Quite simply, that a democratic society can't function without privacy. Did you read TFA?
I find it odd that the NSA would give a fuck about Groklaw.
You lack imagination. The NSA has the content of all of Groklaw's communications. Anyone with political pull can get that data and use it however they wish. NSA claims they can't, of course, but "haven't yet" and "never will" are two very different things.
I don't particularly care to be involved in Groklaw's political crusades
Evidently you don't know much about Groklaw, but it doesn't matter. PJ's "political crusades" (your words) are over.
"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Anyone who thinks that new technology for voting will improve transparency, inclusion, and accountability has not been keeping up with the news. Or bothered to search the EFF web site.
Or is his platform, "Oh, never mind the past! We'll get it right *this* time!"
The people in leadership positions in the USA (government and corporate) are all idiots.
Not all all. They are performing very well -- only at jobs different from the one they are supposed to be doing. Specifically, graft, blackmail, and racketeering.
Expecting him to pay is not the only reason to order $600K in damages. For example, Sony may gain some kind of financial advantage (tax or similar) from being able to say they have a $600K uncollectable debt instead of $600K in unplanned IT expenses. (I Am Not an Accountant)
I applaud the value you place on education. In certain countries, education is probably the most cost-effective way to improve the human condition. Yet I recall the justification for school-lunch programs in my state: a child is ill-prepared to receive education if he is hungry. Similarly, someone who has been disabled by polio or suffers frequent malaria episodes isn't ready for education.
Really you can't lift the masses out of poverty without providing both public health and education. So I'm not saying you are wrong.
If the attacker's objective is something fungible like credit-card data, then he may, indeed, shrug and move on to an easier target after his first several attacks fail. Why would he waste time on a locked door when there is probably an unlocked house next door? (Figuratively speaking, of course.)
If the attacker's motivation is specifically against *you*, say politically-motivated attacks like Anonymous makes or industrial espionage, then the bar for the defender is a lot higher because the attacker can't improve his progress toward goals by attacking someone else.
So how much effort you should expend on defense depends on your threat model.
If you're suggesting that a female lead character would make for inherently more interesting stories than a male lead character, then who's being politically incorrect? (pun intended)
Nostalgia. Try a couple of the Tom Baker episodes from the 1970s: say The Talons of Weng-Chiang, The Ark in Space, or Genesis of the Daleks. If you don't like those, then Doctor Who is probably just not for you. (I cannot recommend anything from the more recent seasons because I haven't gone out of my way to find them in the US.)
If you are looking for great production values and special effects, the Doctor Who is definitely not for you. It's always been campy, yet cerebral. Much like classic Star Trek, the merit lies in colorful characters and intelligent themes.
Even in the good old days, there were bad scripts mixed in with the good. That's going to happen in a series that runs for 33 years.
We learn how to act, and how to accept things, through our fiction
That rather over-emphasizes the importance of fiction. I learned how to act, and how to accept things, from my parents and peers -- you know, the REAL WORLD. Most people do.
Unlike a soldier, a civilian employee can resign without repercussions. So you could always choose to say "shove it" rather than accept an unacceptable assignment.
Work for the NSA, doing what? The NSA does more than one thing. I'd be more than happy to work on developing next-generation crypto algorithms, for example. There is probably some work at the NSA that's compatible with my view of the law and common decency -- and much that is not.
I was with you right up until you said "the data just doesn't show any major problem." What data have you examined? And need I point out that absence of proof is not proof of absence? For example, data didn't show absestos was harmful until someone started actually collecting data.
These words ending in "-illion" all sound too much alike. Let's try scientific notation. TFA says TET will save 2x10^7 dollars. The Navy budget is approximately 1.6x10^11 dollars.
So this savings is, roughly, 0.01% of the Navy budget. It's like a developer who makes $100K/year saving 10 bucks over the year. It's worth doing, but I wouldn't call it a windfall.
Taking a lazy shortcut to say in three words what would require ten words to say accurately and unambiguously is not a mark of a living language. It's a mark of an incompetent writer.
It depends on what your objectives are. If you want to make the human race resilient to a major catastrophe Earth (say a dinosaur-killing meteor) then a few city-sized colonies throughout the solar system will suffice, and I agree that's quite plausible. If you want to provide a high quality of life for as much of the population as possible, then moving everyone to greener pastures is not really an option. I was just trying to argue against the assumption that colonizing space and sustaining most of the population on Earth are somehow mutually exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite simply, that a democratic society can't function without privacy. Did you read TFA?
You lack imagination. The NSA has the content of all of Groklaw's communications. Anyone with political pull can get that data and use it however they wish. NSA claims they can't, of course, but "haven't yet" and "never will" are two very different things.
Evidently you don't know much about Groklaw, but it doesn't matter. PJ's "political crusades" (your words) are over.
You estimate of Tor's privacy is higher than mine, and, evidently, PJ's.
I believe it was Bob Dylan who came up with the words you need to hear right now: "Just because you like my stuff, doesn't mean I owe you anything."
You're free to disapprove of PJ's choice, of course, but can you do it without sounding quite so petulant and self-entitled?
Where do you recommend we go?
I feel PJ is making an important statement, more convincing than anything I've seen yet.
At a defining crossroads. My fellow Americans, now is the worst possible moment to wimp out.
Let me pull out a rhetorical stick I've been beaten with more than once: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Show me the evidence that ressurecting a dead organism of any kind -- even a bacterium, even a plant -- will ever be possible. *Ever.*
(crickets chirp ...)
"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Anyone who thinks that new technology for voting will improve transparency, inclusion, and accountability has not been keeping up with the news. Or bothered to search the EFF web site.
Or is his platform, "Oh, never mind the past! We'll get it right *this* time!"
Not all all. They are performing very well -- only at jobs different from the one they are supposed to be doing. Specifically, graft, blackmail, and racketeering.
Expecting him to pay is not the only reason to order $600K in damages. For example, Sony may gain some kind of financial advantage (tax or similar) from being able to say they have a $600K uncollectable debt instead of $600K in unplanned IT expenses. (I Am Not an Accountant)
It would mean war with the backward, barbaric shitheads who are trying to take over the Muslim world. There's a difference.
I applaud the value you place on education. In certain countries, education is probably the most cost-effective way to improve the human condition. Yet I recall the justification for school-lunch programs in my state: a child is ill-prepared to receive education if he is hungry. Similarly, someone who has been disabled by polio or suffers frequent malaria episodes isn't ready for education.
Really you can't lift the masses out of poverty without providing both public health and education. So I'm not saying you are wrong.
If the attacker's objective is something fungible like credit-card data, then he may, indeed, shrug and move on to an easier target after his first several attacks fail. Why would he waste time on a locked door when there is probably an unlocked house next door? (Figuratively speaking, of course.)
If the attacker's motivation is specifically against *you*, say politically-motivated attacks like Anonymous makes or industrial espionage, then the bar for the defender is a lot higher because the attacker can't improve his progress toward goals by attacking someone else.
So how much effort you should expend on defense depends on your threat model.
If you're suggesting that a female lead character would make for inherently more interesting stories than a male lead character, then who's being politically incorrect? (pun intended)
Nostalgia. Try a couple of the Tom Baker episodes from the 1970s: say The Talons of Weng-Chiang, The Ark in Space, or Genesis of the Daleks. If you don't like those, then Doctor Who is probably just not for you. (I cannot recommend anything from the more recent seasons because I haven't gone out of my way to find them in the US.)
If you are looking for great production values and special effects, the Doctor Who is definitely not for you. It's always been campy, yet cerebral. Much like classic Star Trek, the merit lies in colorful characters and intelligent themes.
Even in the good old days, there were bad scripts mixed in with the good. That's going to happen in a series that runs for 33 years.
That rather over-emphasizes the importance of fiction. I learned how to act, and how to accept things, from my parents and peers -- you know, the REAL WORLD. Most people do.
A government official advising against a course of action because he fears a terrorist response is proof that terrorism works.
Fear that you'll be denied care if you fail to provide it.
Unlike a soldier, a civilian employee can resign without repercussions. So you could always choose to say "shove it" rather than accept an unacceptable assignment.
Work for the NSA, doing what? The NSA does more than one thing. I'd be more than happy to work on developing next-generation crypto algorithms, for example. There is probably some work at the NSA that's compatible with my view of the law and common decency -- and much that is not.
I was with you right up until you said "the data just doesn't show any major problem." What data have you examined? And need I point out that absence of proof is not proof of absence? For example, data didn't show absestos was harmful until someone started actually collecting data.
These words ending in "-illion" all sound too much alike. Let's try scientific notation. TFA says TET will save 2x10^7 dollars. The Navy budget is approximately 1.6x10^11 dollars.
So this savings is, roughly, 0.01% of the Navy budget. It's like a developer who makes $100K/year saving 10 bucks over the year. It's worth doing, but I wouldn't call it a windfall.
Taking a lazy shortcut to say in three words what would require ten words to say accurately and unambiguously is not a mark of a living language. It's a mark of an incompetent writer.
It depends on what your objectives are. If you want to make the human race resilient to a major catastrophe Earth (say a dinosaur-killing meteor) then a few city-sized colonies throughout the solar system will suffice, and I agree that's quite plausible. If you want to provide a high quality of life for as much of the population as possible, then moving everyone to greener pastures is not really an option. I was just trying to argue against the assumption that colonizing space and sustaining most of the population on Earth are somehow mutually exclusive.