The pundits on MSNBC were talking about the crazy racist WHITE people turning up at these events armed when there was a BLACK GUY ON SCREEN ARMED TO THE TEETH. The on site reporter even interviewed him! All of which they conveniently cut when they wanted to rant about the crazy white rednecks.
Answer this question, yes or no. Do you understand that there was also a white guy there who was also armed to the teeth and was an avowed member of a racist organization? YES or NO.
The cold, hard truth is that all races, while wanting to be recognized as equals, insist on maintaining their specific identity, and will go at whatever lengths it takes to maintain it, even if it's at the expense of other races.
Except that no matter the case, judging an individual by characteristics of others is bullshit. If they personally claim ownership of that stereotype, then sure go ahead. But that's a far cry from assuming that they buy into whatever "identity" you have decided to apply to them.
Consider the word "nigger". Blacks can call each other "nigger" and it's not racist,
Yes it is. Plenty of black people are offended by the term as reinforcing racist attitudes no matter who says it. You need to hang out with more black people if you really believe that stereotype.
Making a racial, religious, or cultural based joke is not "judging" a group as a whole, merely making fun of a stereotype easily formed by inductive reasoning. No intelligent person would universalize such a statement to 100% of the subject group.
Lol. You really don't have a clue. 99.99% of the time someone makes a racial joke they are NOT making fun of the stereotype, they are applying the stereotype.
Sarah Silverman telling her now infamous "chink joke" is an example of someone actually parodying stereotyping, the OP's joke about gypsy girls was reinforcing a stereotype.
If you're watching it AND BEING MEASURED, you're paying for the show.
And bingo was his name-o.
Furthermore, every bit of product-placement helps pay for the show too regardless of how it gets watched, which is why neilsen ought to be measuring torrents too. Although product placement can be kind of hard to do in a futurist or mediaeval type show, though I do recall Pan-Am getting in a nice big product placement in 2001.
If you can't tell it to your best friend, who happens to be a gypsy, and expect a good laugh from it over a beer at the pub, it's you who thinks way too much about ethnicity.
And if you personally can't replace "gypsy" with any ethnic group and find the joke just as funny then you are stereotyping. And puh-lease, "my best friend is a..." is the first sentence in the book of how to be a racist.
He started out fucking up his argument from the minute he opened his mouth. He compared Rodney King - who was severely beaten by COPS to Gladney who was beaten by a couple of random union shitheads. The first was a severe abuse of authority, the second was a couple of assholes assaulting a guy. And while it sucks shit to get assaulted, to be assaulted by the police is a crime against all citizens.
Plus, as another person posted links to information about - there really was a white racist with a big gun strapped to his hip at that rally. The editors were just sloppy, probably didn't have footage of the white guy so they improvised. Stupid and sloppy, but not some vast left-wing conspiracy.
Personally, I don't see a big deal about the gun stories at all. More people ought to bring their guns because rights are meaningless unless you exercise them. Plus, it isn't like they are anywhere near the president - wherever he goes is automatically federal land and neither concealed nor open-carry is permitted there.
Racism is when you hate those who are different for no logical reason, not merely talk about it casually and be fine with it.
Uh, no. Racism is not limited to "hate"- you can love people of one race over all others for no reason other than they are members of that race, that's still racism.
However, what is total bullshit about your analysis is that you think "talking casually about it and being fine with it" is not racism. Duh! You judge an entire group based on the attributes of a few individuals, but because you joke about it you aren't racist?
Dude, you've brainwashed yourself with your own rationalizations. You've embraced your own version of doublethink.
I am sure when the employee gets sued for sexual harashment that the argument "Well it must be permitted because the content filter didn't caught it." will fly really well with the jury.
That's not the argument at all. The real argument is that it must be permitted because the content filter permitted it.
I mean is it the employers fault that the employee was surfing porn at work because the sites he visited wasn't blocked by the content controls?
Yes it is. If they are going to enforce content filtering then anything the filter lets through is by definition permitted. If the users have to suffer all the damn stupid false positives in the system then the people runing the system deserve to suffer from any false negatives. Goose and gander.
The point is that so many people are trying to act like what the users of the Pirate Bay was some great act of disobedience when the motivation for the vast, vast majority of its users were just there to get some for free and nothing else.
And the two can't be the same? That seeking free copies of stuff is the embodiment of disagreeing with current law even if many people doing it aren't able to articulate it as so?
It is easy to wave your hands and condemn people with broad strokes of the pen. But that only works if you buy into the cartels' message that charging for distribution is the only way to pay for creation. It stands to reason that costs are only actually incurred during creation, not distribution, so as long as creators can get paid then it does not matter if everybody else gets copies of their creations for free. Sure, under the current system creators aren't as likely to get paid when people pirate, but that's the nature of continuing to use a broken business model. Buggy whip makers didn't get paid when people bought cars either, so they went out and changed their business models to match the changes in the market and became companies like Bosch making accessories for cars instead of accessories for carriages.
I think health care is a basic service which should be provided to everyone at minimal or zero direct cost, much like roads, traffic signals, crime prevention/justice, and fire services are.
Many of those areas being loaded with corruption and inefficiencies, I'm not so sure that they are really the best examples.
I guess I don't care if it really should cost 10 million dollars to get lousy odds at fixing up Joe's cancer...
Well, I can't see how anyone reasonable could decide to ignore such costs. The fed can literally print as much money as it wants, but all they end up doing is devaluing the dollars they've already got. No such thing as a free lunch.
I was uninsured at the time, but making enough money that I didn't qualify for any sort of reduction in price.
Have you considered that the problem is "insurance" in the first place? That the last 30-40 years of massive healthcare price increases accompanied the creation of the modern healthcare "insurance" system? That the reason prices are out of control is that most everyone who has insurance doesn't have a stake in keeping costs down because they are so broadly insulated from the actual costs? That they are in effect getting rationed healthcare now where some accountant in kaiser-permanente, blue-cross/blue-shield, etc is the one making decisions about what treatment options are available instead of their doctor? That essentially we've gone from a system where each person had direct responsibility and control of their own level of healthcare to a system constantly on the edge of a tragedy of the commons that is contained only by the bean-counters who have no real stake in the final results.
Doctors that are cash friendly routinely knock from 33% to 66% off the bill because of the cost savings of avoiding the "insurance" system. As an extreme example, there was a recent poster to a prior healthcare thread on slashdot who had experienced the cost of his MRI go down from something like $2500 if billed through insurance to around $600 if he paid in cash before the procedure.
So on one hand you have these behemoths that dominate the industry and under the guise of keeping costs down they've actually contributed to massive price inflation, and the on the other hand you have the majority of the healthcare providers who have basically accepted the system and don't have a process for dealing with patients that don't fit into the standard system's processes, so those patients get treated like an exception and get exceptionally high pricing while on the other hand the few doctors that are prepared to work with people outside of the behemoth are able to realize an enormous cost savings.
I think that first off we need to get employers out of the healthcare game, the current system provides too many tax breaks to certain groups of "haves" while incrementally penalizing the "have nots." Many employers love the system because it provides yet another deterrent to employee mobility. Level the healthcare market by removing the tax breaks that favor employers paying for coverage of employees (and conversely disfavor everyone else, like your former uninsured self). Let the people decide themselves what kind of healthcare they want, not some HR department tied to their job.
In the states where "tort reform" has put limits on malpractice payouts, malpractice premiums have still continued to increase, so it seems that the popular ideas about "fixing" it aren't working - doctors still pay too much and now people can't even get decent compensation when their lives are fucked up. I think that malpractice insurance is a cost that the patient should have direct control over - we pay for it already, its just bundled up in monthly fees and such with no transparency. Let the patient choose to purchase a kind of errors and omissions insurance for each procedure they undergo. Insurance actuaries will rate each doctor based on their prior work, the
No what would happen is that they'd just keep pushing everyone backwards,
What they actually do is ask for volunteers at each flight that are OK with being bumped. If you are bumped one flight someone else at the second flight may accept being bumped so you can fly, or you can accept being bumped again for additional compensation. Of course if they think that chain might occur they start out asking for people willing to be bumped a whole day or so to avoid the extra cost of multiple compensations.
Re:Thwarted by properly designed online banking
on
Real-Time Keyloggers
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
An alternative used by at least one bank in Australia is that when you request a transaction they send ans sms to your pre-authenticated mobile number detailing the transaction, i.e who to and how much, and giving an authorisation code that you then enter. That code only authorises that specific transaction.
That's common in Europe too. But the result has been that hacking sms in various ways has become of great interest to thieves. If they don't already exist, you can count on seeing java trojans for cells phones that silently forward SMS too.
Re:Thwarted by properly designed online banking
on
Real-Time Keyloggers
·
· Score: 5, Informative
For starters, I don't think they roll on success (how would the device know, by the way?).
The server enforces it. You can't authenticate multiple times with the same token. The server returns an "an already used" code if it was recently used. I know this because I've written software that uses RSA's secure-id toolkit.
But even if they would: the legitimate user would not be able to know the difference between a failure due to making a typo and a failure due to some hacker beating him to the line.
Again, see the point out about return values from the server-side. The application may choose to report this information directly to the user or simply flag it for the security team to investigate further. I prefer the later because false positives are going to be pretty rare unless the client software is broken in other ways.
They log the keystrokes prior to it being sent over the wire to the bank, block the post to login.cgi, and login for themselves.
If they are smart they can even provide a fake error page once they've acquired the credentials that tells the user that the site is "experiencing technical difficulties" and that they should please try again in 15 minutes. 99.99% of users won't think a thing of it.
Re:Thwarted by properly designed online banking
on
Real-Time Keyloggers
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The one time pad means they can't open a second session.
RSA secure-id keys are single-use too. They roll every minute but they also roll on every successful use.
Could someone with a facebook account "review" this quiz?
I don't have a facebook account so I can't do much with it. But I would like to send it to friends and family that do have accounts. These people aren't the type to comprehend the ACLU blog, so I'd like to know just how well the quiz makes its point. Is my 20 year-old niece who 'friends' anyone who sends a friend request going to achieve cluevana by doing the quiz, or is the quiz no more meaningful to the unenlightened than the blog post that inspired it?
You haven't tried buying prescription drugs without insurance recently, have you? Hint: You can't. Or well, you can, but it costs so much that someone who cannot afford insurance is going to have trouble affording them.
I don't know what country you are are in, but in the USA a very large number of commonly prescribed drugs are available for very relatively cheap due to Wal-mart's $4 prescription plan and the fall-out effects on the rest of the market. There still are plenty of expensive drugs, but they are patented.
No one's going to be able to patent cocaine, heroin, pcp, meth, etc.
I would make the flip argument here. A drug that is driving such a large percentage of the population to knowingly commit crimes that could lead to harsh prison sentences must be addictive and lead the user to commit acts of poor judgement.
Which is precisely why laws against copyright violation are so necessary and so successful! Clearly the millions of people willing to risk eternal indebtedness for letting people copy a couple CDs is a hardcore dance addict and needs to be in rehab.
Slashdot Mirror
The pundits on MSNBC were talking about the crazy racist WHITE people turning up at these events armed when there was a BLACK GUY ON SCREEN ARMED TO THE TEETH. The on site reporter even interviewed him! All of which they conveniently cut when they wanted to rant about the crazy white rednecks.
Answer this question, yes or no. Do you understand that there was also a white guy there who was also armed to the teeth and was an avowed member of a racist organization? YES or NO.
Woooosh!
What part of "there really was a white guy with a gun there" do you not understand?
If you dated every single redhead you ever met, then yes.
If Obama dated every single black woman he met, then yes.
But surprise, there is more to it than just that isn't there?
So it isn't like either of you are loving one particular group for NO OTHER REASON.
Besides, Obama dated a haole girl in high school.
The cold, hard truth is that all races, while wanting to be recognized as equals, insist on maintaining their specific identity, and will go at whatever lengths it takes to maintain it, even if it's at the expense of other races.
Except that no matter the case, judging an individual by characteristics of others is bullshit. If they personally claim ownership of that stereotype, then sure go ahead. But that's a far cry from assuming that they buy into whatever "identity" you have decided to apply to them.
Consider the word "nigger". Blacks can call each other "nigger" and it's not racist,
Yes it is. Plenty of black people are offended by the term as reinforcing racist attitudes no matter who says it. You need to hang out with more black people if you really believe that stereotype.
Making a racial, religious, or cultural based joke is not "judging" a group as a whole, merely making fun of a stereotype easily formed by inductive reasoning. No intelligent person would universalize such a statement to 100% of the subject group.
Lol. You really don't have a clue. 99.99% of the time someone makes a racial joke they are NOT making fun of the stereotype, they are applying the stereotype.
Sarah Silverman telling her now infamous "chink joke" is an example of someone actually parodying stereotyping, the OP's joke about gypsy girls was reinforcing a stereotype.
If you're watching it AND BEING MEASURED, you're paying for the show.
And bingo was his name-o.
Furthermore, every bit of product-placement helps pay for the show too regardless of how it gets watched, which is why neilsen ought to be measuring torrents too.
Although product placement can be kind of hard to do in a futurist or mediaeval type show, though I do recall Pan-Am getting in a nice big product placement in 2001.
If you can't tell it to your best friend, who happens to be a gypsy, and expect a good laugh from it over a beer at the pub, it's you who thinks way too much about ethnicity.
And if you personally can't replace "gypsy" with any ethnic group and find the joke just as funny then you are stereotyping. And puh-lease, "my best friend is a ..." is the first sentence in the book of how to be a racist.
Fuck! Why did you have to post that?
Damn truth with its liberal bias!
You just ruined a great conspiracy theory. They had video and everything.
He started out fucking up his argument from the minute he opened his mouth. He compared Rodney King - who was severely beaten by COPS to Gladney who was beaten by a couple of random union shitheads. The first was a severe abuse of authority, the second was a couple of assholes assaulting a guy. And while it sucks shit to get assaulted, to be assaulted by the police is a crime against all citizens.
Plus, as another person posted links to information about - there really was a white racist with a big gun strapped to his hip at that rally. The editors were just sloppy, probably didn't have footage of the white guy so they improvised. Stupid and sloppy, but not some vast left-wing conspiracy.
Personally, I don't see a big deal about the gun stories at all. More people ought to bring their guns because rights are meaningless unless you exercise them. Plus, it isn't like they are anywhere near the president - wherever he goes is automatically federal land and neither concealed nor open-carry is permitted there.
Racism is when you hate those who are different for no logical reason, not merely talk about it casually and be fine with it.
Uh, no. Racism is not limited to "hate"- you can love people of one race over all others for no reason other than they are members of that race, that's still racism.
However, what is total bullshit about your analysis is that you think "talking casually about it and being fine with it" is not racism. Duh! You judge an entire group based on the attributes of a few individuals, but because you joke about it you aren't racist?
Dude, you've brainwashed yourself with your own rationalizations. You've embraced your own version of doublethink.
I am sure when the employee gets sued for sexual harashment that the argument "Well it must be permitted because the content filter didn't caught it." will fly really well with the jury.
That's not the argument at all.
The real argument is that it must be permitted because the content filter permitted it.
I mean is it the employers fault that the employee was surfing porn at work because the sites he visited wasn't blocked by the content controls?
Yes it is. If they are going to enforce content filtering then anything the filter lets through is by definition permitted.
If the users have to suffer all the damn stupid false positives in the system then the people runing the system deserve to suffer from any false negatives.
Goose and gander.
The point is that so many people are trying to act like what the users of the Pirate Bay was some great act of disobedience when the motivation for the vast, vast majority of its users were just there to get some for free and nothing else.
And the two can't be the same? That seeking free copies of stuff is the embodiment of disagreeing with current law even if many people doing it aren't able to articulate it as so?
It is easy to wave your hands and condemn people with broad strokes of the pen. But that only works if you buy into the cartels' message that charging for distribution is the only way to pay for creation. It stands to reason that costs are only actually incurred during creation, not distribution, so as long as creators can get paid then it does not matter if everybody else gets copies of their creations for free. Sure, under the current system creators aren't as likely to get paid when people pirate, but that's the nature of continuing to use a broken business model. Buggy whip makers didn't get paid when people bought cars either, so they went out and changed their business models to match the changes in the market and became companies like Bosch making accessories for cars instead of accessories for carriages.
I think health care is a basic service which should be provided to everyone at minimal or zero direct cost, much like roads, traffic signals, crime prevention/justice, and fire services are.
Many of those areas being loaded with corruption and inefficiencies, I'm not so sure that they are really the best examples.
I guess I don't care if it really should cost 10 million dollars to get lousy odds at fixing up Joe's cancer...
Well, I can't see how anyone reasonable could decide to ignore such costs. The fed can literally print as much money as it wants, but all they end up doing is devaluing the dollars they've already got. No such thing as a free lunch.
I was uninsured at the time, but making enough money that I didn't qualify for any sort of reduction in price.
Have you considered that the problem is "insurance" in the first place? That the last 30-40 years of massive healthcare price increases accompanied the creation of the modern healthcare "insurance" system? That the reason prices are out of control is that most everyone who has insurance doesn't have a stake in keeping costs down because they are so broadly insulated from the actual costs? That they are in effect getting rationed healthcare now where some accountant in kaiser-permanente, blue-cross/blue-shield, etc is the one making decisions about what treatment options are available instead of their doctor? That essentially we've gone from a system where each person had direct responsibility and control of their own level of healthcare to a system constantly on the edge of a tragedy of the commons that is contained only by the bean-counters who have no real stake in the final results.
Doctors that are cash friendly routinely knock from 33% to 66% off the bill because of the cost savings of avoiding the "insurance" system. As an extreme example, there was a recent poster to a prior healthcare thread on slashdot who had experienced the cost of his MRI go down from something like $2500 if billed through insurance to around $600 if he paid in cash before the procedure.
So on one hand you have these behemoths that dominate the industry and under the guise of keeping costs down they've actually contributed to massive price inflation, and the on the other hand you have the majority of the healthcare providers who have basically accepted the system and don't have a process for dealing with patients that don't fit into the standard system's processes, so those patients get treated like an exception and get exceptionally high pricing while on the other hand the few doctors that are prepared to work with people outside of the behemoth are able to realize an enormous cost savings.
I think that first off we need to get employers out of the healthcare game, the current system provides too many tax breaks to certain groups of "haves" while incrementally penalizing the "have nots." Many employers love the system because it provides yet another deterrent to employee mobility. Level the healthcare market by removing the tax breaks that favor employers paying for coverage of employees (and conversely disfavor everyone else, like your former uninsured self). Let the people decide themselves what kind of healthcare they want, not some HR department tied to their job.
In the states where "tort reform" has put limits on malpractice payouts, malpractice premiums have still continued to increase, so it seems that the popular ideas about "fixing" it aren't working - doctors still pay too much and now people can't even get decent compensation when their lives are fucked up. I think that malpractice insurance is a cost that the patient should have direct control over - we pay for it already, its just bundled up in monthly fees and such with no transparency. Let the patient choose to purchase a kind of errors and omissions insurance for each procedure they undergo. Insurance actuaries will rate each doctor based on their prior work, the
No what would happen is that they'd just keep pushing everyone backwards,
What they actually do is ask for volunteers at each flight that are OK with being bumped. If you are bumped one flight someone else at the second flight may accept being bumped so you can fly, or you can accept being bumped again for additional compensation. Of course if they think that chain might occur they start out asking for people willing to be bumped a whole day or so to avoid the extra cost of multiple compensations.
An alternative used by at least one bank in Australia is that when you request a transaction they send ans sms to your pre-authenticated mobile number detailing the transaction, i.e who to and how much, and giving an authorisation code that you then enter. That code only authorises that specific transaction.
That's common in Europe too. But the result has been that hacking sms in various ways has become of great interest to thieves. If they don't already exist, you can count on seeing java trojans for cells phones that silently forward SMS too.
For starters, I don't think they roll on success (how would the device know, by the way?).
The server enforces it. You can't authenticate multiple times with the same token. The server returns an "an already used" code if it was recently used. I know this because I've written software that uses RSA's secure-id toolkit.
But even if they would: the legitimate user would not be able to know the difference between a failure due to making a typo and a failure due to some hacker beating him to the line.
Again, see the point out about return values from the server-side. The application may choose to report this information directly to the user or simply flag it for the security team to investigate further. I prefer the later because false positives are going to be pretty rare unless the client software is broken in other ways.
They log the keystrokes prior to it being sent over the wire to the bank, block the post to login.cgi, and login for themselves.
If they are smart they can even provide a fake error page once they've acquired the credentials that tells the user that the site is "experiencing technical difficulties" and that they should please try again in 15 minutes. 99.99% of users won't think a thing of it.
The one time pad means they can't open a second session.
RSA secure-id keys are single-use too. They roll every minute but they also roll on every successful use.
Could someone with a facebook account "review" this quiz?
I don't have a facebook account so I can't do much with it. But I would like to send it to friends and family that do have accounts. These people aren't the type to comprehend the ACLU blog, so I'd like to know just how well the quiz makes its point. Is my 20 year-old niece who 'friends' anyone who sends a friend request going to achieve cluevana by doing the quiz, or is the quiz no more meaningful to the unenlightened than the blog post that inspired it?
a process that rules out anyone with domain knowledge relevant to the trial is fundamentally broken.
So in a medical misconduct trial you want 12 doctors on the jury...
No. Please read what I wrote more carefully and refrain from succumbing to obviously incorrect interpretations.
Can someone explain the particular benefits of having a 64-bit browser?
Not much really. If you frequently browse for porn, I suggest holding out for the TOPS-20 port which will be 69-bit.
And if we are lucky, there will soon be a privacy-enabled version here:
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_download.php
You haven't tried buying prescription drugs without insurance recently, have you? Hint: You can't. Or well, you can, but it costs so much that someone who cannot afford insurance is going to have trouble affording them.
I don't know what country you are are in, but in the USA a very large number of commonly prescribed drugs are available for very relatively cheap due to Wal-mart's $4 prescription plan and the fall-out effects on the rest of the market. There still are plenty of expensive drugs, but they are patented.
No one's going to be able to patent cocaine, heroin, pcp, meth, etc.
I would make the flip argument here. A drug that is driving such a large percentage of the population to knowingly commit crimes that could lead to harsh prison sentences must be addictive and lead the user to commit acts of poor judgement.
Which is precisely why laws against copyright violation are so necessary and so successful! Clearly the millions of people willing to risk eternal indebtedness for letting people copy a couple CDs is a hardcore dance addict and needs to be in rehab.