Hopefully you smiled at the various cameras in-store
Or wear a baseball cap and hoodie. Preferably with a full beard. And an a heavy foreign accent.
Wearing a balaclava couldn't hurt, either. I get a kick out of wearing mine when I go to my local credit union in the winter — the tellers always seem a little startled until they realize it's just me, then they're all "oh, you're so bad!" and "such a prankster!" and so forth...
When I decided to switch from the bank I was using (or rather, was being (ab)used by) to a local credit union, I obviously wanted to make a complete withdrawal, so I passed the teller a note that said "GIVE ME ALL MY MONEY," but she didn't seem to think it was funny at all, and I wasn't even wearing my balaclava!
My point is this: Balaclavas are great for maintaining your facial privacy, just so long as you're not someplace where everyone already knows who you are — unless it's a bank, where they don't seem to know (or care — I don't know which) who anyone is, unless perhaps you're a "high-roller" or whatever is the equivalent in banker jargon.
Just say "nuclear" "terrorist" "bomb" "uranium" over and over on the phone, it'll have the same effect. I'm sure this post will be flagged by NSA for that reason.
Do you really suppose that the people the NSA would identify as "terrorists" would use the word "terrorist" when they're talking to one another?
You should be scrubbing your RAID at least once a week. That will detect and fix most of the creeping errors that would have prevented a successful rebuild.
Yes you lose IOPS during the scrub but if you didn't care about data correctness you'd be using RAID0.
Are you sure that patrol-scrub has any effect on the unrecoverable read error rate quoted in manufacturer's drive specs? I was under the impression that those particular read errors were non-deterministic in nature, and thus difficult or impossible to anticipate or prevent. As the article I linked to suggests, those error rates stand at 1-in-N-bits at best, where typical HDD capacities currently exceed N-bits by an unhealthy margin.
It was my understanding that this state of affairs was the primary motivation behind the creation (and increasing adoption) of RAID-6. (I'm partial to RAID-10 and 1E myself... and registered ECC, patrol-scrub (HDDs & RAM), UPSs, etc., on my machines at home. Performance over reliability — so I can lose data faster? No thanks!);o)
FTFY. [Before any of you conservatives fly off the handle, please hear me out]: People won't stop fucking, and Chinese-style child-limits are off the table in any society that values individual autonomy. Thus, I am of the opinion that no opportunity to put contraceptives into the hands of all of those willing to accept them should be interfered with — consider it is an investment in the future. To the conservatives who may balk at this, I ask you: Would you rather subsidize $0.25 condoms, or the ~$100,000+ it costs to raise each unwanted child for 18 years?
You *hope* he is right?! You *hope* billions of people are killed from war, famine, and hunger? These words actually formed in your brain and trickled out onto your keyboard? Really?!
So do it, man. Why care more than you care? That's crazy.
With the liberties the government is taking today I am surprised more people aren't shouting from soapboxes about it in the name of their childrens rights.
Exactly; I brought up a similar point here the other day — why don't these "think of the children"-types ever think of the children being left with nothing but the ashes of our Constitution?
I see Congressman Peter King threatening journalists with prosecution if they publish any more leaks. From this I know there are more leaks. You don't threaten journalists, if that is the totality of the scary news and threatening journalists won't make squat difference to the data Snowden has. If he leaks it, it won't matter if Wastington Post publishes it or not, unless its politically bad for you.
[TL;DR]: Following King's call for Greenwald's prosecution (based on King's allegation that Greenwald had threatened to leak the identities of CIA operatives, etc.), Greenwald was interviewed by Anderson Cooper — Cooper stated that they could find no quote or other evidence for King's allegation, and Greenwald said he believed that King has either fabricated or hallucinated Greenwald's alleged threats.
If King can't even be bothered to fact-check his own bullshit claims that he uses to call for further violations of the Constitution on national television, in my opinion he is unfit to hold public office.
Why'd you put father-in-law in quotes? If you're married, he's your father-in-law. If you're not, he's the dad of your Steady Betty. Pretty simple, really.
Since datavirtue hasn't answered your question, I offer some speculations on his behalf: The "father-in-law" could be the step-father or really shitty father to his wife — or ex-wife, even — thus, writing "father in law" provided a succinct short-hand which he could use and avoid delving into the particulars of the situation.
* I haven't looked up them up, but I doubt C-SPAN's numbers are "up there." (Further, it's been my observation that even when C-SPAN is airing unfiltered, uninterrupted, and otherwise uncontaminated coverage of a high-profile government event, many (if not most) people still opt for the distorted version of events offered by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, et al.)
I hate to say it but I'm still on spinning disks in fact I just updated my Raid5 to 12TB dunning on 4 Disks.
I hope you're not relying on RAID5 to prevent data loss following a disk failure — the likelihood of a 12TB RAID5 array rebuilding successfully is not very good.
apple wasn't visionary because they used USB, they were visionary because they phased out the old stuff and made USB mandatory. that was the visionary part and it took some guts. you cannot disagree or deny that.
Folks who prefer Apple's computing appliances have — and will continue to — pay top dollar for iToys regardless of what they lack or how they're assembled: glued-in batteries, soldered-in RAM, tamper-resistant fasteners, missing SD slots, all the proprietary technologies you want — Joe Sixpack eats that shit up. Upgrades are no problem — Apple's happy to sell 'em all new shit. I suspect that eliminating legacy interfaces wasn't so much "guts" as it was a marketing strategy.
Unless you're one of the 1.5% of the people didn't vote for a republican/democrat, STFU! You voted for this at least six times since it was officially made legal. And no doubt you will approve again in the next election.
And who would you have voted for that wouldn't have approved similar legislation?
Stewart Alexander (Socialist), Rocky Anderson (Justice), Gary Johnson (Libertarian), and Jill Stein (Green) all ran on civil libertarian platforms during the 2012 election; (for example, all four sought the repeal of the PATRIOT Act).
Among third-party candidates, Virgil Goode (Constitution) was an odd-ball, his authoritarianism exceeding that of GWB, BHO, and Romney. Although Goode expressed regret for voting for the PATRIOT Act, was a "money-out-of-politics" guy (accepting donations no greater than $200), his campaign positions and HR voting record showed little regard for civil liberties.
[J]ust guessing but google search tools send the data in the clear unless you manually type the 'https' for it. oops lotta data being shipped there and as you type one character at a time to any search engine it is going in the clear, and google tries to anticipate your search.
Anyone who doesn't want to run search engines' key-loggers (aka auto-complete) can disable them, often at the expense of saving a cookie. Both Ixquick and DuckDuckGo offer url-based preference-saving — no cookie(s) needed.
The following is a brief media presentation created by a company called Pitch Interactive that helps to illustrate the efficacy and efficiency of the drone strike program in creating — excuse me, killing — "terrorists:"
Personally, I think the whole thing is barbaric and unnecessary and we shouldn't be doing it. At all. It's immoral. But whether or not it minimizes civilian casualties compared to carpet-bombing followed by an all-out invasion still remains to be determined.
I'm glad you said that; I don't think we should be doing it at all, either — but I don't think that the program should be compared to committing wholesale extermination of a populace based on their geographic location, but rather to less-provocative solutions that are possibly humanitarian or isolationist in nature.
As for the Obama Administration's hard-on for "double-tap" drone strikes, I think everyone who authorized this practice should be brought to The Hague for prosecution; such blatant and atrocious targeting of civilian non-combatants is, in my mind, a completely inexcusable war crime.
Stupid in so far as it is short-sighted: these people limiting people's freedom are ultimately limiting their own. They are reducing their own choices once they return to civilian life.
That's a good point, and it reminds me of a related thought I've occasionally had in regards to the "think of the children" justification* for curtailing civil liberties. What about the civil liberties of these children, particularly once they turn 18 or 21 and could have used them* to full effect?
Why don't they "think of the childrens'" civil liberties, for a change? A tattered, loop-holed, ineffectual, ignored (and even untaught) Bill of Rights seem like a really shitty gift to leave to future generations.
* For the sake of argument, I'm taking the motives and words of those that employ "think of the children" at face value.
** Examples of utilization being to full effect for adults: Second Amendment-related statutes limiting it in part to adults, increased need for legal protections for suspects who may waive their right to have an attorney present during police interrogation (children must have an attorney/"advocate" present, as far as I'm aware), and defendants who are not eligible for the reduced legal penalties afforded to some minors.
Excellent post, but I'm curious what reason you have to endorse this "Tenth Amendment Center;" the rest of the organizations you listed are reputable — I've heard of them (and donate to them, as with ACLU), they have a Wikipedia article, a news search of their name produces hits (outside of their own blog), or some combination of these — none of which apply to TAC.
Funny thing about third parties is they can say whatever the fuck they want when they have no chance of winning.
An unfunny thing about the Democrat and Republican parties is that they say whatever the fuck they want (and lie about it) and are guaranteed to not only win, but to be re-elected even after having been proved to have been lying in the past.
[...] I guess I'm going to have to start using crappy duck duck go [...]
Compare DuckDuckGo's privacy policy to those of other popular search engines and tell me which are "crappy." Also, if you don't like DuckDuckGo, you might want to try Ixquick. It too is privacy-oriented, and also features a secure web-proxy through which you can view sites returned via searches.
(My apologies if your post was meant in jest; either way I hope I've helped at least one person pick a search engine that isn't tantamount to an NSA honeypot.)
A (somewhat bigoted, IMO,) sibling post suggested Yandex — while I can see the logic in that suggestion, Yandex does not support SSL/TLS, and appears to have no privacy policy at all — (though I admit I'm unsure of the value or implications of having no privacy policy are in regards to a site situated in nation that's not cozy with the United States).
If anyone's aware of any decent search engines/web-mail providers that support SSL/TLS and are located in any nation(s) that don't easily cave to US demands, I'd appreciate hearing about them. I found Safe-Mail.net recently, which has good security features, lacks Hushmail's three-week account-dump timeout and reports of caving to law enforcement, but is located in (close US-ally) Israel.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully you smiled at the various cameras in-store
Or wear a baseball cap and hoodie. Preferably with a full beard. And an a heavy foreign accent.
Wearing a balaclava couldn't hurt, either. I get a kick out of wearing mine when I go to my local credit union in the winter — the tellers always seem a little startled until they realize it's just me, then they're all "oh, you're so bad!" and "such a prankster!" and so forth...
When I decided to switch from the bank I was using (or rather, was being (ab)used by) to a local credit union, I obviously wanted to make a complete withdrawal, so I passed the teller a note that said "GIVE ME ALL MY MONEY," but she didn't seem to think it was funny at all, and I wasn't even wearing my balaclava!
My point is this: Balaclavas are great for maintaining your facial privacy, just so long as you're not someplace where everyone already knows who you are — unless it's a bank, where they don't seem to know (or care — I don't know which) who anyone is, unless perhaps you're a "high-roller" or whatever is the equivalent in banker jargon.
Just say "nuclear" "terrorist" "bomb" "uranium" over and over on the phone, it'll have the same effect. I'm sure this post will be flagged by NSA for that reason.
Do you really suppose that the people the NSA would identify as "terrorists" would use the word "terrorist" when they're talking to one another?
You should be scrubbing your RAID at least once a week. That will detect and fix most of the creeping errors that would have prevented a successful rebuild.
Yes you lose IOPS during the scrub but if you didn't care about data correctness you'd be using RAID0.
Are you sure that patrol-scrub has any effect on the unrecoverable read error rate quoted in manufacturer's drive specs? I was under the impression that those particular read errors were non-deterministic in nature, and thus difficult or impossible to anticipate or prevent. As the article I linked to suggests, those error rates stand at 1-in-N-bits at best, where typical HDD capacities currently exceed N-bits by an unhealthy margin.
It was my understanding that this state of affairs was the primary motivation behind the creation (and increasing adoption) of RAID-6. (I'm partial to RAID-10 and 1E myself... and registered ECC, patrol-scrub (HDDs & RAM), UPSs, etc., on my machines at home. Performance over reliability — so I can lose data faster? No thanks!) ;o)
Distribute free game consoles to the male of the species.
I couldn't locate the SMBC comic that illustrates this proposal, but I did find another one that's on-topic.
Hey people... STOP FUCKING [with taxpayer-/employer-subsidized contraceptive programs]!
FTFY. [Before any of you conservatives fly off the handle, please hear me out]: People won't stop fucking, and Chinese-style child-limits are off the table in any society that values individual autonomy. Thus, I am of the opinion that no opportunity to put contraceptives into the hands of all of those willing to accept them should be interfered with — consider it is an investment in the future. To the conservatives who may balk at this, I ask you: Would you rather subsidize $0.25 condoms, or the ~$100,000+ it costs to raise each unwanted child for 18 years?
hope you are right.
You *hope* he is right?! You *hope* billions of people are killed from war, famine, and hunger? These words actually formed in your brain and trickled out onto your keyboard? Really?!
Yes.
How come?
Psst... Just between you and me? That was the joke... :o)
I could care less about the FISC [...]
So do it, man. Why care more than you care? That's crazy.
With the liberties the government is taking today I am surprised more people aren't shouting from soapboxes about it in the name of their childrens rights.
Exactly; I brought up a similar point here the other day — why don't these "think of the children"-types ever think of the children being left with nothing but the ashes of our Constitution?
I see Congressman Peter King threatening journalists with prosecution if they publish any more leaks. From this I know there are more leaks. You don't threaten journalists, if that is the totality of the scary news and threatening journalists won't make squat difference to the data Snowden has. If he leaks it, it won't matter if Wastington Post publishes it or not, unless its politically bad for you.
[TL;DR]: Following King's call for Greenwald's prosecution (based on King's allegation that Greenwald had threatened to leak the identities of CIA operatives, etc.), Greenwald was interviewed by Anderson Cooper — Cooper stated that they could find no quote or other evidence for King's allegation, and Greenwald said he believed that King has either fabricated or hallucinated Greenwald's alleged threats.
If King can't even be bothered to fact-check his own bullshit claims that he uses to call for further violations of the Constitution on national television, in my opinion he is unfit to hold public office.
Look up and see the surface of what once was, as we sink ever further into irrelevancy.
Sinking into irrelevancy is arguably better than sinking into the ocean.
write wear is a read herring.
Are you sure it's not a reed salmon?
Why'd you put father-in-law in quotes? If you're married, he's your father-in-law. If you're not, he's the dad of your Steady Betty. Pretty simple, really.
Since datavirtue hasn't answered your question, I offer some speculations on his behalf: The "father-in-law" could be the step-father or really shitty father to his wife — or ex-wife, even — thus, writing "father in law" provided a succinct short-hand which he could use and avoid delving into the particulars of the situation.
Who watches the watchers?
Congress is supposed to watch the watchers. The voters are supposed to watch Congress.
Emphasis on "supposed to," both instances: The only thing those in Congress are watching are their account balances and poll numbers. The only thing (most) voters are watching are their televisions*.
* I haven't looked up them up, but I doubt C-SPAN's numbers are "up there." (Further, it's been my observation that even when C-SPAN is airing unfiltered, uninterrupted, and otherwise uncontaminated coverage of a high-profile government event, many (if not most) people still opt for the distorted version of events offered by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, et al.)
I think you've confused Slashdot with your local LARP forum.
I hate to say it but I'm still on spinning disks in fact I just updated my Raid5 to 12TB dunning on 4 Disks.
I hope you're not relying on RAID5 to prevent data loss following a disk failure — the likelihood of a 12TB RAID5 array rebuilding successfully is not very good.
apple wasn't visionary because they used USB, they were visionary because they phased out the old stuff and made USB mandatory. that was the visionary part and it took some guts. you cannot disagree or deny that.
Folks who prefer Apple's computing appliances have — and will continue to — pay top dollar for iToys regardless of what they lack or how they're assembled: glued-in batteries, soldered-in RAM, tamper-resistant fasteners, missing SD slots, all the proprietary technologies you want — Joe Sixpack eats that shit up. Upgrades are no problem — Apple's happy to sell 'em all new shit. I suspect that eliminating legacy interfaces wasn't so much "guts" as it was a marketing strategy.
Unless you're one of the 1.5% of the people didn't vote for a republican/democrat, STFU! You voted for this at least six times since it was officially made legal. And no doubt you will approve again in the next election.
And who would you have voted for that wouldn't have approved similar legislation?
Stewart Alexander (Socialist), Rocky Anderson (Justice), Gary Johnson (Libertarian), and Jill Stein (Green) all ran on civil libertarian platforms during the 2012 election; (for example, all four sought the repeal of the PATRIOT Act).
Among third-party candidates, Virgil Goode (Constitution) was an odd-ball, his authoritarianism exceeding that of GWB, BHO, and Romney. Although Goode expressed regret for voting for the PATRIOT Act, was a "money-out-of-politics" guy (accepting donations no greater than $200), his campaign positions and HR voting record showed little regard for civil liberties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results [Compact table w/ links for leading 3rd-party candidates/parties]
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 [Graph depicting 2012 candidates' political positions]
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 [Graph for 2008 — note Obama's rightward/authoritarian shift between '08-'12]
[J]ust guessing but google search tools send the data in the clear unless you manually type the 'https' for it. oops lotta data being shipped there and as you type one character at a time to any search engine it is going in the clear, and google tries to anticipate your search.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
https://code.google.com/p/https-finder/
Anyone who doesn't want to run search engines' key-loggers (aka auto-complete) can disable them, often at the expense of saving a cookie. Both Ixquick and DuckDuckGo offer url-based preference-saving — no cookie(s) needed.
The following is a brief media presentation created by a company called Pitch Interactive that helps to illustrate the efficacy and efficiency of the drone strike program in creating — excuse me, killing — "terrorists:"
Out of Sight, Out of Mind: A visualization of drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004
Personally, I think the whole thing is barbaric and unnecessary and we shouldn't be doing it. At all. It's immoral. But whether or not it minimizes civilian casualties compared to carpet-bombing followed by an all-out invasion still remains to be determined.
I'm glad you said that; I don't think we should be doing it at all, either — but I don't think that the program should be compared to committing wholesale extermination of a populace based on their geographic location, but rather to less-provocative solutions that are possibly humanitarian or isolationist in nature.
As for the Obama Administration's hard-on for "double-tap" drone strikes, I think everyone who authorized this practice should be brought to The Hague for prosecution; such blatant and atrocious targeting of civilian non-combatants is, in my mind, a completely inexcusable war crime.
Stupid in so far as it is short-sighted: these people limiting people's freedom are ultimately limiting their own. They are reducing their own choices once they return to civilian life.
That's a good point, and it reminds me of a related thought I've occasionally had in regards to the "think of the children" justification* for curtailing civil liberties. What about the civil liberties of these children, particularly once they turn 18 or 21 and could have used them* to full effect?
Why don't they "think of the childrens'" civil liberties, for a change? A tattered, loop-holed, ineffectual, ignored (and even untaught) Bill of Rights seem like a really shitty gift to leave to future generations.
* For the sake of argument, I'm taking the motives and words of those that employ "think of the children" at face value.
** Examples of utilization being to full effect for adults: Second Amendment-related statutes limiting it in part to adults, increased need for legal protections for suspects who may waive their right to have an attorney present during police interrogation (children must have an attorney/"advocate" present, as far as I'm aware), and defendants who are not eligible for the reduced legal penalties afforded to some minors.
Excellent post, but I'm curious what reason you have to endorse this "Tenth Amendment Center;" the rest of the organizations you listed are reputable — I've heard of them (and donate to them, as with ACLU), they have a Wikipedia article, a news search of their name produces hits (outside of their own blog), or some combination of these — none of which apply to TAC.
Vote for them, but don't pretend that you're accomplishing anything by doing so.
I do vote for third parties, and I actually do "pretend" I'm not compromising my own principles by voting for (a "lesser") evil.
Funny thing about third parties is they can say whatever the fuck they want when they have no chance of winning.
An unfunny thing about the Democrat and Republican parties is that they say whatever the fuck they want (and lie about it) and are guaranteed to not only win, but to be re-elected even after having been proved to have been lying in the past.
[...] I guess I'm going to have to start using crappy duck duck go [...]
Compare DuckDuckGo's privacy policy to those of other popular search engines and tell me which are "crappy." Also, if you don't like DuckDuckGo, you might want to try Ixquick. It too is privacy-oriented, and also features a secure web-proxy through which you can view sites returned via searches.
(My apologies if your post was meant in jest; either way I hope I've helped at least one person pick a search engine that isn't tantamount to an NSA honeypot.)
A (somewhat bigoted, IMO,) sibling post suggested Yandex — while I can see the logic in that suggestion, Yandex does not support SSL/TLS, and appears to have no privacy policy at all — (though I admit I'm unsure of the value or implications of having no privacy policy are in regards to a site situated in nation that's not cozy with the United States).
If anyone's aware of any decent search engines/web-mail providers that support SSL/TLS and are located in any nation(s) that don't easily cave to US demands, I'd appreciate hearing about them. I found Safe-Mail.net recently, which has good security features, lacks Hushmail's three-week account-dump timeout and reports of caving to law enforcement, but is located in (close US-ally) Israel.
Anyone else notice the lack of coverage about this or any other story about the NSA on CNN's homepage?
No, I didn't notice, since I don't visit CNN (or Fox, or MSNBC) due to their lack of coverage on important issues.