Right, because Anonymous and/b/ in general are such guardians of good taste.
The wording is easy to misunderstand. The statement is meant to indicate that interfering with people buying Xmas presents for their kids would be seen to be in bad taste and thus counter-productive to their goal. Screwing with the backend payment systems makes customers pissed off at mc/visa/e-stores but directly blocking the e-stores makes people pissed off the DDOSers.
I'm dreading having to use a password manager to manage my 3-off visits all over the web.
If you use throw-away email addresses that are derived from the site's address then you can use the same password at all sites and all you have to remember is the algorithm that converts the site's address into the throw-away email address.
No, it's a matter of changing the rules for good reason.
We seem to be in agreement. My point is that managers who refuse to manage the exceptions in favor of rigidly conforming to simplistic policies aren't managing at all.
But then the invariable laws of the office privilege and status bullshittery set in. Because it is impossible that Department Head A gets something and Dufus B doesn't.
The whole concept of, "If I make an exception to the rules for you, I will have to do it for everyone" is such bullshit - both as an excuse not to make an exception and as a justification to do it for everyone else. Management like that might as well be replaced by a robot for all the value they add.
What I hate about the Wikileaks thing is that most of the headlines is stuff that isn't surprising at all and a lot of it has made it to the mainstream media as it happened
[Citation Needed]
No, seriously, plenty of this stuff makes it to the news and is promptly dismissed as being based on flimsy or no evidence. We all "know" a lot of this stuff, but now wikileaks has provided the Citations Needed for anyone to verify the claims.
Doing a bit of research here. Haven't seen that much airbrushing since I quit looking at Playboy years ago....
Even more bizarre, they didn't air-brush out the boob-job scars around the girl's areole - at least not for the picture of "Christel" that loaded up on the first page when I researched the issue.
The native app an be made so much better than the web page.
Now if only we could trust the native app not to do stuff behind our backs. At least with regular web pages we have the option to run it all through filters like privoxy or use plugins like adblock. With native apps, at best you'll have to put together app-specific filters.
You're honestly comparing cheap pieces of plastic used as a storage medium and sold at retail with a telecommunications network and infrastructure??? Really? You think everyone here is that retarded?
Apparently you haven't been around long enough to be aware of Tannebaum's famous quote - "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
The point is that networks are supposed to be more efficient than sneakernet. When they aren't, something is clearly wrong.
Either way you've got all the other handling steps, sitting in the distributor's warehouse, loading and unloading, re-shipping to the stores where they sit on the shelf and have other inventory costs.
The interstate commerce clause is frequently misused - but telecom and the Internet seems to clearly be interstate commerce.
When I do business with an ISP it's not interstate commerce - its local. I'm paying for them to take my traffic and then hand it off to someone else who hands it off ad infinitum. The ISP may be doing interstate business with their backbone providers, it may even be another division within the same company. But the business between me and the ISP is purely local.
Are you kidding? That's more expensive than the equivalent in blank DVDs and 2-3x more costly than a hard disk. If an ISP can't do better than the cost of manufacturing a physical product and shipping it half way around the world and at least two lays of middlemen then they are already abusing the crap out of their monopoly.
I didn't mean that you were exaggerating, I meant the Young's own words suggested that he was exaggerating.
His continuation about Soros and Koch sounded like pure conspiracy theory speculation based on his extrapolation of that original discussion.
The rest of what you quoted sounded like the same old complaints people have been making about wikileaks hyping the leaks. The thing is that over a year ago Assange explicitly said in an interview that just dumping a zip file of all leaks wasn't effective at drawing attention to the issues disclosed. Presumably all the hype in concert with early disclosure to big newspapers this year is the response to that problem.
Why do you think that the USA, given it has apparently better legal grounding for greater press freedom, comes out with a worse record?
For one thing no legal system is perfect or instantaneous. The gov can get away with pulling illegal shit for years until a good enough case makes its way through the courts and appeals up to the scotus. In many cases the gov can just quit whatever they've been doing and the case goes away before the judicial system is able to establish a clear bright line restricting the gov, only to start in with a subtle variation and start the process all over again.
Simply pushing stuff to the web is not the definition of a journalist. By your definition, EVERYONE who has access to pen/pencil and paper, and especially anyone with a blog, is a journalist. Total bullshit.
It used to be that simply owning and operating a printing press was enough to qualify as a member of the press. All that's changed now is that you don't need to be rich to be a member of the press. Seems like a fantastic improvement to me.
In most places, including the States, if a person gives consent and then withdraws it, there is no longer consent. As far as I know there is no "blue balls" clause letting you finish even if she says no halfway through.
Lots of states in fact. Like North Carolina and Maryland. I'm not saying that such laws are morally right, but I do personally think that the level of protest required during coitus needs to be significantly higher than, "no means no" because the participants can't be expected to be fully in control of their faculties. Everything I've read about the two incidents indicates that neither women claim to have made any physical attempt to stop the act. Plus Assange is completely deaf in one ear and ~50% deaf in the other.
I'm far more interested in the charges leveled by John Young of Cryptome, that he is a mercenary selling access to unredacted source documents to the highest bidder on the black market.
Interesting but it sounds like an exaggeration, apparently this is what Young said: "Well, it only came up in the topic of raising $5 million the first year. That was the first red flag that I heard about. I thought that they were actually a public interest group up until then, but as soon as I heard that, I know that they were a criminal organisation."
To me, that sounds like wikileaks people were brainstorming at its inception and Young has extrapolated the worst possible result from it. Remember at the start wikileaks wasn't redacting anything - they even published their own list of donors. So the implication that they would publicly release redacted documents but privately sell them doesn't fit the circumstances.
Uh- he didn't introduce those compromises as a "bridging the divide" type thing, he did those because there was absolutely no way a public option or a tax bill not extending the full Bush tax cut would have made it through Congress.
Really? That liberal bastion, the wall street journal, totally disagrees with you, and they are far from alone on that topic.
And no, he hasn't done diddly squat in the way of policy to "bridge the divide" as near as I can tell.
Off the top of my head:
1) Massive watering down of the healthcare bill - like removal of the public option. 2) Looks like he's going to continue the Bush tax cuts even for the highest income brackets.
My impression is that he does make policy changes that republicans want, but short of up and quitting his job, the GOP would never give him credit for a single compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because Anonymous and /b/ in general are such guardians of good taste.
The wording is easy to misunderstand. The statement is meant to indicate that interfering with people buying Xmas presents for their kids would be seen to be in bad taste and thus counter-productive to their goal. Screwing with the backend payment systems makes customers pissed off at mc/visa/e-stores but directly blocking the e-stores makes people pissed off the DDOSers.
I'm dreading having to use a password manager to manage my 3-off visits all over the web.
If you use throw-away email addresses that are derived from the site's address then you can use the same password at all sites and all you have to remember is the algorithm that converts the site's address into the throw-away email address.
No, it's a matter of changing the rules for good reason.
We seem to be in agreement. My point is that managers who refuse to manage the exceptions in favor of rigidly conforming to simplistic policies aren't managing at all.
and they could easily load a hack that made it go "yeah I'm not jailbroken."
There's an app for that!
But then the invariable laws of the office privilege and status bullshittery set in. Because it is impossible that Department Head A gets something and Dufus B doesn't.
The whole concept of, "If I make an exception to the rules for you, I will have to do it for everyone" is such bullshit - both as an excuse not to make an exception and as a justification to do it for everyone else. Management like that might as well be replaced by a robot for all the value they add.
What I hate about the Wikileaks thing is that most of the headlines is stuff that isn't surprising at all and a lot of it has made it to the mainstream media as it happened
[Citation Needed]
No, seriously, plenty of this stuff makes it to the news and is promptly dismissed as being based on flimsy or no evidence.
We all "know" a lot of this stuff, but now wikileaks has provided the Citations Needed for anyone to verify the claims.
And thus, a new legal conglomeration will be formed, akin to the RIAA and MPAA, but this time to sue people for owning fabrication gear./quote
Cue MAFIAA advertisement ...
Q: "You wouldn't steal a car would you?"
A: "No, so I won't steal movies either!"
What people really think:
A: "No, but I sure would download one if I could!"
Doing a bit of research here. Haven't seen that much airbrushing since I quit looking at Playboy years ago....
Even more bizarre, they didn't air-brush out the boob-job scars around the girl's areole - at least not for the picture of "Christel" that loaded up on the first page when I researched the issue.
The native app an be made so much better than the web page.
Now if only we could trust the native app not to do stuff behind our backs.
At least with regular web pages we have the option to run it all through filters like privoxy or use plugins like adblock.
With native apps, at best you'll have to put together app-specific filters.
So at this point I've completely lost the point you had.
Seems like you've lost the point that you had too.
You are pure rant, zero exposition. That's pretty narcissistic.
You're honestly comparing cheap pieces of plastic used as a storage medium and sold at retail with a telecommunications network and infrastructure??? Really? You think everyone here is that retarded?
Apparently you haven't been around long enough to be aware of Tannebaum's famous quote - "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
The point is that networks are supposed to be more efficient than sneakernet. When they aren't, something is clearly wrong.
Either way you've got all the other handling steps, sitting in the distributor's warehouse, loading and unloading, re-shipping to the stores where they sit on the shelf and have other inventory costs.
It's unfortunately paywalled, but in case anyone has access to a library with a subscription, the journal article this news article is about is:
Plotkin et al. (2010). Solar energy harvesting in the epicuticle of the oriental hornet (Vespa orientalis). Naturwissenschaften 97(12): 1067-1076.
The full text works for me and I'm not in a library or anywhere else with a journal subscription.
Then there are those sick bastards that submerge their computer in mineral oil...
Real mean use fluorinert.
The interstate commerce clause is frequently misused - but telecom and the Internet seems to clearly be interstate commerce.
When I do business with an ISP it's not interstate commerce - its local. I'm paying for them to take my traffic and then hand it off to someone else who hands it off ad infinitum.
The ISP may be doing interstate business with their backbone providers, it may even be another division within the same company. But the business between me and the ISP is purely local.
I would say 10 cents a GB would be great
Are you kidding? That's more expensive than the equivalent in blank DVDs and 2-3x more costly than a hard disk.
If an ISP can't do better than the cost of manufacturing a physical product and shipping it half way around the world and at least two lays of middlemen then they are already abusing the crap out of their monopoly.
I didn't mean that you were exaggerating, I meant the Young's own words suggested that he was exaggerating.
His continuation about Soros and Koch sounded like pure conspiracy theory speculation based on his extrapolation of that original discussion.
The rest of what you quoted sounded like the same old complaints people have been making about wikileaks hyping the leaks. The thing is that over a year ago Assange explicitly said in an interview that just dumping a zip file of all leaks wasn't effective at drawing attention to the issues disclosed. Presumably all the hype in concert with early disclosure to big newspapers this year is the response to that problem.
Why do you think that the USA, given it has apparently better legal grounding for greater press freedom, comes out with a worse record?
For one thing no legal system is perfect or instantaneous. The gov can get away with pulling illegal shit for years until a good enough case makes its way through the courts and appeals up to the scotus. In many cases the gov can just quit whatever they've been doing and the case goes away before the judicial system is able to establish a clear bright line restricting the gov, only to start in with a subtle variation and start the process all over again.
Simply pushing stuff to the web is not the definition of a journalist. By your definition, EVERYONE who has access to pen/pencil and paper, and especially anyone with a blog, is a journalist. Total bullshit.
It used to be that simply owning and operating a printing press was enough to qualify as a member of the press.
All that's changed now is that you don't need to be rich to be a member of the press.
Seems like a fantastic improvement to me.
In most places, including the States, if a person gives consent and then withdraws it, there is no longer consent. As far as I know there is no "blue balls" clause letting you finish even if she says no halfway through.
Lots of states in fact. Like North Carolina and Maryland. I'm not saying that such laws are morally right, but I do personally think that the level of protest required during coitus needs to be significantly higher than, "no means no" because the participants can't be expected to be fully in control of their faculties. Everything I've read about the two incidents indicates that neither women claim to have made any physical attempt to stop the act. Plus Assange is completely deaf in one ear and ~50% deaf in the other.
I'm far more interested in the charges leveled by John Young of Cryptome, that he is a mercenary selling access to unredacted source documents to the highest bidder on the black market.
Interesting but it sounds like an exaggeration, apparently this is what Young said:
"Well, it only came up in the topic of raising $5 million the first year.
That was the first red flag that I heard about. I thought that they were
actually a public interest group up until then, but as soon as I heard that,
I know that they were a criminal organisation."
To me, that sounds like wikileaks people were brainstorming at its inception and Young has extrapolated the worst possible result from it. Remember at the start wikileaks wasn't redacting anything - they even published their own list of donors. So the implication that they would publicly release redacted documents but privately sell them doesn't fit the circumstances.
You and I simply disagree on this. I don't think buying a domain and installing wikimedia, wordpress, etc automatically makes one a "journalist."
Ain't no different from buying a printing press 50 years ago when that was all that was required to be a member of the press.
Once every ad view actually nets the webpage 1 cent from micropayment,
You seem to be really confused about how advertising works.
Uh- he didn't introduce those compromises as a "bridging the divide" type thing, he did those because there was absolutely no way a public option or a tax bill not extending the full Bush tax cut would have made it through Congress.
Really? That liberal bastion, the wall street journal, totally disagrees with you, and they are far from alone on that topic.
Why would we? Show someone an ad and charge them for the privilege!
Because if people are paying they will be ticked off. It's not like a cabletv monopoly where the competition is practically nil.
It's not like a web browser can differentiate between an add and legitimate content
Adblock does a helluva good job already.
And no, he hasn't done diddly squat in the way of policy to "bridge the divide" as near as I can tell.
Off the top of my head:
1) Massive watering down of the healthcare bill - like removal of the public option.
2) Looks like he's going to continue the Bush tax cuts even for the highest income brackets.
My impression is that he does make policy changes that republicans want, but short of up and quitting his job, the GOP would never give him credit for a single compromise.