Except that for early startups, a business plan or financial statement tells you almost nothing. Far more useful would be the commit log of their git repository.
And for hardware companies? Blueprints? Schematics? Verilog files? Simulation runs?
All these people complaining the SEC is being too intrusive by requiring disclosure of the information that the SEC understands best and then you say the SEC should know the ins and outs of the technology of each of these companies.
Because he took that new job, and started compromising the credentials of his co-workers (many of whom have now lost their careers)
First, there is no evidence that anyone got fired because snowden used their accounts. I invite you to prove me wrong.
Second, the NSA's director of technology has said that "the lion's share" of the information Snowden copied was available to anyone with a TS/SCI clearance at the NSA. Apparently the SCI part wasn't very well compartmentalized.
Third, complaining that other employees suffered career damage because of his actions doesn't change Snowden's motivations. You might as well argue that Snowden's a bad guy because his actions have forced Alexander to retire early.
He walked into that new gig with a specific agenda, essentially lying from the get-go about his motivations.
He knew there was a problem due to direct personal experience of it on his previous job and so he decided to get proof. So what? The alternative would have been what? To just pretend he didn't know anything was wrong? Without proof any whistleblowing would have been dismissed, he'd already seen that happen to the whistleblowers who came before him.
Take off the beer goggles and actually look at the reality of the situation.
it is a HUGE one. From the CIA, he could not access all of the NSA's system. He made a conscious decision to switch to NSA to steal documents, per his own words.
No, it is a trivial one. Having worked with the NSA he knew what was going on because he saw it personally. He just didn't have proof. So he got the proof. Taking the job at the NSA in order to get the proof of what he already knew was going on is the functional equivalent of getting the keys to a filing cabinet in order to get documents you know are in there.
When citizens begin to kill government officials over this stuff, the government want to show they "are sorry" and "won't do it again" by "making things right."
People start killing government officials and in response the government starts apologizing. Yeah that's the way it works. WTF planet do you live on?
Because clearly the solution to this problem, like all problems, is ever more government intrusion. Big Brother must be allowed to protect us morons from ourselves. Someone has to do it, no?
Even the strongest libertarians believe that preventing fraud is a legitimate roll for government. Of course if you aren't a libertarian then I guess that won't mean all that much to you.
This is all about small time investors and the attitude that somebody with a spare hundred dollars is incapable of being able to make an informed decision about a potential investment opportunity.
This is about making sure that somebody with a spare hundred dollars has the bare minimum information available to make an informed decision. It is analogous to standardized labeling requirements on groceries.
I don't think so. The SEC regulates selling stock in companies and that is what they are doing here. It was less than a year ago that congress passed a law that would permit selling of shares via "crowdfunding." This is basically a way to solicit angel and first round investors. If a company wants that kind of money it seems to me that the stuff the SEC is requiring is a very reasonable bare minimum. Penny stocks are the playground of scammers, the SEC doesn't want the hype around crowdfunding to give them a new playground.
If a company can put all of that together, they probably don't need crowdfunding in the first place. That's the ENTIRE POINT of having kickstarter in the first place!
This has nothing to do with Kickstarter. This is about selling SHARES in these companies, not about prepaying for potential products. I'm no expert, but best as I can tell this rules will have zero effect on crowd-funding as sites like kickstarter and indiegogo have been doing it.
A library without books is... pointless. Why not just build a Starbucks or a McDonalds. Or, actually, an empty room. What a waste.
Not at all. Libraries are only superficially about books. What they are really about is knowledge and that comes in many forms. That's why libraries have music and films too and why they are starting to include makerspaces.
My concern with something like this is that some libraries are swayed by the arguments for DRM. But there is the beginning of a movement for libraries to crowd traditional publishers out of their niche which should mean DRM is completely out of the picture in those cases.
More importantly, why is a member of Congress more important that I am? So it is bad to spy on me but REALLY BAD to spy on someone just because they are elected? Fucking elitism at its finest.
Google "blue iris security software". I think it's $50 for the full version.
Nothing on Blue Iris, but the mention of closed-source security-video monitoring software got me thinking about government black-bag jobs and software backdoors.
Maybe this is movie-plot stuff, but wouldn't it be (technically) cool to put QR-code recognition into the software such that if you walked up to the camera with the right QR-code the monitoring software would disable the alarm, erase the last 10 seconds of footage and replace it with a static scene as if you were never there? When you are done, just show the camera a different qr-code to re-enable everything.
To be fair, even though the poster has no clue and is writing about tanks, there has been some CO2 sequestration in geological structures. It's been done to get more oil out of the ground by pushing gas in.
Yes, in researching his claims I read up on proposals for directly injecting CO2 into the ground. One study out of the DOE showed a theoretical total cost of about $70 per metric ton of CO2. Compared to 1 metric ton every 40 years per tree.
And not a single Apple device will play VP9. Every Apple device will require transcoding, or using whatever format they find optimizes their [battery life|thermal envelope|PROFIT], which will nudge every well heeled, non-technical user to gravitate away from VP9.
Jobs is gone. Android marketshare is up. Apple may not be as wedded to h265 as they were to h264. Things change.
I get downbombmoded periodically, somebody comes in with 30-50 moderation points and mods down every single comment (multiple times, so multiple accounts)
So you believe that one or more individuals, who have personal issues with you, have enough active multiple accounts here to get mod points on 3-4 of them all at the same time and that this happens on a semi-regular basis?
It is indeed hypothetical -- the idea was in Popular Science. It's a beautiful example, however, of the difference between a government/corporate solution, and a good solution.
You can't take random bullshit and say "that's what government thinks is a good idea." It is intellectually dishonest. The strawman here is the cockamamie scheme you brought up (which I couldn't even find mention of in 3 pages of google results for "sequester co2 in underground tanks.")
Again, I did no such thing. Honestly, I had hoped you'd actually read, if not understand, what I wrote,
I did read it and what I took away from it was a bunch of talking about your personal belief systems which were really irrelevant to the point at hand - that the scientific consensus on global warming isn't something you can dismiss with "the science is not settled yet because leaches."
Do I make sense? There is solid (not "settled") science behind all of my positions here. To me, AGW/Climate Change is a red herring at best and a huge power grab at worst. It ignores simple solutions, while it demands massive taxes, regulations, and government programs. (One example -- a multi-billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded plant that sucks CO2 out of the air and stores it in underground tanks.
I"m sorry but the words you put in your mouth sure sound like the words I put in your mouth. You cite as an example something that doesn't exist and really isn't likely to ever exist - co2 storage in underground tanks. You dismiss climate change by associating it with extremists which is pretty much the opposite of consensus.
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
You mean before the use of the scientific method was the consensus?
You've set up a false equivalency comparing superstition and folklore to scientific inquiry. Science, by definition is open to reevaluation. Because humans are involved it isn't a perfect process. But if the scientific consensus on global warming is the equivalent of blood-letting with leaches then the opposition to the consensus is on the order of suffocating a patient with a stubbed toe to put him out of his misery.
Let me repeat. PETA isn't the end all, be all of animal rights activists, but if you're freaking obsessed with them,
You seem confused as to the purpose of this discussion. It isn't intended as a place for you to go off on animal rights activists. It is a place to document meaningful accusations against PETA as requested in my original post. Since you can't do that, you aren't helping.
I really have no dog in this fight. I got involved because one guy was waving around vague accusations and I wanted specific details so I can see if he had a point or was full of shit. I tend to do that on a lot of threads on slashdot regardless of topic. So far the OP hasn't bothered to back up his claims but guys like you have jumped on this thread as if it were a place for you to display your personal animosity about anything vaguely PETA related. In the process you've confirmed my original thesis - that the loudest shit talkers are just full of shit.
I still don't think there's a whole lot of point in this. The nature of the argument is such that people *in the audience* won't be convinced from one side to the other...
There's always the chance that one side will totally lose their shit and say something obviously nutty. That might put some doubt in the hearts of people coming to the debate with their minds already made up.
Slashdot Mirror
Snowden had NO IDEA of what was in the NSA when he went there
According to Keith Alexander, Snowden worked for the NSA for 12 months before taking the contract job with Booz Allen.
Except that for early startups, a business plan or financial statement tells you almost nothing. Far more useful would be the commit log of their git repository.
And for hardware companies? Blueprints? Schematics? Verilog files? Simulation runs?
All these people complaining the SEC is being too intrusive by requiring disclosure of the information that the SEC understands best and then you say the SEC should know the ins and outs of the technology of each of these companies.
Because he took that new job, and started compromising the credentials of his co-workers (many of whom have now lost their careers)
First, there is no evidence that anyone got fired because snowden used their accounts. I invite you to prove me wrong.
Second, the NSA's director of technology has said that "the lion's share" of the information Snowden copied was available to anyone with a TS/SCI clearance at the NSA. Apparently the SCI part wasn't very well compartmentalized.
Third, complaining that other employees suffered career damage because of his actions doesn't change Snowden's motivations. You might as well argue that Snowden's a bad guy because his actions have forced Alexander to retire early.
He walked into that new gig with a specific agenda, essentially lying from the get-go about his motivations.
He knew there was a problem due to direct personal experience of it on his previous job and so he decided to get proof. So what? The alternative would have been what? To just pretend he didn't know anything was wrong? Without proof any whistleblowing would have been dismissed, he'd already seen that happen to the whistleblowers who came before him.
Take off the beer goggles and actually look at the reality of the situation.
Lol! #projection
it is a HUGE one. From the CIA, he could not access all of the NSA's system. He made a conscious decision to switch to NSA to steal documents, per his own words.
No, it is a trivial one. Having worked with the NSA he knew what was going on because he saw it personally. He just didn't have proof. So he got the proof. Taking the job at the NSA in order to get the proof of what he already knew was going on is the functional equivalent of getting the keys to a filing cabinet in order to get documents you know are in there.
When citizens begin to kill government officials over this stuff, the government want to show they "are sorry" and "won't do it again" by "making things right."
People start killing government officials and in response the government starts apologizing.
Yeah that's the way it works. WTF planet do you live on?
actually wrong. Snowden had worked for the CIA prior, not the NSA. He had worked WITH the NSA, but not for.
A distinction without a difference.
Maybe it's bad writing,
It is bad writing. At least quote the article not what some random lamer wrote as their personal summary. None of this money is going to the SEC.
I think this story may have generated the most knee-jerking seen on slashdot in years.
Because clearly the solution to this problem, like all problems, is ever more government intrusion. Big Brother must be allowed to protect us morons from ourselves. Someone has to do it, no?
Even the strongest libertarians believe that preventing fraud is a legitimate roll for government. Of course if you aren't a libertarian then I guess that won't mean all that much to you.
This is all about small time investors and the attitude that somebody with a spare hundred dollars is incapable of being able to make an informed decision about a potential investment opportunity.
This is about making sure that somebody with a spare hundred dollars has the bare minimum information available to make an informed decision. It is analogous to standardized labeling requirements on groceries.
> It's overreach
I don't think so. The SEC regulates selling stock in companies and that is what they are doing here. It was less than a year ago that congress passed a law that would permit selling of shares via "crowdfunding." This is basically a way to solicit angel and first round investors. If a company wants that kind of money it seems to me that the stuff the SEC is requiring is a very reasonable bare minimum. Penny stocks are the playground of scammers, the SEC doesn't want the hype around crowdfunding to give them a new playground.
If a company can put all of that together, they probably don't need crowdfunding in the first place. That's the ENTIRE POINT of having kickstarter in the first place!
This has nothing to do with Kickstarter. This is about selling SHARES in these companies, not about prepaying for potential products. I'm no expert, but best as I can tell this rules will have zero effect on crowd-funding as sites like kickstarter and indiegogo have been doing it.
A library without books is... pointless. Why not just build a Starbucks or a McDonalds. Or, actually, an empty room. What a waste.
Not at all. Libraries are only superficially about books. What they are really about is knowledge and that comes in many forms. That's why libraries have music and films too and why they are starting to include makerspaces.
My concern with something like this is that some libraries are swayed by the arguments for DRM. But there is the beginning of a movement for libraries to crowd traditional publishers out of their niche which should mean DRM is completely out of the picture in those cases.
More importantly, why is a member of Congress more important that I am? So it is bad to spy on me but REALLY BAD to spy on someone just because they are elected? Fucking elitism at its finest.
This isn't elitism - that's stuff like free primo parking spaces at the DC airport. This is about compromising their job. They are our representatives. When the NSA spies on one of them, they are spying on all of their constituents and undermining the most fundamental American value - democracy.
Google "blue iris security software". I think it's $50 for the full version.
Nothing on Blue Iris, but the mention of closed-source security-video monitoring software got me thinking about government black-bag jobs and software backdoors.
Maybe this is movie-plot stuff, but wouldn't it be (technically) cool to put QR-code recognition into the software such that if you walked up to the camera with the right QR-code the monitoring software would disable the alarm, erase the last 10 seconds of footage and replace it with a static scene as if you were never there? When you are done, just show the camera a different qr-code to re-enable everything.
To be fair, even though the poster has no clue and is writing about tanks, there has been some CO2 sequestration in geological structures. It's been done to get more oil out of the ground by pushing gas in.
Yes, in researching his claims I read up on proposals for directly injecting CO2 into the ground. One study out of the DOE showed a theoretical total cost of about $70 per metric ton of CO2. Compared to 1 metric ton every 40 years per tree.
And not a single Apple device will play VP9. Every Apple device will require transcoding, or using whatever format they find optimizes their [battery life|thermal envelope|PROFIT], which will nudge every well heeled, non-technical user to gravitate away from VP9.
Jobs is gone. Android marketshare is up. Apple may not be as wedded to h265 as they were to h264. Things change.
Just look at the situation in Texas where a prosecutor who put a man away for 25 years on bogus procedures got NINE DAYS in jail. N-I-N-E.
It really pisses me off when people make extraordinary claims without providing any proof.
So here is the proof.
If you are innocent, you can buy yourself out of every year of prosecution jail time for about $200000 in legal defense cost.
I would like to see a citation for thiat. It would make me feel confident in quoting that number to other people in similar arguments.
I get downbombmoded periodically, somebody comes in with 30-50 moderation points and mods down every single comment (multiple times, so multiple accounts)
So you believe that one or more individuals, who have personal issues with you, have enough active multiple accounts here to get mod points on 3-4 of them all at the same time and that this happens on a semi-regular basis?
REALLY?
How is this different from what we have now, I insist and ask ?
Only the rich can afford ennui in america.
It is indeed hypothetical -- the idea was in Popular Science. It's a beautiful example, however, of the difference between a government/corporate solution, and a good solution.
You can't take random bullshit and say "that's what government thinks is a good idea." It is intellectually dishonest. The strawman here is the cockamamie scheme you brought up (which I couldn't even find mention of in 3 pages of google results for "sequester co2 in underground tanks.")
Again, I did no such thing. Honestly, I had hoped you'd actually read, if not understand, what I wrote,
I did read it and what I took away from it was a bunch of talking about your personal belief systems which were really irrelevant to the point at hand - that the scientific consensus on global warming isn't something you can dismiss with "the science is not settled yet because leaches."
Do I make sense? There is solid (not "settled") science behind all of my positions here. To me, AGW/Climate Change is a red herring at best and a huge power grab at worst. It ignores simple solutions, while it demands massive taxes, regulations, and government programs. (One example -- a multi-billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded plant that sucks CO2 out of the air and stores it in underground tanks.
I"m sorry but the words you put in your mouth sure sound like the words I put in your mouth. You cite as an example something that doesn't exist and really isn't likely to ever exist - co2 storage in underground tanks. You dismiss climate change by associating it with extremists which is pretty much the opposite of consensus.
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
You mean before the use of the scientific method was the consensus?
You've set up a false equivalency comparing superstition and folklore to scientific inquiry. Science, by definition is open to reevaluation. Because humans are involved it isn't a perfect process. But if the scientific consensus on global warming is the equivalent of blood-letting with leaches then the opposition to the consensus is on the order of suffocating a patient with a stubbed toe to put him out of his misery.
Let me repeat. PETA isn't the end all, be all of animal rights activists, but if you're freaking obsessed with them,
You seem confused as to the purpose of this discussion. It isn't intended as a place for you to go off on animal rights activists. It is a place to document meaningful accusations against PETA as requested in my original post. Since you can't do that, you aren't helping.
I really have no dog in this fight. I got involved because one guy was waving around vague accusations and I wanted specific details so I can see if he had a point or was full of shit. I tend to do that on a lot of threads on slashdot regardless of topic. So far the OP hasn't bothered to back up his claims but guys like you have jumped on this thread as if it were a place for you to display your personal animosity about anything vaguely PETA related. In the process you've confirmed my original thesis - that the loudest shit talkers are just full of shit.
I still don't think there's a whole lot of point in this. The nature of the argument is such that people *in the audience* won't be convinced from one side to the other...
There's always the chance that one side will totally lose their shit and say something obviously nutty. That might put some doubt in the hearts of people coming to the debate with their minds already made up.