The cops aren't going to jump out guns blazing or taze the crap out of you just because the automatic plate reader flagged your car as possibly stolen.
Just like they would never pull someone over and end up tazing the crap out of them because their license plate frame was crooked.
Well, they could sell or give the info to auto insurance companies.
Hell, that's nothing. They can sell the data to credit scoring companies - the kind of companies that are now promoting things like scores for how likely people are to take their prescription medicine. They can sell it to stalkers - directly or through some legiitimizing proxy like a PI - who might like to know all the places their victims have driven in the last year.
Really, the possibilities for how this information can be used to the against perfectly innocent, law-abiding people are endless. If it were up to me, any sort of ANPR would require a warrant. Wholesale dragnet surveillance without any suspicion of wrongdoing like this just does not square with my idea - and I hope the general public's idea - of a "reasonable search." (Yeah, I know it's Canada, same crap has been going on in parts of the US for over a decade now).
He is suggesting that the more code there is, the larger the target surface is for hacks or even hardware glitching (shorting unexpected circuits on the motherboard in order to make a cpu do something that is not in the actual instructions it is suppossed to be executing). I don't think I buy the argument -- it might make such things harder to achieve but it won't ever be able to prevent them, at least in and of itself.
That's always a risk with commissions, and I didn't say perfect, just better than Best Buy.
But, at least in this case the guy I dealt with was useful. I needed about 6 things from around the store and he knew where everythnig was and took me straight to them. Even knew where to dig through boxes of new stock when items weren't on the shelves. At Best Buy I'm lucky if a blue-shirt even knows where one item is, much less be willing to walk me to the shelf and help find it if it is not in their department.
At this point, the only reason for B&M stores to exist is for time critical situations when you can't wait a day or two to get your item off the internet.
I was an early embracer of online shopping - I bought CDs from the very first web retailer. But nowadays I have no tolerance for the e-stalking that has become so prevalent and am loathe to purchase online. I've even gone back to cash for almost all of my purchases. Maybe I'm a freak, I like to think I'm ahead of my time.
Anyway... Just today I went shopping for window blinds. After hitting all the big websites, I ended up at jcpenny.com because they had the best price for equivalent functionality. But instead of making my purchase online, I drove down to the nearest branch, ordered the custom-fit blinds and paid cash. When they are ready, they will be shipped to my local store where I can pick them up for no more than the price of gas.
Last week I was over at Fry's Electronics buying some computer equipment - they actually price-match online retailers and their salesdroids work on comission so they are a lot more useful than the guys at Best Buy (not fantastic, just better). They take cash too.
Wal-mart has put their toe in the water with free "ship to store" like jcpenny too.
So, I guess what I am saying is that there is a niche there for brick & mortar stores to become a nexus between online and old-style B&M. As a privacy freak, I hope to see more stores move in this direction.
Seems like the chief criticism of that analysis is that ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is a poor measure of actual storm intensity. Are there other analyses using metrics besides ACE?
Issue a DMCA takedown request against the other band. That's what the law is for.
Can't because it isn't posted. That's the whole point - UMG blocked their own leaked video not realizing the content of that video was really somebody else's. But no version of that video is on youtube anymore, so there isn't anything to file a take down request against.
Maybe somewhat Minority Report-ish, but what if he actually WAS planning on trying to make a bomb? Why should we wait until this person has actually killed potentially hundreds of people with a bomb or some similar device or act before acting against him?
False dichotomy. There is a third choice. Watch the guy. Maybe he's even got co-conspirators and then you can nab them too when they all do something actually illegal like coming up with a real plot and trying to buy bomb ingredients.
In the US the FBI goes to great lengths to entrap people with (self-interested) informants and undercover plants. What, the brits are too cheap to drop a couple of drug charges against some con in exchange for ingratiating himself with a potential terrorist?
Just a couple of years ago lots of people were happy to infect their windows with all kinds of horseshit DRM systems in order to buy music for 99 cents.
You care. Because not only is it illegal for you to jailbreak, it is illegal for someone else to help you. As in to provide the tools to do the jailbreaking. So unless you are an uberhacker, you won't be doing much jailbreaking.
(2) As Commander-in-Chief he could end the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan almost immediately. He's simply order them to withdraw and come home.
2> He could issue the order, but if the military hates him enough - they would disobey him, and possibly overthrow the government. Not good.
Did you seriously just say that the US military might stage a coup if they are ordered to withdraw from Afghanistan and come home to their families? WTF man?!?
KIlling the used game market is going to backfire because the sale of used games subsidizes the purchase of new games. A lot of people make the calculation that they can buy a ~$50 game, play it until they are tired of it and then sell it for ~$20 - making the effective price only $30.
If the publishers make it impossible to resell that game, that amounts to nearly a doubling of the price for a new game and thus a lot less people will be able to afford it. These game publishers should be care what they wish for.
Yeah, I saw that case. He made the analogy to providing key versus providing a combination, but I still haven't found the case law that backs up his analogy.
A low-tech example of this is in safes. The authorities can make you hand over the key to a safe, but not the combination. If the safe is locked with a combination, they must crack open the safe if they want its contents.
A citation for that would be really nice to have around. This password debate has been going around the net for well over ten years and this is the first time that I've heard anyone say that the court can't compel someone to reveal the combination for their safe.
Let the TSA and police do their jobs without having to equally check everyone so we can pretend like terrorists don't all come from the same background. Racial profiling might not be politically correct but it works.
Except, you know, when it doesn't. Like the shoe bomber, Richard Reid whose father was Jamaican and mother was white British. Or the underwear bomber who was Nigerian. And there is Colleen LaRosa, aka Jihad Jane and her friend Jamie Paulin-Ramirez.
Yeah, that racial profiling really works great. Great for the terrorists that it would let sail right on through.
that is not mainstream atheism any more than groups like Fred Phelps's clan are mainstream christianity -- those are simply vocal minorities.
It *is* the common face of Atheism, I am sorry that your asshats are like our asshats, but you got them just like we do.
Seems like you have applied a pretty straightforward transitive operation.
Unless of course you are singularly unable to accept that the "asshats of atheism" are not mainstream. Which is exactly where I think your head is at and that mental block means no argument to the contrary even parses for you. Which, by the way, is what my sig is all about countering. Your belief that the "asshats of atheism" are mainstream atheism is bigotry.
Not all sit ins result in arrests. I didn't see any arrests at the 2+ week long pro-union sit-ins at the Wisconsin capitol building and yet they got tons and tons of sympathetic press coverage. And "too easy" - seriously? Isn't that the whole point of the internet, to make stuff easier?
It is funny how there are always people willing to come up with nit-picking reasons why someone else's form of protest just isn't good enough. Even the greatest revolutionaries were far from perfect -- Mandela ran a bombing campaign for the ANC before he was imprisoned and If MLK were around today, people would dismiss his actions because he was a womanizer.
Many of Anon's DOS campaigns have had the intended results - raise awareness about their grievances. No way would the megaupload arrrests have received the national coverage that they got if it weren't for the sensationalism of Anonymous taking down the DoJ and other high-profile websites. Much of the coverage may not have been positive, but that's the nature of protesting the status-quo -- most people are OK with the status-quo, else it wouldn't be the status-quo.
DOS attacks aren't like refusing to go to the back of the bus... They're sugar in the gas tank.
Sugar in the gas tank causes permanent damage. A DOS is the internet equivalent of a sit-in. Or rather, sit-ins are pre-internet denial of service attacks.
Huh? that is the very definition of mainstream. It *is* the common face of Atheism, I am sorry that your asshats are like our asshats, but you got them just like we do.
You appear to be arguing that Fred Phelps is mainstream christianity. If that's the case we can have no common meeting of the minds in this discussion.
This is mainstream atheism, or at least its outward face.
If mainstream is a synonym for common or popular than no, that is not mainstream atheism any more than groups like Fred Phelps's clan are mainstream christianity -- those are simply vocal minorities. Since most atheists don't put any effort into the subject unless someone else brings up the topic, you are quite unlikely to ever even realize it when you meet one.
If you want to convince people that God does not exist, be my guest.
See, that's the thing. The vast majority couldn't care less what you think about your God as long as the actions you take predicated on such beliefs don't impinge on them. Hell, some like George Washington think it is actually beneficial to society for a lot of people to believe in a religion.
As for why an atheist is likely to have a better vantage point on the issue of what constitutes a religion - quite a few atheists were religionists for a large part of their lives, born and raised within a variety of faiths they have plenty of experience with the dimensions of religiosity. However, very few religionists started off as atheists, such a conversion is pretty rare.
Atheism is an extremely broad term. Some atheists do positively assert that there is no god, and the real extreme of that group will organize in ways that can be compared to organized religion, but those people are quite few. Similarly agnosticism is a broad term too with lots of practical overlap in the group of atheists. But there is a subtle difference between the two simplest definitions of the terms, i.e. "the question of a god's existence is not answerable" (agnosticism) and "I don't care about the question of a god's existence" (atheism).
Slashdot Mirror
The cops aren't going to jump out guns blazing or taze the crap out of you just because the automatic plate reader flagged your car as possibly stolen.
Just like they would never pull someone over and end up tazing the crap out of them because their license plate frame was crooked.
Oh... well, er...
Well, they could sell or give the info to auto insurance companies.
Hell, that's nothing. They can sell the data to credit scoring companies - the kind of companies that are now promoting things like scores for how likely people are to take their prescription medicine. They can sell it to stalkers - directly or through some legiitimizing proxy like a PI - who might like to know all the places their victims have driven in the last year.
Really, the possibilities for how this information can be used to the against perfectly innocent, law-abiding people are endless. If it were up to me, any sort of ANPR would require a warrant. Wholesale dragnet surveillance without any suspicion of wrongdoing like this just does not square with my idea - and I hope the general public's idea - of a "reasonable search." (Yeah, I know it's Canada, same crap has been going on in parts of the US for over a decade now).
He is suggesting that the more code there is, the larger the target surface is for hacks or even hardware glitching (shorting unexpected circuits on the motherboard in order to make a cpu do something that is not in the actual instructions it is suppossed to be executing). I don't think I buy the argument -- it might make such things harder to achieve but it won't ever be able to prevent them, at least in and of itself.
To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
Not all breathers are terrorists, but all terrorists are breathers.
That's always a risk with commissions, and I didn't say perfect, just better than Best Buy.
But, at least in this case the guy I dealt with was useful. I needed about 6 things from around the store and he knew where everythnig was and took me straight to them. Even knew where to dig through boxes of new stock when items weren't on the shelves. At Best Buy I'm lucky if a blue-shirt even knows where one item is, much less be willing to walk me to the shelf and help find it if it is not in their department.
At this point, the only reason for B&M stores to exist is for time critical situations when you can't wait a day or two to get your item off the internet.
I was an early embracer of online shopping - I bought CDs from the very first web retailer. But nowadays I have no tolerance for the e-stalking that has become so prevalent and am loathe to purchase online. I've even gone back to cash for almost all of my purchases. Maybe I'm a freak, I like to think I'm ahead of my time.
Anyway... Just today I went shopping for window blinds. After hitting all the big websites, I ended up at jcpenny.com because they had the best price for equivalent functionality. But instead of making my purchase online, I drove down to the nearest branch, ordered the custom-fit blinds and paid cash. When they are ready, they will be shipped to my local store where I can pick them up for no more than the price of gas.
Last week I was over at Fry's Electronics buying some computer equipment - they actually price-match online retailers and their salesdroids work on comission so they are a lot more useful than the guys at Best Buy (not fantastic, just better). They take cash too.
Wal-mart has put their toe in the water with free "ship to store" like jcpenny too.
So, I guess what I am saying is that there is a niche there for brick & mortar stores to become a nexus between online and old-style B&M. As a privacy freak, I hope to see more stores move in this direction.
Seems like the chief criticism of that analysis is that ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is a poor measure of actual storm intensity. Are there other analyses using metrics besides ACE?
Issue a DMCA takedown request against the other band. That's what the law is for.
Can't because it isn't posted. That's the whole point - UMG blocked their own leaked video not realizing the content of that video was really somebody else's. But no version of that video is on youtube anymore, so there isn't anything to file a take down request against.
Maybe somewhat Minority Report-ish, but what if he actually WAS planning on trying to make a bomb? Why should we wait until this person has actually killed potentially hundreds of people with a bomb or some similar device or act before acting against him?
False dichotomy. There is a third choice. Watch the guy. Maybe he's even got co-conspirators and then you can nab them too when they all do something actually illegal like coming up with a real plot and trying to buy bomb ingredients.
In the US the FBI goes to great lengths to entrap people with (self-interested) informants and undercover plants. What, the brits are too cheap to drop a couple of drug charges against some con in exchange for ingratiating himself with a potential terrorist?
Just a couple of years ago lots of people were happy to infect their windows with all kinds of horseshit DRM systems in order to buy music for 99 cents.
You care. Because not only is it illegal for you to jailbreak, it is illegal for someone else to help you. As in to provide the tools to do the jailbreaking. So unless you are an uberhacker, you won't be doing much jailbreaking.
(2) As Commander-in-Chief he could end the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan almost immediately. He's simply order them to withdraw and come home.
2> He could issue the order, but if the military hates him enough - they would disobey him, and possibly overthrow the government. Not good.
Did you seriously just say that the US military might stage a coup if they are ordered to withdraw from Afghanistan and come home to their families? WTF man?!?
KIlling the used game market is going to backfire because the sale of used games subsidizes the purchase of new games. A lot of people make the calculation that they can buy a ~$50 game, play it until they are tired of it and then sell it for ~$20 - making the effective price only $30.
If the publishers make it impossible to resell that game, that amounts to nearly a doubling of the price for a new game and thus a lot less people will be able to afford it. These game publishers should be care what they wish for.
Yeah, I saw that case. He made the analogy to providing key versus providing a combination, but I still haven't found the case law that backs up his analogy.
A low-tech example of this is in safes. The authorities can make you hand over the key to a safe, but not the combination. If the safe is locked with a combination, they must crack open the safe if they want its contents.
A citation for that would be really nice to have around. This password debate has been going around the net for well over ten years and this is the first time that I've heard anyone say that the court can't compel someone to reveal the combination for their safe.
Let the TSA and police do their jobs without having to equally check everyone so we can pretend like terrorists don't all come from the same background. Racial profiling might not be politically correct but it works.
Except, you know, when it doesn't. Like the shoe bomber, Richard Reid whose father was Jamaican and mother was white British. Or the underwear bomber who was Nigerian. And there is Colleen LaRosa, aka Jihad Jane and her friend Jamie Paulin-Ramirez.
Yeah, that racial profiling really works great. Great for the terrorists that it would let sail right on through.
that is not mainstream atheism any more than groups like Fred Phelps's clan are mainstream christianity -- those are simply vocal minorities.
It *is* the common face of Atheism, I am sorry that your asshats are like our asshats, but you got them just like we do.
Seems like you have applied a pretty straightforward transitive operation.
Unless of course you are singularly unable to accept that the "asshats of atheism" are not mainstream. Which is exactly where I think your head is at and that mental block means no argument to the contrary even parses for you. Which, by the way, is what my sig is all about countering. Your belief that the "asshats of atheism" are mainstream atheism is bigotry.
I disagree, it is a hugely complex empirical question. Measuring the knock-on effects is practically impossible.
Not all sit ins result in arrests. I didn't see any arrests at the 2+ week long pro-union sit-ins at the Wisconsin capitol building and yet they got tons and tons of sympathetic press coverage. And "too easy" - seriously? Isn't that the whole point of the internet, to make stuff easier?
It is funny how there are always people willing to come up with nit-picking reasons why someone else's form of protest just isn't good enough. Even the greatest revolutionaries were far from perfect -- Mandela ran a bombing campaign for the ANC before he was imprisoned and If MLK were around today, people would dismiss his actions because he was a womanizer.
Many of Anon's DOS campaigns have had the intended results - raise awareness about their grievances. No way would the megaupload arrrests have received the national coverage that they got if it weren't for the sensationalism of Anonymous taking down the DoJ and other high-profile websites. Much of the coverage may not have been positive, but that's the nature of protesting the status-quo -- most people are OK with the status-quo, else it wouldn't be the status-quo.
DOS attacks aren't like refusing to go to the back of the bus... They're sugar in the gas tank.
Sugar in the gas tank causes permanent damage.
A DOS is the internet equivalent of a sit-in.
Or rather, sit-ins are pre-internet denial of service attacks.
Let the liberation of Canada begin!
Operation Enduring Freedom Eh?
Huh? that is the very definition of mainstream. It *is* the common face of Atheism, I am sorry that your asshats are like our asshats, but you got them just like we do.
You appear to be arguing that Fred Phelps is mainstream christianity. If that's the case we can have no common meeting of the minds in this discussion.
It is interesting to me that you keep trying to characterize the arguments in this discussion in terms of arrogant superiority..
My point is simply that a person with experience A, by definition, has less experience than someone with experience A and experience B.
This is mainstream atheism, or at least its outward face.
If mainstream is a synonym for common or popular than no, that is not mainstream atheism any more than groups like Fred Phelps's clan are mainstream christianity -- those are simply vocal minorities. Since most atheists don't put any effort into the subject unless someone else brings up the topic, you are quite unlikely to ever even realize it when you meet one.
If you want to convince people that God does not exist, be my guest.
See, that's the thing. The vast majority couldn't care less what you think about your God as long as the actions you take predicated on such beliefs don't impinge on them. Hell, some like George Washington think it is actually beneficial to society for a lot of people to believe in a religion.
As for why an atheist is likely to have a better vantage point on the issue of what constitutes a religion - quite a few atheists were religionists for a large part of their lives, born and raised within a variety of faiths they have plenty of experience with the dimensions of religiosity. However, very few religionists started off as atheists, such a conversion is pretty rare.
Atheism is an extremely broad term. Some atheists do positively assert that there is no god, and the real extreme of that group will organize in ways that can be compared to organized religion, but those people are quite few. Similarly agnosticism is a broad term too with lots of practical overlap in the group of atheists. But there is a subtle difference between the two simplest definitions of the terms, i.e. "the question of a god's existence is not answerable" (agnosticism) and "I don't care about the question of a god's existence" (atheism).