That costs more money than lobbying Congress to change the rules in their favor. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders *not* to fund education if there is a cheaper way to fill up the cube farm.
The point I was trying to make that those FDIC regulations protect your account balance: whether the guarantee comes from the government or the bank is hard to sort out, because both have obligations that contribute to the guarantee.
It is theoretically possible to do the same thing with email privacy. Imagine if the FCC required Internet service providers to provide reasonable safeguards on privacy, instead of requiring them to violate it. Would that be a better world?
But the bottom line is if you are storing your data on other people's equipment, you have no guarantee of anything.
You have whatever guarantee the law and/or lawful contract provides. If you keep your money in a bank account (not a deposit box) then you are trusting the bank's guarantee they will not tamper with your balance. In most countries, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect.
You are not going to get very far in life without trusting your data to someone else's server. For instance, you can't file taxes...
The "expectation of privacy" argument is bogus anyway. Here's how it works:
1. Government violates citizens' privacy in {airport, government building, email, whatever}
2. Citizens expect government to violate privacy elsewhere based on pattern of past abuse
3. Government justifies next abuse of privacy based on 2.
If I wanted to prove by mathematical induction that there is no such thing as privacy, this is how I would do it. What part of:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
is so hard for the courts to understand? It seems the only wiggle room is what's "unreasonable," and I thought once upon a time that meant "without a warrant."
In order for there to be a next major cyberattack, there must have been a last major cyberattack. When was that?
Seriously, what constitutes a "cyberattack"? Does it have to be nation-state sponsored, or does a lone script kiddie count? What is the threshold to make it "major"? Does it have to kill more people than 9/11, or is installing an unwanted browser toolbar enough?
Depending on what your definitions are, a "major cyberattack" might be unlikely to ever happen, or it could be happening *right now*!:-)
I know I am extraordinarily bad at key management. I also know I have lots of company in that. I have not had much luck in finding good guidance until now. I look forward to one day understanding what the smart folks at the IETF have to say about it! (That day will not be today. It takes a while to digest an RFC, for me at least.)
Seriously. I'm glad you enjoyed Season 4, but to me there was a sharp drop in both the plausibility of the plot events, and the amount of character development. Season 4 had way too much plot, crammed in, and Season 5 not enough. (Tracy Scoggins is hot but that was not enough to carry me through the whole season.)
You must be new here. Lots of Slashdotters are interested in politics and especially the intersection of public policy and personal liberty.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of Ms. Thatcher, but I think the analysis of any Cold War leader ought to be a little more nuanced than "she was terrible." Can you at least elaborate on the suffering and misery she caused? Many of us are across the pond, too young, and/or have short memories.
Well, I believe Machiavelli wrote a separate book on republics, which I haven't read, but the closest relevant chapter in _the Prince_ is probablyChapter IX, where he says:
Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity.
I'm aware that Machiavelli's name is a synonym for ruthlessness, but if you actually read what he wrote, there's a lot more to it than that. He wrote a lot about the importance of gaining and keeping the people's support. So, I do not think Kissinger by and large took the right lessons from Machiavelli. Now, Lyndon Johnson, *there's* a true student of Machiavelli!
Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that.
My initial reaction was to think, "at least he admits it, privately."
After I thought about it for a half a minute, this quotation made my day. I realized that the people of the United States had passed a law that put a man like that in fear. Add one point in the "democracy" column!
This is not a new thing. The US has a Bill of Rights for a reason -- direct experience of government without it. If only the citizens would keep that in mind...
TFA is an interesting article about a physicist apparently discovering an inherent contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The "black hole" stuff is really just the context that led to the apparent contradiction: the real issue is much deeper than that. It's depressing that the real underlying hypothesis isn't considered newsworthy, and the editor feels the need to lead with the "black hole" stuff.
I have not read the terms of service and privacy policies for iMessage because I don't currently use any iDevices. But I would be very surprised if the terms of service and privacy policies for iMessage gave any reasonable assurances of actual privacy. Most other companies don't.
The reason Christians are called Christians is basically because they consider the parts of the Bible with Christ in them more important than the parts without. Let me know if I'm going too fast for you here.
Now we are getting into distinctions between Christian sects, though. Which takes us back to the original topic, creationism. As far as I can tell there are some sects who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the origin bits. I am not on the same page as those folks, and indeed the largest denominations of Christianity (Catholic, Anglican, maybe Eastern Orthodox) aren't either. The fundamentalist Christians... I don't know how they manage.
No, I'm suggesting that the Golden Rule is central to Christianity, and you find that idea appealing, then you have something in common with Christians.
If you re-read carefully my comment, you will find no hate, nor any indication that I am upset in any way.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "fuck Christianity." Maybe in the future you can be more clear.
Where did you get the idea that nonbelievers only live for themselves?
I don't have that idea, and I don't believe I expressed it. I'm sorry if I did! I've definitely heard it expressed but it's a load of crap. I think the Bible-thumpers who say things like that are looking for reasons to hate the other team, and then taking some very select passages out of context to justify the hate. It's possibly the worst problem Christianity as an institution has, and needs reform. It pisses me off. If you want to talk about the shortcomings of Christianity, this is going to be a long conversation.
We may disagree less than you think. I think the bad influence comes not from the book, but from the people who thump it instead of reading it, and use that to justify whatever their baser instincts tell them. I'm not sure whether they outnumber the people who do their best to live by it, but their influence is probably more visible.:-(
You're probably big enough to decide for yourself what's good and bad.
Sure, but I don't have the hubris to think that my uninformed whims and impulses are the best possible moral decisions anyone could make. So it's useful to have a handbook, even a set of fairy tales as you put it, to put things in perspective.
I'm not asking you to come to Jesus or anything. I'm just asking you to dial back the contempt a little, and recognize that like it or not, that 2000 year old book of fairy tales has had a profound and enduring influence on Western civilization. And even to entertain the possibility that its influence was not all bad.
Yeah, tell me something I don't know. Christians have a special word for not following that advice: "sin." It turns out to be not the easiest advice to follow. But I fail to see how somebody who tries to do it, and fails, is worse than one who doesn't try.
Well said! I would give you about 100 mod points for that phrase alone, if I could. (You've explained sectarian conflicts like the Troubles in Northern Ireland, or the Sunni-Shiite mess in Iraq, in three words.)
Slashdot Mirror
That costs more money than lobbying Congress to change the rules in their favor. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders *not* to fund education if there is a cheaper way to fill up the cube farm.
I have tried it both ways and I am *never* going back to PC gaming. PC games are always buggy. Console games just work.
And if you think PC games are free of odious DRM, then you don't understand what Steam really is.
The point I was trying to make that those FDIC regulations protect your account balance: whether the guarantee comes from the government or the bank is hard to sort out, because both have obligations that contribute to the guarantee.
It is theoretically possible to do the same thing with email privacy. Imagine if the FCC required Internet service providers to provide reasonable safeguards on privacy, instead of requiring them to violate it. Would that be a better world?
You have whatever guarantee the law and/or lawful contract provides. If you keep your money in a bank account (not a deposit box) then you are trusting the bank's guarantee they will not tamper with your balance. In most countries, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect.
You are not going to get very far in life without trusting your data to someone else's server. For instance, you can't file taxes...
The "expectation of privacy" argument is bogus anyway. Here's how it works:
1. Government violates citizens' privacy in {airport, government building, email, whatever}
2. Citizens expect government to violate privacy elsewhere based on pattern of past abuse
3. Government justifies next abuse of privacy based on 2.
If I wanted to prove by mathematical induction that there is no such thing as privacy, this is how I would do it. What part of:
is so hard for the courts to understand? It seems the only wiggle room is what's "unreasonable," and I thought once upon a time that meant "without a warrant."
In order for there to be a next major cyberattack, there must have been a last major cyberattack. When was that?
Seriously, what constitutes a "cyberattack"? Does it have to be nation-state sponsored, or does a lone script kiddie count? What is the threshold to make it "major"? Does it have to kill more people than 9/11, or is installing an unwanted browser toolbar enough?
Depending on what your definitions are, a "major cyberattack" might be unlikely to ever happen, or it could be happening *right now*! :-)
I know I am extraordinarily bad at key management. I also know I have lots of company in that. I have not had much luck in finding good guidance until now. I look forward to one day understanding what the smart folks at the IETF have to say about it! (That day will not be today. It takes a while to digest an RFC, for me at least.)
Seriously. I'm glad you enjoyed Season 4, but to me there was a sharp drop in both the plausibility of the plot events, and the amount of character development. Season 4 had way too much plot, crammed in, and Season 5 not enough. (Tracy Scoggins is hot but that was not enough to carry me through the whole season.)
You must be new here. Lots of Slashdotters are interested in politics and especially the intersection of public policy and personal liberty.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of Ms. Thatcher, but I think the analysis of any Cold War leader ought to be a little more nuanced than "she was terrible." Can you at least elaborate on the suffering and misery she caused? Many of us are across the pond, too young, and/or have short memories.
Well, I believe Machiavelli wrote a separate book on republics, which I haven't read, but the closest relevant chapter in _the Prince_ is probablyChapter IX, where he says:
I'm aware that Machiavelli's name is a synonym for ruthlessness, but if you actually read what he wrote, there's a lot more to it than that. He wrote a lot about the importance of gaining and keeping the people's support. So, I do not think Kissinger by and large took the right lessons from Machiavelli. Now, Lyndon Johnson, *there's* a true student of Machiavelli!
My initial reaction was to think, "at least he admits it, privately."
After I thought about it for a half a minute, this quotation made my day. I realized that the people of the United States had passed a law that put a man like that in fear. Add one point in the "democracy" column!
This is not a new thing. The US has a Bill of Rights for a reason -- direct experience of government without it. If only the citizens would keep that in mind...
TFA is an interesting article about a physicist apparently discovering an inherent contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The "black hole" stuff is really just the context that led to the apparent contradiction: the real issue is much deeper than that. It's depressing that the real underlying hypothesis isn't considered newsworthy, and the editor feels the need to lead with the "black hole" stuff.
You never know ... throwing away customers worked so well for Netflix!
I have not read the terms of service and privacy policies for iMessage because I don't currently use any iDevices. But I would be very surprised if the terms of service and privacy policies for iMessage gave any reasonable assurances of actual privacy. Most other companies don't.
And "law enforcement" can be either.
Keep reading. You're still in the prologue.
The reason Christians are called Christians is basically because they consider the parts of the Bible with Christ in them more important than the parts without. Let me know if I'm going too fast for you here.
Now we are getting into distinctions between Christian sects, though. Which takes us back to the original topic, creationism. As far as I can tell there are some sects who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the origin bits. I am not on the same page as those folks, and indeed the largest denominations of Christianity (Catholic, Anglican, maybe Eastern Orthodox) aren't either. The fundamentalist Christians ... I don't know how they manage.
No, I'm suggesting that the Golden Rule is central to Christianity, and you find that idea appealing, then you have something in common with Christians.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "fuck Christianity." Maybe in the future you can be more clear.
I don't have that idea, and I don't believe I expressed it. I'm sorry if I did! I've definitely heard it expressed but it's a load of crap. I think the Bible-thumpers who say things like that are looking for reasons to hate the other team, and then taking some very select passages out of context to justify the hate. It's possibly the worst problem Christianity as an institution has, and needs reform. It pisses me off. If you want to talk about the shortcomings of Christianity, this is going to be a long conversation.
We may disagree less than you think. I think the bad influence comes not from the book, but from the people who thump it instead of reading it, and use that to justify whatever their baser instincts tell them. I'm not sure whether they outnumber the people who do their best to live by it, but their influence is probably more visible. :-(
Sure, but I don't have the hubris to think that my uninformed whims and impulses are the best possible moral decisions anyone could make. So it's useful to have a handbook, even a set of fairy tales as you put it, to put things in perspective.
I'm not asking you to come to Jesus or anything. I'm just asking you to dial back the contempt a little, and recognize that like it or not, that 2000 year old book of fairy tales has had a profound and enduring influence on Western civilization. And even to entertain the possibility that its influence was not all bad.
Yeah, tell me something I don't know. Christians have a special word for not following that advice: "sin." It turns out to be not the easiest advice to follow. But I fail to see how somebody who tries to do it, and fails, is worse than one who doesn't try.
So that whole thing about "do unto others as you would have them do to you" is, according to you, complete bullshit and not worth considering?
Well said! I would give you about 100 mod points for that phrase alone, if I could. (You've explained sectarian conflicts like the Troubles in Northern Ireland, or the Sunni-Shiite mess in Iraq, in three words.)