Assange may be independent, but his organizations are known for hacking and dumping classified data. TPIP being the most recent dump of classified data. Snowden had one dump, Manning had one dump. Wikileaks and Anonymous have done much more, and the US Government may try to make an example of Assange.
The point was not about bars, it was about striking up a conversation and treating them like people and being treated in kind. If you try to go out and meet people, setting a bar ahead of time idiotic. Say "hi" and let them set the bar. If it's too low for you, you didn't lose much.
Today, I still try to treat cops like people first. I don't get harassed, and still find a good number of police to be decent people. I took a wrong turn about a month ago and pulled over where a CHP was doing radar patrol and was laughing with me as we looked at a map joking about Google Maps. My son and I stopped and talked with a few bay area cops on foot patrol at a festival a few weeks before that. One seemed like a dick, but the other three were decent people and it was obvious that they didn't like the dick.
Point is, I am not a dick to them and try and treat them like people. Surprisingly, even today I find a good number that are decent. Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder which could have something to do with a perception that all police are evil.
Everyone gets tickets from time to time, noobs and fat boys get to spend their time on radar patrol (not reflective of highway patrol)
I have never had a ticket, not once. I have been pulled over for speeding a few times, but the police I dealt with were people and I treated them like people.
I remember back to the 60s, and most cops were decent people. Inner city cops were a bit different, but I only visited downtown Detroit, I didn't live there. I worked as a cook through high school and City, County, and State Police were regular customers. If you were not a dick to them, they were not going to be a dick to you. Most of the cops hung out at various bars after work, and were just like everyone else that had a job.
Now maybe where you grew up cops were all dicks, but not where I grew up. In fact in the early 80s I was in the military and met cops from every State I was in (18 total). Ask where the best bars are, and they would point the way.
Who gets the ticket, the guy who yells "Awe fuck you man, I was only doing 10 over and you are going to give me a ticket" or the guy sitting relaxed and saying "yeah, sorry officer I was listening my new favorite song and not paying enough attention to my speed.". Most people that claim cops are dicks are the first guy.
Like I started with, areas with just dicks are becoming more and more common, but even 20 years ago it was not the normal.
The problem with the recent enemies of the US is that they are _not_ considered journalists, namely "Assange" Even the guardian writers and staff are concerned about trying to enter the US, because people like Feinstein have claimed that unless you are vetted by the US Government you are not considered a journalist. I'm sure this would take a trial to make stick (if it did) but not too many journalists want to volunteer to be the first in the defendant seat if they can help it.
The case law you linked would work if a writer from NYT refused to reveal a source and wrote about something classified, maybe. Writers are the targets of investigation and threatened (at a minimum) if they write about the wrong things. These are very messed up times to be a journalist.
You basically repeat TFAs point, which I simply don't buy. Assange is much different than the NYT, because he won't or can't hand over data and people in exchange for no prosecution. He also (at least to my knowledge) does not work for the US Government and scratch their backs to get his own, as the AP, NYT, NYP, WP, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et. al. do at least some of the time (many of those the majority of the time).
If I was Assange, I'd stay well clear of the US. Wikileaks is just one of numerous reasons for the US to snag him if he enters the country. What Assange put into Wikileaks dwarfs the Snowden dump and did much more damage. Not just the data from Manning, but their own hacks of cables and dumps of even recent TPIP classified documents.
I didn't claim there was no equal protection under the law. I responded to a person that claimed that assassinating a political figure was worse than yelling fire in a crowded theater.
There was just a bit of sarcasm in the comment regarding a criminal (assassin) killing a criminal (politician). A bit because while everyone has equal protection, generally society has much less pity on a criminal killing another criminal, compared to a criminal killing a citizen that is not a criminal. Additionally, criminals are displaced from society and during certain punishments are not citizens (at least with the rights and privileges as every other citizen.)
Putting politicians on a pedestal has nothing to do with being a Republic. It is called being brain washed into believing that all of these politicians are celebrities that should be worshiped. The first President was pretty close to Socrates' description of what a politician should be. He didn't want the job either time he was voted in. People like that are the ideal a Republic depends on to be successful.
If your last statement was that we are everyone is "special" and you are trying to be the coach of the "feel good" squad, do so with a bit less generalization after trying to argue a point that was very specific.
He does not have to take up arms, look at what they want to charge Snowden with and what they did charge Manning with. All they have to claim is that information published helps the enemy. Last I checked, Manning dumped his information to Wikileaks who dumped it to the public. Assange will get worse than Manning in the way of sentencing, and the precedent is already set for the charges.
Not true that you never could. It used to be that cops were mostly decent people trying to protect society from bad people. There are still quite a few that are like that. The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so. The brainwashing and hiring tactics are working, because they are getting worse and worse.
I don't think it's worse than that, because _if_ someone attempted very few would be harmed. Nor do I think it's the same by any comparative measure. Shouting "Fire" in a theater harms numerous people that are all innocent. In the case of an assassination attempt, most likely the guy who tried to pull the trigger, and perhaps a body guard or two would be hurt and perhaps the politician. An attempted assassination would be one criminal trying to kill another criminal (at least using the sample names in TFA).
People often make the mistake of putting politicians on pedestal, and it should be treated as worse than janitorial use. At least in a Republic.
With your claims that school is prison, raising a voice or spanking is "child abuse", and that all organized religion is child abuse? Absolutely. If your views are really so distorted, you are probably lacking more than just medication.
Your list is simply asinine, because none of those things are "child abuse". Your terming of school as "prison" is very telling. "School" is not mandatory 12 years, it's 13 years if you go K-12 (this is first grade math), and you can drop out of school at 16 without any measure of your eduction. Meaning that you could still be a first grader at 16 and drop out, though most people would consider you to be suffering from a form of mental retardation at that point.
If it's true that Google has a 200 strong team, why not have that team actually looking for creators of child porn and working with law enforcement? They don't make enough profit annually to pay professionals to do this? MS could do the same with Bing, even without the Google market share, it just takes fewer people.
The basic problem with censorship is that it's a prohibition, not a "fix". What they are doing is covering up the problem, not trying to correct the problem. In society, the way to prevent illegal activities is to pursue and prosecute the people performing these illegal acts. That means going after the upper levels of these activities, not the end users. Kind of like going after the people processing poppy to make narcotics as opposed to the guy smoking opium or shooting smack.
Of course our law enforcement goes after the end user most of the time, and ignores or gives up on the producers. It's easier to get the guy downloading an image than it is to find the person creating the images. Fast headlines are not a resolution, but it does give the impression that we are doing something (even if it's the wrong thing). These are the same exact things we do with drugs.
It won't work, will waste money, and sets a precedent for censorship which is extremely dangerous.
Sorry, I'll disagree again - the FG requirement for air bags was before 1970 (1969 I believe), to be in place for 1973.
Be clear then about what requirement you are referring to. Legislation mandating the installation of air-bags in vehicles was in the mid to late 80s. If you want to make a claim that there was some requirement in the 70s, provide citation. I have already provided citation for the 80s regulation, so there should be no question there.
If there are no regulations that you can cite, you are simply inventing things to back your argument.
Re:What's wrong with gathering data?
on
Rigging Up Baby
·
· Score: 1
People running their child to the doctor for no reason is going to happen with or without data.
A certain level of that is considered "normal", especially for first time parents. It would only be abnormal if they have a above normal level of paranoia, which devices like these help to achieve.
As to the data, every human is unique. My nieces and nephews had absolutely nothing in common with each other as infants, and my kid was nothing like them. They all had slightly different schedules, ate slightly different amounts, slept slightly different schedules, had varying nap times and lengths, grew at slightly different rates, etc.. etc.. etc...
The "science" from the data gathering would get someone at most, a generalization. A generalization which matches what we already have in thousands of parenting books from thousands of studies.
Dang, I have BM and a "number two" reference in that short of a sentence!!
Re:What happens when the App crashes?
on
Rigging Up Baby
·
· Score: 2
The problem isn't with parents that already pay attention to their infants. Monitoring in this case is probably going overboard, unless the infant has some type of condition that would require this level of monitoring. If said condition exists, would not the pediatrician want the infant in the hospital for better monitoring in addition to almost immediate medical care?
The real issues I see with this are the parent(s) that don't pay much attention. The monitoring won't help when the adults are stoned, drunk, whoring, or what ever else some parents do. These are the people that may feel safer doing wrong things, to the detriment of the infant. It helps neglecting situations become more neglecting. It's an excuse for it in fact, I can already see law suits by shitty parents for dead infants.
I read above that someone logged and graphed feeding, sleeping, dirty diapers, etc.. and that those logs and graphs helped them be better parents. It was not the logs and graphs, it was the fact that they were paying attention to the child and trying to be involved that made them better parents. Electronic monitoring items like in TFA don't help help people be better parents. Being involved, paying attention to the child's needs, helping them learn, that is what makes a good parent.
The last point I am concerned with, is if any studies have been done to determine growth impact from these monitors. We already know that certain levels of certain waves are harmful to development. How will these impact "normal" development of infants?
It's not beyond these people to lie to achieve what they want. Hopefully I didn't even need to mention that, but I did just to be sure we were on the up and up here. Reading the article, there is nothing I can see to verify that this was in fact the work of Anonymous. Some things don't line up with the normal activities. This article not only spreads FUD for internet censorship and control, but FUD about activism/hactivism.
From TFA, they first claim that anonymous used PDF exploits. Well, just about every botnet on the planet gets infected by some type of Trojan filled file. Anonymous is more well known for MITM attacks than trojaned files. Nothing convincing yet that it was anonymous.
Then they claim that anonymous stole 2,0000 bank accounts. That on a Rueters article should be a dead give away that this potentially propaganda. It didn't make it through normal editing.
The article does mention someone in the UK being indited on hacking into the US DOE, but then they lump everything else to that one person at anonymous. Maybe they have much more detail on proving that all of these hacks were anonymous and didn't show it. I'm not convinced by what was released here, and have not trusted these people to tell the truth for decades (amplified in the last few years).
I agree with you, and try to explain it as two questions normally. "Is there a God" and "Is there a Theology". Numerous atheists mix the two arguments to claim that there is no God. Numerous Religious people mix the two arguments to claim that there is a God. Philosophers don't delve very deep into the Theology portion until they have a reasonable answer for having a God.
I almost laugh at times at how an atheist appears to be as much of an evangelist as the Jehovah's Witness you can't get to leave your porch. It's difficult to get either to listen to rational points on the subject. Most of the time my explanations fail even when I ask them to break it into two questions. The biases we learn are incredibly strong.
I realize that this is perhaps difficult, but belief in Theology requires the belief in a God first. The latter is a Philosophical question which can not be answered by science as the person mentioned. They never mentioned a Theology, and your bringing that up distorts the point.
If a person comes to a philosophical conclusion that there is a "God", "Creator" or what ever they wish to call it, then belief in a Theology will normally follow. You don't have to agree with their conclusion of having a God, but you can't prove them wrong any more than you can prove to them that there is no creator.
Where you, and so many others, fail (in critical thinking, explaining your position, and addressing someone that believes in a creator) is that you combine the two questions into a single thought. Is there a God becomes "is there Theology" and they are absolutely _not_ the same question.
Glad I read your summary before TFA. Reading a claim that "Evolution can evolve" is like a claim of "movement can move", or "changes can change". I'm guessing that the article is nonsense like the summary, so I'm sure not racing to read it. I could be wrong, but your summation increases my reluctance.
If it was possible to spin it into a positive, you would be correct. The problem here is that there is no way to spin this in a positive way and the company is not big enough to pay PR firms to try and fix it.
The company can not bill her $3,500.00 for starters. Claiming breach of contract in this case simply won't work for the company. The person did not sign a legal contract with such an asinine clause. Even if the person signed without noticing the clause, it's not a binding contract for dozens of reasons. A judge would simply throw the company and the contract out, and a good judge would recommend the defendant sue the plaintiff.
Since this company is small, they really just put themselves out of business. The owner should have checked with a lawyer before trying to do something this idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
Assange may be independent, but his organizations are known for hacking and dumping classified data. TPIP being the most recent dump of classified data. Snowden had one dump, Manning had one dump. Wikileaks and Anonymous have done much more, and the US Government may try to make an example of Assange.
The point was not about bars, it was about striking up a conversation and treating them like people and being treated in kind. If you try to go out and meet people, setting a bar ahead of time idiotic. Say "hi" and let them set the bar. If it's too low for you, you didn't lose much.
Today, I still try to treat cops like people first. I don't get harassed, and still find a good number of police to be decent people. I took a wrong turn about a month ago and pulled over where a CHP was doing radar patrol and was laughing with me as we looked at a map joking about Google Maps. My son and I stopped and talked with a few bay area cops on foot patrol at a festival a few weeks before that. One seemed like a dick, but the other three were decent people and it was obvious that they didn't like the dick.
Point is, I am not a dick to them and try and treat them like people. Surprisingly, even today I find a good number that are decent. Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder which could have something to do with a perception that all police are evil.
Everyone gets tickets from time to time, noobs and fat boys get to spend their time on radar patrol (not reflective of highway patrol)
I have never had a ticket, not once. I have been pulled over for speeding a few times, but the police I dealt with were people and I treated them like people.
I remember back to the 60s, and most cops were decent people. Inner city cops were a bit different, but I only visited downtown Detroit, I didn't live there. I worked as a cook through high school and City, County, and State Police were regular customers. If you were not a dick to them, they were not going to be a dick to you. Most of the cops hung out at various bars after work, and were just like everyone else that had a job.
Now maybe where you grew up cops were all dicks, but not where I grew up. In fact in the early 80s I was in the military and met cops from every State I was in (18 total). Ask where the best bars are, and they would point the way.
Who gets the ticket, the guy who yells "Awe fuck you man, I was only doing 10 over and you are going to give me a ticket" or the guy sitting relaxed and saying "yeah, sorry officer I was listening my new favorite song and not paying enough attention to my speed.". Most people that claim cops are dicks are the first guy.
Like I started with, areas with just dicks are becoming more and more common, but even 20 years ago it was not the normal.
The problem with the recent enemies of the US is that they are _not_ considered journalists, namely "Assange" Even the guardian writers and staff are concerned about trying to enter the US, because people like Feinstein have claimed that unless you are vetted by the US Government you are not considered a journalist. I'm sure this would take a trial to make stick (if it did) but not too many journalists want to volunteer to be the first in the defendant seat if they can help it.
The case law you linked would work if a writer from NYT refused to reveal a source and wrote about something classified, maybe. Writers are the targets of investigation and threatened (at a minimum) if they write about the wrong things. These are very messed up times to be a journalist.
You basically repeat TFAs point, which I simply don't buy. Assange is much different than the NYT, because he won't or can't hand over data and people in exchange for no prosecution. He also (at least to my knowledge) does not work for the US Government and scratch their backs to get his own, as the AP, NYT, NYP, WP, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et. al. do at least some of the time (many of those the majority of the time).
If I was Assange, I'd stay well clear of the US. Wikileaks is just one of numerous reasons for the US to snag him if he enters the country. What Assange put into Wikileaks dwarfs the Snowden dump and did much more damage. Not just the data from Manning, but their own hacks of cables and dumps of even recent TPIP classified documents.
I didn't claim there was no equal protection under the law. I responded to a person that claimed that assassinating a political figure was worse than yelling fire in a crowded theater.
There was just a bit of sarcasm in the comment regarding a criminal (assassin) killing a criminal (politician). A bit because while everyone has equal protection, generally society has much less pity on a criminal killing another criminal, compared to a criminal killing a citizen that is not a criminal. Additionally, criminals are displaced from society and during certain punishments are not citizens (at least with the rights and privileges as every other citizen.)
Putting politicians on a pedestal has nothing to do with being a Republic. It is called being brain washed into believing that all of these politicians are celebrities that should be worshiped. The first President was pretty close to Socrates' description of what a politician should be. He didn't want the job either time he was voted in. People like that are the ideal a Republic depends on to be successful.
If your last statement was that we are everyone is "special" and you are trying to be the coach of the "feel good" squad, do so with a bit less generalization after trying to argue a point that was very specific.
He does not have to take up arms, look at what they want to charge Snowden with and what they did charge Manning with. All they have to claim is that information published helps the enemy. Last I checked, Manning dumped his information to Wikileaks who dumped it to the public. Assange will get worse than Manning in the way of sentencing, and the precedent is already set for the charges.
Not true that you never could. It used to be that cops were mostly decent people trying to protect society from bad people. There are still quite a few that are like that. The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so. The brainwashing and hiring tactics are working, because they are getting worse and worse.
I don't think it's worse than that, because _if_ someone attempted very few would be harmed. Nor do I think it's the same by any comparative measure. Shouting "Fire" in a theater harms numerous people that are all innocent. In the case of an assassination attempt, most likely the guy who tried to pull the trigger, and perhaps a body guard or two would be hurt and perhaps the politician. An attempted assassination would be one criminal trying to kill another criminal (at least using the sample names in TFA).
People often make the mistake of putting politicians on pedestal, and it should be treated as worse than janitorial use. At least in a Republic.
With your claims that school is prison, raising a voice or spanking is "child abuse", and that all organized religion is child abuse? Absolutely. If your views are really so distorted, you are probably lacking more than just medication.
Hahaha
Your list is simply asinine, because none of those things are "child abuse". Your terming of school as "prison" is very telling. "School" is not mandatory 12 years, it's 13 years if you go K-12 (this is first grade math), and you can drop out of school at 16 without any measure of your eduction. Meaning that you could still be a first grader at 16 and drop out, though most people would consider you to be suffering from a form of mental retardation at that point.
I think you missed your medication this morning.
If it's true that Google has a 200 strong team, why not have that team actually looking for creators of child porn and working with law enforcement? They don't make enough profit annually to pay professionals to do this? MS could do the same with Bing, even without the Google market share, it just takes fewer people.
The basic problem with censorship is that it's a prohibition, not a "fix". What they are doing is covering up the problem, not trying to correct the problem. In society, the way to prevent illegal activities is to pursue and prosecute the people performing these illegal acts. That means going after the upper levels of these activities, not the end users. Kind of like going after the people processing poppy to make narcotics as opposed to the guy smoking opium or shooting smack.
Of course our law enforcement goes after the end user most of the time, and ignores or gives up on the producers. It's easier to get the guy downloading an image than it is to find the person creating the images. Fast headlines are not a resolution, but it does give the impression that we are doing something (even if it's the wrong thing). These are the same exact things we do with drugs.
It won't work, will waste money, and sets a precedent for censorship which is extremely dangerous.
Sorry, I'll disagree again - the FG requirement for air bags was before 1970 (1969 I believe), to be in place for 1973.
Be clear then about what requirement you are referring to. Legislation mandating the installation of air-bags in vehicles was in the mid to late 80s. If you want to make a claim that there was some requirement in the 70s, provide citation. I have already provided citation for the 80s regulation, so there should be no question there.
If there are no regulations that you can cite, you are simply inventing things to back your argument.
People running their child to the doctor for no reason is going to happen with or without data.
A certain level of that is considered "normal", especially for first time parents. It would only be abnormal if they have a above normal level of paranoia, which devices like these help to achieve.
As to the data, every human is unique. My nieces and nephews had absolutely nothing in common with each other as infants, and my kid was nothing like them. They all had slightly different schedules, ate slightly different amounts, slept slightly different schedules, had varying nap times and lengths, grew at slightly different rates, etc.. etc.. etc...
The "science" from the data gathering would get someone at most, a generalization. A generalization which matches what we already have in thousands of parenting books from thousands of studies.
That will be in BM (Baby Monitor) 2.0
Dang, I have BM and a "number two" reference in that short of a sentence!!
The problem isn't with parents that already pay attention to their infants. Monitoring in this case is probably going overboard, unless the infant has some type of condition that would require this level of monitoring. If said condition exists, would not the pediatrician want the infant in the hospital for better monitoring in addition to almost immediate medical care?
The real issues I see with this are the parent(s) that don't pay much attention. The monitoring won't help when the adults are stoned, drunk, whoring, or what ever else some parents do. These are the people that may feel safer doing wrong things, to the detriment of the infant. It helps neglecting situations become more neglecting. It's an excuse for it in fact, I can already see law suits by shitty parents for dead infants.
I read above that someone logged and graphed feeding, sleeping, dirty diapers, etc.. and that those logs and graphs helped them be better parents. It was not the logs and graphs, it was the fact that they were paying attention to the child and trying to be involved that made them better parents. Electronic monitoring items like in TFA don't help help people be better parents. Being involved, paying attention to the child's needs, helping them learn, that is what makes a good parent.
The last point I am concerned with, is if any studies have been done to determine growth impact from these monitors. We already know that certain levels of certain waves are harmful to development. How will these impact "normal" development of infants?
It's not beyond these people to lie to achieve what they want. Hopefully I didn't even need to mention that, but I did just to be sure we were on the up and up here. Reading the article, there is nothing I can see to verify that this was in fact the work of Anonymous. Some things don't line up with the normal activities. This article not only spreads FUD for internet censorship and control, but FUD about activism/hactivism.
From TFA, they first claim that anonymous used PDF exploits. Well, just about every botnet on the planet gets infected by some type of Trojan filled file. Anonymous is more well known for MITM attacks than trojaned files. Nothing convincing yet that it was anonymous.
Then they claim that anonymous stole 2,0000 bank accounts. That on a Rueters article should be a dead give away that this potentially propaganda. It didn't make it through normal editing.
The article does mention someone in the UK being indited on hacking into the US DOE, but then they lump everything else to that one person at anonymous. Maybe they have much more detail on proving that all of these hacks were anonymous and didn't show it. I'm not convinced by what was released here, and have not trusted these people to tell the truth for decades (amplified in the last few years).
Maybe that was an attempt at binary?
I agree with you, and try to explain it as two questions normally. "Is there a God" and "Is there a Theology". Numerous atheists mix the two arguments to claim that there is no God. Numerous Religious people mix the two arguments to claim that there is a God. Philosophers don't delve very deep into the Theology portion until they have a reasonable answer for having a God.
I almost laugh at times at how an atheist appears to be as much of an evangelist as the Jehovah's Witness you can't get to leave your porch. It's difficult to get either to listen to rational points on the subject. Most of the time my explanations fail even when I ask them to break it into two questions. The biases we learn are incredibly strong.
Gah, reverse the last half of my 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph. Simplified "Neither of you can 'prove' the other to be incorrect.
I realize that this is perhaps difficult, but belief in Theology requires the belief in a God first. The latter is a Philosophical question which can not be answered by science as the person mentioned. They never mentioned a Theology, and your bringing that up distorts the point.
If a person comes to a philosophical conclusion that there is a "God", "Creator" or what ever they wish to call it, then belief in a Theology will normally follow. You don't have to agree with their conclusion of having a God, but you can't prove them wrong any more than you can prove to them that there is no creator.
Where you, and so many others, fail (in critical thinking, explaining your position, and addressing someone that believes in a creator) is that you combine the two questions into a single thought. Is there a God becomes "is there Theology" and they are absolutely _not_ the same question.
Glad I read your summary before TFA. Reading a claim that "Evolution can evolve" is like a claim of "movement can move", or "changes can change". I'm guessing that the article is nonsense like the summary, so I'm sure not racing to read it. I could be wrong, but your summation increases my reluctance.
Hahahaha!!
If it was possible to spin it into a positive, you would be correct. The problem here is that there is no way to spin this in a positive way and the company is not big enough to pay PR firms to try and fix it.
The company can not bill her $3,500.00 for starters. Claiming breach of contract in this case simply won't work for the company. The person did not sign a legal contract with such an asinine clause. Even if the person signed without noticing the clause, it's not a binding contract for dozens of reasons. A judge would simply throw the company and the contract out, and a good judge would recommend the defendant sue the plaintiff.
Since this company is small, they really just put themselves out of business. The owner should have checked with a lawyer before trying to do something this idiotic.