To me, there is still enough difference where this is a fallacy. To compare someone sending 10 tweets, or even 100, that say "you suck" to a malicious conspiratorial effort as with Meagan, including an adult telling a teenager that they should kill themselves is still a fallacy in my opinion.
I get that the authorities should have been notified to make sure the teen was not plotting more, but arrest them and file criminal charges? It would take more than a few texts to convince me it's "abuse".
There is no false dichotomy, you continually try and divert the argument to something convenient or to claim your use of Ad Hominem is valid. Go back to the very first post I made, and count how many times you have tried to do both.
Let us take a peek at rational logic:
I have not taken facts and dismissed them as "Observation" as you have done.
I have not denied making statements, you have denied your own words on two occasions.
It is one thing to have an argument proven wrong, it is quite irrational to continue to debate the point and claim that facts are fallacy. Claiming facts are not facts is either extreme ignorance or delusional, pick your poison. Someone correcting your argument with facts in your opinion is attacking you with Ad Hominem. As with claiming facts are not facts, this is either extremely ignorant or delusional.
The best summary is provided previously. If you were as logical, mature, and educated as you are pretending to be, you would have agreed that the attack was incorrect. For a week now you have claimed that it was just fine, in addition to denying facts, and denying your own words.
Your last statement shows how irrational your thinking is. You claim that I only "assume" an attack of Ad hominem is invalid for debate.
Since it seems that you have no desire to better yourself, and continue to argue a point that has been repeatedly proven incorrect I refuse to waste any more time.
Just needed to add a point real fast. Dangerous should not be confused with Nefarious. This is more an issue of "Who watches the watchers?", for which there is very little accountability for the NSA.
I think the point we disagree on is that you insist, or perhaps only are perceived as insisting, that the NSA is the only agency that can query data. This, as you should know is not true. Other Government agencies, many of which have conducted open and illegal acts very recently against US Citizens, also have access to this data. This could be either by 1) Direct access or 2) Requesting information from the NSA.
While you claim the Wired piece is not relevant, I am confused on why you claim that your speculation is better than their speculation. Especially since a main claim that you requested information is in the article (which also includes interviews with contractors and Government officials). What I noted in the article was that Congress passed the mandate 2 years ago which put T pipes in every AT&T Hub. Meanwhile, you did not know (or perhaps were simply trying to deny) that fact. As with any piece of journalism, there is of course opinion. Is that opinion based on facts or pure speculation? In the case of the Wired article, it was backed in many regards by facts.
In my opinion, you are not looking at the broad aspects of the NSA data collection operation. If you zoom out and look at how the larger Government, to which the NSA is accountable and funded by, the dangers become much more obvious.
Under no circumstances will Geeknet be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, liability for any errors or omissions in any Content
So if the link is broken it would be fine due to: "any errors or omissions in any Content"
I'm not sure what you are getting at. If a person opens a porn picture at work, in most cases they can be fired. Since this is not hosted a pr0n site, it will make it past many proxies and filters. All it will take is for someone to see their screen and report them, proxy/FW logs will do the rest.
Really? That's what the Utah Data Center was designed to have? I really hate it when people do this, but... [citation needed]
Try reading the Wired article on the same subject, I mentioned the article so you should have taken it upon yourself to read the article instead of asking for citation.
The same thing goes for your 2nd paragraph, you are using OLD data regarding the project an not what is currently slated for go live in a year.
The funny thing is that even thought the Utah Data Center is secret, we know more about it than we would in any other country. In China, you wouldn't even hear about equivalent cyber facilities — and there certainly wouldn't be any public discussion or debate.
All that aside, you do realize that some foreign traffic exists exclusively within the US and on US equipment, and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 expressly allows targeting this foreign traffic without a warrant?
Save the speculation and straw man arguments, you don't know any such thing any better than I do. I would assume that the Chinese people have the ability to discuss issues amongst themselves, and would think that information does get known (though it takes more time than it would in the US).
Straw man aside, you can not justify a vacuum of _all_ data as is being done without violating the 4th amendment. This was a major point of the Wired article as well. Looks like you need to catch up on current events.
You keep trying to divert the attention from the argument from yourself, lets stay on point.
Telling someone that they are in need of education and maturity a polite way of telling them that they are ignorant. Telling someone they are ignorant in society has been perceived as Ad hominem for at least 30 years. If you had even a fraction of the knowledge you were pretending to have you would know this.
Fact: The use of Ad Hominem is never correct. That is the end of the story. Continuing to belabor the point by using more fallacy is irrational, since you have been provided with numerous examples of 1. How it is incorrect, and 2. How to improve your skills so that you don't have to rely on Ad Hominem.
Fact: Claiming that you are correct because you are correct is not only an argument from fallacy, it is completely irrational when being used in a circular context. This is what you have repeatedly done, even to the point of attempting to deny your own statements. Denying one's own statements is not just irrational, it is alarming.
Since I have no knowledge of who you are, I have to assume that you are young. It is quite normal for young people (adolescent to sometimes even the low 20s) to debate as you have. This is the primary reason that I suggested an education. There are ways of improving, and reasons to improve, I have even offered material information which would be beneficial.
If you are older, believe yourself to be mature, believe that you have all of the knowledge in the world, and can not possibly be wrong or incorrect then you have more severe issues than simply being ignorant.
The chain of posts you have made trying to support your use of Ad hominem against someone is rather sad no matter what the cause. The original answer for a mature person educated in rhetoric and dialogue would have been "You are correct it was not good dialogue, I'll try and refrain from using the tactic, thanks for pointing it out." which completely contradicts the path you have taken.
You were wrong, stop trying to defend the position of wrong.
Two answer your first two paragraphs, I would be inclined to agree with you except for the fact that I am not ignorant. The Utah Data Center was originally designated to have a duplicate pipe for every AT&T data link going outside the US. This means that it would be able to capture all data going in and out of the country. The mandate was changed two years ago, and now every single AT&T pipe will be replicated, and pipes for Domestic only are now to be fed in to the center as well.
So the purpose has become clear, everyone is a threat including Aunt Jenny who is emailing recipes to Grandma. Lord help her if she forwards something like "This Yellow cake is the bomb!"
And now we have the ridiculous, baseless statement that the Utah Data Center can store "100 years of the world's communications".
What? GO READ! The wired article has many spec's leaked from the data center design included in the summary. Sad that we have to get leaks since the spec's for something this important should be provided, but it's not. Based on the Specs, we can estimate the capacity. Using growth estimates based on current use, we can estimate how much data someone could hold.
Point: It's not baseless if you don't understand it. Ask for clarification and I'm sure someone can provide facts and explanation. Point: Not everyone is as ignorant as you seem to believe they are. Last point: Nobody stated that foreign intelligence is bad: What was stated is that this intelligence can, is, and has been used against Americans and is a violation of the 4th amendment as. There are numerous facts to back that statement, and former NSA people are telling you that same thing. You can keep your eyes closed, but it won't go away.
Okay, lets work with your assumption that NSA are just a bunch of "Good guys". We have the DOJ and ATF which sell guns illegally to drug gangs in Mexico, costing at least hundreds of innocent lives. We have the GSA, FEMA, and CIA framing people in the US that question the current establishment or bring up issues with accountability. Then we have the DOD which is authorizing and committing assassinations at the Presidents request. We have the DEA and ATF raiding legal establishments(CA Medical Marijuana, Organic Produce/Farms), and ignoring real crimes. We have a Fed that refuses to close borders and allows illegal entry in to the country, and usurps the States right to defend itself. We have the CIA and DOD facilitating revolts in the Middle East, and openly advocating that they are. We have CIA puppet companies creating propaganda (Kony 2012). We have laws being passed with clearly harmful passages (HB 1540) that deny the Constitution. Hell I could do this all day..
Then we have a Media that reports nothing. Then we have private companies that commit illegal acts and receive no punishment. We have a Supreme court that stated that "Corporations are People" and "News is not News, it's Entertainment" so there is no need to tell people the truth, States have no rights, and refuses to hear a case on "Idea Patents".
Do you see how even if this one little thing about the NSA being "good guys" is true, the point is moot? The whole system is currently fucking haywire. Even if they are "good guys" their work is being used by the "bad guys" that currently have the US tilted nearly upside down.
On the surface your point seems valid, but it is really missing something important for the 4th amendment.
First, the NSA is decrypting and opening everything, anything you send even with an expectation of privacy is fair game to the NSA. This is the primary purpose of the new NSA super compute center by the way, brute force attacking encryption. Secondarily, wire tapping laws dismiss your premise that because the "Internet" is public everything is fair game.
Because it's plain text makes no difference, and because it's in public areas makes no difference to the law. An agent could not stand over your shoulder as you write in your journal in a public park, take pictures of your materials, and submit those to a case file against you unless there was a warrant. This is what your argument states is legal, which it is not.
I'm not saying it's not a violation of the 9th amendment also, but it is a clear violation of the 4th.
Being a "cog" as you state does not make their actions "legal". If I pay you to kill someone, and we get caught we both go to Jail correct? So you can claim that they are cogs if you wish, but they are not. They are knowingly and willingly breaking the law, and have every right to refuse illegal orders when provided illegal orders.
Let me be clear on your next most obvious point: "Fear for their jobs". This is an abuse by the elite that should be legally punished as well. If several of these people stood up to the tyranny, they may all get promoted. Instead, they are intimidated into doing nothing. Read up on your history and find out other places where this occurred with devastating results to the populace, most of which occurred in the last century.
Complacency must stop, and tolerance for people breaking the law must end. We are on the brink of very bad times, and if people don't wake up and demand changes we have no chance.
First I'll add that you need to educate yourself on the meaning of something called "Constructive Criticism". Stated similarly, ignorance is absolutely normal (I have stated this previously a couple times at least). The obvious answer is not to be angered when confronted with ignorance, but rather to learn what you are lacking so that one does not remain ignorant. Unfortunately many people instead of taking the desired direction prefer to remain ignorant and be offended when someone points out their ignorance.
If you read Plato's Republic you will find "The Allegory of the Cave" where a couple thousand years ago the same phenomenon was described. The storied brilliance is in it's simplicity and ability to cover many subjects, and I recommend that everyone read the whole book.
So to answer your first statement, the answer is no. The difference is far more vast than just an "observation". In fact your whole first paragraph is simply an argument from fallacy and an attempt to divert from the definitions already provided. Your second paragraph is again a fallacy, and an attempt to validate your use of Ad Hominem. Given an education you may find how immature the use of Ad Hominem really is.
You wasted two paragraphs to cover absolutely no ground, prove no point, and in fact reverted the dialogue back to points previously made. While it may not be obvious to you, this shows again how immature and uneducated your arguments are. Save some money, visit a school and get educated. If that is not possible, save up for some books and find a friend willing to learn with you. I'd recommend starting with Classical Philosophy instead of jumping right in to rhetoric and logic so that you have a foundation.
You failed to understand correctly: The file system type was NTFS, the format was explicitly not quick format. I made sure it was not a quick format due to not knowing the condition of the disk. The check box was not light up on the format.
Statement: You lack education in mathematics and should learn how to perform multiplication.
This would be stated if someone with knowledge of multiplication observed a person that could not solve the problem 3x3=?
Statement: You are a jackass.
This statement would be an ad hominem attack.
The difference is drastic and obvious. A basic knowledge of rhetoric and logic would be enough to understand the difference. What you are probably more confused about is "How can someone possibly know that I need to learn dialogue?" The answer to that question is rather simple. How would someone know that you should learn to multiply? By having enough knowledge of the subject to realize the target lacks the skills required to perform the task is the most logical answer.
If you were not able to multiply, would you tell your teacher you can even though you display no ability to perform the task? Would you argue that you can add 3+3 and that should be good enough to know multiplication? Ponder that analogy very closely, since it is very relative.
I gave the statement and proof, and this was about a month ago I did the format. In order to do a quick format you must select the check box in the dialogue. This box was unchecked. The format was less than 2 minutes, nothing was fat fingered and the format completed in about 2 minutes. The format type was the default NTFS in Windows 7.
Honestly, it would be stupid if there was a default mechanism in place to erase a disk on a format. Not that MS has not been known to be stupid, but this would cause countless complaints. Formats are not meant to take hours to run, that is what Wipe utilities are for. Are you perhaps giving an additional option to the format command that does wipe disk? I'm not a Windows expert by any means but my experience does not match what you state their FAQ claims, and my experience is very recent.
As you originally posted and I have repeatedly referred to:
However, "troll" is perfect valid substitute for "too stupid to post to slashdot". Sorry, Jane, I know you're just a victim of Dunning-Kruger [wikipedia.org] when it comes to climate change but given your history of being a crank [rationalwiki.org], it's just not worth anyone's time to argue with your insanity any more.
Quite different from claiming someone lacks education and maturity in dialogue don't you think? Keep the argument in context instead of choosing which portions of the dialogue you wish to recall, it makes a very large difference. Maintaining context is a fundamental principle of Rhetoric.
I can't agree with your first statement at all since the problem is obviously not just with the company "Facebook". If I am selling snake oil, and you are advertising my snake oil, and Fred's Law Firm is running campaigns to prevent lawsuits against me for selling Snake oil.. All 3 of us should be in jail. This is the way law works, and what we have done is called a conspiracy.
The problem of course arise in trying to prove we actually conspired to run our little operation, but those problems in proof should not be confused with the conspiracy not happening.
This is where regulations are supposed to have kicked in and prevented the over inflation in the stock, and the conspiracy from happening to begin with. Because "proof is difficult" does not make it legal, or okay. Claiming such is definitely an issue with our current state of affairs.
So the problem is Zuckerberg's alone to bear? How about the responsibility of the Banks in price fixing the IPO? How about the attempted over inflation of the stock by those same banks on opening day? How about the SEC and their lack of (either ability or willingness) enforcing their own rules and regulations?
I'm not a fan of Facebook by any means. They have done numerous shitty things and continue to do shitty things. The Capitalist Economy has mechanisms for dealing with those practices. To blame the financial fiasco on one person is simply ludicrous!
Since they now say that the data is fully erased, I tend to suspect it is so, because it would only take one court case to reveal the truth, and tag Microsoft with huge claims for false advertising.
Good luck with trying to prove this claim is false since they can technically say it's true. Look at the speed at which a full format completes, it is not possible that it actually erases the whole disk. What id does is erase the FAT tables and re-creates them on a full format. That is the technicality by the way, since the FAT being empty means the files are no longer available. I recently ran a full format on a 300GB Disk (not a quick format) which had an old version of Windows on it. The format completed in under 2 minutes. It is not physically possible that every bit of data gets over written in that amount of time.
Get a USB Unbuntu and shred the drive, a single pass is sufficient. If you are really worried, leave the USB stick and run a second shred in queue for more passes.
While you have used a term "Straw man" you demonstrate no functional knowledge of the term. What you quote claiming a straw man argument is my opinion followed by a fact. My opinion is based on the two facts I previously quoted, so you neglected a rather significant part of the data. This is called logical reasoning, and I can assure you that my opinion is logical, reasonable, and rational.
Your claim that a personal attack is not Ad hominem is not logical, and not reasonable. This is like saying 2+2=7 because you want it to be that way. Two sentences later, you go right back to an Ad hominem attack, then provide a fallacy that you demonstrated she was in fact a "crank". You have not, you have only provided weak fallacy to base your statements on and attempted with more fallacy to justify your initial actions.
It is not an Ad hominem argument to point out observations based on your actions. If you are offended perhaps you should do something productive instead of repeating the same actions and expecting a different result, or a different observation. Contrary to your claim that I have no supporting evidence to claim your dialogue is uneducated and immature, you have provided a substantial amount of evidence in each progressive post. It seems as though you have expanded my comments regarding a lack of education and immaturity in dialogue to include topics that I have not suggested. This you have done on your own. I have been very straight forward in telling you where you were lacking in maturity and education. Hint: If I stated a nail in the wood was broken should one assume that the house was broken? If not, then why do you assume someone telling you that your dialogue is immature means that you are immature at everything?
I have been very patient, I have provided logical reasons why opinions differ. I have also shown why arguments from fallacy, especially Ad hominem attacks are not progressive to dialogue. I have shown repeatedly where you have made errors in dialogue, and even suggested how to correct those errors. You continue try and justify what you did, and deny it was poor rhetoric. This demonstrates not only a lack of maturity and education, but a desire to remain in the same position. I do find that sad, but as mentioned previously many people are perfectly content to remain ignorant.
What ever you choose makes no difference to me. If you seek education I'm sure a local college has classes on Logic, Rhetoric, Philosophy, Ethics, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
To me, there is still enough difference where this is a fallacy. To compare someone sending 10 tweets, or even 100, that say "you suck" to a malicious conspiratorial effort as with Meagan, including an adult telling a teenager that they should kill themselves is still a fallacy in my opinion.
I get that the authorities should have been notified to make sure the teen was not plotting more, but arrest them and file criminal charges? It would take more than a few texts to convince me it's "abuse".
There is no false dichotomy, you continually try and divert the argument to something convenient or to claim your use of Ad Hominem is valid. Go back to the very first post I made, and count how many times you have tried to do both.
Let us take a peek at rational logic:
I have not taken facts and dismissed them as "Observation" as you have done.
I have not denied making statements, you have denied your own words on two occasions.
It is one thing to have an argument proven wrong, it is quite irrational to continue to debate the point and claim that facts are fallacy. Claiming facts are not facts is either extreme ignorance or delusional, pick your poison. Someone correcting your argument with facts in your opinion is attacking you with Ad Hominem. As with claiming facts are not facts, this is either extremely ignorant or delusional.
The best summary is provided previously. If you were as logical, mature, and educated as you are pretending to be, you would have agreed that the attack was incorrect. For a week now you have claimed that it was just fine, in addition to denying facts, and denying your own words.
Your last statement shows how irrational your thinking is. You claim that I only "assume" an attack of Ad hominem is invalid for debate.
Since it seems that you have no desire to better yourself, and continue to argue a point that has been repeatedly proven incorrect I refuse to waste any more time.
Fries with that Red herring?
What a horrible argument from fallacy this is. A single message is not "abuse", and your point is completely invalid.
Just needed to add a point real fast. Dangerous should not be confused with Nefarious. This is more an issue of "Who watches the watchers?", for which there is very little accountability for the NSA.
I think the point we disagree on is that you insist, or perhaps only are perceived as insisting, that the NSA is the only agency that can query data. This, as you should know is not true. Other Government agencies, many of which have conducted open and illegal acts very recently against US Citizens, also have access to this data. This could be either by 1) Direct access or 2) Requesting information from the NSA.
While you claim the Wired piece is not relevant, I am confused on why you claim that your speculation is better than their speculation. Especially since a main claim that you requested information is in the article (which also includes interviews with contractors and Government officials). What I noted in the article was that Congress passed the mandate 2 years ago which put T pipes in every AT&T Hub. Meanwhile, you did not know (or perhaps were simply trying to deny) that fact. As with any piece of journalism, there is of course opinion. Is that opinion based on facts or pure speculation? In the case of the Wired article, it was backed in many regards by facts.
In my opinion, you are not looking at the broad aspects of the NSA data collection operation. If you zoom out and look at how the larger Government, to which the NSA is accountable and funded by, the dangers become much more obvious.
Under no circumstances will Geeknet be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, liability for any errors or omissions in any Content
So if the link is broken it would be fine due to: "any errors or omissions in any Content"
I'm not sure what you are getting at. If a person opens a porn picture at work, in most cases they can be fired. Since this is not hosted a pr0n site, it will make it past many proxies and filters. All it will take is for someone to see their screen and report them, proxy/FW logs will do the rest.
Can a mod delete that link please? This is most surely against TOS and may get people fired from work if using /. at work.
Really? That's what the Utah Data Center was designed to have? I really hate it when people do this, but... [citation needed]
Try reading the Wired article on the same subject, I mentioned the article so you should have taken it upon yourself to read the article instead of asking for citation.
The same thing goes for your 2nd paragraph, you are using OLD data regarding the project an not what is currently slated for go live in a year.
The funny thing is that even thought the Utah Data Center is secret, we know more about it than we would in any other country. In China, you wouldn't even hear about equivalent cyber facilities — and there certainly wouldn't be any public discussion or debate.
All that aside, you do realize that some foreign traffic exists exclusively within the US and on US equipment, and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 expressly allows targeting this foreign traffic without a warrant?
Save the speculation and straw man arguments, you don't know any such thing any better than I do. I would assume that the Chinese people have the ability to discuss issues amongst themselves, and would think that information does get known (though it takes more time than it would in the US).
Straw man aside, you can not justify a vacuum of _all_ data as is being done without violating the 4th amendment. This was a major point of the Wired article as well. Looks like you need to catch up on current events.
You keep trying to divert the attention from the argument from yourself, lets stay on point.
Telling someone that they are in need of education and maturity a polite way of telling them that they are ignorant. Telling someone they are ignorant in society has been perceived as Ad hominem for at least 30 years. If you had even a fraction of the knowledge you were pretending to have you would know this.
Fact: The use of Ad Hominem is never correct. That is the end of the story. Continuing to belabor the point by using more fallacy is irrational, since you have been provided with numerous examples of 1. How it is incorrect, and 2. How to improve your skills so that you don't have to rely on Ad Hominem.
Fact: Claiming that you are correct because you are correct is not only an argument from fallacy, it is completely irrational when being used in a circular context. This is what you have repeatedly done, even to the point of attempting to deny your own statements. Denying one's own statements is not just irrational, it is alarming.
Since I have no knowledge of who you are, I have to assume that you are young. It is quite normal for young people (adolescent to sometimes even the low 20s) to debate as you have. This is the primary reason that I suggested an education. There are ways of improving, and reasons to improve, I have even offered material information which would be beneficial.
If you are older, believe yourself to be mature, believe that you have all of the knowledge in the world, and can not possibly be wrong or incorrect then you have more severe issues than simply being ignorant.
The chain of posts you have made trying to support your use of Ad hominem against someone is rather sad no matter what the cause. The original answer for a mature person educated in rhetoric and dialogue would have been "You are correct it was not good dialogue, I'll try and refrain from using the tactic, thanks for pointing it out." which completely contradicts the path you have taken.
You were wrong, stop trying to defend the position of wrong.
Two answer your first two paragraphs, I would be inclined to agree with you except for the fact that I am not ignorant. The Utah Data Center was originally designated to have a duplicate pipe for every AT&T data link going outside the US. This means that it would be able to capture all data going in and out of the country. The mandate was changed two years ago, and now every single AT&T pipe will be replicated, and pipes for Domestic only are now to be fed in to the center as well.
So the purpose has become clear, everyone is a threat including Aunt Jenny who is emailing recipes to Grandma. Lord help her if she forwards something like "This Yellow cake is the bomb!"
And now we have the ridiculous, baseless statement that the Utah Data Center can store "100 years of the world's communications".
What? GO READ! The wired article has many spec's leaked from the data center design included in the summary. Sad that we have to get leaks since the spec's for something this important should be provided, but it's not. Based on the Specs, we can estimate the capacity. Using growth estimates based on current use, we can estimate how much data someone could hold.
Point: It's not baseless if you don't understand it. Ask for clarification and I'm sure someone can provide facts and explanation. Point: Not everyone is as ignorant as you seem to believe they are. Last point: Nobody stated that foreign intelligence is bad: What was stated is that this intelligence can, is, and has been used against Americans and is a violation of the 4th amendment as. There are numerous facts to back that statement, and former NSA people are telling you that same thing. You can keep your eyes closed, but it won't go away.
Okay, lets work with your assumption that NSA are just a bunch of "Good guys". We have the DOJ and ATF which sell guns illegally to drug gangs in Mexico, costing at least hundreds of innocent lives. We have the GSA, FEMA, and CIA framing people in the US that question the current establishment or bring up issues with accountability. Then we have the DOD which is authorizing and committing assassinations at the Presidents request. We have the DEA and ATF raiding legal establishments(CA Medical Marijuana, Organic Produce/Farms), and ignoring real crimes. We have a Fed that refuses to close borders and allows illegal entry in to the country, and usurps the States right to defend itself. We have the CIA and DOD facilitating revolts in the Middle East, and openly advocating that they are. We have CIA puppet companies creating propaganda (Kony 2012). We have laws being passed with clearly harmful passages (HB 1540) that deny the Constitution. Hell I could do this all day..
Then we have a Media that reports nothing. Then we have private companies that commit illegal acts and receive no punishment. We have a Supreme court that stated that "Corporations are People" and "News is not News, it's Entertainment" so there is no need to tell people the truth, States have no rights, and refuses to hear a case on "Idea Patents".
Do you see how even if this one little thing about the NSA being "good guys" is true, the point is moot? The whole system is currently fucking haywire. Even if they are "good guys" their work is being used by the "bad guys" that currently have the US tilted nearly upside down.
On the surface your point seems valid, but it is really missing something important for the 4th amendment.
First, the NSA is decrypting and opening everything, anything you send even with an expectation of privacy is fair game to the NSA. This is the primary purpose of the new NSA super compute center by the way, brute force attacking encryption. Secondarily, wire tapping laws dismiss your premise that because the "Internet" is public everything is fair game.
Because it's plain text makes no difference, and because it's in public areas makes no difference to the law. An agent could not stand over your shoulder as you write in your journal in a public park, take pictures of your materials, and submit those to a case file against you unless there was a warrant. This is what your argument states is legal, which it is not.
I'm not saying it's not a violation of the 9th amendment also, but it is a clear violation of the 4th.
Being a "cog" as you state does not make their actions "legal". If I pay you to kill someone, and we get caught we both go to Jail correct? So you can claim that they are cogs if you wish, but they are not. They are knowingly and willingly breaking the law, and have every right to refuse illegal orders when provided illegal orders.
Let me be clear on your next most obvious point: "Fear for their jobs". This is an abuse by the elite that should be legally punished as well. If several of these people stood up to the tyranny, they may all get promoted. Instead, they are intimidated into doing nothing. Read up on your history and find out other places where this occurred with devastating results to the populace, most of which occurred in the last century.
Complacency must stop, and tolerance for people breaking the law must end. We are on the brink of very bad times, and if people don't wake up and demand changes we have no chance.
First I'll add that you need to educate yourself on the meaning of something called "Constructive Criticism". Stated similarly, ignorance is absolutely normal (I have stated this previously a couple times at least). The obvious answer is not to be angered when confronted with ignorance, but rather to learn what you are lacking so that one does not remain ignorant. Unfortunately many people instead of taking the desired direction prefer to remain ignorant and be offended when someone points out their ignorance.
If you read Plato's Republic you will find "The Allegory of the Cave" where a couple thousand years ago the same phenomenon was described. The storied brilliance is in it's simplicity and ability to cover many subjects, and I recommend that everyone read the whole book.
So to answer your first statement, the answer is no. The difference is far more vast than just an "observation". In fact your whole first paragraph is simply an argument from fallacy and an attempt to divert from the definitions already provided. Your second paragraph is again a fallacy, and an attempt to validate your use of Ad Hominem. Given an education you may find how immature the use of Ad Hominem really is.
You wasted two paragraphs to cover absolutely no ground, prove no point, and in fact reverted the dialogue back to points previously made. While it may not be obvious to you, this shows again how immature and uneducated your arguments are. Save some money, visit a school and get educated. If that is not possible, save up for some books and find a friend willing to learn with you. I'd recommend starting with Classical Philosophy instead of jumping right in to rhetoric and logic so that you have a foundation.
You failed to understand correctly: The file system type was NTFS, the format was explicitly not quick format. I made sure it was not a quick format due to not knowing the condition of the disk. The check box was not light up on the format.
Statement: You lack education in mathematics and should learn how to perform multiplication.
This would be stated if someone with knowledge of multiplication observed a person that could not solve the problem 3x3=?
Statement: You are a jackass.
This statement would be an ad hominem attack.
The difference is drastic and obvious. A basic knowledge of rhetoric and logic would be enough to understand the difference. What you are probably more confused about is "How can someone possibly know that I need to learn dialogue?" The answer to that question is rather simple. How would someone know that you should learn to multiply? By having enough knowledge of the subject to realize the target lacks the skills required to perform the task is the most logical answer.
If you were not able to multiply, would you tell your teacher you can even though you display no ability to perform the task? Would you argue that you can add 3+3 and that should be good enough to know multiplication? Ponder that analogy very closely, since it is very relative.
I gave the statement and proof, and this was about a month ago I did the format. In order to do a quick format you must select the check box in the dialogue. This box was unchecked. The format was less than 2 minutes, nothing was fat fingered and the format completed in about 2 minutes. The format type was the default NTFS in Windows 7.
Honestly, it would be stupid if there was a default mechanism in place to erase a disk on a format. Not that MS has not been known to be stupid, but this would cause countless complaints. Formats are not meant to take hours to run, that is what Wipe utilities are for. Are you perhaps giving an additional option to the format command that does wipe disk? I'm not a Windows expert by any means but my experience does not match what you state their FAQ claims, and my experience is very recent.
As you originally posted and I have repeatedly referred to:
However, "troll" is perfect valid substitute for "too stupid to post to slashdot". Sorry, Jane, I know you're just a victim of Dunning-Kruger [wikipedia.org] when it comes to climate change but given your history of being a crank [rationalwiki.org], it's just not worth anyone's time to argue with your insanity any more.
Quite different from claiming someone lacks education and maturity in dialogue don't you think? Keep the argument in context instead of choosing which portions of the dialogue you wish to recall, it makes a very large difference. Maintaining context is a fundamental principle of Rhetoric.
I can't agree with your first statement at all since the problem is obviously not just with the company "Facebook". If I am selling snake oil, and you are advertising my snake oil, and Fred's Law Firm is running campaigns to prevent lawsuits against me for selling Snake oil.. All 3 of us should be in jail. This is the way law works, and what we have done is called a conspiracy.
The problem of course arise in trying to prove we actually conspired to run our little operation, but those problems in proof should not be confused with the conspiracy not happening.
This is where regulations are supposed to have kicked in and prevented the over inflation in the stock, and the conspiracy from happening to begin with. Because "proof is difficult" does not make it legal, or okay. Claiming such is definitely an issue with our current state of affairs.
So the problem is Zuckerberg's alone to bear? How about the responsibility of the Banks in price fixing the IPO? How about the attempted over inflation of the stock by those same banks on opening day? How about the SEC and their lack of (either ability or willingness) enforcing their own rules and regulations?
I'm not a fan of Facebook by any means. They have done numerous shitty things and continue to do shitty things. The Capitalist Economy has mechanisms for dealing with those practices. To blame the financial fiasco on one person is simply ludicrous!
Since they now say that the data is fully erased, I tend to suspect it is so, because it would only take one court case to reveal the truth, and tag Microsoft with huge claims for false advertising.
Good luck with trying to prove this claim is false since they can technically say it's true. Look at the speed at which a full format completes, it is not possible that it actually erases the whole disk. What id does is erase the FAT tables and re-creates them on a full format. That is the technicality by the way, since the FAT being empty means the files are no longer available. I recently ran a full format on a 300GB Disk (not a quick format) which had an old version of Windows on it. The format completed in under 2 minutes. It is not physically possible that every bit of data gets over written in that amount of time.
Get a USB Unbuntu and shred the drive, a single pass is sufficient. If you are really worried, leave the USB stick and run a second shred in queue for more passes.
While you have used a term "Straw man" you demonstrate no functional knowledge of the term. What you quote claiming a straw man argument is my opinion followed by a fact. My opinion is based on the two facts I previously quoted, so you neglected a rather significant part of the data. This is called logical reasoning, and I can assure you that my opinion is logical, reasonable, and rational.
Your claim that a personal attack is not Ad hominem is not logical, and not reasonable. This is like saying 2+2=7 because you want it to be that way. Two sentences later, you go right back to an Ad hominem attack, then provide a fallacy that you demonstrated she was in fact a "crank". You have not, you have only provided weak fallacy to base your statements on and attempted with more fallacy to justify your initial actions.
It is not an Ad hominem argument to point out observations based on your actions. If you are offended perhaps you should do something productive instead of repeating the same actions and expecting a different result, or a different observation. Contrary to your claim that I have no supporting evidence to claim your dialogue is uneducated and immature, you have provided a substantial amount of evidence in each progressive post. It seems as though you have expanded my comments regarding a lack of education and immaturity in dialogue to include topics that I have not suggested. This you have done on your own. I have been very straight forward in telling you where you were lacking in maturity and education. Hint: If I stated a nail in the wood was broken should one assume that the house was broken? If not, then why do you assume someone telling you that your dialogue is immature means that you are immature at everything?
I have been very patient, I have provided logical reasons why opinions differ. I have also shown why arguments from fallacy, especially Ad hominem attacks are not progressive to dialogue. I have shown repeatedly where you have made errors in dialogue, and even suggested how to correct those errors. You continue try and justify what you did, and deny it was poor rhetoric. This demonstrates not only a lack of maturity and education, but a desire to remain in the same position. I do find that sad, but as mentioned previously many people are perfectly content to remain ignorant.
What ever you choose makes no difference to me. If you seek education I'm sure a local college has classes on Logic, Rhetoric, Philosophy, Ethics, etc...
Probes should only be used for diagnosing medical issues (see Idiocracy for the reference)