(AS/400 is not an OS, neither is "Big Iron", as I'm sure you're aware)
While this is technically true, it's a bit misleading. The term AS/400 normally refers to what was once called OS/400 running on AS/400 hardware. It's now called IBM System i and i5/OS but most people who have worked with it for a significant amount of time still refer to it as AS/400. Sure, you can run Linux on the same hardware, but if that were the case, I'd just call it a linux server. I'm pretty sure the grandparent was referring to OS/400 as the OS, and I'd be surprised if there is anything more than absolute minimal support for C# apps.
They didn't release an RC and there have been several beta releases already. I don't see any real new information here. Announcing that there will be a release announcement sometime in the future seems like they are just trying to get publicity. Seriously, they didn't even commit to a release date. It makes me so annoyed, I don't even want to discuss it. Oh wait, ooops.
Probably solitary is for his own protection, and keeping him alive is the responsibility of the justice system, so if he's on suicide watch, that means being deprived of things he can use to KILL HIMSELF WITH.
That would be fine, except he's not on suicide watch. He hasn't been since the first 2 weeks or so of his confinement. The officers in charge of his detention said that he was a model prisoner.
The only thing troubling here is that this guy's so upset with his circumstances that he's trying to kill himself. Anything else stems from that fact.
I find the fact that he is not allowed to exercise in his cell "troubling". How does that help keep him alive? He also must respond every five minutes that he is ok. Have you ever tried reading a book or watching tv with someone asking you every 5 minutes if you are ok?
You assert the intent is the same, in which case you would be correct if that were to ever happen in reality. However, reality proves you wrong, and you conveniently ignored all details. You can kill your wife in a premeditated manner and get a lesser sentence because in one case, the motive for the premediated murder is profit (kill her for the insurance money) in which case you'll get a a more harsh sentence than if you premeditated it because she was cheating on you. Sure, both could be charged the same, but the reality is they aren't.
I'm not sure if I explained well in my previous post, but I agreed with you that intent is important when deciding appropriate punishment. In my hypothetical example the intent was the same. In your example the intent was not the same, so of course I agree that in the example of killing for money vs. revenge it may be appropriate to provide different punishment.
And the KKK member wouldn't be charged with a hate crime because they are in the KKK. If they robbed a bank and in the course of robbing that bank they killed the security guard, the race of the guard would be irrelevant. Hate crimes are about terrorism. When you target a race to punish and then pick a member of that race to torture and kill in a public and horrific manner, it is a worse crime (as asserted by nearly everyone on the planet but you) than some bored drunk kids who commit the same actions on the first random person they cross without regards to who that person is.
I understand you argument, but I'm still not sure I completely agree. I would have to study some specific hate crime laws and cases and think about whether the outcome would be a different if the defendant was a different race or sexual orientation. Looking at wikipedia for hate crimes brings up the 1964 Federal civil rights law
The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.
I would argue that this law would be better if you removed the part referring specifically to "race, color, religion". The law should permit federal prosecution of anyone who engages in these activities not just "because of race, color, etc". As the law is written it seems to exclude what might be important cases. What if I restrict the person from attending school because I just don't like them? Is that ok?
I guess you could make the argument that there are times when it's necessary to restrict a person from attending a school, maybe because they are dangerous, so we can't make laws that allow people to attend school in all cases, but I think these exceptions could pretty easily be added to the law.
Anyway, I think it's a hard question. You're probably right that in some cases hate crime laws are beneficial overall, but I think they can also be couter-productive and are often enacted more for political reasons than any real benefit to the public.
And if you don't understand why, there are plenty of books and classes in history that could enlighten you.
Was this attack on me really necessary? I don't think it adds anything to your argument.
The problem is that hate crimes laws are not really about "intent" by itself. Hate crimes are based, at least partly, on who is committing the crime regardless of their intent. As you describe the distinction between various intents are already contained in existing law. But a hate crime does not take effect unless the criminal and the victim belong to specific groups.
Consider two premeditated murders, one by a white man against a black man, and another by a white KKK member against a black man. The intent of each of these criminals may have been exactly the same, i.e. to kill the other man, however under hate crime laws these two individuals would receive different punishments based on who they are, not based on their intent.
Seriously? People are still using the "nothing new here" argument against Wikileaks? If you do even a minimal amount of research you can see that there was quite a bit of new information revealed by Wikileaks including unlawful activity.
Would you mind uploading your email archive to a web server for the rest of us to look over? If you wouldn't do that, why would you want the US government to do the same thing?
Actually, much of my professional email involves working on open source projects and is already available on public web servers. I wouldn't want my personal email available to the public, but I also wouldn't expect that of a government employee. However, I consider the US government to be my employees, and I should be able to review most of what they are doing without any problem, and I would especially want to know if my employees were breaking the law.
That they might actually be withholding them for a good reason?
This seems to be a common strawman related to this issue. But Greenwald never said that Wired needs to release the full chat logs. Here is what he actually said based on the fact that Lamo has been making claims which are not supported by the released chat logs:
What they ought to do, at the absolute minimum, is post the portions of the chat logs about which Lamo had made public statements or make clear that they do not exist. . . . Poulsen could also provide Lamo -- who claims he is no longer in possession of them -- with a copy of the chat logs (which Lamo gave him) so that journalists quoting Lamo about Manning's statements could see the actual evidence rather than relying on Lamo's claims.
That's a nice ad hominem attack on Greenwald, but it's not really relevant to the discussion. He presents a pretty solid case that at least some of the unreleased chat logs should be released to either confirm or deny claims being made by Lamo.
Maybe Wired just isn't following the new norm of shooting their mouth off without all the facts and are, you know, checking the sources and considering what the repercussions might be.
How would publishing the remaining chat logs "out his source"? Are you referring to Bradley Manning? He's already been outed by Lamo and Poulson. Greenwald in TFA seems to suspect that the remaining chat logs could provide information that would help Manning and possibly Wikileaks. This seems like something they would want to release.
He slows the presentation to show World War 1 and the Spanish Flu epidemic but he didn't mention the Cultural Revolution in China during the 60's when the large circle representing China takes a HUGE dive.
The Culteral Revolution in China didn't begin until 1966, after China was on it's way back up. It was actually the Great Leap Forward that put many Chinese on the verge of starvation. Then during 1958-1961 several natural disasters occurred which, when combined with the existing problems, resulted in the Great Chinese Famine.
That's not entirely correct. The huge number of deaths in China during that time were part of the Great Chinese Famine. The years leading up to that point were part of the Great Leap Forward which was a disastrous set of government policies in which agricultural output greatly decreased and put a lot of people on the verge of starvation. Several natural disasters did occur between 1958 and 1961, but these only exacerbated the existing problem.
Wikileaks simply dumped the entire contents onto the web. So far there hasn't been anything really damning about them, except the fact that diplomatic relationships are now shattered across the world.
Why do people keep repeating this complete falsehood? A 30 second visit to wikileaks site and you can see that they have released less than 2000 of the 25000 total cables. Of these 2000 most were released by a major newspaper first, and wikileaks included the same redactions that the newspapers included. Yes, these have shown "damning" information. The difference now vs. pentagon papers is that the wikileaks information damns both parties, and in the mainstream US media if both parties agree then it must be true (Iraq war?). Here is a short list of new revelations found just from the cables (not including the previous wikileaks releases) [1]
(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;
(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;
(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");
(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";
(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;
(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;
(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;
(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,
(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.
Wikileaks? Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are closely related.
Whose newspapers have been shutdown?
Again, Wikileaks. They may not be a newspaper in the traditional sense, but they are certainly part of the press. They analyse the information they release and write articles. Contrary to mainstream media belief, Wilileaks actually reads and redacts stuff before releasing it.
This isn't about free speech, period. This is about a giant classified document dump.
Less than 2000 of the more than 250,000 diplomatic cables have been released. The majority of these were first released by one of the large newspapers (New York Times, etc) first. Wikileaks included the same redactions included by the newspapers. How can that be considered a "giant classified document dump"?
If you want to make the argument that governments should have no secrets at all, that diplomats should have no confidential communications at all, then say that. But quit saying that this is a freedom of speech case.
Nice straw-man, no rational person is saying governments should have no secrets. The issue here is government law-breaking which was exposed, and they are now trying to cover up.
I take that back, after some more testing, it seems that rotten tomatoes knows when I am logged in to facebook whether or not I have thirdparty cookies enabled. So either Chrome is not really turning off thirdparty cookies, or facebook/rottentomatoes is using something different to track me.
I'm sure they have multiple methods of tracking going on, but the behaviour of the facebook button on rottentomatoes changes depending on whether you have thirdparty cookies enabled or not in Firefox. You can verify it by first logging in to facebook, then playing with the setting above and loading the rottentomatoes site.
I'm not sure what the behaviour would be based on that setting. Since in this case facebook isn't setting any new cookies when you visit rottentomatoes, it's just reading existing ones. Try logging in to facebook, then go to rottentomatoes.com and see if it knows who you are.
You do need to be logged in to facebook, I just meant that I hadn't logged in to rottentomatoes or linked the accounts in any way. Chrome has a setting called "Block all third-party cookies without exception", I think this is turned off by default. To reproduce this, uncheck that setting in Chrome, or the equivalent setting in Firefox, then log into facebook. Then visit the rottentomatoes page, and it will show your facebook account and customize the page based on info from facebook.
Disabling thirdparty cookies in Firefox seemed to fix the problem for me. Now non-facebook sites can't tell who I am on facebook. I'm not sure why this is not the default setting for Firefox and other browsers.
I only recently discovered facebook's instant personalization "feature". I went to rottentomatoes and it showed movies that my facebook friends liked. This seems very inappropriate to me because how did rottentomatoes know who I am in facebook, without logging in or doing any kind of verification. Apparently rottentomatoes uses thirdparty cookies to fetch your facebook info and display it. This seems to mean that potentially any website can check who you are in facebook (if you are currently logged in). I was able to turn off this feature by disabling thirdparty cookies in Firefox.
More than anything this seems like a big privacy leak and is the fault of the browsers. This should be off by default in firefox and other browsers. If I go to rottentomatoes.com, I would expect that by Firefox would only send cookies back to rottentomatoes and should not even allow read access to other cookies while I'm on that page. The same goes for flash plugins and other scripts, etc. that read cookies, they should only have read access to the cookies for the current page.
You should at least put a link to the source when you copy and paste a large section of someone else's article. I won't bother to post a point by point refutation of this article because someone else already did.
What I would personally like to see is someone with a young child, preferably female that instructs their child to start screaming if anyone touches their genitals.
It already happened. The mom didn't have to instruct the 3 year old girl to start screaming, she did that all by herself.
The difference in auto insurance is that normally only liability insurance is required. If you choose to not purchase healthcare you are putting the risk on yourself. I'm not completely against the new healthcare legislation, but requiring everyone to purchase insurance seems pretty clearly to be a handout to the health insurance companies to give them more customers and more money which results in even more influence in Washington.
Aw, that's the best you have? I thought you might actually think of a solution. But yeah, if the Palestinians could make a credible commitment of peace, then there would be a settlement within a year. The Israelis withdrew from Gaza, after all, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't also withdraw from Palestine.
Most people don't want to fight. How to deal with people who do want to fight, like the Palestinians, or the Serbian forces, is the major difficulty of world peace.
Every year Isrealis kill more Palestinians than vice versa. So "how to deal with people who do want to fight", like the Israelis, is the major difficulty in this conflict. Resolving a conflict is always the responsibility of the side in power. Just compare the Isreali military to the handful of Palestinian terrorists and it's obvious which side could end the conflict if they wanted to.
? What does the national debt have to do with kids working for a dollar an hour at age 12? In any case, as you can see from this chart, something needs to be done about healthcare. Even if we cut the military completely, it will still be quite expensive. And I'm not opposed to cutting the military completely.
The previous poster was being sarcastic about child labor if you couldn't tell. The point being made is that all of the things we spend money on contribute to our debt. We can continue the wars, or we can continue providing healthcare, education, etc. to the public. The most striking thing about the chart you provided is not the increase in Medicare spending, but the increase in payments on the national debt. To me, this means we have to cut spending and raise taxes ASAP to prevent complete financial collapse in the future. If we do this now, it could be reasonable to maintain our current level of public health services. If we don't raise taxes and cut spending to address our deficit/debt soon, we are fucked.
They wanted to negotiate after the bombs were already falling. Was there any reason in particular to trust them at that point? I mean, I'm not going to deny that the Afghanistan war was conducted horribly, but I have no love for the Taliban. Afghanistan is better without them.
So once the bombs are falling it's too late for them to surrender? We have to stay the course and bomb them into oblivion because they might not be trustworthy enough? Sorry, I completely disagree with that. If the offer was available at any time to potentially end what has become the longest war in American history, we should have taken it
This reminds me of the quote from Edsger Dijkstra - "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim". I agree that saying this software is "learning" is somewhat misleading. It's similar to Human learning in some ways, but after looking at some of it's tweets, it's not much to brag about.
This could be a new form of Turing test? Once a computer can make tweets that are indistinguishable from Human tweets, does that mean it can think?
Slashdot Mirror
(AS/400 is not an OS, neither is "Big Iron", as I'm sure you're aware)
While this is technically true, it's a bit misleading. The term AS/400 normally refers to what was once called OS/400 running on AS/400 hardware. It's now called IBM System i and i5/OS but most people who have worked with it for a significant amount of time still refer to it as AS/400. Sure, you can run Linux on the same hardware, but if that were the case, I'd just call it a linux server. I'm pretty sure the grandparent was referring to OS/400 as the OS, and I'd be surprised if there is anything more than absolute minimal support for C# apps.
They didn't release an RC and there have been several beta releases already. I don't see any real new information here. Announcing that there will be a release announcement sometime in the future seems like they are just trying to get publicity. Seriously, they didn't even commit to a release date. It makes me so annoyed, I don't even want to discuss it. Oh wait, ooops.
Probably solitary is for his own protection, and keeping him alive is the responsibility of the justice system, so if he's on suicide watch, that means being deprived of things he can use to KILL HIMSELF WITH.
That would be fine, except he's not on suicide watch. He hasn't been since the first 2 weeks or so of his confinement. The officers in charge of his detention said that he was a model prisoner.
The only thing troubling here is that this guy's so upset with his circumstances that he's trying to kill himself. Anything else stems from that fact.
I find the fact that he is not allowed to exercise in his cell "troubling". How does that help keep him alive? He also must respond every five minutes that he is ok. Have you ever tried reading a book or watching tv with someone asking you every 5 minutes if you are ok?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/23/manning/index.html
You assert the intent is the same, in which case you would be correct if that were to ever happen in reality. However, reality proves you wrong, and you conveniently ignored all details. You can kill your wife in a premeditated manner and get a lesser sentence because in one case, the motive for the premediated murder is profit (kill her for the insurance money) in which case you'll get a a more harsh sentence than if you premeditated it because she was cheating on you. Sure, both could be charged the same, but the reality is they aren't.
I'm not sure if I explained well in my previous post, but I agreed with you that intent is important when deciding appropriate punishment. In my hypothetical example the intent was the same. In your example the intent was not the same, so of course I agree that in the example of killing for money vs. revenge it may be appropriate to provide different punishment.
And the KKK member wouldn't be charged with a hate crime because they are in the KKK. If they robbed a bank and in the course of robbing that bank they killed the security guard, the race of the guard would be irrelevant. Hate crimes are about terrorism. When you target a race to punish and then pick a member of that race to torture and kill in a public and horrific manner, it is a worse crime (as asserted by nearly everyone on the planet but you) than some bored drunk kids who commit the same actions on the first random person they cross without regards to who that person is.
I understand you argument, but I'm still not sure I completely agree. I would have to study some specific hate crime laws and cases and think about whether the outcome would be a different if the defendant was a different race or sexual orientation. Looking at wikipedia for hate crimes brings up the 1964 Federal civil rights law
The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.
I would argue that this law would be better if you removed the part referring specifically to "race, color, religion". The law should permit federal prosecution of anyone who engages in these activities not just "because of race, color, etc". As the law is written it seems to exclude what might be important cases. What if I restrict the person from attending school because I just don't like them? Is that ok?
I guess you could make the argument that there are times when it's necessary to restrict a person from attending a school, maybe because they are dangerous, so we can't make laws that allow people to attend school in all cases, but I think these exceptions could pretty easily be added to the law.
Anyway, I think it's a hard question. You're probably right that in some cases hate crime laws are beneficial overall, but I think they can also be couter-productive and are often enacted more for political reasons than any real benefit to the public.
And if you don't understand why, there are plenty of books and classes in history that could enlighten you.
Was this attack on me really necessary? I don't think it adds anything to your argument.
The problem is that hate crimes laws are not really about "intent" by itself. Hate crimes are based, at least partly, on who is committing the crime regardless of their intent. As you describe the distinction between various intents are already contained in existing law. But a hate crime does not take effect unless the criminal and the victim belong to specific groups.
Consider two premeditated murders, one by a white man against a black man, and another by a white KKK member against a black man. The intent of each of these criminals may have been exactly the same, i.e. to kill the other man, however under hate crime laws these two individuals would receive different punishments based on who they are, not based on their intent.
Seriously? People are still using the "nothing new here" argument against Wikileaks? If you do even a minimal amount of research you can see that there was quite a bit of new information revealed by Wikileaks including unlawful activity.
Would you mind uploading your email archive to a web server for the rest of us to look over? If you wouldn't do that, why would you want the US government to do the same thing?
Actually, much of my professional email involves working on open source projects and is already available on public web servers. I wouldn't want my personal email available to the public, but I also wouldn't expect that of a government employee. However, I consider the US government to be my employees, and I should be able to review most of what they are doing without any problem, and I would especially want to know if my employees were breaking the law.
That they might actually be withholding them for a good reason?
This seems to be a common strawman related to this issue. But Greenwald never said that Wired needs to release the full chat logs. Here is what he actually said based on the fact that Lamo has been making claims which are not supported by the released chat logs:
What they ought to do, at the absolute minimum, is post the portions of the chat logs about which Lamo had made public statements or make clear that they do not exist. . . . Poulsen could also provide Lamo -- who claims he is no longer in possession of them -- with a copy of the chat logs (which Lamo gave him) so that journalists quoting Lamo about Manning's statements could see the actual evidence rather than relying on Lamo's claims.
That's a nice ad hominem attack on Greenwald, but it's not really relevant to the discussion. He presents a pretty solid case that at least some of the unreleased chat logs should be released to either confirm or deny claims being made by Lamo.
Maybe Wired just isn't following the new norm of shooting their mouth off without all the facts and are, you know, checking the sources and considering what the repercussions might be.
Tell that to Bradley Manning.
How would publishing the remaining chat logs "out his source"? Are you referring to Bradley Manning? He's already been outed by Lamo and Poulson. Greenwald in TFA seems to suspect that the remaining chat logs could provide information that would help Manning and possibly Wikileaks. This seems like something they would want to release.
Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months. And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.
He slows the presentation to show World War 1 and the Spanish Flu epidemic but he didn't mention the Cultural Revolution in China during the 60's when the large circle representing China takes a HUGE dive.
The Culteral Revolution in China didn't begin until 1966, after China was on it's way back up. It was actually the Great Leap Forward that put many Chinese on the verge of starvation. Then during 1958-1961 several natural disasters occurred which, when combined with the existing problems, resulted in the Great Chinese Famine.
That's not entirely correct. The huge number of deaths in China during that time were part of the Great Chinese Famine. The years leading up to that point were part of the Great Leap Forward which was a disastrous set of government policies in which agricultural output greatly decreased and put a lot of people on the verge of starvation. Several natural disasters did occur between 1958 and 1961, but these only exacerbated the existing problem.
Wikileaks simply dumped the entire contents onto the web. So far there hasn't been anything really damning about them, except the fact that diplomatic relationships are now shattered across the world.
Why do people keep repeating this complete falsehood? A 30 second visit to wikileaks site and you can see that they have released less than 2000 of the 25000 total cables. Of these 2000 most were released by a major newspaper first, and wikileaks included the same redactions that the newspapers included. Yes, these have shown "damning" information. The difference now vs. pentagon papers is that the wikileaks information damns both parties, and in the mainstream US media if both parties agree then it must be true (Iraq war?). Here is a short list of new revelations found just from the cables (not including the previous wikileaks releases) [1]
(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;
(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;
(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");
(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";
(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;
(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;
(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;
(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,
(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.
[1]http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/lieberman/index.html
Whose speech is being suppressed?
Wikileaks? Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are closely related.
Whose newspapers have been shutdown?
Again, Wikileaks. They may not be a newspaper in the traditional sense, but they are certainly part of the press. They analyse the information they release and write articles. Contrary to mainstream media belief, Wilileaks actually reads and redacts stuff before releasing it.
This isn't about free speech, period. This is about a giant classified document dump.
Less than 2000 of the more than 250,000 diplomatic cables have been released. The majority of these were first released by one of the large newspapers (New York Times, etc) first. Wikileaks included the same redactions included by the newspapers. How can that be considered a "giant classified document dump"?
If you want to make the argument that governments should have no secrets at all, that diplomats should have no confidential communications at all, then say that. But quit saying that this is a freedom of speech case.
Nice straw-man, no rational person is saying governments should have no secrets. The issue here is government law-breaking which was exposed, and they are now trying to cover up.
I take that back, after some more testing, it seems that rotten tomatoes knows when I am logged in to facebook whether or not I have thirdparty cookies enabled. So either Chrome is not really turning off thirdparty cookies, or facebook/rottentomatoes is using something different to track me.
I'm sure they have multiple methods of tracking going on, but the behaviour of the facebook button on rottentomatoes changes depending on whether you have thirdparty cookies enabled or not in Firefox. You can verify it by first logging in to facebook, then playing with the setting above and loading the rottentomatoes site.
I'm not sure what the behaviour would be based on that setting. Since in this case facebook isn't setting any new cookies when you visit rottentomatoes, it's just reading existing ones. Try logging in to facebook, then go to rottentomatoes.com and see if it knows who you are.
You do need to be logged in to facebook, I just meant that I hadn't logged in to rottentomatoes or linked the accounts in any way. Chrome has a setting called "Block all third-party cookies without exception", I think this is turned off by default. To reproduce this, uncheck that setting in Chrome, or the equivalent setting in Firefox, then log into facebook. Then visit the rottentomatoes page, and it will show your facebook account and customize the page based on info from facebook.
Disabling thirdparty cookies in Firefox seemed to fix the problem for me. Now non-facebook sites can't tell who I am on facebook. I'm not sure why this is not the default setting for Firefox and other browsers.
I only recently discovered facebook's instant personalization "feature". I went to rottentomatoes and it showed movies that my facebook friends liked. This seems very inappropriate to me because how did rottentomatoes know who I am in facebook, without logging in or doing any kind of verification. Apparently rottentomatoes uses thirdparty cookies to fetch your facebook info and display it. This seems to mean that potentially any website can check who you are in facebook (if you are currently logged in). I was able to turn off this feature by disabling thirdparty cookies in Firefox.
More than anything this seems like a big privacy leak and is the fault of the browsers. This should be off by default in firefox and other browsers. If I go to rottentomatoes.com, I would expect that by Firefox would only send cookies back to rottentomatoes and should not even allow read access to other cookies while I'm on that page. The same goes for flash plugins and other scripts, etc. that read cookies, they should only have read access to the cookies for the current page.
You should at least put a link to the source when you copy and paste a large section of someone else's article. I won't bother to post a point by point refutation of this article because someone else already did.
What I would personally like to see is someone with a young child, preferably female that instructs their child to start screaming if anyone touches their genitals.
It already happened. The mom didn't have to instruct the 3 year old girl to start screaming, she did that all by herself.
The difference in auto insurance is that normally only liability insurance is required. If you choose to not purchase healthcare you are putting the risk on yourself. I'm not completely against the new healthcare legislation, but requiring everyone to purchase insurance seems pretty clearly to be a handout to the health insurance companies to give them more customers and more money which results in even more influence in Washington.
Aw, that's the best you have? I thought you might actually think of a solution. But yeah, if the Palestinians could make a credible commitment of peace, then there would be a settlement within a year. The Israelis withdrew from Gaza, after all, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't also withdraw from Palestine. Most people don't want to fight. How to deal with people who do want to fight, like the Palestinians, or the Serbian forces, is the major difficulty of world peace.
Every year Isrealis kill more Palestinians than vice versa. So "how to deal with people who do want to fight", like the Israelis, is the major difficulty in this conflict. Resolving a conflict is always the responsibility of the side in power. Just compare the Isreali military to the handful of Palestinian terrorists and it's obvious which side could end the conflict if they wanted to.
? What does the national debt have to do with kids working for a dollar an hour at age 12? In any case, as you can see from this chart, something needs to be done about healthcare. Even if we cut the military completely, it will still be quite expensive. And I'm not opposed to cutting the military completely.
The previous poster was being sarcastic about child labor if you couldn't tell. The point being made is that all of the things we spend money on contribute to our debt. We can continue the wars, or we can continue providing healthcare, education, etc. to the public. The most striking thing about the chart you provided is not the increase in Medicare spending, but the increase in payments on the national debt. To me, this means we have to cut spending and raise taxes ASAP to prevent complete financial collapse in the future. If we do this now, it could be reasonable to maintain our current level of public health services. If we don't raise taxes and cut spending to address our deficit/debt soon, we are fucked.
They wanted to negotiate after the bombs were already falling. Was there any reason in particular to trust them at that point? I mean, I'm not going to deny that the Afghanistan war was conducted horribly, but I have no love for the Taliban. Afghanistan is better without them.
So once the bombs are falling it's too late for them to surrender? We have to stay the course and bomb them into oblivion because they might not be trustworthy enough? Sorry, I completely disagree with that. If the offer was available at any time to potentially end what has become the longest war in American history, we should have taken it
This reminds me of the quote from Edsger Dijkstra - "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim". I agree that saying this software is "learning" is somewhat misleading. It's similar to Human learning in some ways, but after looking at some of it's tweets, it's not much to brag about.
This could be a new form of Turing test? Once a computer can make tweets that are indistinguishable from Human tweets, does that mean it can think?