Except for the fact that, *by treaty* The US, UK, NZ Canada and Australia are allegedly sharing all intelligence each of their respective agencies gather.
You misunderstand the treaty, it's called the Five Eyes agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement) and the sharing is of signals intelligence, not "all" intelligence. The history of this arrangement stretch back to the WW2 era.
All intelligence agencies have that problem.
It is said that there is no such thing as friendly intelligence agencies. Even for allied countries, their intel agencies are wary of each other.
Microsoft's own internal studies are showing somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of BSODs on XP/Vista/7 were not due to the OS, but directly due to graphics drivers. With Vista and 7 they created a framework for being able to control and reboot the GPU drivers and BSODs have massively dropped.
I can attest to this. One of the things I do at work is look at crashes collected by our internal Windows Error Reporting. I have about ~600 bugchecks and after triaging them, around 400 are video issues - bugcheck code 0x116 or 0x117. Those often manifest to the user as the display turns black, and the comes back in a few seconds. It's basically the new graphics subsystem decided the driver timed out, and stopping/starting it. Under XP and before, those would have been actual bugchecks (bluescreens) but here they are more like soft restarts.
I don't see this as much different than wanting to see some works of an artist before actually hiring them. That's "developer as a professional" or even "performer". If technical interviews are useless, grades don't matter, and a candidate doesn't have any side project they've worked on because "they have a life", what exactly are you going to evaluate them on?
It's not like being a chef, who you probably wouldn't hire without sampling their cooking. But the difference there is you can show up to wherever they currently work and do that, order something they made. I don't think most employees would be able to get you in to their current workplace to peer over their shoulders for a few hours.
The reality is if 10 people are vying for a position and 8 of them have some portfolio to show, even if it is filled with minor things, and 2 don't, those 2 are at a disadvantage.
targeting a subset of 75% of the market is still better than targeting nearly all of 17% of the market.
It all depends on how those subsets spend their money, and the evidence from app stores is iOS users spend more. Enough to make their smaller marketshare worthwhile targeting.
I thought he was making a joke on the name of the product: subversion (the act of subverting something, versus the prefix "sub" like a subordinate version). Anyway, I read the comment again and I'm wondering what he meant as well.
Oracle is expensive, but if it were really overpriced then you'd see lots of cheaper alternatives.
Not exactly... customers can't exactly move to another database easily. What are you going to do if you are some enterprise like an airline or bank, export to CSV and then import? And actually bet your company that it worked?
Oracle is expensive and they have a bit of lock-in on their customers' data in their database.
When journalists don't even known, and when congress doesn't even known, well then who does know? If only the cleared individuals know then why not expand it
Congress is supposed to provide oversight... all elected members are granted a security clearance by virtue of their election. Whoever winds up serving on HPSCI/SSCI gets to ask what they want and go from there.
All that sounds great, but then the majority of Slashdot posters also vehemently defend their 4th Amendment rights against improper search and seizure. Look at the thread about cops examining cell phones at crash sites.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that assigning blame onto somebody requires investigative work, evidence gathering, due process and so on - can't count on the guilty party to voluntarily confess they were distracted, 5th Amendment and all - so how exactly is that going to mesh up with needing warrants to get the evidence before it naturally disappears (e.g. intoxication). Same with text messages, looking at a phone and seeing a partly written but unsent text is good evidence they were in the middle of texting, but unsent texts aren't logged and by the time due process comes through the non-idiot party will have erased that data.
And note, which party is in office is totally irrelevant here. The Republicans and Democrats have both been in on it.
Don't leave out the corporations... they are also interested in keeping the wheels greased since many feed at the government trough. And are happy to lobby for the need for various services and also supply them.
You should study statistics and especially sampling theory. If those 1004 people are a random sample (and not biased, as in all drawn from certain age groups or professions) then you can draw a conclusion with a confidence interval based on their responses.
The fundamental problem is the American people, who have time and time again said that they simply don't care. The government listening to our calls? We don't care. Reading our emails? We don't care. Hiding disturbing truths about our perpetual wars? We couldn't care less.
Blame government officials all you want, but remember this: as a democracy we get the government we deserve.
Exactly. Another thing is the difficulty of showing a specific harm. Yet another is who to blame - Congress for making it legal? Courts for upholding it (or refusing to hear cases)? Executive for doing what's allowed? Phone companies for having this data to give over in the first place? It's just messed up.
Well, Clinton was impeached by the House GOP, since they were dogs sniffing the butthole of scandal. Impeaching Obama would highlight the extremely uncomfortable fact that Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, but majority GOP, created the laws that allowed this.
People online will bitch and moan, but as far as I can tell, everything was done legally. Under Bush they didn't even need a warrant. Now they've got to go through that speedbump for it to be properly sanctioned.
Obama openly supported warrantless wiretaps before his election in 2004.
So the better choice was... Bush, who implemented this whole thing without telling anybody? Romney, who would what - scrap the whole thing? Be serious.
Do you remember the original warrantless wiretapping scandal? You may not like it, but the unfortunate bottom line is this time around it is "more" legal. As in - strengthened by Congress including oversight, and upheld by courts.
Part of the GP's point is that Libertarianism doesn't handle failure well.
Pollution of other people's property as a harm - ok so first you'd have to prove there is pollution, prove there is a harm, go to court, sue for damages, and wait. Meanwhile, the mercury they are leeching into your farm destroys your livelihood as the court case drags on. Eventually you win, but the corporation went bankrupt or left the jurisdiction and you don't get any damages at all.
Basically, a full blown libertarian society would be a complete clusterfuck legal system. It introduces a positive feedback loop where the unscrupulous are rewarded, like today's Wall Street. You'd have to get attorneys to write contracts for everything you do, attorneys to review contracts for every obligation you enter into, and then wind up suing everybody all the time because of perceived differences in whether each party lived up to their end of the contract.
It would work great as long as everybody agreed, but then grinds to complete halt when every single transaction boils down to "will it cost more to adhere to the contract, or force the other party to sue to redress grievances?". In your example about severance pay. What if your employer decides to withhold it because they didn't feel you delivered a product that met the contract? Your options are... sue? go to court? After arguing about whether you met the contract in the first place, you'd then get to sue for back wages. Oh yeah, that works as long as the justice system is infinitely quick and uses onmiscient judges/attorneys that render perfect decision at no cost and delay.
As opposed to a good old regulated stock market collapse. I really fail to see the difference.
The difference is without any regulations, corporations can and will lie, cheat, fake their numbers, withhold information and outright swindle the public all the time. Reputation doesn't matter to a person who can steal enough for the rest of their life. Modern corporations are only concerned about quarterly results, barely even annual, and without any regulations at all the stock market would collapse to pre-limited-liability corporations, sometime back in the 17th century. That would be the eventual result of an fully unregulated stock market, the days when owner's bore 100% of the risk and could be wiped out at any time due to forces beyond their control.
Isn't that extreme hypocrisy? This land was occupied by people before Europeans colonized it, and through a series of what one might term "coercive government action", that land was stolen through wars and outright genocide. Nobody cared about the property rights of the Native Americans.
So to me, there are 3 possible reactions to this: 1) Immediate return land to the Native Americans, recognizing that it was illegally seized through warfare, government coercion, etc. 2) STFU and accept government has final jurisdiction everywhere and does get to impose some laws on you 3) Declare your sovereignty, but then defend your claim. This may involve winning a war against the U.S. Military.The Native Americans couldn't and lost most of their land.
The Earth is "full" as there are no unclaimed jurisdictions, so the new reality of the past century is that one cannot simply move to settle a new area with like-minded friends (e.g. Utah) - the only option left is to move en masse and gentrify an existing area.
Too god damned bad. History is also full of examples of invading armies carving a new nations out of the smoking remains of the previous ones. Turn about is fair play, you might say. If "we" stole this land from the previous owners and you now want to claim it for yourself, prepare to defend it.
Besides, what passed for "unclaimed jurisdictions" in previous centuries didn't mean there weren't any people living there, it meant "the powerful nations of that era didn't assert their own claim". It was a bit unclear how exactly they derived an actual legitimate claim to that land in the first place.
You have to man up, impeach Obama, and judge him and all his cronies for crimes against humanity.
It's a dog and pony show. Clinton was impeached... for lying about an affair. Bush wasn't impeached, for warrantless wiretapping, torture, and war crimes (civilian deaths in an unjust war). There is no way Obama is getting impeached given the legal framework Bush helped build.
If you really want to "do something", besides jerk off with both hands by bloviating online, donate to the EFF or ACLU, where actual attorneys can file the right kinds of lawsuits. Yes that means petitioning your own "corrupt government". Some people realize that the government isn't a hive mind, and there are checks/balances to be applied (granted they may be rusty).
Owners whose assets can be seized to pay for the damages caused by the sociopathic policies of said corporations.
So what happens when a corporation stores a lot of dangerous chemicals, say in Texas, and it blows up and causes 100 million in damages, and the owner's assets don't quite cover that? Say... they only cover 1% of that? What do you do, flog them until the bleed 99 million more in blood plasma?
I doubt it, reddit is the same like here, a bunch of blowhards with internet access.
The TEA party is a more interesting study. Backed by billionaires and given positive coverage on FOX 24 hours a day, it drew what, a few large protests and has died down to be a shell of itself?
I don't see this issue gaining any kind of FOX/Koch support. For one thing, the more they beat the drum the more they'll remind people that they are willing letting private companies gather this data in the first place. That'll cut profits if there are changes. And what's the radical anti-government person going to do, cry to the government for more regulations? Yeah, that's a nonstarter. So it won't be backed by the conservative media circus and the corporations involved will pray it just goes away.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the fact that, *by treaty* The US, UK, NZ Canada and Australia are allegedly sharing all intelligence each of their respective agencies gather.
You misunderstand the treaty, it's called the Five Eyes agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement) and the sharing is of signals intelligence, not "all" intelligence. The history of this arrangement stretch back to the WW2 era.
All intelligence agencies have that problem.
It is said that there is no such thing as friendly intelligence agencies. Even for allied countries, their intel agencies are wary of each other.
Microsoft's own internal studies are showing somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of BSODs on XP/Vista/7 were not due to the OS, but directly due to graphics drivers. With Vista and 7 they created a framework for being able to control and reboot the GPU drivers and BSODs have massively dropped.
I can attest to this. One of the things I do at work is look at crashes collected by our internal Windows Error Reporting. I have about ~600 bugchecks and after triaging them, around 400 are video issues - bugcheck code 0x116 or 0x117. Those often manifest to the user as the display turns black, and the comes back in a few seconds. It's basically the new graphics subsystem decided the driver timed out, and stopping/starting it. Under XP and before, those would have been actual bugchecks (bluescreens) but here they are more like soft restarts.
Is Germany in such dire straits that a single model aircraft can topple a whole country?
Possibly, if it involves assassinating politicians, or maybe kill a group of EU ministers, etc.
Didn't WW1 started because one guy was assassinated?
How strange it is that Russia has become the bastion of human rights and the right to expose corruption.
Right... I'm sure Litvinenko would agree, he being poisoned by Polonium and all, for speaking out against corruption.
I don't see this as much different than wanting to see some works of an artist before actually hiring them. That's "developer as a professional" or even "performer". If technical interviews are useless, grades don't matter, and a candidate doesn't have any side project they've worked on because "they have a life", what exactly are you going to evaluate them on?
It's not like being a chef, who you probably wouldn't hire without sampling their cooking. But the difference there is you can show up to wherever they currently work and do that, order something they made. I don't think most employees would be able to get you in to their current workplace to peer over their shoulders for a few hours.
The reality is if 10 people are vying for a position and 8 of them have some portfolio to show, even if it is filled with minor things, and 2 don't, those 2 are at a disadvantage.
targeting a subset of 75% of the market is still better than targeting nearly all of 17% of the market.
It all depends on how those subsets spend their money, and the evidence from app stores is iOS users spend more. Enough to make their smaller marketshare worthwhile targeting.
It isn't like this info is held super secret, LMGTFY:
http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/17985/20130531/ios-app-sales-vs-android-apples-itunes.htm
I thought he was making a joke on the name of the product: subversion (the act of subverting something, versus the prefix "sub" like a subordinate version). Anyway, I read the comment again and I'm wondering what he meant as well.
Oracle is expensive, but if it were really overpriced then you'd see lots of cheaper alternatives.
Not exactly... customers can't exactly move to another database easily. What are you going to do if you are some enterprise like an airline or bank, export to CSV and then import? And actually bet your company that it worked?
Oracle is expensive and they have a bit of lock-in on their customers' data in their database.
When journalists don't even known, and when congress doesn't even known, well then who does know? If only the cleared individuals know then why not expand it
Congress is supposed to provide oversight... all elected members are granted a security clearance by virtue of their election. Whoever winds up serving on HPSCI/SSCI gets to ask what they want and go from there.
All that sounds great, but then the majority of Slashdot posters also vehemently defend their 4th Amendment rights against improper search and seizure. Look at the thread about cops examining cell phones at crash sites.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that assigning blame onto somebody requires investigative work, evidence gathering, due process and so on - can't count on the guilty party to voluntarily confess they were distracted, 5th Amendment and all - so how exactly is that going to mesh up with needing warrants to get the evidence before it naturally disappears (e.g. intoxication). Same with text messages, looking at a phone and seeing a partly written but unsent text is good evidence they were in the middle of texting, but unsent texts aren't logged and by the time due process comes through the non-idiot party will have erased that data.
That's assuming the criminals don't use said gun to shoot the unarmed officers in the first place.
How sure are you that they're a threat? George Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin was a threat.
Does England also have a 2nd Amendment? Do citizens have as many guns as they do in the U.S.?
And note, which party is in office is totally irrelevant here. The Republicans and Democrats have both been in on it.
Don't leave out the corporations... they are also interested in keeping the wheels greased since many feed at the government trough. And are happy to lobby for the need for various services and also supply them.
Basically, there is profit to be made this way.
You should study statistics and especially sampling theory. If those 1004 people are a random sample (and not biased, as in all drawn from certain age groups or professions) then you can draw a conclusion with a confidence interval based on their responses.
The fundamental problem is the American people, who have time and time again said that they simply don't care. The government listening to our calls? We don't care. Reading our emails? We don't care. Hiding disturbing truths about our perpetual wars? We couldn't care less.
Blame government officials all you want, but remember this: as a democracy we get the government we deserve.
Exactly. Another thing is the difficulty of showing a specific harm. Yet another is who to blame - Congress for making it legal? Courts for upholding it (or refusing to hear cases)? Executive for doing what's allowed? Phone companies for having this data to give over in the first place? It's just messed up.
Well, Clinton was impeached by the House GOP, since they were dogs sniffing the butthole of scandal.
Impeaching Obama would highlight the extremely uncomfortable fact that Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, but majority GOP, created the laws that allowed this.
People online will bitch and moan, but as far as I can tell, everything was done legally. Under Bush they didn't even need a warrant. Now they've got to go through that speedbump for it to be properly sanctioned.
Obama openly supported warrantless wiretaps before his election in 2004.
So the better choice was... Bush, who implemented this whole thing without telling anybody? Romney, who would what - scrap the whole thing? Be serious.
Do you remember the original warrantless wiretapping scandal? You may not like it, but the unfortunate bottom line is this time around it is "more" legal. As in - strengthened by Congress including oversight, and upheld by courts.
Part of the GP's point is that Libertarianism doesn't handle failure well.
Pollution of other people's property as a harm - ok so first you'd have to prove there is pollution, prove there is a harm, go to court, sue for damages, and wait. Meanwhile, the mercury they are leeching into your farm destroys your livelihood as the court case drags on. Eventually you win, but the corporation went bankrupt or left the jurisdiction and you don't get any damages at all.
Basically, a full blown libertarian society would be a complete clusterfuck legal system. It introduces a positive feedback loop where the unscrupulous are rewarded, like today's Wall Street. You'd have to get attorneys to write contracts for everything you do, attorneys to review contracts for every obligation you enter into, and then wind up suing everybody all the time because of perceived differences in whether each party lived up to their end of the contract.
It would work great as long as everybody agreed, but then grinds to complete halt when every single transaction boils down to "will it cost more to adhere to the contract, or force the other party to sue to redress grievances?". In your example about severance pay. What if your employer decides to withhold it because they didn't feel you delivered a product that met the contract? Your options are... sue? go to court? After arguing about whether you met the contract in the first place, you'd then get to sue for back wages. Oh yeah, that works as long as the justice system is infinitely quick and uses onmiscient judges/attorneys that render perfect decision at no cost and delay.
As opposed to a good old regulated stock market collapse. I really fail to see the difference.
The difference is without any regulations, corporations can and will lie, cheat, fake their numbers, withhold information and outright swindle the public all the time. Reputation doesn't matter to a person who can steal enough for the rest of their life. Modern corporations are only concerned about quarterly results, barely even annual, and without any regulations at all the stock market would collapse to pre-limited-liability corporations, sometime back in the 17th century. That would be the eventual result of an fully unregulated stock market, the days when owner's bore 100% of the risk and could be wiped out at any time due to forces beyond their control.
They're almost all strong on property rights
Isn't that extreme hypocrisy? This land was occupied by people before Europeans colonized it, and through a series of what one might term "coercive government action", that land was stolen through wars and outright genocide. Nobody cared about the property rights of the Native Americans.
So to me, there are 3 possible reactions to this:
1) Immediate return land to the Native Americans, recognizing that it was illegally seized through warfare, government coercion, etc.
2) STFU and accept government has final jurisdiction everywhere and does get to impose some laws on you
3) Declare your sovereignty, but then defend your claim. This may involve winning a war against the U.S. Military.The Native Americans couldn't and lost most of their land.
The Earth is "full" as there are no unclaimed jurisdictions, so the new reality of the past century is that one cannot simply move to settle a new area with like-minded friends (e.g. Utah) - the only option left is to move en masse and gentrify an existing area.
Too god damned bad. History is also full of examples of invading armies carving a new nations out of the smoking remains of the previous ones. Turn about is fair play, you might say. If "we" stole this land from the previous owners and you now want to claim it for yourself, prepare to defend it.
Besides, what passed for "unclaimed jurisdictions" in previous centuries didn't mean there weren't any people living there, it meant "the powerful nations of that era didn't assert their own claim". It was a bit unclear how exactly they derived an actual legitimate claim to that land in the first place.
You have to man up, impeach Obama, and judge him and all his cronies for crimes against humanity.
It's a dog and pony show. Clinton was impeached... for lying about an affair.
Bush wasn't impeached, for warrantless wiretapping, torture, and war crimes (civilian deaths in an unjust war).
There is no way Obama is getting impeached given the legal framework Bush helped build.
If you really want to "do something", besides jerk off with both hands by bloviating online, donate to the EFF or ACLU, where actual attorneys can file the right kinds of lawsuits. Yes that means petitioning your own "corrupt government". Some people realize that the government isn't a hive mind, and there are checks/balances to be applied (granted they may be rusty).
Remind the GOP of this the next time they want to purge immigrants, enact crazy id check laws, and so on.
Owners whose assets can be seized to pay for the damages caused by the sociopathic policies of said corporations.
So what happens when a corporation stores a lot of dangerous chemicals, say in Texas, and it blows up and causes 100 million in damages, and the owner's assets don't quite cover that? Say... they only cover 1% of that? What do you do, flog them until the bleed 99 million more in blood plasma?
I doubt it, reddit is the same like here, a bunch of blowhards with internet access.
The TEA party is a more interesting study. Backed by billionaires and given positive coverage on FOX 24 hours a day, it drew what, a few large protests and has died down to be a shell of itself?
I don't see this issue gaining any kind of FOX/Koch support. For one thing, the more they beat the drum the more they'll remind people that they are willing letting private companies gather this data in the first place. That'll cut profits if there are changes. And what's the radical anti-government person going to do, cry to the government for more regulations? Yeah, that's a nonstarter. So it won't be backed by the conservative media circus and the corporations involved will pray it just goes away.