China been doing this for years and it's only just coming out.
Or is it that Bloomberg has been doing this for years and the parties they're talking about are all tired of evidence-free reporting? I don't care about the statement from China's government, because Chinese government. But the people at Apple and Amazon aren't exactly slouches when it comes to dealing thousands of servers and security issues. If thousands of servers were phoning home, they'd know.
The "rest of the world" is increasingly adding to the junk, including things like Chinese tests of anti-satellite weapons leaving clouds of shrapnel where there used to be just one old dead satellite. Thanks, world.
As for the US "making most of the mess," yeah - and the "rest of the world" has for a long time been happily making use of the stuff we've put in orbit. Let me guess: you'd like to see the rest of the world permanently eclipse space activity, and then ignore the wake that all of that activity leaves behind it, because Everywhere Else = Good, US = Bad.
Why do you want to puhish them for their goverment. Do reverse - free education via internet
And when they set up illegal pirate networks to access that content, they get to go to jail. It seems you don't understand how it actually works under a government like China's.
No, not really. You asserted that because it's hard work to "categorize" people through... actual work, that's it easier to just do so by things like their race. This is all in the context of whether or not they are being "served" by education. So, you plainly stated that it's too much work to actually do the real research, and that it common to instead resort to things like skin color. Doing so is EXACTLY making unfounded, dubious claims based on race rather than individual qualities and circumstances. Something you've already pondered and are obviously OK with, as ugly as it is.
I'm not talking about the authors, and I'm not "attacking" you. I'm clarifying what you just said. Sounds like I got it right, because you're trying to change the subject.
This is common practice because otherwise it's hard to categorise large numbers of students without doing expensive, time consuming investigations.
Why are you needing to "categorize" them at all?
So for you, it's too much trouble to evaluate students based on their actual personal merits, so it's just assume that their skin color is the best indicator of their potential. In other words, you like overt racism because you think laziness is OK.
underserved (meaning low income, minority, or first generation in college)
So... being a minority, by definition, means you are underserved? Being the first person in your family to go to college means you are being underserved?
This sort of "words no longer mean anything" crap has completely swamped the entire educational establishment.
If you glance at what this boring Trumptard writes, you can know how stupid the bitch is before you read it. Trump level stupid.
It's really no weight on me personally, but you seem really troubled by your homosexual fantasies about me. Maybe if you posted using an actual account name instead of your cowardly little anonymous rants, you'd feel more confident about getting in touch with your sexual desires. It'll make you feel better, truly. All of this toxic vitriol can't be good for you, since you're the only person drinking it up. Pretty sad, really. Poor thing.
Slashdot has always had nonsense posts, trolls and spam. What's new are people like you suddenly deciding to be triggered and reacting in faux outrage so you can make a little out of context political rant. Thanks for that.
If you do any service work at home, spring for business class. Even in the country, it's stupid fast.
Sure, except that's not available in most of the country. It's available in dense sub/urban areas, but certainly not so in most of the country's acreage. Hence the word "rural" in the OP. People who live in rural areas don't get to choose business class over residential, because they don't get EITHER of those things.
No, it's not Facebook OR Rumours. It's the local culture that finds it reasonable to stone a traveling IT guy to death over imaginary threats he hasn't exhibited and for which there is no actual evidence. Yes, I know, we get "educated" people like college student and staff Antifa members acting out their lefty political passions by beating people bloody on US college campuses for what might be said during a seminar about international trade. And I suppose those guys would go all the way through with killing people if they thought there would be no consequences for a sufficiently large enough crowd of them acting in concert. But that has nothing to do with the apps they use to communicate their plans, or the rebar they use to make "sign" holders at marches. Those are just tools. Apps don't beat people bloody, people do. Quit blaming the software, OR the rumors. Blame the acts and the actors - that's where human agency is or isn't guided by rational thought.
I mean, seriously, have we not learned anything about the government's, or any government's ability to abuse their power?
You're right! Currently there's no WAY to get information from a huge service provider in any way that could originate with an improper request or someone up to no good.
No, the real question is: why do you think that immediately resorting to juvenile ad hominem (without even touching a single bit of what was said) makes you sound like more than just a cowardly troll? The Clinton ARE corrupt. They were more than happy to pocket, directly hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian "speaking fees" while she was Secretary of State and making policy calls that impacted relations with that country in hundreds of ways. The Clintons became wealthy selling influence, period. They're multi-millionaires because of it, and that cash flow dried up the moment she lost her miserably run campaign. You know all of this, but of course can't bring yourself to comment on the substance of the matter because you're personally disappointed that the terrible candidate you preferred lost an election to someone whose style you hate. Have the intellectual courage to actually say that out loud, instead of posting your whines like a petulant tweenage girl.
No, help to make sure a weakened president was elected. Hillary Clinton getting elected was a foregone conclusion for everyone but a statistics guy inside the Trump campaign, maybe Ann Coulter, and a few others. Every foreign government was saying it out loud, every media outlet in the US was sure of it, every academic expert was convinced of it. The Russians were taking steps to turn her taking power into something more suited to their taste: make it as awful for her as possible, making her as ineffective (at blunting Putin's aspirations) as possible. Another hint that was the case: the Russian actions altered tone, pace, and targets the moment she lost. They didn't want Trump as president, they wanted known-to-be-corrupt, feckless person like Clinton - someone whose family they had already enriched and who exhibited a taste for cashing in on Russian and similar engagement from other nasty types.
Well I don't know about you, but it was under $18 when I bought it. I should have begged, borrowed and stole to buy a lot more of it then, too. It really did seem like a smart buy at the time, but I wouldn't have guessed I'd see 2800% growth. I'll take it. If it WERE to split, it would jump up quickly again, I suspect.
Same kind of brainwashed idiocy. Dana Loesch or Ayn Rand, doesn't make a bit of a difference. Unsurprisingly, they come as a bundle.
Like clockwork, as soon as the conversation turns towards the actual words and history of the Bill of Rights, the anonymous cowards always slink back to childish ad hominem, since that's all they've got. Thanks for being predictable.
They've left a lot of written documents from which it is quite obvious that their concern was with federal vs. state power.
Yes, they WERE concerned about the relationship between the federal and state-level governments. Which is why they all eventually agreed to ratify Article IV. That stuff was hammered out BEFORE the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights came later, when enough states decided that while the constitution as written DID structure a federal government they could all live with, it didn't go far enough in explicitly protecting individuals from an over-reaching state OR federal government. Dozens of amendments to that end were proposed, and ten were adopted, in a lump as the Bill of Rights, specifically and entirely in the interests of further restricting government power. Not just federal power, but ALL government power. The Bill of Rights is, explicitly, a restrictive document, preventing government at all levels from infringing on the rights explicitly mentioned therein, because they KNEW there would be people like you who would promptly start looking for ways to say that individual liberties aren't important.
It is always refreshing to see the opinion of the unread, but sincere gun nut.
But it's not surprising to see the agenda of the disingenuous person who HAS read the Constitution and pretends they don't understand it, so they can find ways to pretend it's OK to ignore the stated purpose of things like the Bill of Rights. And here you are doing it, pretending that things like "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is somehow referring to... a state's papers, effects, and house? As in every other use of the phrase, "the people" refers over and over again to the individual people, the citizens. Do you really think the fourth amendment is about protecting a state from the federal government? You're going to say that with a straight face? Are you really going to pretend that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime..." refers to protecting Connecticut or Georgia from being held to answer for a crime without due process? No. Like EVERY OTHER item in the Bill of Rights, each amendment in it protects individual rights. Which you know, but are pretending you don't, because it suits your agenda better than trying to argue for one or more NEW amendments that strip away those protections to suit your more statist-minded world view.
No, I'm not a "gun nut," I'm a liberty nut - just like the people who insisted that they wouldn't ratify the constitution until it bore a Bill of Rights further protecting individual liberties. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect a state's right to freedom of speech without the federal government shutting them up, it prevents the federal government AND your state government from shutting YOU up. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect a state from being put in prison without due process, it prevents both the federal government AND your state government from putting YOU in prison without due process. The Bill of Rights doesn't prevent the federal government taking away a state's means of self defense, it prevents both the federal government AND your state government from taking away YOUR means of self defense, even when a politician tries to use the excuse that there's a militia, now, so you don't need to defend yourself.
This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.
Right. Because just like all of the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights the founders assumed that everyone would understand it's about individual liberties. But just in case anyone got confused about it, they included the (frequently ignored, rarely even printed) preamble to the BoR. The only reason we later found ourselves having to fight over whether or not the Bill of Rights protects individual liberties is because people looking to strip away one of those liberties decided to start pretending they can't read. Can't read the Constitution generally, can't read the Bill of Rights, can't read the 2nd Amendment, and especially can't read the volumes of supporting documentation that make it crystal clear that the founders put that protection right in there with the REST of the individual protections in the Bill of Rights on purpose.
Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
Right. The founders were very uncomfortable with the notion of a standing military at any level (militia or otherwise) but recognized it was going to be necessary. And they wanted YOU to be really clear that even if there is a standing military, the existence of such cannot be used as an excuse to infringe on individual rights to keep and bear personal arms. That's the ENTIRE POINT of the first part of the 2nd Amendment - to put it in that exact context, because they KNEW there would be people saying that if we just stand up a professional-grade militia then we can take away people's means of self defense. The founders were prescient, and knew there would always be people trying to use the excuse of The Government Knows And Does Best to infringe on your speech, your movement, your self defense, the sanctity of your home and the rest. The Bill of Rights is a whole FOR A REASON. Your personal freedom of speech and assembly is protected. Your personal freedom from imprisonment without due process is protected. Your personal freedom to defend yourself and your family is protected. And so on. These things were all put together in the same place, for the same reasons, and in the same individual context with complete deliberation.
The notion that the individual liberty to keep and bear arms was "invented" decades later is preposterous. Rather, what happened was that that individual liberty started to come under assault from those looking for approaches to infringing on it, and we began to see a concerted push-back against that infringement.
The "compromise" you're talking about wasn't about the 2nd Amendment. It was about the entire process of ratifying the Constitution. A number of states said they weren't going to get behind the entire charter unless it was amended, in plain language, making it even more clear that a series of important personal liberties were completely out of bounds for government infringement. There were some 200-plus suggestions on amendments to bolt on to the original draft, to make that clearer. Those were distilled down to the ten that were bundled up into the Bill of Rights, the presence of which was considered necessary enough by enough liberty-minded states that they weren't going to ratify the entire thing without it. And every single bit of the debate surrounding that made it clear that the BoR speaks entirely about personal, individual liberties. The 2A is present in that context, period.
And yet, as seen in the killer's reddit posts, he's yet another angrily irrational left-leaning person who hated anyone who voted for Trump. Just another alt-righter, right? Gotcha.
Sort of like it was an "alt-right" but never the less Bernie Sanders fan boy that decided to go and try to kill a bunch of Republican congress members? Is that how it works?
Well, you can sure always tell when the irrational lefty butt-hurt brigade shows up to express their frustration at being unable to make a salient point. At least you're predictable.
So you really think it's better to murder people than being weaponless?
No, it's better to be able to defend yourself than to not be able to defend yourself. Law abiding people in the US use legally owned firearms for self defense (almost entirely without having to fire a shot) orders of magnitude more often than criminals use guns to murder anybody. You really can't grasp that being stripped of your right to self defense and being a murderer aren't the only two possibilities?
Slashdot Mirror
China been doing this for years and it's only just coming out.
Or is it that Bloomberg has been doing this for years and the parties they're talking about are all tired of evidence-free reporting? I don't care about the statement from China's government, because Chinese government. But the people at Apple and Amazon aren't exactly slouches when it comes to dealing thousands of servers and security issues. If thousands of servers were phoning home, they'd know.
The "rest of the world" is increasingly adding to the junk, including things like Chinese tests of anti-satellite weapons leaving clouds of shrapnel where there used to be just one old dead satellite. Thanks, world.
As for the US "making most of the mess," yeah - and the "rest of the world" has for a long time been happily making use of the stuff we've put in orbit. Let me guess: you'd like to see the rest of the world permanently eclipse space activity, and then ignore the wake that all of that activity leaves behind it, because Everywhere Else = Good, US = Bad.
Why do you want to puhish them for their goverment. Do reverse - free education via internet
And when they set up illegal pirate networks to access that content, they get to go to jail. It seems you don't understand how it actually works under a government like China's.
You got it wrong. Completely wrong.
No, not really. You asserted that because it's hard work to "categorize" people through ... actual work, that's it easier to just do so by things like their race. This is all in the context of whether or not they are being "served" by education. So, you plainly stated that it's too much work to actually do the real research, and that it common to instead resort to things like skin color. Doing so is EXACTLY making unfounded, dubious claims based on race rather than individual qualities and circumstances. Something you've already pondered and are obviously OK with, as ugly as it is.
I'm not talking about the authors, and I'm not "attacking" you. I'm clarifying what you just said. Sounds like I got it right, because you're trying to change the subject.
This is common practice because otherwise it's hard to categorise large numbers of students without doing expensive, time consuming investigations.
Why are you needing to "categorize" them at all?
So for you, it's too much trouble to evaluate students based on their actual personal merits, so it's just assume that their skin color is the best indicator of their potential. In other words, you like overt racism because you think laziness is OK.
underserved (meaning low income, minority, or first generation in college)
So ... being a minority, by definition, means you are underserved? Being the first person in your family to go to college means you are being underserved?
This sort of "words no longer mean anything" crap has completely swamped the entire educational establishment.
If you glance at what this boring Trumptard writes, you can know how stupid the bitch is before you read it. Trump level stupid.
It's really no weight on me personally, but you seem really troubled by your homosexual fantasies about me. Maybe if you posted using an actual account name instead of your cowardly little anonymous rants, you'd feel more confident about getting in touch with your sexual desires. It'll make you feel better, truly. All of this toxic vitriol can't be good for you, since you're the only person drinking it up. Pretty sad, really. Poor thing.
If you sit close enough to your screen, you can know what TFA says before you can read it.
To stop idiots from posting and reposting memes with misleading information and flat out lies that are nothing more than propaganda.
As long as doing so doesn't hurt the politics FB supports. Those misleading memes and lies will sail right by the fact checkers who get paid by them.
Slashdot has always had nonsense posts, trolls and spam. What's new are people like you suddenly deciding to be triggered and reacting in faux outrage so you can make a little out of context political rant. Thanks for that.
In biting tones, Booker said "look, it's go 100% two-factor, or put the servers in your bathroom, Mr. Secretary!"
I recommend the new Spartacus firewall. It blocks everything except pompous middle-school quality theatricality.
If you do any service work at home, spring for business class. Even in the country, it's stupid fast.
Sure, except that's not available in most of the country. It's available in dense sub/urban areas, but certainly not so in most of the country's acreage. Hence the word "rural" in the OP. People who live in rural areas don't get to choose business class over residential, because they don't get EITHER of those things.
Rumours ... not Facebook.
No, it's not Facebook OR Rumours. It's the local culture that finds it reasonable to stone a traveling IT guy to death over imaginary threats he hasn't exhibited and for which there is no actual evidence. Yes, I know, we get "educated" people like college student and staff Antifa members acting out their lefty political passions by beating people bloody on US college campuses for what might be said during a seminar about international trade. And I suppose those guys would go all the way through with killing people if they thought there would be no consequences for a sufficiently large enough crowd of them acting in concert. But that has nothing to do with the apps they use to communicate their plans, or the rebar they use to make "sign" holders at marches. Those are just tools. Apps don't beat people bloody, people do. Quit blaming the software, OR the rumors. Blame the acts and the actors - that's where human agency is or isn't guided by rational thought.
I mean, seriously, have we not learned anything about the government's, or any government's ability to abuse their power?
You're right! Currently there's no WAY to get information from a huge service provider in any way that could originate with an improper request or someone up to no good.
No, the real question is: why do you think that immediately resorting to juvenile ad hominem (without even touching a single bit of what was said) makes you sound like more than just a cowardly troll? The Clinton ARE corrupt. They were more than happy to pocket, directly hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian "speaking fees" while she was Secretary of State and making policy calls that impacted relations with that country in hundreds of ways. The Clintons became wealthy selling influence, period. They're multi-millionaires because of it, and that cash flow dried up the moment she lost her miserably run campaign. You know all of this, but of course can't bring yourself to comment on the substance of the matter because you're personally disappointed that the terrible candidate you preferred lost an election to someone whose style you hate. Have the intellectual courage to actually say that out loud, instead of posting your whines like a petulant tweenage girl.
Read another way... Install a weak president.
No, help to make sure a weakened president was elected. Hillary Clinton getting elected was a foregone conclusion for everyone but a statistics guy inside the Trump campaign, maybe Ann Coulter, and a few others. Every foreign government was saying it out loud, every media outlet in the US was sure of it, every academic expert was convinced of it. The Russians were taking steps to turn her taking power into something more suited to their taste: make it as awful for her as possible, making her as ineffective (at blunting Putin's aspirations) as possible. Another hint that was the case: the Russian actions altered tone, pace, and targets the moment she lost. They didn't want Trump as president, they wanted known-to-be-corrupt, feckless person like Clinton - someone whose family they had already enriched and who exhibited a taste for cashing in on Russian and similar engagement from other nasty types.
Well I don't know about you, but it was under $18 when I bought it. I should have begged, borrowed and stole to buy a lot more of it then, too. It really did seem like a smart buy at the time, but I wouldn't have guessed I'd see 2800% growth. I'll take it. If it WERE to split, it would jump up quickly again, I suspect.
Same kind of brainwashed idiocy. Dana Loesch or Ayn Rand, doesn't make a bit of a difference. Unsurprisingly, they come as a bundle.
Like clockwork, as soon as the conversation turns towards the actual words and history of the Bill of Rights, the anonymous cowards always slink back to childish ad hominem, since that's all they've got. Thanks for being predictable.
They've left a lot of written documents from which it is quite obvious that their concern was with federal vs. state power.
Yes, they WERE concerned about the relationship between the federal and state-level governments. Which is why they all eventually agreed to ratify Article IV. That stuff was hammered out BEFORE the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights came later, when enough states decided that while the constitution as written DID structure a federal government they could all live with, it didn't go far enough in explicitly protecting individuals from an over-reaching state OR federal government. Dozens of amendments to that end were proposed, and ten were adopted, in a lump as the Bill of Rights, specifically and entirely in the interests of further restricting government power. Not just federal power, but ALL government power. The Bill of Rights is, explicitly, a restrictive document, preventing government at all levels from infringing on the rights explicitly mentioned therein, because they KNEW there would be people like you who would promptly start looking for ways to say that individual liberties aren't important.
It is always refreshing to see the opinion of the unread, but sincere gun nut.
But it's not surprising to see the agenda of the disingenuous person who HAS read the Constitution and pretends they don't understand it, so they can find ways to pretend it's OK to ignore the stated purpose of things like the Bill of Rights. And here you are doing it, pretending that things like "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is somehow referring to ... a state's papers, effects, and house? As in every other use of the phrase, "the people" refers over and over again to the individual people, the citizens. Do you really think the fourth amendment is about protecting a state from the federal government? You're going to say that with a straight face? Are you really going to pretend that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime..." refers to protecting Connecticut or Georgia from being held to answer for a crime without due process? No. Like EVERY OTHER item in the Bill of Rights, each amendment in it protects individual rights. Which you know, but are pretending you don't, because it suits your agenda better than trying to argue for one or more NEW amendments that strip away those protections to suit your more statist-minded world view.
No, I'm not a "gun nut," I'm a liberty nut - just like the people who insisted that they wouldn't ratify the constitution until it bore a Bill of Rights further protecting individual liberties. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect a state's right to freedom of speech without the federal government shutting them up, it prevents the federal government AND your state government from shutting YOU up. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect a state from being put in prison without due process, it prevents both the federal government AND your state government from putting YOU in prison without due process. The Bill of Rights doesn't prevent the federal government taking away a state's means of self defense, it prevents both the federal government AND your state government from taking away YOUR means of self defense, even when a politician tries to use the excuse that there's a militia, now, so you don't need to defend yourself.
This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.
Right. Because just like all of the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights the founders assumed that everyone would understand it's about individual liberties. But just in case anyone got confused about it, they included the (frequently ignored, rarely even printed) preamble to the BoR. The only reason we later found ourselves having to fight over whether or not the Bill of Rights protects individual liberties is because people looking to strip away one of those liberties decided to start pretending they can't read. Can't read the Constitution generally, can't read the Bill of Rights, can't read the 2nd Amendment, and especially can't read the volumes of supporting documentation that make it crystal clear that the founders put that protection right in there with the REST of the individual protections in the Bill of Rights on purpose.
Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
Right. The founders were very uncomfortable with the notion of a standing military at any level (militia or otherwise) but recognized it was going to be necessary. And they wanted YOU to be really clear that even if there is a standing military, the existence of such cannot be used as an excuse to infringe on individual rights to keep and bear personal arms. That's the ENTIRE POINT of the first part of the 2nd Amendment - to put it in that exact context, because they KNEW there would be people saying that if we just stand up a professional-grade militia then we can take away people's means of self defense. The founders were prescient, and knew there would always be people trying to use the excuse of The Government Knows And Does Best to infringe on your speech, your movement, your self defense, the sanctity of your home and the rest. The Bill of Rights is a whole FOR A REASON. Your personal freedom of speech and assembly is protected. Your personal freedom from imprisonment without due process is protected. Your personal freedom to defend yourself and your family is protected. And so on. These things were all put together in the same place, for the same reasons, and in the same individual context with complete deliberation.
The notion that the individual liberty to keep and bear arms was "invented" decades later is preposterous. Rather, what happened was that that individual liberty started to come under assault from those looking for approaches to infringing on it, and we began to see a concerted push-back against that infringement.
The "compromise" you're talking about wasn't about the 2nd Amendment. It was about the entire process of ratifying the Constitution. A number of states said they weren't going to get behind the entire charter unless it was amended, in plain language, making it even more clear that a series of important personal liberties were completely out of bounds for government infringement. There were some 200-plus suggestions on amendments to bolt on to the original draft, to make that clearer. Those were distilled down to the ten that were bundled up into the Bill of Rights, the presence of which was considered necessary enough by enough liberty-minded states that they weren't going to ratify the entire thing without it. And every single bit of the debate surrounding that made it clear that the BoR speaks entirely about personal, individual liberties. The 2A is present in that context, period.
Pretty sure there was a gun involved in the shooing.
Yup, and it just got up on its own and killed those two people. All by itself.
but you alt-right nutjobs
And yet, as seen in the killer's reddit posts, he's yet another angrily irrational left-leaning person who hated anyone who voted for Trump. Just another alt-righter, right? Gotcha.
Sort of like it was an "alt-right" but never the less Bernie Sanders fan boy that decided to go and try to kill a bunch of Republican congress members? Is that how it works?
Well, you can sure always tell when the irrational lefty butt-hurt brigade shows up to express their frustration at being unable to make a salient point. At least you're predictable.
So you really think it's better to murder people than being weaponless?
No, it's better to be able to defend yourself than to not be able to defend yourself. Law abiding people in the US use legally owned firearms for self defense (almost entirely without having to fire a shot) orders of magnitude more often than criminals use guns to murder anybody. You really can't grasp that being stripped of your right to self defense and being a murderer aren't the only two possibilities?