I think it would be better to just expire them quickly, like say, daily or every browser session, or after every tab close.
Another fun one would be to maintain a list of ad cookies etc...and toss them in a public pool. Whenever you need one, your browser consults the pool and gets one, uses it for a bit, then goes and switches to another one. Do some distributed database poisoning.
Every time I look at an org like this I remember, its government....they do funding in the same model as academic institutions and hospitals. They are a cash cow....but employes can't get at those teats directly, they can only influence who externally gets to suck.
Clearly the smart move is to leave, and become a service provider. Start a security focused business, start something the NSA themselves will have trouble getting into, and you provide incentive for them to buy their way in when your security focus attracts someone they find interesting.
Its not a new idea, it happens all the time in places with a lot of money and beauracracy where insiders see outside contractors bringing home the bacon. Sure, not everybody likes bacon that much but, there are always a few who do....and it isn't unheard of for managagement to find such arrangements lucrative themselves. (what is a little kick back between such long time friends and former co-workers)
Then again, that is likely not all of them. Who knows how many left because they were disgusted by the whole thing? That definitely happens too.
But where there is beauracracy... funding gets turned into a political games. Political funding games are lucrative for outsiders....hence this particular design pattern emerging in so many places.
Who needs "studies" when you have "stories". sounds totally legit, kill someone now and again and people fall in line. Who needs trials and appeals and evidence? Fuck that shit.
Actually the vast majority of dealers are just addicts who started selling to people they knew to support their own habbit. That instantly makes them better than the majority of salesmen in the world since they are not only selling only to people who seek them out looking for their product, but sell a product that they themselves actually use.
In fact, if not for abusive prices that are the result of pieces of shit who think they can solve every solcial problem by banning the things they don't like and sticking their heads in the sand, the majority of them wouldn't even be dealers.
So if I want them to admit that their practice is barbaric and not less tortureous because they dress it up like a medical procedure, I should advocate legalizing torture? And that is insightful?
Perhaps silly was the wrong word.... disingenuine is more what I meant.
Sorry but I fail to see how this pseudomedical procedure is less torturous than a simple bullet to the brain stem.
as far as I can tell, the only benefit of these procedures is to dress it up for the benefit of the executioners and the state so they can make it look like something less barbaric than it is.
As I said, if they can't stomac murdering people for their crimes, they should stop doing it, not look for better ways to soothe their conscience
> So while it sounds wasteful to have 2 investigative agencies, it was mandated by Congress, who is happy to > spend the revenues of the Postal Service.
OTOH maybe its what is needed. Look at the DHS's recent scandal as their inspector general was found to have inappropriate relationships all over the place, to have offered to leave information out of reports, to have classified documents inappropriately to hide their contents: http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
And of course despite this:
Edwards asked Sandweg what day would be good to release the audit and then followed his suggestion. The report was ultimately released after a DHS official testified before a House panel on the issue. One email Edwards sent the day after the hearing said the final report had been sitting on his desk for a week.
Yet even after all that, he was allowed to take an internal transfer after the report about his misconduct came out, in time to save him a job for playing so much ball before the shit hit the fan.
However that wouldn't address the massive overgrowth of government in the same period and even before. The last thing we need is to solve the deficit by throwing good money after bad. The TSA is already worming their way into bus terminals and local transit systems. The DHS grants have already sped up the militarization of the police at breakneck speeds....the last thing we need is to even consider more.
I am actually mostly against the death penalty but I agree on this one. All this concern over suffering of someone you are planning to kill. It really strikes me as silly. If you really have the moral conviction to believe killing him is the right thing to do, then fucking grow some balls and do it. Shooting him in the head is many times more humane than this whole pseudomedical procedure of dressing it up.
If the people can't handle the blood shedding then they should admit they don't have the stomac for it and stop doing it; not try to dress it up and make it appear less barbaric.
> It already is. If you smoke weed, entirely on your own time and not at work, you still can be denied employment for your viewpoints.
You think I don't know this? Not only do I smoke weed but I advocate for declaring it was never illegal and the people who enforced the laws against it members of a criminal conspiracy. You think I am not aware that I could loose my job or even be denied jobs over such opinions, possibly without even being told why?
It sucks, its bullshit, and I don't go wishing my uncomfortable sutuations on others out of spite without even knowing positively whether they are individually at fault. If he advocated for the firing of people over their beliefs or advocated for pre-employment drug screening (never taken one myself, not once; in fact, even when on the phone with HR people talking about taking a job for significantly more than I was currently making, I always steel myself ready to reject with comments about how I didn't apply to be a whore)
Well actually, Insurance companies always had a way to identify them and already had been jacking up their prices. Maybe you didn't notice that they get in more accidents than average with or without phones....that definitely jacks your rates.
Sounds about right. There was a guy on NPR a while back who was talking about how the number of accidents per year hasn't gone down in a generation or two; completely ignoring how much population has increase (30% since just the 70s) and miles driven have gone up, and number of cars on the road etc.... but the raw unadjusted number....about the same... talk about having your head up your own ass.
I dunno about you, but I noticed a long time ago that not all drivers are created equal nor are all drivers on cell phones. In fact, the crash studies that found drivers who get in accidents with cell phones also get in more accidents than normal without cell phones really hit that one home.
I really think there are just some people who are inattentative, and will let anything distract them from driving. Sure most people have their moments of distraction but I think most people are able to realize when things are distracting and are able to choose the situations in which they take those risks.
OTOH the people I know who are some of the worst drivers.... are constantly on their cell phone, and, seem to just not prioritize driving at all. This would be meaningless anecdote if not for the fact that.... this is exactly what studies have found... whereas most people drive more cautiously while on phones (often slower) this particular group of people actually take MORE risks while using the phone.
The thing is, the phone didn't cause this, accident rates have not significantly gone up....these people were always out there...they were just less identifiable.
Thats funny because I found not only that firefox does this by default....but I can thankfully disable this terrible feature. The one thing I have NEVER EVER wanted when I type into an address bar....is to have it do a search. In fact, if I type in a url and its an error....I just want the motherfucking error thanks. Please do NOT do a search and whatever you do....do NOT forward me to a new URL and deny me the ability to edit the one I just typed in.
Sure its legal, but think of what you are asking for when you raise such a scandal. You are effectively saying "I want employers to ask their employees about, keep tabs on, and base promotional consideration on what personal campaign contributions they decide to make".
Is that REALLY the world you want to live in? Would you accept that you were denied a promotion because you donated your personal monies to a cause you believed in? If they asked you why you made the donation, would you even feel you should have to answer them?
This was all very childish. I think very poorly of the anti-marriage equality crowd but, that doesn't mean I want them to have to answer for their politial beliefs in the workplace any more than I want to have to answer for mine. Lets not forget how many times and places this very same stance could have been used against gay activits. How many people would have decided against an HRC donation if they worried about having to answer questions about it at work?
> The sitting US president claims that he can legally kill Americans on American soil without trial.
Given that the Westfall act allows the AG to request that any federal employee be granted immunity from prosecution for things they do in the employment of the government, I would say its been legal for a very long time. In fact, all federal employees are effectively above the law so long as the AG agrees.
> Most people use cash because it's fast and convenient, not because it's anonymous. When people use cash > specifically for it's anonymity, it's usually to buy drugs.
Most people use private showers rather than public baths because its fast and convenient, not because it's anonymous. When people use private baths specifically for anonymity, usually its to masturbate.
Oh wait no.... thats a preposterous conclusion pulled out of thin air.
Have you never heard of anyone going to a car dealership and asking "how much for cash?" Do you really think that is about convienice? You think the same cash discount applied to other work is about convienice?
I already said why....because they had no reason to give him extra scrutiny. There was no reason to pull him over in the first place. Another person, driving as he was driving, would not have been pulled over. The only difference between what he did, and anyone else, is the claims of an anonymous person who could easily have been a police officer trying to hide the real investigation.
Quite simply the tip itself is part of the tree. At the very least, that tip is the trunk of the tree. Without it, he would not have been given extra scrutiny beyond what anyone else would get. If that trunk is not part of the evidence presented, then how do we know if it is the trunk or just another branch; being presented as such.
Parallel construction is fraud, and this is little more than the courts giving a full green light to the production of false evidence trails.
> Nothing about a "fair trial". The trial was fair. He was guilty. The question is whether the way he > was discovered to be guilty was legal. The primary reason we have these laws is to prevent > harrassment and "fishing" expeditions.
How is the trial fair if the accused has no way to fairly evaluate the tree upon which the fruits of evidence were grown? This practice effectively gives the police a loophole to deny the courts review of the evidence trail. How is a trial fair if the evidence is all fruits from a poisoned tree?
The fruit of a hidden and unknown tree should never be allowed on the table and should be assumed poisoned.
I meant to finish that.... he is finally winning, but, mostly because she kept up her antics. There have been several points where a misstep could have lost everything and landed him in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Disengage the transmission? I have something that does that. Its called a clutch, and all the cars worth driving have them.
I think it would be better to just expire them quickly, like say, daily or every browser session, or after every tab close.
Another fun one would be to maintain a list of ad cookies etc...and toss them in a public pool. Whenever you need one, your browser consults the pool and gets one, uses it for a bit, then goes and switches to another one. Do some distributed database poisoning.
Tis true, looking at requestpolicy now it has not loaded content from:
"scorecardsearch.com"
"doubleclick.net"
"gstatic.com"
Not visiting sites that associate with creepy sites is indeed too limiting when there are such simple solutions
I think you have it wrong.
Every time I look at an org like this I remember, its government....they do funding in the same model as academic institutions and hospitals. They are a cash cow....but employes can't get at those teats directly, they can only influence who externally gets to suck.
Clearly the smart move is to leave, and become a service provider. Start a security focused business, start something the NSA themselves will have trouble getting into, and you provide incentive for them to buy their way in when your security focus attracts someone they find interesting.
Its not a new idea, it happens all the time in places with a lot of money and beauracracy where insiders see outside contractors bringing home the bacon. Sure, not everybody likes bacon that much but, there are always a few who do....and it isn't unheard of for managagement to find such arrangements lucrative themselves. (what is a little kick back between such long time friends and former co-workers)
Then again, that is likely not all of them. Who knows how many left because they were disgusted by the whole thing? That definitely happens too.
But where there is beauracracy... funding gets turned into a political games. Political funding games are lucrative for outsiders....hence this particular design pattern emerging in so many places.
No I have other values than living in some crime-free dystopia.
Who needs "studies" when you have "stories". sounds totally legit, kill someone now and again and people fall in line. Who needs trials and appeals and evidence? Fuck that shit.
Actually the vast majority of dealers are just addicts who started selling to people they knew to support their own habbit. That instantly makes them better than the majority of salesmen in the world since they are not only selling only to people who seek them out looking for their product, but sell a product that they themselves actually use.
In fact, if not for abusive prices that are the result of pieces of shit who think they can solve every solcial problem by banning the things they don't like and sticking their heads in the sand, the majority of them wouldn't even be dealers.
So if I want them to admit that their practice is barbaric and not less tortureous because they dress it up like a medical procedure, I should advocate legalizing torture? And that is insightful?
Perhaps silly was the wrong word.... disingenuine is more what I meant.
Sorry but I fail to see how this pseudomedical procedure is less torturous than a simple bullet to the brain stem.
as far as I can tell, the only benefit of these procedures is to dress it up for the benefit of the executioners and the state so they can make it look like something less barbaric than it is.
As I said, if they can't stomac murdering people for their crimes, they should stop doing it, not look for better ways to soothe their conscience
> So while it sounds wasteful to have 2 investigative agencies, it was mandated by Congress, who is happy to
> spend the revenues of the Postal Service.
OTOH maybe its what is needed. Look at the DHS's recent scandal as their inspector general was found to have inappropriate relationships all over the place, to have offered to leave information out of reports, to have classified documents inappropriately to hide their contents: http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
And of course despite this:
Yet even after all that, he was allowed to take an internal transfer after the report about his misconduct came out, in time to save him a job for playing so much ball before the shit hit the fan.
However that wouldn't address the massive overgrowth of government in the same period and even before. The last thing we need is to solve the deficit by throwing good money after bad. The TSA is already worming their way into bus terminals and local transit systems. The DHS grants have already sped up the militarization of the police at breakneck speeds....the last thing we need is to even consider more.
I am actually mostly against the death penalty but I agree on this one. All this concern over suffering of someone you are planning to kill. It really strikes me as silly. If you really have the moral conviction to believe killing him is the right thing to do, then fucking grow some balls and do it. Shooting him in the head is many times more humane than this whole pseudomedical procedure of dressing it up.
If the people can't handle the blood shedding then they should admit they don't have the stomac for it and stop doing it; not try to dress it up and make it appear less barbaric.
> It already is. If you smoke weed, entirely on your own time and not at work, you still can be denied employment for your viewpoints.
You think I don't know this? Not only do I smoke weed but I advocate for declaring it was never illegal and the people who enforced the laws against it members of a criminal conspiracy. You think I am not aware that I could loose my job or even be denied jobs over such opinions, possibly without even being told why?
It sucks, its bullshit, and I don't go wishing my uncomfortable sutuations on others out of spite without even knowing positively whether they are individually at fault. If he advocated for the firing of people over their beliefs or advocated for pre-employment drug screening (never taken one myself, not once; in fact, even when on the phone with HR people talking about taking a job for significantly more than I was currently making, I always steel myself ready to reject with comments about how I didn't apply to be a whore)
Well actually, Insurance companies always had a way to identify them and already had been jacking up their prices. Maybe you didn't notice that they get in more accidents than average with or without phones....that definitely jacks your rates.
Sounds about right. There was a guy on NPR a while back who was talking about how the number of accidents per year hasn't gone down in a generation or two; completely ignoring how much population has increase (30% since just the 70s) and miles driven have gone up, and number of cars on the road etc.... but the raw unadjusted number....about the same... talk about having your head up your own ass.
I dunno about you, but I noticed a long time ago that not all drivers are created equal nor are all drivers on cell phones. In fact, the crash studies that found drivers who get in accidents with cell phones also get in more accidents than normal without cell phones really hit that one home.
I really think there are just some people who are inattentative, and will let anything distract them from driving. Sure most people have their moments of distraction but I think most people are able to realize when things are distracting and are able to choose the situations in which they take those risks.
OTOH the people I know who are some of the worst drivers.... are constantly on their cell phone, and, seem to just not prioritize driving at all. This would be meaningless anecdote if not for the fact that.... this is exactly what studies have found... whereas most people drive more cautiously while on phones (often slower) this particular group of people actually take MORE risks while using the phone.
The thing is, the phone didn't cause this, accident rates have not significantly gone up....these people were always out there...they were just less identifiable.
Thats funny because I found not only that firefox does this by default....but I can thankfully disable this terrible feature. The one thing I have NEVER EVER wanted when I type into an address bar....is to have it do a search. In fact, if I type in a url and its an error....I just want the motherfucking error thanks. Please do NOT do a search and whatever you do....do NOT forward me to a new URL and deny me the ability to edit the one I just typed in.
Sure its legal, but think of what you are asking for when you raise such a scandal. You are effectively saying "I want employers to ask their employees about, keep tabs on, and base promotional consideration on what personal campaign contributions they decide to make".
Is that REALLY the world you want to live in? Would you accept that you were denied a promotion because you donated your personal monies to a cause you believed in? If they asked you why you made the donation, would you even feel you should have to answer them?
This was all very childish. I think very poorly of the anti-marriage equality crowd but, that doesn't mean I want them to have to answer for their politial beliefs in the workplace any more than I want to have to answer for mine. Lets not forget how many times and places this very same stance could have been used against gay activits. How many people would have decided against an HRC donation if they worried about having to answer questions about it at work?
> The sitting US president claims that he can legally kill Americans on American soil without trial.
Given that the Westfall act allows the AG to request that any federal employee be granted immunity from prosecution for things they do in the employment of the government, I would say its been legal for a very long time. In fact, all federal employees are effectively above the law so long as the AG agrees.
> Most people use cash because it's fast and convenient, not because it's anonymous. When people use cash
> specifically for it's anonymity, it's usually to buy drugs.
Most people use private showers rather than public baths because its fast and convenient, not because it's anonymous. When people use private baths specifically for anonymity, usually its to masturbate.
Oh wait no.... thats a preposterous conclusion pulled out of thin air.
Have you never heard of anyone going to a car dealership and asking "how much for cash?" Do you really think that is about convienice? You think the same cash discount applied to other work is about convienice?
Or how about a mosquito where only female progeny die. Males are born normally and survive.... leading to a runaway skew in their populations.
I already said why....because they had no reason to give him extra scrutiny. There was no reason to pull him over in the first place. Another person, driving as he was driving, would not have been pulled over. The only difference between what he did, and anyone else, is the claims of an anonymous person who could easily have been a police officer trying to hide the real investigation.
Right there in the word "Anonymous tip.
Quite simply the tip itself is part of the tree. At the very least, that tip is the trunk of the tree. Without it, he would not have been given extra scrutiny beyond what anyone else would get. If that trunk is not part of the evidence presented, then how do we know if it is the trunk or just another branch; being presented as such.
Parallel construction is fraud, and this is little more than the courts giving a full green light to the production of false evidence trails.
> Nothing about a "fair trial". The trial was fair. He was guilty. The question is whether the way he
> was discovered to be guilty was legal. The primary reason we have these laws is to prevent
> harrassment and "fishing" expeditions.
How is the trial fair if the accused has no way to fairly evaluate the tree upon which the fruits of evidence were grown? This practice effectively gives the police a loophole to deny the courts review of the evidence trail. How is a trial fair if the evidence is all fruits from a poisoned tree?
The fruit of a hidden and unknown tree should never be allowed on the table and should be assumed poisoned.
> ... including false charges of various kinds,
I meant to finish that.... he is finally winning, but, mostly because she kept up her antics. There have been several points where a misstep could have lost everything and landed him in jail.