I made the mistake of saying "based on what I read...", because as we all know, if one says _anything_ then TSA can haul you away; I should'nt have even said that much.
Your mistake was to put your authority up against his authority. Next time use some else's authority - tell them your oncologist told you to avoid all of the scanners. Since your oncologist is not actually present the TSAtard can't win an argument with him no matter what and at worst must argue that he knows better than a doctor with a PhD in cancer.
Canada has the exact same violet video games, tv shows and culture as the USA (for anyone who wants to include that strawman). It has about the same mix of people as the USA, stricter gun laws, and less violent deaths/gun related deaths.
Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? Comparison to Canada was his entire premise. At the time Canada was not particularly more gun-restrictive than the USA, and similar levels of firearm ownership and loads less gun deaths per capita. Moore's conclusion was that the problem was not guns per se, it was fear. That the news in america was much more fear-centric (if it bleeds, it leads) which makes people much more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
That's nothing. I couldn't find more recent data, but in 2000, over 6,400 children (age 0-18) died in motor vehicle crashes. That's a Sandy Hook EVERY TWO DAYS. Where's the outrage over that? (and the car-control lobby trying to ban cars?)
To be fair, there are tons of organizations working on that from multiple directions and we've seen a marked reduction in automobile deaths over the last decade. Whether it is due to their work (like lobbying for higher safety standards in vehicles) or something else (like a connection wtih the mostly unexplained general reduction in violent crime over the same time period) is hard to say.
Lol the law and judge opinions aren't written in LATIN.
While that was not the OP's point, it is ironic that you focused on it because it is demonstrably not true. Modern legal code is littered with latin phrases.
I think we can assume that they will strike some balance between profitability and user outrage.
It isn't hard to imagine the day when facebook goes the way of all the others that have come before like myspace, geocities, etc. At some point along that line they will value their ownership of our photos more than they will value their reduced userbase. Then it becomes a simple business decision to liquidate and sell off their copyright in those images to another company, perhaps getty or another stock photo site which has no interest in anything beyond reselling licensing rights to the photos. Photos that have already been conveniently tagged by the suckers^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h former users.
That's the thing. It isn't the uninteresting people who have a problem. It is the people who become interesting through no fault of their own. The guy who witnesses a mob hit. The guy who is running for office against a corrupt politician. Anyone who gets on the bad side of someone with too much power.
Massive public monitoring means both the permanent stratification of society and is itself a huge public safety risk. Save hundreds to doom doom millions.
you can make your "what if" arguments ad nauseam and they will not sway my beliefs.
Tthat is very much the definition of someone who does not seek truth.
Really? Hell yes. I really would. Cameras watching me in public, and you claim it'll save 500 kids every year? At the risk of some unknown government low-level staffer seeing me pick my nose in public? Or scratch my butt in public?
False dichotomy. You've picked the least problematic case of public monitoring systems and are comparing it to the worst case for gun ownership. If you can't recognize the hypocrisy in that, then you aren't looking for truth, you are just looking to win an argument.
Sign me up. Yes, that's worth it. What freedom am I losing? Again, public monitoring cameras???
You are losing the freedom for the entire population to not be continuously stalked. The difference between 100 different joe randoms seeing you at various points in the day and a system that permanently records your every movement all day, every day is not simply one of degree, it is an enormous difference in kind.
I don't have the sources off-hand. A year or two ago I looked them up because some people were throwing around that totally bogus 800,000 number - a number that does not count children, it counts incidents. So a kid who runs away 5 times in one year contributes 5 to the total of 800,000. At the time the "real" number was on the order of 500, maybe 400. To me, the most interesting thing was that despite an enormous increase in population, that number had not really changed over the past 2 to 3 decades.
If the price of so-called "freedom" is 20 dead children, then either you do not know what freedom is or the price is too high and I no longer wish to be "free".
Roughy 500 kids go permanently missing each year in the USA and are presumed dead. Millions of public monitoring cameras would surely reduce that number. Are you willing to sacrified the freedom to go about your daily business unwatched in order to save an order of magnitude more children? At what point does the price for a child's life become too high for you?
Ah, a 6:1 ratio really helps since the generated power is almost all sold at the high price point and you buy most power at the low price point. I've looked at TOU in Los Angeles, but it isn't even 2:1.
Did you say 25 cents per kilowatt-hour? That is some seriously expensive electricity rates. Why is it so high there? Florida is about half that last I checked.
Yep, as are most things in life, it is a trade-off. In the case of a DDOS the goal is only to weather the storm, and then go back to a less intrusive set up once the DDOSers give up.
A bunch of connections coming in from a large group of IP addresses with random timing. Each made to look like it could be a legitimate customer looking at the site. What is your suggestion?
Compared to the bandwidth available at their data centers a bazillion connections attempts ain't nothing at all. The problem is typically with the processing overhead to handle the connection attempts and the bandwidth consumed in giving them a fuill-blown response. All that can be mitigated with a front-end box whose job is simply to handle the 3-way tcp handshake and transmit a very light-weight page with some javascript on it that must run in order to get to the real processing heavy main page.
You risk an escalation where the DDOSers figure out how to execute the javascript and also load the real page, but the general idea is to make each DDOS zombie do orders of magnitude more work than the target's computers have to. If they are running a point-n-click DDOSer chances are that any changes in complexity will stymie them for weeks if not months as those types of script-kiddies general lack the expertise to make significant changes on the fly.
The real question is, why do these hackers think the banks are responsible for this video or have any way to even take it down --from the internet, much less.
When the banks refused to process donations they very nearly destroyed wikileaks. Maybe their reasoning isn't quite so far-fetched after all.
How about we just eliminate all of the Prophet Mohammed's followers from the face of the earth?
Maybe the banks should tell them if they don't stop the they'll retaliate by bombing Mecca with pigs.
I've really had enough of these shit-heads.
Funny how they have exactly the same misdirected opinion of you.
Do you not recognize yourself in the mirror here? A small subset of a group of people blame an entire group of another people for the actions of a small subset of them.
Seriously. If you live in the United States, you should to be making plans to leave, and acting on them as soon as possible. A lot of people won't.
No, that is the same as the "Love it or Leave It" bullshit that false patriots embrace. The solution is greater political participation. Forget the federal stuff for now, start locally where your voice can be heard instead of drowned out on the national stage. The only way to fix this is for political change to trickle up.
Plus, the rest of the world is following Uncle Sam, they just don't have as much money to spend so they have to go with the second generation implementations.
so, he's partially evil for not tearing it down, but he does not get the blame for putting them in place. and yes, that does count. he that throws the first punch is usually the one given the blame for the fight.
The problem with that analogy is that both of them have only been punching US, not each other. We've been tag teamed without a chance to punch back.
You are absoltuely right - those companies have expanded beyond simply providing service for payment in the form of your personal information to stalking everyone, even those who aren't getting any value in return because they don't explicitly use those companies' services. They don't release that info to the 3rd party websites, but they do collect it and put it into a database beyond our control. It is wrong too.
Slashdot Mirror
The level of paranoia as alluded to in the summary struck me as ridiculous.
Welcome to America. Land of the fearful, home of buttheads.
Where a school decided that they should strip-search a 13-year old girl because another girl with a grudge said she had ibuprofen. This had to go all the way ot the supreme court before the school figured out they were acting ridiculously.
I made the mistake of saying "based on what I read...", because as we all know, if one says _anything_ then TSA can haul you away; I should'nt have even said that much.
Your mistake was to put your authority up against his authority. Next time use some else's authority - tell them your oncologist told you to avoid all of the scanners. Since your oncologist is not actually present the TSAtard can't win an argument with him no matter what and at worst must argue that he knows better than a doctor with a PhD in cancer.
Here's pinch to zoom in 1988.
You know you've been on the internet too long when you hesitate to click a link with a description like that because you think it is goatsecx.
Canada has the exact same violet video games, tv shows and culture as the USA (for anyone who wants to include that strawman). It has about the same mix of people as the USA, stricter gun laws, and less violent deaths/gun related deaths.
Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? Comparison to Canada was his entire premise. At the time Canada was not particularly more gun-restrictive than the USA, and similar levels of firearm ownership and loads less gun deaths per capita. Moore's conclusion was that the problem was not guns per se, it was fear. That the news in america was much more fear-centric (if it bleeds, it leads) which makes people much more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
It is with good reason that it is unnecessary to prove deliberate infringement.
If you say that aloud in a Vulcan style voice...kind of like a Spock voice... it sounds really cool...
It sounded even better when Darth Vader said it.
Luke, I patented your father!
That's nothing. I couldn't find more recent data, but in 2000, over 6,400 children (age 0-18) died in motor vehicle crashes. That's a Sandy Hook EVERY TWO DAYS. Where's the outrage over that? (and the car-control lobby trying to ban cars?)
To be fair, there are tons of organizations working on that from multiple directions and we've seen a marked reduction in automobile deaths over the last decade. Whether it is due to their work (like lobbying for higher safety standards in vehicles) or something else (like a connection wtih the mostly unexplained general reduction in violent crime over the same time period) is hard to say.
Lol the law and judge opinions aren't written in LATIN.
While that was not the OP's point, it is ironic that you focused on it because it is demonstrably not true.
Modern legal code is littered with latin phrases.
I think we can assume that they will strike some balance between profitability and user outrage.
It isn't hard to imagine the day when facebook goes the way of all the others that have come before like myspace, geocities, etc. At some point along that line they will value their ownership of our photos more than they will value their reduced userbase. Then it becomes a simple business decision to liquidate and sell off their copyright in those images to another company, perhaps getty or another stock photo site which has no interest in anything beyond reselling licensing rights to the photos. Photos that have already been conveniently tagged by the suckers^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h former users.
Very few people are that interesting
That's the thing. It isn't the uninteresting people who have a problem. It is the people who become interesting through no fault of their own. The guy who witnesses a mob hit. The guy who is running for office against a corrupt politician. Anyone who gets on the bad side of someone with too much power.
Massive public monitoring means both the permanent stratification of society and is itself a huge public safety risk. Save hundreds to doom doom millions.
you can make your "what if" arguments ad nauseam and they will not sway my beliefs.
Tthat is very much the definition of someone who does not seek truth.
Really? Hell yes. I really would. Cameras watching me in public, and you claim it'll save 500 kids every year? At the risk of some unknown government low-level staffer seeing me pick my nose in public? Or scratch my butt in public?
False dichotomy. You've picked the least problematic case of public monitoring systems and are comparing it to the worst case for gun ownership. If you can't recognize the hypocrisy in that, then you aren't looking for truth, you are just looking to win an argument.
Sign me up. Yes, that's worth it. What freedom am I losing? Again, public monitoring cameras???
You are losing the freedom for the entire population to not be continuously stalked. The difference between 100 different joe randoms seeing you at various points in the day and a system that permanently records your every movement all day, every day is not simply one of degree, it is an enormous difference in kind.
I don't have the sources off-hand. A year or two ago I looked them up because some people were throwing around that totally bogus 800,000 number - a number that does not count children, it counts incidents. So a kid who runs away 5 times in one year contributes 5 to the total of 800,000. At the time the "real" number was on the order of 500, maybe 400. To me, the most interesting thing was that despite an enormous increase in population, that number had not really changed over the past 2 to 3 decades.
If the price of so-called "freedom" is 20 dead children, then either you do not know what freedom is or the price is too high and I no longer wish to be "free".
Roughy 500 kids go permanently missing each year in the USA and are presumed dead. Millions of public monitoring cameras would surely reduce that number. Are you willing to sacrified the freedom to go about your daily business unwatched in order to save an order of magnitude more children? At what point does the price for a child's life become too high for you?
Ah, a 6:1 ratio really helps since the generated power is almost all sold at the high price point and you buy most power at the low price point. I've looked at TOU in Los Angeles, but it isn't even 2:1.
Did you say 25 cents per kilowatt-hour? That is some seriously expensive electricity rates. Why is it so high there? Florida is about half that last I checked.
Every major religion has a version of the Golden Rule. "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you".
All religions except Islam, that is.
Really? Who told you that?
You seem to be the type who worships their own ignorance.
Golden Rule in Islam
Why do you think IE is even involved?
Yep, as are most things in life, it is a trade-off. In the case of a DDOS the goal is only to weather the storm, and then go back to a less intrusive set up once the DDOSers give up.
Your HTPC server consumes 350W? What the hell do you have in that thing?
What is an HTPC server? What makes it different from a regular server?
I used to run a 24 disk raid box 24x7 for media-serving duties and it pulled about 350W at steady state according to my Kill A Watt.
A bunch of connections coming in from a large group of IP addresses with random timing. Each made to look like it could be a legitimate customer looking at the site. What is your suggestion?
Compared to the bandwidth available at their data centers a bazillion connections attempts ain't nothing at all. The problem is typically with the processing overhead to handle the connection attempts and the bandwidth consumed in giving them a fuill-blown response. All that can be mitigated with a front-end box whose job is simply to handle the 3-way tcp handshake and transmit a very light-weight page with some javascript on it that must run in order to get to the real processing heavy main page.
You risk an escalation where the DDOSers figure out how to execute the javascript and also load the real page, but the general idea is to make each DDOS zombie do orders of magnitude more work than the target's computers have to. If they are running a point-n-click DDOSer chances are that any changes in complexity will stymie them for weeks if not months as those types of script-kiddies general lack the expertise to make significant changes on the fly.
The real question is, why do these hackers think the banks are responsible for this video or have any way to even take it down --from the internet, much less.
When the banks refused to process donations they very nearly destroyed wikileaks.
Maybe their reasoning isn't quite so far-fetched after all.
How about we just eliminate all of the Prophet Mohammed's followers from the face of the earth?
Maybe the banks should tell them if they don't stop the they'll retaliate by bombing Mecca with pigs.
I've really had enough of these shit-heads.
Funny how they have exactly the same misdirected opinion of you.
Do you not recognize yourself in the mirror here? A small subset of a group of people blame an entire group of another people for the actions of a small subset of them.
Seriously. If you live in the United States, you should to be making plans to leave, and acting on them as soon as possible. A lot of people won't.
No, that is the same as the "Love it or Leave It" bullshit that false patriots embrace. The solution is greater political participation. Forget the federal stuff for now, start locally where your voice can be heard instead of drowned out on the national stage. The only way to fix this is for political change to trickle up.
Plus, the rest of the world is following Uncle Sam, they just don't have as much money to spend so they have to go with the second generation implementations.
The kids activities at the NCTC web site are cool too.
http://www.nctc.gov/site/kids/index.html
+1 Orwellian
so, he's partially evil for not tearing it down, but he does not get the blame for putting them in place. and yes, that does count. he that throws the first punch is usually the one given the blame for the fight.
The problem with that analogy is that both of them have only been punching US, not each other.
We've been tag teamed without a chance to punch back.
You are absoltuely right - those companies have expanded beyond simply providing service for payment in the form of your personal information to stalking everyone, even those who aren't getting any value in return because they don't explicitly use those companies' services. They don't release that info to the 3rd party websites, but they do collect it and put it into a database beyond our control. It is wrong too.