You do know that those human rights people can write bad things about the UK Government also right? Not saying the UK was/is correct in them wanting to spy on every goddamn thing they can, just providing their motives. It's so sad that we have supposedly "free" Governments who are behaving exactly like those evil communists and dictatorships..
Do you know how many times I thought about adding a back channel to a piece of software I wrote because it's easier than training users? Do you care to guess at how many times I have actually done this?
Lets ask that same question about smaller software companies. You won't find any that survive for long after people find out they have these kinds of security practices.
It's hard to say why this happens so frequently and massively with large companies/corporations. I'm sure it's partly Government pressure, probably pressure from other companies/corporations, and partly an ignorant executive demanding this gets done. I'm sure the latter can claim the first two are the problem. The latter however, should result in termination of the execs responsible. That last part does not happen, which makes me wonder how big the first two really are.
I have yet to see anyone claim he gets a pass because of his work. What I have seen are skeptics that a rape occurred given the facts that have been released by Swedish Officials and knowing the surrounding information. Surrounding information on both the alleged victims and the US wanting him for espionage to be clear, because you should really understand both.
From day one of Sweden wanting to "question" him there was discussion of deportation to the US. Given that the UK has no problem arresting journalists they don't like and sharing with the US who's to say he would have ever made it back to Sweden? The discussion of Sweden deporting him gained more publicity but is the most unlikely scenario.
I translated "If you trust Google for anything, you had better be ready for war." to Arabic then back to English and got "If you trust Google for anything, you may be better prepared for war."
Bah, I just reread and you are correct about the Polanski thing.. just seemed to be an odd way of comparing to Assange. Apology for misunderstanding first pass.
Roman Polanski fled the sentence after entering a guilty plea to raping a 13 year old. There was no question of his guilt, he told the court that he drugged the young teen and raped her
There is no limit on Polanski serving time he was sentenced to _after_ guilt was established. If you want a better comparison to the statute of limitations for Assange, try Bill Cosby.
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
Probably something to brush up on before commenting. I'm not Swedish and don't know their laws but refuse to comment on this type of detail without knowledge. What's that old saying about "ass"uming?
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
I seriously doubt you know what Assange did with this claim. Thing are not always cut and dry. What we have in fact is that his then girlfriend accused him of rape after being in a sexually active relationship. Then we get into inconsistent stories and a long delay between the time that charges were filed and the alleged "rape" happened. I have plenty of personal anecdotes where people claimed "rape" and were not raped but frightened/guilty, etc... If the Duke Lacrosse team or UNVA fakery taught us anything, it should be that these claims are not always truthful, but sure harm the alleged perpetrators. Cui Bono and all that...
To be more clear than that, US law requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for good reason. Fabricated claims are not some new novel concept any more than crimes are new and novel. Both have been around for thousands of years.
Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.
This is a pretty wild speculation without any substance. You started below ground and kept driving until you hit the bottom of fantasy land...
The term "Liberal" here describes the US version of the terminology. The UK version is quite different so pay attention to the geography.
Liberal in the US has nothing to do with liberty, it is all about expanding social programs under Government control and shaping society the way the "few" want it to be for them. The US definition has been the same since I was a kid too, so don't bullshit anyone. If you don't call Obama a Liberal you are using the UK Political definition, not the US version. (or just daft)
And where do you find any evidence that Bush was not a liberal? Are you still fooled by the label someone tacks next to their name of R and D? Look at the spending, policies, and actions.. he was as liberal as Obama. He just played a good idiot and an overwhelming majority of people believe that schtick too...
The run ups are all about creating characters and picking the one who will best fool the public. It's amazing that so many people believe bullshit so blindly.
To me it is simple, you want anonymity but refuse to respect that rights of others who want the same.
No, it has nothing to do with me being anonymous. That phrase "do not expect" is a reservation, not a refusal. It has nothing to do with me being anonymous, it's about a person responding to the post being anonymous.
Further, the statement has nothing to do with being negative about anonymous posts except that it's impossible to hold a conversation when a potentially infinite amount of people appear to be identical.
English must not be your first language. "do not expect" in the English language does not mean the same thing as a refusal.
If you can not understand phrasing in the English language, ask questions instead of making incorrect assumptions.
If English is your first language, shame on you for being so weak with your comprehension skills. Based on your change of subject English is your first language and you incorrectly believe that you are intelligent.
I attempt to keep bashing to reasonable levels, so I'll give you the information and you can find things on your own. Run NoScript and load Slashdot. Note every site that attempts to talk to your browser, and start looking for company information and whois data.
I highly recommend people run NoScript all the time. You may be surprised at who you are being connected when visiting what you believe one site and maybe an add channel. Some sites are huge balls of spaghetti serving one little meatball.
I changed several browsers to use DDG as the default search. If I can't find something, I can always to go Google.com and look for it.
Hey Dice, pay close attention to this part! I don't want to have everything I do tracked and analyzed. Not by a Government nor by a company. They don't have my best interests in mind, they have _their_ best interests in mind.
I block a lot of content today that 5 years ago I never had to worry about. I'm blocking 3 sites that Dice attempts to push through their default content because two of them are under the same owner.. a former Israeli Intel head who opened social media and content sharing sites.. out of the goodness of their hearts right? Pfffft..
Using "Social Media" only increases people's ability to track. Like the new shitty "share" button where "comment" use to be. I refuse to use social media sites for the same reason I am using DDG.
t's not so much a matter of "you should" as it is a matter of "you do."
Wrong wrong wrong! If I had full trust I would not have to do something like create an encrypted file system of any type. I would not have to encrypt traffic between hosts, and I would not have to encrypt my backups. Yet for some reason, I do all of those things with critical data.
What you are defending is an invalid generalization and statement which happens to ignore reality.
There is one common definition, and if you read the dictionary you will find several parts but none of those parts discount the other. In normal use it means "implied" which indicates no formal explanation or express statements needed. See item 2 for further clarification which is "unquestioning". Even when dealing with Mathematics it has the same meanings.
I get it. you put your data on a hard drive, but you feel uneasy about it.
Most of us do exactly that right? We don't just store our sensitive data on a hard drive, we create an encrypted volume and put data in that.
I quoted the statement, and will ask you to read the definition of implicit. I don't have unqualified trust for hardware any more than I have unqualified trust for software.
"Bullshit" that is. Why should I "implicitly" trust hardware as praxis stated? You seem to be happy defending him, so explain that position. I assume risk using Software, but with hardware it's only full and unqualified trust or nothing? How on Earth do you come to that conclusion? Do you know what you are defending?
Like the person I responded to, you seem to be treating hardware and software differently. Hardware should be treated the same level of trust you give to software.
I had to re-read and make sure I'm not being picky with wording, and I don't believe I am. GP said "You implicitly trust your hardware manufacturers" and you stated "if we really "trusted nobody", then nobody would ever build another electronic device." Both of those statements are incorrect because there should be no explicit trust with either hardware or software.
You both seem to agree that Software is a sliding scale, but then bulk hardware into either black or white.
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that those human rights people can write bad things about the UK Government also right? Not saying the UK was/is correct in them wanting to spy on every goddamn thing they can, just providing their motives. It's so sad that we have supposedly "free" Governments who are behaving exactly like those evil communists and dictatorships..
Do you know how many times I thought about adding a back channel to a piece of software I wrote because it's easier than training users? Do you care to guess at how many times I have actually done this?
Lets ask that same question about smaller software companies. You won't find any that survive for long after people find out they have these kinds of security practices.
It's hard to say why this happens so frequently and massively with large companies/corporations. I'm sure it's partly Government pressure, probably pressure from other companies/corporations, and partly an ignorant executive demanding this gets done. I'm sure the latter can claim the first two are the problem. The latter however, should result in termination of the execs responsible. That last part does not happen, which makes me wonder how big the first two really are.
I just can't wait to see how this turns out!
I have yet to see anyone claim he gets a pass because of his work. What I have seen are skeptics that a rape occurred given the facts that have been released by Swedish Officials and knowing the surrounding information. Surrounding information on both the alleged victims and the US wanting him for espionage to be clear, because you should really understand both.
From day one of Sweden wanting to "question" him there was discussion of deportation to the US. Given that the UK has no problem arresting journalists they don't like and sharing with the US who's to say he would have ever made it back to Sweden? The discussion of Sweden deporting him gained more publicity but is the most unlikely scenario.
I translated "If you trust Google for anything, you had better be ready for war." to Arabic then back to English and got "If you trust Google for anything, you may be better prepared for war."
Wins again!
Bah, I just reread and you are correct about the Polanski thing.. just seemed to be an odd way of comparing to Assange. Apology for misunderstanding first pass.
Roman Polanski fled the sentence after entering a guilty plea to raping a 13 year old. There was no question of his guilt, he told the court that he drugged the young teen and raped her
There is no limit on Polanski serving time he was sentenced to _after_ guilt was established. If you want a better comparison to the statute of limitations for Assange, try Bill Cosby.
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
Probably something to brush up on before commenting. I'm not Swedish and don't know their laws but refuse to comment on this type of detail without knowledge. What's that old saying about "ass"uming?
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
I seriously doubt you know what Assange did with this claim. Thing are not always cut and dry. What we have in fact is that his then girlfriend accused him of rape after being in a sexually active relationship. Then we get into inconsistent stories and a long delay between the time that charges were filed and the alleged "rape" happened. I have plenty of personal anecdotes where people claimed "rape" and were not raped but frightened/guilty, etc... If the Duke Lacrosse team or UNVA fakery taught us anything, it should be that these claims are not always truthful, but sure harm the alleged perpetrators. Cui Bono and all that...
To be more clear than that, US law requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for good reason. Fabricated claims are not some new novel concept any more than crimes are new and novel. Both have been around for thousands of years.
Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.
This is a pretty wild speculation without any substance. You started below ground and kept driving until you hit the bottom of fantasy land...
Nope, but your store account will be pre-hacked so that you don't have that to worry about...
Meant as humor. I know Sony is a big bad evil thing but I prefer them over their competition for game consoles...
I didn't see much "news" in that little biddy article, I saw a sales pitch and video.
The term "Liberal" here describes the US version of the terminology. The UK version is quite different so pay attention to the geography.
Liberal in the US has nothing to do with liberty, it is all about expanding social programs under Government control and shaping society the way the "few" want it to be for them. The US definition has been the same since I was a kid too, so don't bullshit anyone. If you don't call Obama a Liberal you are using the UK Political definition, not the US version. (or just daft)
And where do you find any evidence that Bush was not a liberal? Are you still fooled by the label someone tacks next to their name of R and D? Look at the spending, policies, and actions.. he was as liberal as Obama. He just played a good idiot and an overwhelming majority of people believe that schtick too...
The run ups are all about creating characters and picking the one who will best fool the public. It's amazing that so many people believe bullshit so blindly.
Which is why I log in, right? Good grief you are an idiot.
To me it is simple, you want anonymity but refuse to respect that rights of others who want the same.
No, it has nothing to do with me being anonymous. That phrase "do not expect" is a reservation, not a refusal. It has nothing to do with me being anonymous, it's about a person responding to the post being anonymous.
Further, the statement has nothing to do with being negative about anonymous posts except that it's impossible to hold a conversation when a potentially infinite amount of people appear to be identical.
English must not be your first language. "do not expect" in the English language does not mean the same thing as a refusal.
If you can not understand phrasing in the English language, ask questions instead of making incorrect assumptions.
If English is your first language, shame on you for being so weak with your comprehension skills. Based on your change of subject English is your first language and you incorrectly believe that you are intelligent.
I attempt to keep bashing to reasonable levels, so I'll give you the information and you can find things on your own. Run NoScript and load Slashdot. Note every site that attempts to talk to your browser, and start looking for company information and whois data.
I highly recommend people run NoScript all the time. You may be surprised at who you are being connected when visiting what you believe one site and maybe an add channel. Some sites are huge balls of spaghetti serving one little meatball.
I changed several browsers to use DDG as the default search. If I can't find something, I can always to go Google.com and look for it.
Hey Dice, pay close attention to this part! I don't want to have everything I do tracked and analyzed. Not by a Government nor by a company. They don't have my best interests in mind, they have _their_ best interests in mind.
I block a lot of content today that 5 years ago I never had to worry about. I'm blocking 3 sites that Dice attempts to push through their default content because two of them are under the same owner.. a former Israeli Intel head who opened social media and content sharing sites.. out of the goodness of their hearts right? Pfffft..
Using "Social Media" only increases people's ability to track. Like the new shitty "share" button where "comment" use to be. I refuse to use social media sites for the same reason I am using DDG.
Zune!
t's not so much a matter of "you should" as it is a matter of "you do."
Wrong wrong wrong! If I had full trust I would not have to do something like create an encrypted file system of any type. I would not have to encrypt traffic between hosts, and I would not have to encrypt my backups. Yet for some reason, I do all of those things with critical data.
What you are defending is an invalid generalization and statement which happens to ignore reality.
There is one common definition, and if you read the dictionary you will find several parts but none of those parts discount the other. In normal use it means "implied" which indicates no formal explanation or express statements needed. See item 2 for further clarification which is "unquestioning". Even when dealing with Mathematics it has the same meanings.
I get it. you put your data on a hard drive, but you feel uneasy about it.
Most of us do exactly that right? We don't just store our sensitive data on a hard drive, we create an encrypted volume and put data in that.
I quoted the statement, and will ask you to read the definition of implicit. I don't have unqualified trust for hardware any more than I have unqualified trust for software.
"Bullshit" that is. Why should I "implicitly" trust hardware as praxis stated? You seem to be happy defending him, so explain that position. I assume risk using Software, but with hardware it's only full and unqualified trust or nothing? How on Earth do you come to that conclusion? Do you know what you are defending?
Like the person I responded to, you seem to be treating hardware and software differently. Hardware should be treated the same level of trust you give to software.
I had to re-read and make sure I'm not being picky with wording, and I don't believe I am. GP said "You implicitly trust your hardware manufacturers" and you stated "if we really "trusted nobody", then nobody would ever build another electronic device." Both of those statements are incorrect because there should be no explicit trust with either hardware or software.
You both seem to agree that Software is a sliding scale, but then bulk hardware into either black or white.
You implicitly trust your hardware manufacturers,
That is the part I disagree with, and in most cases is simply not true.