I highly, highly doubt that most people (even kids) aren't capable of distinguishing between reality and porn. But even if someone isn't capable of doing that, a five second talk would likely suffice;
Kids learn by watching and doing. I think you are exceptionally naive to believe that a "5 second talk" could undo the kind of subconscious effect that watching porn over an extended period of time would have absent realistic sexual role models.
I'm as anti censorship as they come. But head-in-the-sand denial of human nature is exactly the kind of thinking that the worst of the pro-censorship people use. Don't be the other side of that coin.
We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology.
It isn't so obviously wrong. Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex. If they get a warped view of violence, it won't really affect their lives. If they get a warped view of sex (and nearly all porn is a production, not real sex) then that could screw up their ability to have sexual intimacy for the rest of their lives.
I doubt that's how the censors see it, but a broken clock is still right twice a day.
The question to ask is what has changed? Why was it no big deal to blow off hoax threats 15 years ago but it isn't OK now? I'm pretty sure the number of actual threats hasn't increased - if it is like most crime, it's significantly decreased over that time period.
So what happened? Why is hysteria the default rather than reason?
With an honest president, this guy would get a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
With an honest president the programs would have been shut down upon his taking office like he promised. Snowden even cited the president's lack of follow-through (to put it delicately) as a major motivation for his decision to take action.
Dude you are one of the most consistent posters on slashdot. Anybody who reads you knows exactly how your pea brain works - that's how this whole sub-thread got started.
And for you to speak of humility is hilarious, your only sense of humility comes from the position you perceive yourself inhabiting in the social hierarchy which isn't humility at all, it's just sycophancy. I'm pretty sure you are incapable of experiencing humility - shame and embarrassment definitely, that's why you keep responding with such defensiveness ("personal attack" lol) to people you perceive as equal or lower than you in the social hierarchy, but actual humility, not so much.
I bet it is easier for automated testing. This way they don't need to connect any external equipment to measure if the LED works, just ask the microcontroller in the camera to run an internal diagnostic that checks the the voltage level on the lines to the LED.
Far simpler for the manufacturer to wake up to what is going on and provide a sliding lens cover and that means you, you big screen smart TV designers.
There are a ton of 3rd party sliding covers out there for under $10 a piece, google will find them for you no problem.
But what I haven't seen yet is one that doesn't just black out the camera, but instead puts a photo in front of the camera. Imagine a camera slide that forces anyone spying on you to see goatse.cx instead. Just deserts.
Please, please, please, somebody steal those wallets. What are the chances they haven't been secured correctly? All it takes is some bureaucratic error resulting in bad opsec and some thieves with big balls of steel and we'll have the bitcoin story of the year.
Not at all. You simply fail to comprehend. Note the "or" between "rank" and "office".
Pure intellectual dishonesty. If you honestly think you are making a meaningful point by trying to disclaim ownership of your own words then you've got some serious problems with hypocrisy.
it is respect as in decorum and courtesy. In other words you behave yourself when at a meeting with the president.
He deserves no more respect than some joe off the street. If you think some joe off the street doesn't deserve "decorum and courtesy" then you really are an asshole.
I take your point, but the problem is how you assign a cost to the one time that a bomb does go off and the building wasn't evacuated.
No, that cost is pretty clear. The part that requires thinking is assigning the cost of the 99 false positives (or really, given how few actual bombings we have, its more like 999+ false positives).
I'm not saying there is a magic way to figure out the one time the bomb threat is real. What I am saying is that there are ways to rationally conclude that a bomb threat is probably a hoax while still being cautious. If you can cut down those false positives by 75% while still leaving a good margin of error that's a big win.
I expect at some point the flaws in your understanding will become clear to you.
I am constantly finding flaws in my understanding, that's how I went from a teenager who thought exactly the way you do to someone with a lot more perspective today.
When you are in charge, rational thing to do is to take threat seriously amd act on it.
Why? Because... your life would be instantly ruined
Funny how you used exactly the same fallacious reasoning and terminology I was criticizing. You've just demonstrated my exact point that "seriously" equals "total freakout." When you are in charge and you freakout there is no cost for you to bear, if you spin it right you get to be the hero. Meanwhile the costs of your freakout are carried by everyone else.
That's why I wrote "rank or office". The Presidency is an office.
So the reference to military and the use of the term "rank" was just random verbiage, not at all indicative of anything. The lowest form of intellectual dishonesty is to deny the obvious meaning of one's own words and instead hide behind technicalities.
Again, reading comprehension. I wrote that one shows respect to the office not the person temporarily holding the office.
Right back at you asshole. If the qualifications for attaining the office are disreputable than the office itself holds no inherent respect. This isn't a case of reading comprehension, it is a case of you being so trapped in your own world view you can't conceive of any other interpretations of the facts.
If you receive a bomb threat, it makes sense to follow procedure and evacuate the building even though 99 times out of a 100 the threat is fake.
That is only true in a world in which blindly evacuating a building 99 times has no cost. Rational risk evaluation is about taking into account all factors rather than just the myopia of hysteria.
Guess that's the thing now... show that TOR isn't violated and that each time someone's caught using it demonstrate/create some weakness that explains it.
Unlikely. The reason being that if TOR is compromised then they wouldn't use the compromise for every minor crime because each time they used it, they would risk making the compromise public no matter what cover stories they used.
If the kid had really planted bombs then they probably would go all out. But it was just a hoax, not worth risking a major intelligence asset for such a trivial crime.
Flash forward 20 years -- I get a dog, a little Chihuahua that lives inside my house. I'm sure his hair and dander is all over the place and I breathe it in every day.
Your experience does not fit the hypothesis. The way it is understood to work is that as a child you develop resistance with the right exposure, but once you are a teen or older, exposure doesn't help you all that much, it only stimulates the allergic response.
We can either live in a future where little jackwagons can effect a denial-of-service attack on society, or we can spank the crap out of the idiots so that this kind of noise is minimized.
OR we can stop over-reacting and instead apply a rational evaluation of the facts. This knee-jerk "all threats must be taken seriously" where "seriously" really means "total freakout" is the vulnerability here.
You know, it's really quite sad how not only you enjoy licking the boots of authority,
I think some people honestly believe in social hierarchy. That by "knowing their place" in the hierarchy they are doing their duty to society -- for them, hierarchy is synonymous with society and that an attack on the hierarchy is an attack on society. I suspect that they believe that as long as they stick to it, they will move up in that hierarchy too. I think it is a profoundly authoritarian world-view, but I've seen it so often I think it must be a sort genetic personality type. Just look at how highly rated that post was. Clearly lots of people hold a similar view.
I'm going with the military tradition that you show respect to the rank or office not the man temporarily holding it.
What a terrible, delusional way to see civilian government. We don't have rank. There are no "superior officers." People who hold office in america didn't get there through honorable service, they did it by winning a popularity contest by spending the money of donors they are now beholden to..
Slashdot Mirror
How much time has passed since marathon bombings, pray tell?
I'm curious what did the boston bombers write in their bomb threat? Could you quote it for me?
I highly, highly doubt that most people (even kids) aren't capable of distinguishing between reality and porn. But even if someone isn't capable of doing that, a five second talk would likely suffice;
Kids learn by watching and doing. I think you are exceptionally naive to believe that a "5 second talk" could undo the kind of subconscious effect that watching porn over an extended period of time would have absent realistic sexual role models.
I'm as anti censorship as they come. But head-in-the-sand denial of human nature is exactly the kind of thinking that the worst of the pro-censorship people use. Don't be the other side of that coin.
We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology.
It isn't so obviously wrong. Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex. If they get a warped view of violence, it won't really affect their lives. If they get a warped view of sex (and nearly all porn is a production, not real sex) then that could screw up their ability to have sexual intimacy for the rest of their lives.
I doubt that's how the censors see it, but a broken clock is still right twice a day.
The question to ask is what has changed? Why was it no big deal to blow off hoax threats 15 years ago but it isn't OK now? I'm pretty sure the number of actual threats hasn't increased - if it is like most crime, it's significantly decreased over that time period.
So what happened? Why is hysteria the default rather than reason?
I disclaim nothing.
Wow dispute of inconvenient meaning based on technicalities seems to be your go to move.
Straw man. No one said to treat an ordinary person on the street rudely.
Hhhm, and just where did anyone say to treat the president rudely?
With an honest president, this guy would get a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
With an honest president the programs would have been shut down upon his taking office like he promised. Snowden even cited the president's lack of follow-through (to put it delicately) as a major motivation for his decision to take action.
Dude you are one of the most consistent posters on slashdot. Anybody who reads you knows exactly how your pea brain works - that's how this whole sub-thread got started.
And for you to speak of humility is hilarious, your only sense of humility comes from the position you perceive yourself inhabiting in the social hierarchy which isn't humility at all, it's just sycophancy. I'm pretty sure you are incapable of experiencing humility - shame and embarrassment definitely, that's why you keep responding with such defensiveness ("personal attack" lol) to people you perceive as equal or lower than you in the social hierarchy, but actual humility, not so much.
I bet it is easier for automated testing. This way they don't need to connect any external equipment to measure if the LED works, just ask the microcontroller in the camera to run an internal diagnostic that checks the the voltage level on the lines to the LED.
Far simpler for the manufacturer to wake up to what is going on and provide a sliding lens cover and that means you, you big screen smart TV designers.
There are a ton of 3rd party sliding covers out there for under $10 a piece, google will find them for you no problem.
But what I haven't seen yet is one that doesn't just black out the camera, but instead puts a photo in front of the camera. Imagine a camera slide that forces anyone spying on you to see goatse.cx instead. Just deserts.
Please, please, please, somebody steal those wallets. What are the chances they haven't been secured correctly? All it takes is some bureaucratic error resulting in bad opsec and some thieves with big balls of steel and we'll have the bitcoin story of the year.
Not at all. You simply fail to comprehend. Note the "or" between "rank" and "office".
Pure intellectual dishonesty. If you honestly think you are making a meaningful point by trying to disclaim ownership of your own words then you've got some serious problems with hypocrisy.
it is respect as in decorum and courtesy. In other words you behave yourself when at a meeting with the president.
He deserves no more respect than some joe off the street. If you think some joe off the street doesn't deserve "decorum and courtesy" then you really are an asshole.
I take your point, but the problem is how you assign a cost to the one time that a bomb does go off and the building wasn't evacuated.
No, that cost is pretty clear. The part that requires thinking is assigning the cost of the 99 false positives (or really, given how few actual bombings we have, its more like 999+ false positives).
I'm not saying there is a magic way to figure out the one time the bomb threat is real. What I am saying is that there are ways to rationally conclude that a bomb threat is probably a hoax while still being cautious. If you can cut down those false positives by 75% while still leaving a good margin of error that's a big win.
I expect at some point the flaws in your understanding will become clear to you.
I am constantly finding flaws in my understanding, that's how I went from a teenager who thought exactly the way you do to someone with a lot more perspective today.
Yes, the person who understands your point of view and realizes the world is larger than that is exactly the same as you. 2 equals 1.
When you are in charge, rational thing to do is to take threat seriously amd act on it.
Why? Because ... your life would be instantly ruined
Funny how you used exactly the same fallacious reasoning and terminology I was criticizing. You've just demonstrated my exact point that "seriously" equals "total freakout." When you are in charge and you freakout there is no cost for you to bear, if you spin it right you get to be the hero. Meanwhile the costs of your freakout are carried by everyone else.
Yes, because no one would ever actually bomb a large gathering of many innocent people in Boston.
Oh, wait...
And what was the threat that the bombers sent beforehand?
Oh, wait...
That's why I wrote "rank or office". The Presidency is an office.
So the reference to military and the use of the term "rank" was just random verbiage, not at all indicative of anything. The lowest form of intellectual dishonesty is to deny the obvious meaning of one's own words and instead hide behind technicalities.
Again, reading comprehension. I wrote that one shows respect to the office not the person temporarily holding the office.
Right back at you asshole. If the qualifications for attaining the office are disreputable than the office itself holds no inherent respect. This isn't a case of reading comprehension, it is a case of you being so trapped in your own world view you can't conceive of any other interpretations of the facts.
If you receive a bomb threat, it makes sense to follow procedure and evacuate the building even though 99 times out of a 100 the threat is fake.
That is only true in a world in which blindly evacuating a building 99 times has no cost. Rational risk evaluation is about taking into account all factors rather than just the myopia of hysteria.
Acknowledging that isn't a "profoundly authoritarian world view" but a simple accommodation of fact, of reality.
Lol. Blind man proclaims world is dark.
Yeah. Like telling people to just go back to their offices, because these buildings can take a couple airplanes flying into them.
If you seriously think that is an example of rational thought then lets hope you are never in a position of power or authority.
Here's an accurate example of irrational evaluation - the boston police losing their shit over a bunch of lite-brites.
Guess that's the thing now... show that TOR isn't violated and that each time someone's caught using it demonstrate/create some weakness that explains it.
Unlikely. The reason being that if TOR is compromised then they wouldn't use the compromise for every minor crime because each time they used it, they would risk making the compromise public no matter what cover stories they used.
If the kid had really planted bombs then they probably would go all out. But it was just a hoax, not worth risking a major intelligence asset for such a trivial crime.
Flash forward 20 years -- I get a dog, a little Chihuahua that lives inside my house. I'm sure his hair and dander is all over the place and I breathe it in every day.
Your experience does not fit the hypothesis. The way it is understood to work is that as a child you develop resistance with the right exposure, but once you are a teen or older, exposure doesn't help you all that much, it only stimulates the allergic response.
We can either live in a future where little jackwagons can effect a denial-of-service attack on society, or we can spank the crap out of the idiots so that this kind of noise is minimized.
OR we can stop over-reacting and instead apply a rational evaluation of the facts. This knee-jerk "all threats must be taken seriously" where "seriously" really means "total freakout" is the vulnerability here.
You know, it's really quite sad how not only you enjoy licking the boots of authority,
I think some people honestly believe in social hierarchy. That by "knowing their place" in the hierarchy they are doing their duty to society -- for them, hierarchy is synonymous with society and that an attack on the hierarchy is an attack on society. I suspect that they believe that as long as they stick to it, they will move up in that hierarchy too. I think it is a profoundly authoritarian world-view, but I've seen it so often I think it must be a sort genetic personality type. Just look at how highly rated that post was. Clearly lots of people hold a similar view.
I'm going with the military tradition that you show respect to the rank or office not the man temporarily holding it.
What a terrible, delusional way to see civilian government. We don't have rank. There are no "superior officers." People who hold office in america didn't get there through honorable service, they did it by winning a popularity contest by spending the money of donors they are now beholden to..