Not me. I'm behind ten proxies and use Tor for everything. I use throwaway e-mail addresses from places like Mailinator. I even registered my gmail account using a hospital courtesy phone... that was in another country.
You have utterly succeeded in missing the point - you are an aberration. The problem here is that normal people, behaving normally, are unknowingly subject to this shit through no fault of their own. We should not need to be randian privacy ubermen in order to have privacy.
These stalking companies are taking advantage of the fact that by default society requires a certain level of openness to function. They are abusing that openness for their own enrichment - they are encouraging people to behave like you and in the long run as more people take similar countermeasures that makes society less functional. In effect they are stealing from all of us by leeching away at the trust that greases the gears of a functioning society.
Also, Protip: Don't embarass one of the few agencies in the world with the resources and inclination to track you down (ie, the NSA). They basically built a whole second internet to track all the traffic on the first internet, and then built a giant super data warehouse to warehouse all the other warehouses. Not exactly the kind of people who's cheerios you want to piss in.
I'm happy someone is doing it. The day no one is willing to tweek the nose of power is the day the human race stops being human.
Why are you opposed to things that make life easier? I mean if gamifying education leads to better educated people, why not do it? If using a wheelbarrow makes it easier/faster to transport snow/dirt/etc short distances, why not use it?
I've been thinking about this sort of question in the bigger picture. What set me down the path was the political observation that as a party republicans are anti-gay except for individuals like Cheney who have a gay child, the party is also pro-torture except for individuals who have actually been tortured like McCain. So I've been trying to figure out if there is a rule that explains such things instead of just trying to score political points.
What I've come up with is this: People like to create their own "personal" rules for how members of society should behave - generally these rules are simple, even natural, to follow for the person who makes them up. Gay marriage is an easy one - straight people have no interest in getting gay married. It is a rule that is natural for them to follow so they have little understanding of what it is like to be on the other side of that rule. A more trivial example came from the husband of a good friend of mine - he forbid their pre-teen daughter from chewing gum. Not for any health reasons, simply because he thought people who chewed gum looked stupid. Of course he didn't like to chew gum himself so he saw no value in it and came up with this rule that didn't cost him anything.
I see the same thing here - chances are the OP is someone for whom traditional educational methods worked pretty well. That makes it easy for him to endorse the current system - it worked for him, it should work for anyone. Anyone for whom it doesn't work must be defective, lazy, wants something for nothing, etc.
Looking back over my life, I can see how I've made up a bunch of similar rules about both trivial and important things. Those rules haven't really helped me, they just gave me a reason to look down on other people who didn't deserve it. In some cases even to dismiss their humanity. In the long run all it did was make me miss opportunities that were right in front of me. So now I try to question my own assumptions about how people should act, and when they aren't directly hurting anyone I make a conscious effort to accept them rather than disparage them.
My point is that Congress should be impeaching for those things. Once they do so then I will no longer have a point.
So then, you are disputing my position that political parties circumvent seperation of powers. Because NEITHER party is attemping to impeach for those things. A party system does not prevent the other party from trying to do something. It only prevent another BRANCH from disagreeing.
(A) So now you've got examples who are members of the NRA. How convenieeent. Maybe you were thinking it in your head and you just didn't write it, either way you didn't write it.
(B) The plural anecdote is not data. I said "stereotypically," I didn't say "always." A handful of counter-examples only contradicts a claim of "always."
(C) Nearly all states have some form of concealed carry licensing nowadays. Linking beliefs simply by state of residence is far more tenuous than anything I've said. Hell, Texas didn't even have concealed carry until the 90s and they still don't have open carry.
Your thesis just doesn't hold water. THAT's the point I was trying to make.
If you want to actually put me in my place for stereotyping (which, ironically my use of the term "stereotypical" contradicts, but that's probably too meta for you), you have to do a better job with the data than I did. Ideally -- poll results of NRA members on the specific question of drug legalization. If you can't find that then you might be able to do it by proxy - like age distribution of NRA membership and then age distribution of pro-legalization types. Or maybe ethnic distrbution, or education levels, or even political party affiliation. Something with more correlation than the place they live.
What am I missing? Is there separate pages that paid subscribers are seeing that I am not? More articles available? What?
The NYTimes paywall is intended to let everybody read a limited number of articles per month with no hassle at all - exceed the limit and you run into a paywall on all of their articles. The thing is that it relies on cookies in your browsers to keep track of how many articles you've read. So, if you do things like spoof your referrer to be google and never let their website set a cookie, you are unlikely to ever be hassled by their paywall.
You do know that only works because enough people don't care to use it, right?
Maybe in the "not going out of business" sense that is true. But in the specific sense of "if a lot of other people do that too, they will close the loophole" what you wrote is not true. The reason that it is not true is their "paywall-model" is based on high porosity. They want people to be able to read a limited number of articles with as little friction as possible in order to get them hooked enough to pay for unlimited access.
The problem is that they can't be both highly porous and completely locked down. If it comes to that, their current business model will fall apart. The highly-locked down paywall model has been shown to fail in most cases, only working for very specific markets and general interest news has not been one of them.
Where I'm going with that is your focus on impeachment is completely beside the point. Neither of those cases have anything to do with political parties as a means of side-stepping constutional seperation of powers.
If the absolute worse example you can cite is an event that was purely inter-party politics from start to end, then I'm afraid that all you've done is undermine the idea that political parties exist to short-circuit the constitutional seperation of powers.
Nixon was bad for the country and bad for the party. Clinton lying about getting some strange was a non-event for the country and only mildly embarrasing for the party.
It's scary how much president's get away with doing unilaterally these days.
It is the inevitable result of a party based political system - parties function to circumvent the seperation of powers between executive and legislative branches and to a slightly lesser extent the judical branch too. They put the welfare of the party ahead of the welfare of the nation.
I think the problem would be mitigated if we at least had a robust multi-party system where parties had to form coalitions in order to ever get a majority. At least then there would be some sort of accountability outside of a single party.
Then Einstein must have been a moron or an idiot for not indulging in deplorable hygiene habits.
What, what an ass you are to make that false equivalance. I didn't even imply that genius requires repulsive behavior. It was your asshole nature that decided to interpret it that way so you could feel better about yourself. You are more disgusting than RMS by far.
I just realized it is probably incorrect to calculate deaths across the entire population instead of just children under the age of 18. Census seems to say that roughly 25% of the US population is under the age of 18 , so that works out to 0.30 per 100,000. Still significantly less than 0.47.
I don't know about criminal homicides, but the pro-rata level of deaths of children and teenagers through gun accidents (i.e. excluding crime and adult accidents) in the US is the same as total gun deaths from all causes in the UK. (Figures NRA, Home Office). The NRA disregards this level of deaths as unimportant.
I went looking for confirmation of your claim, and I could not find it. Perhaps you can provide links.
So, it looks like the pro-rata level of firearm deaths in the UK is actually much closer to 7 times higher than the accidental firearm deaths of children in the USA.
Well, that's the problem with stereotypes, isn't it? They have such little basis in reality.
So.... You've cited yourself and your friends who are not members of the NRA as examples of stereotypical NRA members? I must be completely insane because I don't see how what you wrote contradicts anything I said much less how the hell you got a +5 for such a completely off-point post. Is it because some people can't tell the difference between the NEA and the NRA? Really WTF?
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I know other people with similar eating disorders and he may well have Pica. Dismissing his ideas because of that is not unlike picking on the socially awkard kid who is also a genius.
If RMS were "normal" he wouldn't have had the insight and persistence that earned him universal recognition as the father of the Free software movement and a MacArthur "Genius" Fellowship. If the price he pays for the genius is a little socially inappropriate behavior when he's stressed and it doesn't hurt anyone, then what's really the problem here? Sounds more like a convenient red herring than anything else.
Well transcribing the conversation would certainly be a recording.
No. If that were true, then anyone writing down what was said over a phone call would be in violation of the two party consent laws in the states that have them. Transcription is not legally considered a recording for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which the identity of the speaker is no longer directly tied to the words that were spoken. Anybody can write something down and attribute the words to someone else, but in theory only the speaker could actually say the words themselves.
I use a very similar setup, however one issue with the example you've given is that by using the first two letters of the domain means that even a bot could be written to compare the first N charaters of each password to the domain, and can make an assumption on what another domain's password could be. I know, it's a stretch.
You can write a program to do any sort of trivial comparison. The hard part for the attacker is deciding what comparison to use. Unless you have multiple passwords from the same user at different websites, it won't be obvious. Even then you have to use a human to make that decision and this sort of approach is not meant to protect against individualized attacks. It is meant to protect you when one website loses their entire database to some hackers who then try out all the password/username combos on another website.
In the case where you are being specifically targeted, then all bets are off anyway. Someone with the resources to break into mulltiple websites just to steal your passwords probably has the resources to send someone to install a keylogger on your computer while you are out grocery shopping.
How does this get around wire-tapping laws in the two party states (where both parties need to know there's recording going on)? If someone comes over and watches TV, do you have to tell them or does Verizon since Verizon is the party doing the recording?
IANAL but I am a cynic, so here's what I think would happen:
Assuming Verizon couldn't just pay some lobbyists to get themselves an exemption, they would simply not record the audio. They would have a list of keywords and they would listen for them in real time. If the system hears a keyword, it increments a counter associated with the keyword but that is all it does, the audio is immediate sent to/dev/null without any sort of permanent record. No actual recording, no legal violation.
I agree 100%. As much as I detest Disney for things like breaking the copyright social-compact by "vaulting" movies to create artificial scarcity and their borg-like absorption of so much of my childhood memories, it is foolish to pretend that they are not a massive commercial success.
We can pray for the company's implosion, but it ain't going to happen any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
What about Facebook? How many millions willingly give up personal information for free?
They aren't giving it up for free, they are trading it for the services facebook gives them.
There are many companies taking advantage of the naivete of internet users for their own advantage.
They do so voluntarily by explicitly entering a contract with facebook when they sign up.
Not me. I'm behind ten proxies and use Tor for everything. I use throwaway e-mail addresses from places like Mailinator. I even registered my gmail account using a hospital courtesy phone... that was in another country.
You have utterly succeeded in missing the point - you are an aberration. The problem here is that normal people, behaving normally, are unknowingly subject to this shit through no fault of their own. We should not need to be randian privacy ubermen in order to have privacy.
These stalking companies are taking advantage of the fact that by default society requires a certain level of openness to function. They are abusing that openness for their own enrichment - they are encouraging people to behave like you and in the long run as more people take similar countermeasures that makes society less functional. In effect they are stealing from all of us by leeching away at the trust that greases the gears of a functioning society.
Instead of an empty objection, how about you explain what you think it doesn't cover so that the rest of us might gain some useful insight?
Also, Protip: Don't embarass one of the few agencies in the world with the resources and inclination to track you down (ie, the NSA). They basically built a whole second internet to track all the traffic on the first internet, and then built a giant super data warehouse to warehouse all the other warehouses. Not exactly the kind of people who's cheerios you want to piss in.
I'm happy someone is doing it. The day no one is willing to tweek the nose of power is the day the human race stops being human.
Why are you opposed to things that make life easier? I mean if gamifying education leads to better educated people, why not do it? If using a wheelbarrow makes it easier/faster to transport snow/dirt/etc short distances, why not use it?
I've been thinking about this sort of question in the bigger picture. What set me down the path was the political observation that as a party republicans are anti-gay except for individuals like Cheney who have a gay child, the party is also pro-torture except for individuals who have actually been tortured like McCain. So I've been trying to figure out if there is a rule that explains such things instead of just trying to score political points.
What I've come up with is this: People like to create their own "personal" rules for how members of society should behave - generally these rules are simple, even natural, to follow for the person who makes them up. Gay marriage is an easy one - straight people have no interest in getting gay married. It is a rule that is natural for them to follow so they have little understanding of what it is like to be on the other side of that rule. A more trivial example came from the husband of a good friend of mine - he forbid their pre-teen daughter from chewing gum. Not for any health reasons, simply because he thought people who chewed gum looked stupid. Of course he didn't like to chew gum himself so he saw no value in it and came up with this rule that didn't cost him anything.
I see the same thing here - chances are the OP is someone for whom traditional educational methods worked pretty well. That makes it easy for him to endorse the current system - it worked for him, it should work for anyone. Anyone for whom it doesn't work must be defective, lazy, wants something for nothing, etc.
Looking back over my life, I can see how I've made up a bunch of similar rules about both trivial and important things. Those rules haven't really helped me, they just gave me a reason to look down on other people who didn't deserve it. In some cases even to dismiss their humanity. In the long run all it did was make me miss opportunities that were right in front of me. So now I try to question my own assumptions about how people should act, and when they aren't directly hurting anyone I make a conscious effort to accept them rather than disparage them.
My point is that Congress should be impeaching for those things. Once they do so then I will no longer have a point.
So then, you are disputing my position that political parties circumvent seperation of powers. Because NEITHER party is attemping to impeach for those things. A party system does not prevent the other party from trying to do something. It only prevent another BRANCH from disagreeing.
(A) So now you've got examples who are members of the NRA. How convenieeent. Maybe you were thinking it in your head and you just didn't write it, either way you didn't write it.
(B) The plural anecdote is not data. I said "stereotypically," I didn't say "always." A handful of counter-examples only contradicts a claim of "always."
(C) Nearly all states have some form of concealed carry licensing nowadays. Linking beliefs simply by state of residence is far more tenuous than anything I've said. Hell, Texas didn't even have concealed carry until the 90s and they still don't have open carry.
Your thesis just doesn't hold water. THAT's the point I was trying to make.
If you want to actually put me in my place for stereotyping (which, ironically my use of the term "stereotypical" contradicts, but that's probably too meta for you), you have to do a better job with the data than I did. Ideally -- poll results of NRA members on the specific question of drug legalization. If you can't find that then you might be able to do it by proxy - like age distribution of NRA membership and then age distribution of pro-legalization types. Or maybe ethnic distrbution, or education levels, or even political party affiliation. Something with more correlation than the place they live.
As soon as we see either party attempting to impeach any president for any of those things, then you will have a point.
What am I missing? Is there separate pages that paid subscribers are seeing that I am not? More articles available? What?
The NYTimes paywall is intended to let everybody read a limited number of articles per month with no hassle at all - exceed the limit and you run into a paywall on all of their articles. The thing is that it relies on cookies in your browsers to keep track of how many articles you've read. So, if you do things like spoof your referrer to be google and never let their website set a cookie, you are unlikely to ever be hassled by their paywall.
You do know that only works because enough people don't care to use it, right?
Maybe in the "not going out of business" sense that is true. But in the specific sense of "if a lot of other people do that too, they will close the loophole" what you wrote is not true. The reason that it is not true is their "paywall-model" is based on high porosity. They want people to be able to read a limited number of articles with as little friction as possible in order to get them hooked enough to pay for unlimited access.
The problem is that they can't be both highly porous and completely locked down. If it comes to that, their current business model will fall apart. The highly-locked down paywall model has been shown to fail in most cases, only working for very specific markets and general interest news has not been one of them.
Where I'm going with that is your focus on impeachment is completely beside the point. Neither of those cases have anything to do with political parties as a means of side-stepping constutional seperation of powers.
If the absolute worse example you can cite is an event that was purely inter-party politics from start to end, then I'm afraid that all you've done is undermine the idea that political parties exist to short-circuit the constitutional seperation of powers.
Nixon was bad for the country and bad for the party.
Clinton lying about getting some strange was a non-event for the country and only mildly embarrasing for the party.
It's scary how much president's get away with doing unilaterally these days.
It is the inevitable result of a party based political system - parties function to circumvent the seperation of powers between executive and legislative branches and to a slightly lesser extent the judical branch too. They put the welfare of the party ahead of the welfare of the nation.
I think the problem would be mitigated if we at least had a robust multi-party system where parties had to form coalitions in order to ever get a majority. At least then there would be some sort of accountability outside of a single party.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
As we approach the 30th anniversary I propose we add these to the list:
Sharing is Stealing
Privacy is Terrorism
Then Einstein must have been a moron or an idiot for not indulging in deplorable hygiene habits.
What, what an ass you are to make that false equivalance. I didn't even imply that genius requires repulsive behavior. It was your asshole nature that decided to interpret it that way so you could feel better about yourself. You are more disgusting than RMS by far.
I just realized it is probably incorrect to calculate deaths across the entire population instead of just children under the age of 18. Census seems to say that roughly 25% of the US population is under the age of 18 , so that works out to 0.30 per 100,000. Still significantly less than 0.47.
I don't know about criminal homicides, but the pro-rata level of deaths of children and teenagers through gun accidents (i.e. excluding crime and adult accidents) in the US is the same as total gun deaths from all causes in the UK. (Figures NRA, Home Office). The NRA disregards this level of deaths as unimportant.
I went looking for confirmation of your claim, and I could not find it. Perhaps you can provide links.
What I did find were these numbers:
USA 2002 Unintentional firearm deaths of children: 214
With a population of roughly 287,000,000 that puts the rate at 0.07 per 100,000
UK 2002 Total Firearm death rate: 0.46 per 100,000
So, it looks like the pro-rata level of firearm deaths in the UK is actually much closer to 7 times higher than the accidental firearm deaths of children in the USA.
Well, that's the problem with stereotypes, isn't it? They have such little basis in reality.
So.... You've cited yourself and your friends who are not members of the NRA as examples of stereotypical NRA members? I must be completely insane because I don't see how what you wrote contradicts anything I said much less how the hell you got a +5 for such a completely off-point post. Is it because some people can't tell the difference between the NEA and the NRA? Really WTF?
Where are my f*****g modpoints ?
We took them away to protect your from the psychological stress of having to make a decision.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I know other people with similar eating disorders and he may well have Pica. Dismissing his ideas because of that is not unlike picking on the socially awkard kid who is also a genius.
If RMS were "normal" he wouldn't have had the insight and persistence that earned him universal recognition as the father of the Free software movement and a MacArthur "Genius" Fellowship. If the price he pays for the genius is a little socially inappropriate behavior when he's stressed and it doesn't hurt anyone, then what's really the problem here? Sounds more like a convenient red herring than anything else.
Well transcribing the conversation would certainly be a recording.
No. If that were true, then anyone writing down what was said over a phone call would be in violation of the two party consent laws in the states that have them. Transcription is not legally considered a recording for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which the identity of the speaker is no longer directly tied to the words that were spoken. Anybody can write something down and attribute the words to someone else, but in theory only the speaker could actually say the words themselves.
I use a very similar setup, however one issue with the example you've given is that by using the first two letters of the domain means that even a bot could be written to compare the first N charaters of each password to the domain, and can make an assumption on what another domain's password could be. I know, it's a stretch.
You can write a program to do any sort of trivial comparison. The hard part for the attacker is deciding what comparison to use. Unless you have multiple passwords from the same user at different websites, it won't be obvious. Even then you have to use a human to make that decision and this sort of approach is not meant to protect against individualized attacks. It is meant to protect you when one website loses their entire database to some hackers who then try out all the password/username combos on another website.
In the case where you are being specifically targeted, then all bets are off anyway. Someone with the resources to break into mulltiple websites just to steal your passwords probably has the resources to send someone to install a keylogger on your computer while you are out grocery shopping.
How does this get around wire-tapping laws in the two party states (where both parties need to know there's recording going on)? If someone comes over and watches TV, do you have to tell them or does Verizon since Verizon is the party doing the recording?
IANAL but I am a cynic, so here's what I think would happen:
Assuming Verizon couldn't just pay some lobbyists to get themselves an exemption, they would simply not record the audio. They would have a list of keywords and they would listen for them in real time. If the system hears a keyword, it increments a counter associated with the keyword but that is all it does, the audio is immediate sent to /dev/null without any sort of permanent record. No actual recording, no legal violation.
I agree 100%. As much as I detest Disney for things like breaking the copyright social-compact by "vaulting" movies to create artificial scarcity and their borg-like absorption of so much of my childhood memories, it is foolish to pretend that they are not a massive commercial success.
We can pray for the company's implosion, but it ain't going to happen any time soon.