I like being an American, but I can't pretend that I like all Americans. Not when they do stupid shit like this.
Versus doing what? If they genuinely believe that the state has conspired to allow a murder to be unpunished because the victim was black and the murderer was a policeman, and that this kind of thing has gone on for centuries and will carry on, what were they supposed to do which would be more effective? Some sit ins, and a pithy chant would have achieved nothing, these riots are at least bringing the antipathy between some communities and the police to the front pages and maybe they'll be addressed.
2/3rds of Ferguson is black, and you want to use the fact that 1/6th of the grand jury was black to dismiss the argument that there wasn't a potential bias issue...
Just because you can't see most of the infrastructure it doesn't mean that you shouldn't manage it wisely like any other infrastructure, be it water/sewer pipes or power distribution lines
Gettings tens of billions of dollars for it may be the best way to manage it;) It's not like setting up a new, or negotiating a deal with an established, company in a contract that encourages them to invest while stopping them making 'unreasonable' profits is either easy or guaranteed to work as intended. The auction process is handing the government billions, putting multiple competitors into the market and they'll have to pay for their own infrastructure. The auction model for spectrum worked pretty well in the UK, though I do wish they'd sold off some of the spectrum in smaller blocks at regional levels to allow smaller players to get into the market as well.
If that is the most important thing you took from his talk, I have to say, you don't sound like a team player or a valuable employee
If you can't see why British people, or people from any other country, might mock someone who flew into their home country and called them American then you don't sound like a valueable lifeform;)
What do you suggest? That we leave the spectrum unregulated and whomever can put out the most powerful signal in an area gets, degraded by competiting transmissions, control of it? That sounds great, we're all looking for solutions that generate no money for citizens and are virtually unworkable right;)
It's reprehensible that they leverage this incredibly popular brand to teach girls to code when they could be using it to sell Happy Meals and next year's landfill fodder. Shame, shame!
Although I think it's a trade worth making, I don't think the concern should be dismissed in such an out of hand manner. Just because children are being bombarded with branding everywhere else doesn't mean that it's a non-issue putting it somewhere else.
Consider Philae - if it had landed a few meters in another direction it would still be working. If it had been a manned expedition, that wouldn't have been an issue.
For the cost of getting humans to and from an asteroid on a decade long mission (in anything approaching a functional state) we could have sent thousands of unmanned landers. Sending people adds a gigantic cost premium. It's nonsense to suggest the rover mission would have been better with people, it wouldn't have happened with people due to cost, and if we could afford the cost of sending people we could do hundreds of unmanned missions for the same cost as one manned one.
If you're getting something in return, it's NOT a donation. In this case, it is prepayment for early access to a product. Of course, when you get nothing, or something below your expectations, it's more like a ripoff.
It's a crowdfunding platform. Perpetuating the falsehood that it is more than that just encourages more people to put money into the platform expecting more than they should.
Save me the "When Good Men Do Nothing," I have family and other considerations outside Slashdot idealism.
It's a shame you don't see the irony in that statement. If anyone can afford to throw some money at Tor it is the people who don't do anything overly contentious, it's a shame that your cowardice is stopping you from doing relatively safe things now that could protect your freedoms later, at which point doing something about it would be far more dangerous.
Perhaps you'd like to share some, with a reasonable analysis of why they are fake. Seriously, stop imagining the kind of obvious bullshit that works with some in Russia and the odd person elsewhere is going to have any influence. When one side is so obviously wrong, so obviously lying and doing it so incredibly badly even a good attempt to muddy the water would fail and that was a poor attempt at best.
If you were the Ukrainian equivalent of the CIA, and the Russians had started to swat down your military planes like flies, how far would you be willing to go to stop them?
Anythings possible, but given the strong circumstantial evidence against the rebels/Russians I really don't see the need to imagine up implausible conspiracies. Have you see any western news showing blatantly faked evidence that Russia did it? Why is Russian state media so keen to muddy the water that it would put stuff like this out? We know the answer: It suits them to confuse the half informed, ignorant and those wanting to believe it wasn't Russia.
Those sanctions worked great on Iraq... How well are sanctions working out for the north Koreans?
Compared to what? I think the actions of Saddam under the sanction regime look pretty damn good compared to what happened when we decided to use military force to topple him instead, or perhaps you think we should just have buckled and left him to gas the Kurds and conquer Kuwait. I'm yet to see an argument made against sanctions that didn't come from someone who could see beyond the end of their nose, let alone to what the likely consequences of the alternative options were.
Surely that's a pretty puerile way to judge whether to support a cause or not? Personally I think the GNOME team's case is pretty tenuous. An open source organisation, of all organisations, should not be over-reaching in using trademark or copyright protections. I expect a large majority of people interested in the Gnome PoS software will not of heard of GNOME, the ones who have will know enough not to be confused by it. It doesn't seem that Groupon is trying to trade on GNOMEs good reputation, or that GNOME will be disadvantaged by the existence of a tablet app called Gnome so although I have little love for Groupon I would wish to support over-aggressive defence of trademark by GNOME even less.
Basically he seems to think that money buys elections. It helps, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
Both parties do know what to do with it. Massive spending on advertising gives you the edge to establish your narrative on issues (all other things being equal). Take an issue like abortion. It's an emotive issue and a politicians position will decide, or heavily influence, a lot of votes. If you have media dominance then you can influence the perspective of voters either way:
Anti-Abortion: Put on adds about how developed fetuses are at the abortion age limit, horrow stories about parents who regret the decision, graphic images etc
Pro-Choice: Put on adds about women who's lives were saved, who suffered mental anguish due to being forced to have a child as a result of rape, put out stats informing about how undeveloped most fetuses are at abortion.
Money in politics gives those with more money more influence. I think there are arguments for and against and I honestly don't know which is right; though I am in no rush to reform British rules that heavily restrict both funding in politics and lobbying.
Proctor and gamble needs to advertise 24/7/365. Politicians don't.
Orly? Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that politicians that don't advertise or have people advertise on their behalf, in a country that allows it, aren't at a disadvantage vs those that do? Frankly I doubt it, and if you're going to suggest that a large group of people are spending billions for no benefit then I think most people are going to require something approaching a logical argument to back it up.
I agree, which is why I said I could see why in principle allowing this makes sense but in practice it should be opposed because we're crap at controlling abuses of laws like this. That said, I doubt it matters at this point. If they couldn't admit to doing it, they'd still do it and just find a way to keep it secret instead.
What's your point? Could you show me the abundance of doctors who are or should they be excepted from spying as well? Serial killer bankers or should we except them? I can't think of many terrorist fish farmers, we can probably protect them as well right?
The issue has fuck all to do with whether lawyers are terrorists or not. I've already said that although I can see why, in theory, there's reason to allow spying on lawyers that I think we should oppose it anyway, but you like most/. posters it seems stop thinking the moment you think you see a point you disagree with and go into attack mode.
I had a feeling that the majority of responses to this would come from people who wouldn't bother understanding my post first. You'd have noticed, had you bothered to comprehend my post before replying that I said, in that post that you and others are responding to, that measures like this should be opposed because in practice we don't put sufficient safeguards in place.
All this BS about rubber stamp courts etc as a reason to oppose this is naive at best. You think conversations between lawyers and clients aren't picking hoovered up by some of the drag net data capture already being done? You think in the world of Gitmo what the laws 'say' is what matters? Even our most abusive laws are nothing in comparison to the abuses that happen outside them or in secret outright ignoring them.
There can be no defense of this. This is the government engaging in totalitarianism as standard practice. There cannot possibly be a moral or ethical defense of this practice.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand my initial response was like yours. Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat, spies shouldn't be able to monitor these communications in principle, with some clear restrictions:
1/ If the information gathered by spying was specifically barred from being used in court
2/ If additional authority had to be granted by the judiciary for the act
3/ If there were clear checks and balances in place to deal with abuse.
Obviously, the issue in practice is that we don't put restrictions in place, allow abuses to go unpunished etc so any expansion of powers is to be opposed. The sad truth is that the only thing that's news here is that we now know they are doing it. I wouldn't have been shocked to here that they've been doing it for years already.
"Have a nice evening" is not harassment. It's good manners.
It's good manners when you say it to everyone, not just to the women you think are hot. I know I wouldn't appreciate it if people who ignored everyone else walking down the street kept going out of their way to speak to me because they were attracted to me. It isn't 'good manners' to treat someone in a way you could reasonably expect to make them uncomfortable because you think they're pretty.
f every online death threat were investigated we'd run out of police in about 10seconds
If most were investigated, then very quickly the amount of threats would be decimated. Idiots and cowards make the threats because they think it's funny and they won't get caught. As soon as they realise they might get caught they'll stop.
Oh, there's a way to put an end to these death-threat "pranks". Have the cops arrest and prosecute whoever makes them.
Absolutely this. If even 20% of the people who harassed people online with death threats got a $2,000 dollar fine (no record etc) then the phenomena would virtually vanish overnight. People are more likely to be cunts online because it's faceless and they think they won't get caught. By all means throw the book at the 0.001% who when they are investigated turn out to actually planning to kill the person, but for the rest even a small penalty is more than enough to discourage others.
Slashdot Mirror
Versus doing what? If they genuinely believe that the state has conspired to allow a murder to be unpunished because the victim was black and the murderer was a policeman, and that this kind of thing has gone on for centuries and will carry on, what were they supposed to do which would be more effective? Some sit ins, and a pithy chant would have achieved nothing, these riots are at least bringing the antipathy between some communities and the police to the front pages and maybe they'll be addressed.
2/3rds of Ferguson is black, and you want to use the fact that 1/6th of the grand jury was black to dismiss the argument that there wasn't a potential bias issue...
Gettings tens of billions of dollars for it may be the best way to manage it ;) It's not like setting up a new, or negotiating a deal with an established, company in a contract that encourages them to invest while stopping them making 'unreasonable' profits is either easy or guaranteed to work as intended. The auction process is handing the government billions, putting multiple competitors into the market and they'll have to pay for their own infrastructure. The auction model for spectrum worked pretty well in the UK, though I do wish they'd sold off some of the spectrum in smaller blocks at regional levels to allow smaller players to get into the market as well.
If you can't see why British people, or people from any other country, might mock someone who flew into their home country and called them American then you don't sound like a valueable lifeform ;)
What do you suggest? That we leave the spectrum unregulated and whomever can put out the most powerful signal in an area gets, degraded by competiting transmissions, control of it? That sounds great, we're all looking for solutions that generate no money for citizens and are virtually unworkable right ;)
Although I think it's a trade worth making, I don't think the concern should be dismissed in such an out of hand manner. Just because children are being bombarded with branding everywhere else doesn't mean that it's a non-issue putting it somewhere else.
For the cost of getting humans to and from an asteroid on a decade long mission (in anything approaching a functional state) we could have sent thousands of unmanned landers. Sending people adds a gigantic cost premium. It's nonsense to suggest the rover mission would have been better with people, it wouldn't have happened with people due to cost, and if we could afford the cost of sending people we could do hundreds of unmanned missions for the same cost as one manned one.
It's a crowdfunding platform. Perpetuating the falsehood that it is more than that just encourages more people to put money into the platform expecting more than they should.
It's a shame you don't see the irony in that statement. If anyone can afford to throw some money at Tor it is the people who don't do anything overly contentious, it's a shame that your cowardice is stopping you from doing relatively safe things now that could protect your freedoms later, at which point doing something about it would be far more dangerous.
Perhaps you'd like to share some, with a reasonable analysis of why they are fake. Seriously, stop imagining the kind of obvious bullshit that works with some in Russia and the odd person elsewhere is going to have any influence. When one side is so obviously wrong, so obviously lying and doing it so incredibly badly even a good attempt to muddy the water would fail and that was a poor attempt at best.
Anythings possible, but given the strong circumstantial evidence against the rebels/Russians I really don't see the need to imagine up implausible conspiracies. Have you see any western news showing blatantly faked evidence that Russia did it? Why is Russian state media so keen to muddy the water that it would put stuff like this out? We know the answer: It suits them to confuse the half informed, ignorant and those wanting to believe it wasn't Russia.
Compared to what? I think the actions of Saddam under the sanction regime look pretty damn good compared to what happened when we decided to use military force to topple him instead, or perhaps you think we should just have buckled and left him to gas the Kurds and conquer Kuwait. I'm yet to see an argument made against sanctions that didn't come from someone who could see beyond the end of their nose, let alone to what the likely consequences of the alternative options were.
Surely that's a pretty puerile way to judge whether to support a cause or not? Personally I think the GNOME team's case is pretty tenuous. An open source organisation, of all organisations, should not be over-reaching in using trademark or copyright protections. I expect a large majority of people interested in the Gnome PoS software will not of heard of GNOME, the ones who have will know enough not to be confused by it. It doesn't seem that Groupon is trying to trade on GNOMEs good reputation, or that GNOME will be disadvantaged by the existence of a tablet app called Gnome so although I have little love for Groupon I would wish to support over-aggressive defence of trademark by GNOME even less.
Both parties do know what to do with it. Massive spending on advertising gives you the edge to establish your narrative on issues (all other things being equal). Take an issue like abortion. It's an emotive issue and a politicians position will decide, or heavily influence, a lot of votes. If you have media dominance then you can influence the perspective of voters either way:
Anti-Abortion: Put on adds about how developed fetuses are at the abortion age limit, horrow stories about parents who regret the decision, graphic images etc
Pro-Choice: Put on adds about women who's lives were saved, who suffered mental anguish due to being forced to have a child as a result of rape, put out stats informing about how undeveloped most fetuses are at abortion.
Money in politics gives those with more money more influence. I think there are arguments for and against and I honestly don't know which is right; though I am in no rush to reform British rules that heavily restrict both funding in politics and lobbying.
And a sure give away of a blinkered fool is using "social justice warrior" to try and pigeon hole those they oppose.
Orly? Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that politicians that don't advertise or have people advertise on their behalf, in a country that allows it, aren't at a disadvantage vs those that do? Frankly I doubt it, and if you're going to suggest that a large group of people are spending billions for no benefit then I think most people are going to require something approaching a logical argument to back it up.
Can I get the address etc of this guy under the same laws? Surely, records of who asked for information are kept... Then I can 'pray' for him.
I agree, which is why I said I could see why in principle allowing this makes sense but in practice it should be opposed because we're crap at controlling abuses of laws like this. That said, I doubt it matters at this point. If they couldn't admit to doing it, they'd still do it and just find a way to keep it secret instead.
What's your point? Could you show me the abundance of doctors who are or should they be excepted from spying as well? Serial killer bankers or should we except them? I can't think of many terrorist fish farmers, we can probably protect them as well right?
/. posters it seems stop thinking the moment you think you see a point you disagree with and go into attack mode.
The issue has fuck all to do with whether lawyers are terrorists or not. I've already said that although I can see why, in theory, there's reason to allow spying on lawyers that I think we should oppose it anyway, but you like most
I had a feeling that the majority of responses to this would come from people who wouldn't bother understanding my post first. You'd have noticed, had you bothered to comprehend my post before replying that I said, in that post that you and others are responding to, that measures like this should be opposed because in practice we don't put sufficient safeguards in place.
All this BS about rubber stamp courts etc as a reason to oppose this is naive at best. You think conversations between lawyers and clients aren't picking hoovered up by some of the drag net data capture already being done? You think in the world of Gitmo what the laws 'say' is what matters? Even our most abusive laws are nothing in comparison to the abuses that happen outside them or in secret outright ignoring them.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand my initial response was like yours. Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat, spies shouldn't be able to monitor these communications in principle, with some clear restrictions:
1/ If the information gathered by spying was specifically barred from being used in court
2/ If additional authority had to be granted by the judiciary for the act
3/ If there were clear checks and balances in place to deal with abuse.
Obviously, the issue in practice is that we don't put restrictions in place, allow abuses to go unpunished etc so any expansion of powers is to be opposed. The sad truth is that the only thing that's news here is that we now know they are doing it. I wouldn't have been shocked to here that they've been doing it for years already.
It's good manners when you say it to everyone, not just to the women you think are hot. I know I wouldn't appreciate it if people who ignored everyone else walking down the street kept going out of their way to speak to me because they were attracted to me. It isn't 'good manners' to treat someone in a way you could reasonably expect to make them uncomfortable because you think they're pretty.
Yeah. I bet he'd really ruin things by being against people threatening to kill others; the kind of losers who do that are the life of the party!
If most were investigated, then very quickly the amount of threats would be decimated. Idiots and cowards make the threats because they think it's funny and they won't get caught. As soon as they realise they might get caught they'll stop.
Absolutely this. If even 20% of the people who harassed people online with death threats got a $2,000 dollar fine (no record etc) then the phenomena would virtually vanish overnight. People are more likely to be cunts online because it's faceless and they think they won't get caught. By all means throw the book at the 0.001% who when they are investigated turn out to actually planning to kill the person, but for the rest even a small penalty is more than enough to discourage others.