed it: the ONLY reason given for no expectation of privacy - THE ONLY REASON - is signing up for an ISP.
Would an analogy help? You're eating food, therefore I get to see your wife naked. See, no crime. How about: you like bubble gum, therefore I get to watch you have sex. Again, just an everyday ordinary action by you and the state gets to peek in your windows.
The judge ruled that courts have maintained that once people convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, they no longer have an expectation of privacy
From sumdumass:
You never had a right to privacy when committing a crime.
Neither. Privacy gained prominence and became a right with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and its demise began when the World Trade Center was attacked. 9/11 was like a diagnosis of terminal cancer for privacy. We didn't know how long it would take to die, but it is almost dead now.
How HDR works is that you take one picture that is extremely dark, and then you take another picture that is extremely bright, and you merge them together
Slashdot Mirror
What politicians won't say: want to win the drug war? Lose it!
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
I have a "limited profile" group, into which I place people who ask to be a "friend", when I feel it would be rude to ignore them, but don't really want them to see everything.
If, at this point, you are putting things on Facebook that you don't want people (just about everyone) to see... well that's just plain silly.
Fox took a ride in one of the $800,000 vans, videotaping the entire event -- and continues the debate about security, privacy, and health risks.
The Government's new definition of debate: you keep talking amongst yourselves, we'll keep implementing.
Facebook's never-ending privacy concerns are making some kind of a national law or regulation more and more likely.
Looks like Facebook isn't ponying up enough lobbyists and campaign contributions. If they'd just do this and data-mine for the government, they'd probably be allowed to do everything they do plus install anal/brain probes on us.
The result is that Google knows what is being searched for, but doesn't know where the requests are coming from. The GoogleSharing proxy can tell where requests are coming from, but can't tell what the content of the requests is.
It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for the internet!
Okay, this is a trend that Slashdot has been a little slow to adopt so it's understandable the editors don't understand it fully. Application Programmer Interfaces or APIs for short is a concept on the web that means sites with large databases make most of their data available to programmers in machine-friendly requests and answers. Facebook and Myspace do this, so does Google and Yahoo!. There's several huge directories of all the APIs that are out there, and even companies such as The Mashery that help companies make their data available via APIs. There's presently no Slashdot API but there really should be. Slashdot supports OpenID logins, but not the outbound usage of Slashdot user accounts on other sites. Really not keeping up with the times. So, now that I've explained that concept, here's the question: How is Twitter going to sell follower info when it's easy enough to create free API requests that will return any recent tweet that mentioned whatever the programmer is interested in finding out about, complete with the username so the program can DM, @reply or retweet right away or forward the tweet to a human for review. Companies that actively use Twitter the right way don't have to pay a cent to Twitter, the API is free. Only if you're clueless or not interesting enough do you have to pay for your promoted topic... just like those who do the web right get free search traffic from Google without needing AdWords. More or less, this new service translates to "We'll write your API app to find users likely to be interested in hearing from you so you don't have to." Uhm, isn't that also a fancy way of saying "your followers list"?
tl;dr:
Google does this, so does Yahoo. They sell your data that you are freely giving to them (and of course they're giving you FREE use of their services). Of course you don't care otherwise you wouldn't be freely giving it to them right? RIGHT?! You've shown that you just don't give a fuck so Slashdot will be doing this shortly.
As an evolution "accepter", I still understand that evolution deniers for the most part don't have a problem with repeatable-in-the-lab natural selection, and are clear on the difference between that and speciation, which unfortunately is more difficult in that respect.
So what you are saying is that although they believe and understand that the light is produced when the switch is turned to "on", they don't believe that it is electricity that causes the light, and that this is somehow reasonable... hmm.
Their design by evolution... stop being fucking pedantic you know what he meant.
Their [sic] design [sic] by evolution... ya know what I mean?
Wth? I tried it and all it did was lengthen the URL Read why it was discontinued. Getting the ability to track who is clicking on what must be worth a lot of money, because I'm sure that Google has done their homework.
goo.gl shortens goo.gl url's as well! No, I will not write an evil script. Someone has to do the 'No Evil', right?
I certainly wouldn't click on goo.gurl ! Or would I?!
Am I doing this right? http://goo.gl/
Unless you complained then, complaining now has no credibility.
While I agree with the rest of your comments, I take exception with this one. It is never too late to start opposing the abuse of human rights by any government. People change, hopefully for the better, and we should encourage that.
Say you are googling "Amateur Astronomy" with someone looking over your shoulder - do they really need to see "Amateur As" partial result (lots of porn links on that page)?
I actually played around with this. If you pause, whatever google instant is suggesting that you search for becomes part of your browser history. So yeah, that could be a problem, especially at work.
A fighter would understand, for instance, if an enemy had penetrated the networks and changed coordinates or target times
Only if the enemy wasn't skilled enough to leave in the correct coordinates and target times, and just slightly change and obfuscate the code to the point where the warrior wouldn't understand that different coordinates or target times were being loaded at the last critical point.
5. Rename the GPL,the GNU Pubic License, just for the Lulz.
So that would be: GNUPL's Not a Unix Public License?
My reaction to it was the same as with the AwesomeBar:
First I loathed it[...]
But I was too lazy to disable it[...]
I then started (without even noticing) to adapt
Don't worry, it'll be the same when they come out with the new and improved Search/BloodMonit/AnalProbe/NeuralInt Nanny-Brother.
Oh my god, Google wants to make money from it's advertising arm. This is shocking news, we should all boycott them now for someone who provides all services for free.
I certainly get that they are in the business of making money. (Aren't we all?) But with how much they attempt to and actually track me I'm just not comfortable with giving them all of my info anymore. You see this with almost every (large) company out there: they start out with a pretty good product that sprang from some ideals (other search engines suck, interfaces for devices should be simple). They truly seem to want to improve products and experiences for people while making a buck to boot. They continue with these ideals to the point where their product becomes the top of the market. Shortly thereafter a subtle shift in priorities happens: making the buck moves to the top of the priority list. Then begins the long slow decline, and pretty soon they're just another run of the mill large company that is out to see just how much money they can wring from their customers. I see it over and over. It's sad.
I was trying to point out how we have elevated corporations over individuals to the point of absurdity. It was also commentary on how fucked up what we value sometimes is. It's ridiculous that a CEO can make over 1000 times that of his lowest paid worker. PHds in Computational Linguistics are in general more valuable to society than MBAs, and should be remunerated thusly.
Keeping wages artificially low is hardly "just some companies making a deal". It's anti-competitive and disrupts the marketplace. It's also illegal.
Yeah, but not the "true" marketplace. This is just some lowlife "individuals" wanting to make more than they deserve (anything that doesn't involve an MBA should be capped at $100k). It shouldn't be too hard for these god-like beings (corporations) to get this to silently go away.
Courts have held that Internet subscribers do not have an expectation of privacy once they convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled.
Why do you have such a hard time following the judge's logic? She is NOT saying that there is no expectation of privacy when you commit a crime. She is saying that there is no expectation of privacy when you subscribe to an ISP. THAT'S IT. No fucking crime needed.
Let me state it once again in case you missed it: the ONLY reason given for no expectation of privacy - THE ONLY REASON - is signing up for an ISP.
Would an analogy help?
You're eating food, therefore I get to see your wife naked.
See, no crime.
How about: you like bubble gum, therefore I get to watch you have sex.
Again, just an everyday ordinary action by you and the state gets to peek in your windows.
P.S. Maybe you're just trolling me. Kudos: I bit.
The judge ruled that courts have maintained that once people convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, they no longer have an expectation of privacy
From sumdumass:
You never had a right to privacy when committing a crime.
I fail to see where the crime was committed.
September 11, 2001
Hmm... changing the subject, or typo?
Neither. Privacy gained prominence and became a right with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and its demise began when the World Trade Center was attacked. 9/11 was like a diagnosis of terminal cancer for privacy. We didn't know how long it would take to die, but it is almost dead now.
RIP
Privacy
December 15, 1791 - September 11, 2001
You had a good run...
You were too good for us.
Australia has no use for broadband, as they aren't allowed to do anything with it.
Yes the DO! Imagine THIS at 1 Gbps! Hey, it's legal, he has no breasts.
How HDR works is that you take one picture that is extremely dark, and then you take another picture that is extremely bright, and you merge them together
In Soviet Montage, HDR merges YOU!
Oh wait... no, you're right. :-D