> And no, not everyone has made poor choices - just not like everyone is in their situation through no fault of their own.
And I didn't offer just two choices... I did *mention* one choice, pooling of resources and living frugally. There are many, many other choices - read on.
Nor did I say anything about total equality, communism, or any specific living arraignments for everyone - though I did indicate that some people with particular circumstances might have to make those choices if they want to have a reasonably living standard.
So, basically you didn't read my post, inserted any ol' thing you thought I might think - without any substantiation, and responded to that. Okay then... You might read the article, based on your username, but you might want to expand that to read the comments you're replying to. I'll try, really hard, to help you out.
Expand the thread. Go ahead, you might have to load all comments now. CTRL + F > type "kgiii" and press Enter and then F3 a few times, taking care to read the posts.
Why you'd read into my post things I did not say is kind of strange. What really baffles me is how you'd reach those conclusions.
Err... I'm the guy who's recommending we consider something like Universal Basic Income. I'm sorry your ego is frail, I'm sorry you're injecting beliefs and views into things I did not say. I'm sorry you're into that conclusion jumping to thing. However, I can do nothing about those things. I can, on the other hand, point out the logical fallacies and point out that there are logical arguments to be made.
Maybe, just maybe, that will help you out in the future but it appears your ego is too frail for that. Had I known, I'd have not bothered conversing with you. Duly noted.
That does make more sense. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you're engaged in an effort of futility. There's probably no amount of logic, reason, or evidence that you can present that will change their minds. Though, 'tis noble that you try - I do similarly futile things.
I've been just going around trying to make sure that they know it's not a warrant. Like your effort, it appears to be mostly futile but it does seem to have been worth it for two people. Unfortunately, I "know" two of them and one of them in the real world and one by multiple off-site emails. So, yeah, it's mostly futile.
I still haven't found out HOW the judge managed to acquire this authority. It's not a warrant. It's an order based on a motion for discovery. Except there's nobody charged. There has been no arraignment, there has been no indictment, there has been no one specific individual charged. NPR has an "expert" who's calling it a warrant and saying that Apple needs to service the warrant. It's *not* a warrant.
It's a bit frustrating... I really need to get off my ass and stop being this lazy.
Cruz is not a realistic option for me. I will be really disappointed if he wins. I am neither a coward nor a quitter so I'm unlikely to just move but I'm going to be displeased. The same with Trump. I gotta be honest, he's a barrel of laughs and I think he's *mostly* harmless. I find Hillary to be unacceptable, entirely. She's taken to quoting some of Sanders statements, almost verbatim, as of this last weekend. I have no reason to believe she's sincere.
Bernie might not be mean enough to win. He's not naive. He knows what he has to do and I've heard a few of the names of his crew kicking around before - so he's got experienced people around him. He's just too damned tolerant and nice. It also doesn't help that there's so much dishonesty in the media. It's full of dishonesty - and it's from both sides.
For instance, and this is trivial-seeming, I'm listening to NPR right this minute. There's a guy on there saying that we spend most of our oil money in countries that hate us and how we need to get off oil. Now, the getting off oil thing isn't really all that realistic - we'll be using it for a long time. Using it in our cars isn't really bright. But, more importantly, no... We don't really buy much in the way of foreign oil. I can dig out the citations if you don't believe me. That not only went unchallenged, it was applauded.
And yes, I know factually that we get our oil from mostly us and other nations that are *not* our enemies. Mexico, Canada, and not even Venezuela hate us. We don't hate us. We mostly get our own oil and get it from those few other countries. Yet, that's what's being fed to people who have neither time, energy, interest, or intellect to go find the truth. Earlier they were talking about computers... I'll let you make your own guesses about how accurate that was.
There's a lot of dishonesty in the media. It's not helping. For example, Trump doesn't sound like Hitler. I know, I've spent a LOT of time watching and learning about Hitler and the rise of the Third Reich. You might even say I'm a bit of a student of history in those regards. No, he doesn't. Disturbingly, some of his fans seem much the same BUT I can go back and play Obama's campaign and you will be able to draw the same conclusions - especially with his first campaign.
Oh, this is only tangentially related but this is already long... Kids... The young kids... They don't seem all that motivated, yet. I hate to say it but that's a bad thing. They need to get out there and speak and act. Someone has to counterbalance us old people just like we need to temper their enthusiasm with experience.
I think you're dreadfully confused. By my reading of my post, it's painfully clear there's a gradation and I'd like to know what, specifically, is in my post that is judging her? No, really... What's it that you're seeing because I just disassembled my post and not one part of your reply seems to be in response to anything I wrote.
As near as I know - none of them teach civics. Civics should be a whole subject - all by itself. Unless, of course, you don't think people should be aware of their rights and responsibilities? Even in what you listed, they teach it mixed with other stuff. I dare say that you can look around and conclude that they're not actually getting enough information about their rights and responsibilities. Or not...
Err, I'm not sure why you'd think I'm pushing in any certain direction - such as some sort of standardized test. If I had meant that, I'd have said that. Long, winding, rather complete posts are what I do. If I didn't say it, probably several times, you probably don't need to assign those sorts of beliefs to me. I'm careful and say what I mean - almost every time. It is no different this time.
Yeah, I figured I'd find the press release to see if they missed anything. No, they didn't really miss much. They mostly just seem to have reprinted it.
I got some replies that make me think there's a softpedia editor here posting AC. They seem concerned that I linked to the source. I think I'm going to have to keep paying attention to 'em - if I remember. It's pretty busy lately so I might not notice often. Ah well...
Not sure why they moderated you down. I got one the the other day that made no sense. I did get a couple that I understood.;-) I'm just gonna say what I want, to hell with the moderation. Somehow, this normally works. I'm usually polite but I'm not much for mincing words. Screw 'em. If they wanna mod you down, they can mod me with you. (It gives you a 0 with no comment history available. Dunno why they did it.)
They probably said your off-topic. Which, by now, you can see is why my response is as it is. 'Cause I can do off-topic...
Anyhow, seeing as I'm going for that OT mod (I've got a whole bunch of those) I might as well tell you that the weather is nice. It's a nice, balmy, 73 (convert it yourself, I'm lazy) and sunny. I was downtown last night and oh my... For those that haven't been playing the home game, I'm in PCB, Florida. This is the home of Spring Break. Alas, I have a girlfriend that I've somehow managed to attract (probably with my devilish good looks and raw animal magnetism) so I can not go out ogling and I sure as hell can't offer any of them my penis. I don't know why there aren't more fender benders...
Oh, it stays like this for a month... The colleges all shut down at different times. I admit, I was drinking heavily at the time but that's actually why I bought the house. Well, sort of. I loved the area. Now that I think about it, I love the scenery in Maine. I love the scenery here. Hot college chicks in skimpy bikinis? Yes, yes I do like that. And, being an old man, they all feel compelled to come talk to me if I'm out and about. I've also got my dog with me - he and I need to take a ride downtown later.
Yeah, they're as trustworthy as they are - which means I don't trust 'em much. I used 'em to browse the web, etc... I just have a network at home that I can use as a VPN but I prefer to just use the whole thing by remote via VNC. Then I'm not carrying anything with me for data. One thing I'd like to do is figure out how to use 2 factor authentication for VNC.
As it was alluded to, I'll make it a bit more clear.
We don't teach civics any more. They take "social studies." No, I shit you not. They don't have "Civics." They have "Social Studies."
I couldn't make that up if I wanted to. No, don't read into it more than I said. But, let it sink in... We stopped teaching Civics in favor of Social Studies.
Oddly, this is true. I listen to NPR most of the time. However, I put on some Fox News Radio, it's a long story and I blame Slashdot. At any rate, the guy(s) that were on Fox weren't too bad and seemed to know a bit about the subject now. They didn't at first, a few days ago. But, they had some fairly diverse views in callers and commentators throughout the afternoon again today. They've been kind of split on it since the start but as information filters down it's like they're actually at least discussing it a bit more accurately.
NPR had a bunch of people who really couldn't articulate what they wanted to say. Even the ones who argued in support of Apple didn't seem to understand the subject. Fox had a few people call in, one was a CS grad (claimed to be) and did a decent job explaining it - I was reading a Slashdot article on it at the same time. A little while later, they had a few others call in and chime in. That one show had an annoying host who liked to talk over everyone and he was dead set on them being allowed to do this and seemed to have changed his view, at least a little, by the end of the show.
This isn't a warrant. Warrants can require you to produce physical items only and items only that you own or have in your possession. Warrants can't make you (historically) produce something you don't have. Either way, it's not a warrant. It's a writ. It's a court order. They're entirely separate things. As nobody has even been charged, I'm not even sure where they get the authority to hand down that order.
You've got a slight (maybe large) problem with your understanding - at least as far as I know. This is not a warrant. It's a writ, a judge's orders - I think this is based on a motion for discovery. What confuses me is that how are they able to do this if nobody has been formally charged? At any rate, it's an order - not a warrant. Court orders and warrants are different.
One could make a well reasoned argument that this is a legitimate overreach. Then again, there are a lot of good arguments to be made against this. I'm mostly curious about the procedure - I'm not sure where the judge got this authority in the first place? Nobody has been charged.
There's been no arraignment (they can do this posthumously) and there's been no jury indictment. Where's the judge getting the authority to do this? If he does have the authority then it's not the 4th Amendment that will apply so much, this isn't a warrant. In fact, they're not even asking them to search anything. If they were, it's not Apple's data they'd be searching - thus Apple might not have any standing at all under the 4th. I say 'might' because you can argue most anything. I'm not actually sure what the precedent will be (if any!) and what laws will be cited. I'm not even sure how the hell the judge has the power to order this, especially without anyone having been formally charged.
I've noticed that Rubio isn't a complete lunatic. He's actually not terrible. I'm sure as shit not voting for him, I'd rather vote for a drunken, half-eaten, pickle than vote for him. However, I'd sooner have him than I'd have Hillary. I'm a Sander's kinda guy, except I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that a dozen times this week.
However.. A big however... Rubio isn't all that bad. He's got some reasonable views, he's not a zealot - compared to some. He's seemingly likable and the reality is that that's important. I suspect it will be Hillary and Cruise and I'm hoping we get an Independent third party with Sanders in it. At one point, I was joking about Sanders/Trump as a ticket but that's because I'm selfish and like a good spectacle. I figure Sanders can keep him in check, distract everyone with Trump, while he gets useful stuff in the background.
No, I like you better than that. That's a royal you, though I'm sure you're fine too. I have to admit, it would be potentially hilarious to see Trump as the VP. I don't think it'd be constructive but he might mature a little. He'd not have any real power so long as Bernie stayed alive and who's gonna shoot Bernie and leave us with Trump? Nobody, that's who! We might even save money in Secret Service bills.
I could live with Rubio. I don't think he'd be that harmful. He might even do some good. They're talking about him more often on NPR. I even was over on Fox New Radio (long story) and heard him and he didn't sound insane. So, there's that.
This isn't really new, or anything. At one point, more than half the country thought owning slaves was just fine and dandy. With varied levels in between, we've been knee-jerking and behaving like irrational monkey just recently crawled down from the trees. I don't think it's going to be any different tomorrow.
I've played with them both, they're not bad backups. They're as trustworthy as they are but they're free. They seem to be fairly legit. If I were just browsing at an airport, I'd be okay with that. I wouldn't do banking on 'em or anything like that. As I recall, the second one was better than the first as far as throughput and reliability. I played with 'em for a few days.
That has all you might need. No need to hitch off this softpedia site. They're not adding any value over reading the press release and they don't even include a link (or I didn't see it in their layout) to the original press report. It's the internet, linking is kind of important. Maybe they want to pretend it's exclusive content or real journalism? I dunno... Screw it, avoid entering the unknown and go to a verified source - like the message of the article.
Are you mentally handicapped? Serious question. Normally, I'd proceed based on a good-faith effort to assume you're not. In this case, I really don't know. If you're mentally handicapped then I'll know how to proceed.
I'll take a stab at it - but this might be beyond your ability to comprehend.
What's your point? Seriously, what's your point? What are you responding to? What are you trying to prove?
We can work on it, if you're just stupid. If you're mentally handicapped, I'll try extra hard to help you out. If you're willfully ignorant there's not a damned thing I can do to help you and we're both wasting our time as you're not the least bit concerned with logic, reason, or facts and are hell bent on remaining that way.
I hope, for your sake, that it's not the latter. If it's not then the questions apply. If it is the latter, don't bother.
Breaking an oath is not, necessarily, a crime. How you break it may be a crime. Also, he was a private contractor. I doubt he swore any oaths in connection with his duty as a private contractor working with the NSA. He probably did sign an NDA, take some training, and filled in a form to get approved. Filling in the form with lies is against the law but that's still not really swearing an oath or anything. He did swear some oaths when he worked at the CIA and he must have sworn when he was enlisted. I'm pretty sure of the former and certain of the latter.
Am I missing something and did he actually swear any oath? I keep hearing this.
It's odd 'cause I've sworn some oaths before. I served in the military and enlisted a second time. I've been sworn at a couple of times.
I've even had my security clearance. I've even worked as a private contractor. I've even worked, as a private contractor, with classified data. In this last part, there were no oaths sworn. Nope, not even a hand-holding-up-and-repeat-after-me, ceremony or anything. I didn't get a plaque, a certificate, or anything! So, if I should have been sworn at - I want to do it again.
That and, well... Violating your oath is not, necessarily, violating the law. It's grounds for termination but not (by itself) grounds for legal remediation. I'm trying to figure out what kind of oath this oath might be? I'm actually almost at a loss for words. That's a rarity for me. I just have no idea why this oath subject keeps coming back up as if it means something specific.
If he did sign an oath, it'd probably have been pretty generic. He probably did, however, sign a contract and an NDA. Signing isn't really swearing and contracts and NDAs aren't really oaths. Are they?
So, I figured I'd do some investigating. Here's what I've found so far:
... Snowden, as far as one can tell, didn’t take an “oath” not to disclose classified information...
Where did this oath thing even come from? Why do people believe vague oaths, very much subjective, are actually the rule of law? When the hell did you last see or hear of anyone facing trial for "oath-breaking?" Maybe you can help me figure out where the hell this all came from and why people are running around yelling about it as if it helps further the discussion?
You don't actually get out much, do you? 'Cause I do and I have. I've stomped across the globe - literally. The only continent that I've not been on is Antarctica. I've not even been that close unless you want to say the southern part of Australia is close or if you want to say that near the tip of South America is close - I wasn't even at the edges or southern-most points.
If you think the US' justice system is that bad then you're broken in the head, delusional, or stupid. I don't know which one it is and I'm not the type that runs around calling people idiots. However, I'm not adverse to being able to adjust my views dynamically.
We'll presume you're not stupid. But...
You talk about the justice department, the thread and article is about the justice department, and you're talking about the police. For starters, believe it or not - the police aren't nearly as bad as you seem to think. At least not as a general rule. They're also a hell of a lot better than they are in much of the rest of the world - I know, I've interacted with 'em all over the place.
Yet, more importantly, I'm not actually sure you're qualified to opine. The judicial branch of the government is not the police. The police are the executive branch of the government. They are not the justice system - they do not administer justice in the United States. This is *not* a difference without distinction, it's an essential facet.
So, maybe it's wrong to presume you're not stupid? I try to give the benefit of doubt but some folks make that hard, I'm not sure if it's deliberate.
Speaking of the police, the executive branch... The nearest country, to my current physical location, is Cuba. Assuming I stay on land, the next nearest is Mexico. How about we do some justification for contrast? No? Yeah, you probably can't play that game honestly and the goal posts will get awfully heavy so I wouldn't want to put you out any. But, I can't say that I've ever had to produce my "documentaçion" (pay a bribe) to go from one town to the next without molestation. Hell, I can't even remember the last time a US police officer went on a spree-killing at the behest of the drug-lords.
Yeah, you don't actually get out much or you're 14? Or you're really, really dumb. And I don't say that lightly. I've written many things on Slashdot - scads of stuff. Very seldom do I feel inclined to call anyone dumb. It's almost as rare as hen's teeth for me to do so. You, in your brilliant display of wisdom and insight, managed to demonstrate to the world that you're a complete and total idiot who rants based on ignorance. You should not only be ashamed, you should go find your mother and smack her for failing to ensure you were given an adequate education or use the computer without supervision.
The 97% is meaningless by itself. In fact, it doesn't indicate anything other than selection bias in the data. In other words, only 3% made it far enough in the system to get to the point where they were officially charged.
Now, we both know that's not true - but the number is meaningless by itself. It could just mean that the enforcement was doing its job well and that only 3 out of 100 people were wrongfully charged. People trying to use that number are trying to do your critical thinking for you and they're pulling at heart strings to do it. They're meaningless numbers, for the most part.
If you don't believe me then what should that number be and why should it be there? That's a rhetorical question. Answering it is up to you and how honest you want to be with yourself.
Should it be 100% conviction rate? Should we take away a person's right to plead guilty to an offense? No, those are rhetorical questions. No need to respond. How you answer isn't really important to me. You might be an exception but most people are not actually interested in dialogue and critical thinking and I'm not sure that I blame them for being the way they are and opting to not subject their views to critical thought.
That number's meaningless. Really... Stop and think about it for a moment - if you want.
Should that number be 100% or 0% and why? Again, rhetorical.
That doesn't mean you're wrong! No, not at all. It's just that it's actually an appeal to emotion and a non sequitur. It literally does not follow. 97% could mean that they all were guilty as charged. 97% could mean that almost nobody gets falsely arrested or accused. Now, we know that's bullshit but the 97% number is immaterial. After all, what should than number be and why?
And again, it doesn't mean you're wrong. In fact, I'm quite certain you're right. Hell, I'm positive you're right - to the point where I put my money where my mouth is. (I donate, a whole bunch, to EFF, ACLU, and to the Maine chapter of the ACLU in addition to the national chapter.) So, I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that you're probably gonna want a better argument than that number - or even that link.
And, as this is Slashdot, I'll stress again that you're not wrong. You're just pulling at heartstrings and using a near meaningless number to make your case. The number doesn't, by itself, mean something is deeply and meaningfully wrong. The number, by itself, is mostly just an attempt to appeal to emotions and is still a non-sequitur. But, you're still not wrong. At least I don't think you are.
I've seen enough of your posts, you're not prone to hysterics or hyperbole. At least not generally - though you do have some subjects you're passionate about. So, what gives? There's got to be more to those stories? Got a link to a story about each of 'em so I can look it up and read more about that?
That's the stupidest definition ever. The problem with that is that you just think anyone who doesn't agree is irrational. It's highly subjective. There is almost no rational thought involved in morality. There's even less when we speak of ethics.
Seriously, that's straight up retarded as a definition. "I don't agree, therefore you're not rational." We consider it morally acceptable to deny the Holocaust in my country. It's stupid but it's still moral. It is even possible to deny it, or at least the numbers, without being prejudiced against Jews. It's still stupid - but it's possible.
In Germany, denying the Holocaust is an immoral act. It is also illegal. As are symbols of the Nazi party... Those are moral (and legal) acts where I live and might (in theory) be used for a whole host of reasons other than immoral reasons. I'm having trouble thinking of one - subject chosen specifically for the difficulty. Ah - one could hang a Nazi flag up, outside their house, and have people dressed in brown shirts that salute it every morning - and still be moral. How? Well, I had to reach for this one but in this case, they're doing so because they want to ensure that people never forget the dangers of allowing the government to do stuff like kill Jews en mass. See? Perfectly moral here - even for a rational actor. Not so in Germany, not only illegal but they'd consider it immoral. Why? Emotions.
In Aztec culture, human sacrifice was considered moral - the historians think they were *eager* to be sacrificed, at least some of them. (What greater good can you give your people but continued survival via blessings from the gods because your blood was spilled?) That was rational at the time and according to their beliefs. Today, we'd not consider that rational nor moral.
I can list many, many more instances. Even rational is subjective as it's based on what information is at hand.
That's the most retarded definition ever. It's horrible and you should feel bad for quoting them and propagating such nonsense! Seriously... That's no better than saying that it's moral because I say it is moral, which is pretty much the custom at the moment and throughout history. It's entirely circular reasoning and should be considered evidence that the universe is not that fragile. Why? That much irony and idiocy is concentrated in one place and it didn't collapse. It's the most irrational thing I've seen, read, or heard all year. While that might not mean much, I had Fox News talk radio playing earlier.
On a serious note, what the hell sort of definition is that and were they stoned when they came up with it? Also, no... I'm not a religious person though I do have a belief system. It's easiest to say that I'm a secular Buddhist.
> Socialist libertarian doesn't really work. Socialist implies the government takes such a cut of the GDP that libertarian is practically impossible. Money corrupts and the rest is already written.
I have to politely disagree. The ideology that is Libertarianism is not tied to, for instance, a specific economic model. That and, I'm a bit loathe to use the term but it's the shortest way to explain it. There are things that could be interpreted as Socialist that I support. However, I used logic and reason to reach those conclusions and not some sort of emotional response.
I'd also further the point by mentioning that Libertarianism is about the liberties of an individual as well as the obligations therein. It's right there in the title. If you're curious, there's actually a fine Wikipedia article on it. Read just the first four (or is it six?) paragraphs. They're short. They're pretty good. They're well worth a few minutes to read them.
You'll have to present a better argument than that.;-) You can't just say they don't work without providing some sort of argument - considering that I manage to hold these views simultaneously, have subjected them to critique and scrutiny, as well as having defended them successfully. We can have that conversation, if you want. I'd really stress a quick read of the opening part of the Wikipedia article prior to doing so. The whole article is pretty good, or was the last time I looked.
Lots of people have some strange beliefs about what Libertarianism is. Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian (and she was an idiot). Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. In fact, trying to shoehorn those into the ideology is crazy and yet they seem to have managed to convince people that it is so - thus the definitions have been added to but nothing has been subtracted. I'm still very much a Libertarian - even though the moniker has been co-opted by people who really don't seem to understand the "liberty" aspect. You can often tell when they confuse the definitions of liberty and freedom.
At any rate, I'd absolutely love to have this conversation with you - if you want to have it. We might have to agree on a few definitions first but once that's done, we should be good to go.
Given that we've not taken it by forceful freedom, I'm inclined to think there's no oil of meaningful worth in this area. The Middle East is a big area, it's actually more than deserts interspersed with ponds of oil. I know it is expensive for people to travel but it's worth it. The Middle East has some beautiful things and some great people - Israel is one of those places that has lots of beauty, history, and good people.
I post every day, pretty much. 'Snot like I've got a heavy schedule. At least I am free for most of the time. I've always got a tab open at Slashdot and I meander around a bit. I'd probably let them pay me $25 a day to post. Depending on the company, I might even "shill." (Though, I gotta be honest - I'm going to be dishonest and do it under a different username. I'm not entirely altruistic.)
I'd probably just donate all the money to the ACLU or something. Assuming I take 2 weeks off, work 7 days a week..
25*7*50 = 8750
That's a good donation to the ACLU. It'd even pay my internet bill(s).
35*3*12 = 1260
So, even if I let it pay for my three DSL lines (at home) it'd still leave me with ~7500 to donate to the ACLU. That's not bad at all! Err... I have internet here, as well as cable television. I don't actually know what it costs me and I can't seem to figure it out by looking at their site. I can't say that I've any recollection of seeing a bill for it. So, I have no idea what I pay for 'net here. I'm not usually here so I guess I won't count it.
'Snot bad speeds and I think it's fairly inexpensive. I get 50 down and either 5 or 10 up. It's far more than I need. At home, each line's real throughput is 13.5/1.5 and it's plenty for me. I'd switch to 10/5 if I could - I'd like to be able to tweak those numbers dynamically or with profiles. I have three disparate connections - and I can saturate all three and still get better than I pay for. (I pay for 12/.75.) However, they won't just let me pay 'em extra and buy all 45/6 in one pipe. (I also can't bridge 'em and get the throughput that way.)
It's no big deal, I just have a connection in the shop/garage, in the house that was here when I bought the place and had rehabbed instead of torn down (guesthouse sounds too pretentious and makes me feel like I'm projecting an image that I'm uncomfortable with), and the one in the house. I've buried conduit and run wired connections so that I have access to all three and I've configured the networks to allow interoperability between them. It works and I'm able to have a "spare" as well as having a dedicated line for sharing my torrents. I seed a whole lot of Linux ISOs. Even on my slow DSL, it's not uncommon to see me wracking up some impressive throughput totals.
By the way, you wouldn't happen to play KoL, would you?
Slashdot Mirror
> And no, not everyone has made poor choices - just not like everyone is in their situation through no fault of their own.
And I didn't offer just two choices... I did *mention* one choice, pooling of resources and living frugally. There are many, many other choices - read on.
Nor did I say anything about total equality, communism, or any specific living arraignments for everyone - though I did indicate that some people with particular circumstances might have to make those choices if they want to have a reasonably living standard.
So, basically you didn't read my post, inserted any ol' thing you thought I might think - without any substantiation, and responded to that. Okay then... You might read the article, based on your username, but you might want to expand that to read the comments you're replying to. I'll try, really hard, to help you out.
Expand the thread. Go ahead, you might have to load all comments now. CTRL + F > type "kgiii" and press Enter and then F3 a few times, taking care to read the posts.
Why you'd read into my post things I did not say is kind of strange. What really baffles me is how you'd reach those conclusions.
Err... I'm the guy who's recommending we consider something like Universal Basic Income. I'm sorry your ego is frail, I'm sorry you're injecting beliefs and views into things I did not say. I'm sorry you're into that conclusion jumping to thing. However, I can do nothing about those things. I can, on the other hand, point out the logical fallacies and point out that there are logical arguments to be made.
Maybe, just maybe, that will help you out in the future but it appears your ego is too frail for that. Had I known, I'd have not bothered conversing with you. Duly noted.
That does make more sense. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you're engaged in an effort of futility. There's probably no amount of logic, reason, or evidence that you can present that will change their minds. Though, 'tis noble that you try - I do similarly futile things.
I've been just going around trying to make sure that they know it's not a warrant. Like your effort, it appears to be mostly futile but it does seem to have been worth it for two people. Unfortunately, I "know" two of them and one of them in the real world and one by multiple off-site emails. So, yeah, it's mostly futile.
I still haven't found out HOW the judge managed to acquire this authority. It's not a warrant. It's an order based on a motion for discovery. Except there's nobody charged. There has been no arraignment, there has been no indictment, there has been no one specific individual charged. NPR has an "expert" who's calling it a warrant and saying that Apple needs to service the warrant. It's *not* a warrant.
It's a bit frustrating... I really need to get off my ass and stop being this lazy.
Hmm... I've seen you post before and I'm starting to have my doubts. You're not really a barn owl, are you?
Cruz is not a realistic option for me. I will be really disappointed if he wins. I am neither a coward nor a quitter so I'm unlikely to just move but I'm going to be displeased. The same with Trump. I gotta be honest, he's a barrel of laughs and I think he's *mostly* harmless. I find Hillary to be unacceptable, entirely. She's taken to quoting some of Sanders statements, almost verbatim, as of this last weekend. I have no reason to believe she's sincere.
Bernie might not be mean enough to win. He's not naive. He knows what he has to do and I've heard a few of the names of his crew kicking around before - so he's got experienced people around him. He's just too damned tolerant and nice. It also doesn't help that there's so much dishonesty in the media. It's full of dishonesty - and it's from both sides.
For instance, and this is trivial-seeming, I'm listening to NPR right this minute. There's a guy on there saying that we spend most of our oil money in countries that hate us and how we need to get off oil. Now, the getting off oil thing isn't really all that realistic - we'll be using it for a long time. Using it in our cars isn't really bright. But, more importantly, no... We don't really buy much in the way of foreign oil. I can dig out the citations if you don't believe me. That not only went unchallenged, it was applauded.
And yes, I know factually that we get our oil from mostly us and other nations that are *not* our enemies. Mexico, Canada, and not even Venezuela hate us. We don't hate us. We mostly get our own oil and get it from those few other countries. Yet, that's what's being fed to people who have neither time, energy, interest, or intellect to go find the truth. Earlier they were talking about computers... I'll let you make your own guesses about how accurate that was.
There's a lot of dishonesty in the media. It's not helping. For example, Trump doesn't sound like Hitler. I know, I've spent a LOT of time watching and learning about Hitler and the rise of the Third Reich. You might even say I'm a bit of a student of history in those regards. No, he doesn't. Disturbingly, some of his fans seem much the same BUT I can go back and play Obama's campaign and you will be able to draw the same conclusions - especially with his first campaign.
Oh, this is only tangentially related but this is already long... Kids... The young kids... They don't seem all that motivated, yet. I hate to say it but that's a bad thing. They need to get out there and speak and act. Someone has to counterbalance us old people just like we need to temper their enthusiasm with experience.
I think you're dreadfully confused. By my reading of my post, it's painfully clear there's a gradation and I'd like to know what, specifically, is in my post that is judging her? No, really... What's it that you're seeing because I just disassembled my post and not one part of your reply seems to be in response to anything I wrote.
As near as I know - none of them teach civics. Civics should be a whole subject - all by itself. Unless, of course, you don't think people should be aware of their rights and responsibilities? Even in what you listed, they teach it mixed with other stuff. I dare say that you can look around and conclude that they're not actually getting enough information about their rights and responsibilities. Or not...
Err, I'm not sure why you'd think I'm pushing in any certain direction - such as some sort of standardized test. If I had meant that, I'd have said that. Long, winding, rather complete posts are what I do. If I didn't say it, probably several times, you probably don't need to assign those sorts of beliefs to me. I'm careful and say what I mean - almost every time. It is no different this time.
Yeah, I figured I'd find the press release to see if they missed anything. No, they didn't really miss much. They mostly just seem to have reprinted it.
I got some replies that make me think there's a softpedia editor here posting AC. They seem concerned that I linked to the source. I think I'm going to have to keep paying attention to 'em - if I remember. It's pretty busy lately so I might not notice often. Ah well...
Not sure why they moderated you down. I got one the the other day that made no sense. I did get a couple that I understood. ;-) I'm just gonna say what I want, to hell with the moderation. Somehow, this normally works. I'm usually polite but I'm not much for mincing words. Screw 'em. If they wanna mod you down, they can mod me with you. (It gives you a 0 with no comment history available. Dunno why they did it.)
They probably said your off-topic. Which, by now, you can see is why my response is as it is. 'Cause I can do off-topic...
Anyhow, seeing as I'm going for that OT mod (I've got a whole bunch of those) I might as well tell you that the weather is nice. It's a nice, balmy, 73 (convert it yourself, I'm lazy) and sunny. I was downtown last night and oh my... For those that haven't been playing the home game, I'm in PCB, Florida. This is the home of Spring Break. Alas, I have a girlfriend that I've somehow managed to attract (probably with my devilish good looks and raw animal magnetism) so I can not go out ogling and I sure as hell can't offer any of them my penis. I don't know why there aren't more fender benders...
Oh, it stays like this for a month... The colleges all shut down at different times. I admit, I was drinking heavily at the time but that's actually why I bought the house. Well, sort of. I loved the area. Now that I think about it, I love the scenery in Maine. I love the scenery here. Hot college chicks in skimpy bikinis? Yes, yes I do like that. And, being an old man, they all feel compelled to come talk to me if I'm out and about. I've also got my dog with me - he and I need to take a ride downtown later.
There... One good OT post deserves another.
Yeah, they're as trustworthy as they are - which means I don't trust 'em much. I used 'em to browse the web, etc... I just have a network at home that I can use as a VPN but I prefer to just use the whole thing by remote via VNC. Then I'm not carrying anything with me for data. One thing I'd like to do is figure out how to use 2 factor authentication for VNC.
As it was alluded to, I'll make it a bit more clear.
We don't teach civics any more. They take "social studies." No, I shit you not. They don't have "Civics." They have "Social Studies."
I couldn't make that up if I wanted to. No, don't read into it more than I said. But, let it sink in... We stopped teaching Civics in favor of Social Studies.
Oddly, this is true. I listen to NPR most of the time. However, I put on some Fox News Radio, it's a long story and I blame Slashdot. At any rate, the guy(s) that were on Fox weren't too bad and seemed to know a bit about the subject now. They didn't at first, a few days ago. But, they had some fairly diverse views in callers and commentators throughout the afternoon again today. They've been kind of split on it since the start but as information filters down it's like they're actually at least discussing it a bit more accurately.
NPR had a bunch of people who really couldn't articulate what they wanted to say. Even the ones who argued in support of Apple didn't seem to understand the subject. Fox had a few people call in, one was a CS grad (claimed to be) and did a decent job explaining it - I was reading a Slashdot article on it at the same time. A little while later, they had a few others call in and chime in. That one show had an annoying host who liked to talk over everyone and he was dead set on them being allowed to do this and seemed to have changed his view, at least a little, by the end of the show.
Meh, stranger things have happened.
This isn't a warrant. Warrants can require you to produce physical items only and items only that you own or have in your possession. Warrants can't make you (historically) produce something you don't have. Either way, it's not a warrant. It's a writ. It's a court order. They're entirely separate things. As nobody has even been charged, I'm not even sure where they get the authority to hand down that order.
You've got a slight (maybe large) problem with your understanding - at least as far as I know. This is not a warrant. It's a writ, a judge's orders - I think this is based on a motion for discovery. What confuses me is that how are they able to do this if nobody has been formally charged? At any rate, it's an order - not a warrant. Court orders and warrants are different.
One could make a well reasoned argument that this is a legitimate overreach. Then again, there are a lot of good arguments to be made against this. I'm mostly curious about the procedure - I'm not sure where the judge got this authority in the first place? Nobody has been charged.
There's been no arraignment (they can do this posthumously) and there's been no jury indictment. Where's the judge getting the authority to do this? If he does have the authority then it's not the 4th Amendment that will apply so much, this isn't a warrant. In fact, they're not even asking them to search anything. If they were, it's not Apple's data they'd be searching - thus Apple might not have any standing at all under the 4th. I say 'might' because you can argue most anything. I'm not actually sure what the precedent will be (if any!) and what laws will be cited. I'm not even sure how the hell the judge has the power to order this, especially without anyone having been formally charged.
I've noticed that Rubio isn't a complete lunatic. He's actually not terrible. I'm sure as shit not voting for him, I'd rather vote for a drunken, half-eaten, pickle than vote for him. However, I'd sooner have him than I'd have Hillary. I'm a Sander's kinda guy, except I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that a dozen times this week.
However.. A big however... Rubio isn't all that bad. He's got some reasonable views, he's not a zealot - compared to some. He's seemingly likable and the reality is that that's important. I suspect it will be Hillary and Cruise and I'm hoping we get an Independent third party with Sanders in it. At one point, I was joking about Sanders/Trump as a ticket but that's because I'm selfish and like a good spectacle. I figure Sanders can keep him in check, distract everyone with Trump, while he gets useful stuff in the background.
No, I like you better than that. That's a royal you, though I'm sure you're fine too. I have to admit, it would be potentially hilarious to see Trump as the VP. I don't think it'd be constructive but he might mature a little. He'd not have any real power so long as Bernie stayed alive and who's gonna shoot Bernie and leave us with Trump? Nobody, that's who! We might even save money in Secret Service bills.
I could live with Rubio. I don't think he'd be that harmful. He might even do some good. They're talking about him more often on NPR. I even was over on Fox New Radio (long story) and heard him and he didn't sound insane. So, there's that.
This isn't really new, or anything. At one point, more than half the country thought owning slaves was just fine and dandy. With varied levels in between, we've been knee-jerking and behaving like irrational monkey just recently crawled down from the trees. I don't think it's going to be any different tomorrow.
A friend of mine recently sent me these two links:
http://www.vpngate.net/en/
http://www.vpnbook.com/feature...
I've played with them both, they're not bad backups. They're as trustworthy as they are but they're free. They seem to be fairly legit. If I were just browsing at an airport, I'd be okay with that. I wouldn't do banking on 'em or anything like that. As I recall, the second one was better than the first as far as throughput and reliability. I played with 'em for a few days.
Here's the actual announcement from Avast:
https://press.avast.com/en-us/...
That has all you might need. No need to hitch off this softpedia site. They're not adding any value over reading the press release and they don't even include a link (or I didn't see it in their layout) to the original press report. It's the internet, linking is kind of important. Maybe they want to pretend it's exclusive content or real journalism? I dunno... Screw it, avoid entering the unknown and go to a verified source - like the message of the article.
Are you mentally handicapped? Serious question. Normally, I'd proceed based on a good-faith effort to assume you're not. In this case, I really don't know. If you're mentally handicapped then I'll know how to proceed.
I'll take a stab at it - but this might be beyond your ability to comprehend.
What's your point? Seriously, what's your point? What are you responding to? What are you trying to prove?
We can work on it, if you're just stupid. If you're mentally handicapped, I'll try extra hard to help you out. If you're willfully ignorant there's not a damned thing I can do to help you and we're both wasting our time as you're not the least bit concerned with logic, reason, or facts and are hell bent on remaining that way.
I hope, for your sake, that it's not the latter. If it's not then the questions apply. If it is the latter, don't bother.
Breaking an oath is not, necessarily, a crime. How you break it may be a crime. Also, he was a private contractor. I doubt he swore any oaths in connection with his duty as a private contractor working with the NSA. He probably did sign an NDA, take some training, and filled in a form to get approved. Filling in the form with lies is against the law but that's still not really swearing an oath or anything. He did swear some oaths when he worked at the CIA and he must have sworn when he was enlisted. I'm pretty sure of the former and certain of the latter.
Am I missing something and did he actually swear any oath? I keep hearing this.
It's odd 'cause I've sworn some oaths before. I served in the military and enlisted a second time. I've been sworn at a couple of times.
I've even had my security clearance. I've even worked as a private contractor. I've even worked, as a private contractor, with classified data. In this last part, there were no oaths sworn. Nope, not even a hand-holding-up-and-repeat-after-me, ceremony or anything. I didn't get a plaque, a certificate, or anything! So, if I should have been sworn at - I want to do it again.
That and, well... Violating your oath is not, necessarily, violating the law. It's grounds for termination but not (by itself) grounds for legal remediation. I'm trying to figure out what kind of oath this oath might be? I'm actually almost at a loss for words. That's a rarity for me. I just have no idea why this oath subject keeps coming back up as if it means something specific.
If he did sign an oath, it'd probably have been pretty generic. He probably did, however, sign a contract and an NDA. Signing isn't really swearing and contracts and NDAs aren't really oaths. Are they?
So, I figured I'd do some investigating. Here's what I've found so far:
... Snowden, as far as one can tell, didn’t take an “oath” not to disclose classified information ...
That's a bit out of context but the rest of the quote is immaterial, here's a link:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/...
Where did this oath thing even come from? Why do people believe vague oaths, very much subjective, are actually the rule of law? When the hell did you last see or hear of anyone facing trial for "oath-breaking?" Maybe you can help me figure out where the hell this all came from and why people are running around yelling about it as if it helps further the discussion?
You don't actually get out much, do you? 'Cause I do and I have. I've stomped across the globe - literally. The only continent that I've not been on is Antarctica. I've not even been that close unless you want to say the southern part of Australia is close or if you want to say that near the tip of South America is close - I wasn't even at the edges or southern-most points.
If you think the US' justice system is that bad then you're broken in the head, delusional, or stupid. I don't know which one it is and I'm not the type that runs around calling people idiots. However, I'm not adverse to being able to adjust my views dynamically.
We'll presume you're not stupid. But...
You talk about the justice department, the thread and article is about the justice department, and you're talking about the police. For starters, believe it or not - the police aren't nearly as bad as you seem to think. At least not as a general rule. They're also a hell of a lot better than they are in much of the rest of the world - I know, I've interacted with 'em all over the place.
Yet, more importantly, I'm not actually sure you're qualified to opine. The judicial branch of the government is not the police. The police are the executive branch of the government. They are not the justice system - they do not administer justice in the United States. This is *not* a difference without distinction, it's an essential facet.
So, maybe it's wrong to presume you're not stupid? I try to give the benefit of doubt but some folks make that hard, I'm not sure if it's deliberate.
Speaking of the police, the executive branch... The nearest country, to my current physical location, is Cuba. Assuming I stay on land, the next nearest is Mexico. How about we do some justification for contrast? No? Yeah, you probably can't play that game honestly and the goal posts will get awfully heavy so I wouldn't want to put you out any. But, I can't say that I've ever had to produce my "documentaçion" (pay a bribe) to go from one town to the next without molestation. Hell, I can't even remember the last time a US police officer went on a spree-killing at the behest of the drug-lords.
Yeah, you don't actually get out much or you're 14? Or you're really, really dumb. And I don't say that lightly. I've written many things on Slashdot - scads of stuff. Very seldom do I feel inclined to call anyone dumb. It's almost as rare as hen's teeth for me to do so. You, in your brilliant display of wisdom and insight, managed to demonstrate to the world that you're a complete and total idiot who rants based on ignorance. You should not only be ashamed, you should go find your mother and smack her for failing to ensure you were given an adequate education or use the computer without supervision.
The 97% is meaningless by itself. In fact, it doesn't indicate anything other than selection bias in the data. In other words, only 3% made it far enough in the system to get to the point where they were officially charged.
Now, we both know that's not true - but the number is meaningless by itself. It could just mean that the enforcement was doing its job well and that only 3 out of 100 people were wrongfully charged. People trying to use that number are trying to do your critical thinking for you and they're pulling at heart strings to do it. They're meaningless numbers, for the most part.
If you don't believe me then what should that number be and why should it be there? That's a rhetorical question. Answering it is up to you and how honest you want to be with yourself.
Should it be 100% conviction rate? Should we take away a person's right to plead guilty to an offense? No, those are rhetorical questions. No need to respond. How you answer isn't really important to me. You might be an exception but most people are not actually interested in dialogue and critical thinking and I'm not sure that I blame them for being the way they are and opting to not subject their views to critical thought.
That number's meaningless. Really... Stop and think about it for a moment - if you want.
Should that number be 100% or 0% and why? Again, rhetorical.
That doesn't mean you're wrong! No, not at all. It's just that it's actually an appeal to emotion and a non sequitur. It literally does not follow. 97% could mean that they all were guilty as charged. 97% could mean that almost nobody gets falsely arrested or accused. Now, we know that's bullshit but the 97% number is immaterial. After all, what should than number be and why?
And again, it doesn't mean you're wrong. In fact, I'm quite certain you're right. Hell, I'm positive you're right - to the point where I put my money where my mouth is. (I donate, a whole bunch, to EFF, ACLU, and to the Maine chapter of the ACLU in addition to the national chapter.) So, I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that you're probably gonna want a better argument than that number - or even that link.
Anyhow... I've got these in my favorites:
https://www.bja.gov/Publicatio...
http://legaltechdesign.com/The...
And, as this is Slashdot, I'll stress again that you're not wrong. You're just pulling at heartstrings and using a near meaningless number to make your case. The number doesn't, by itself, mean something is deeply and meaningfully wrong. The number, by itself, is mostly just an attempt to appeal to emotions and is still a non-sequitur. But, you're still not wrong. At least I don't think you are.
Wait, what?
I've seen enough of your posts, you're not prone to hysterics or hyperbole. At least not generally - though you do have some subjects you're passionate about. So, what gives? There's got to be more to those stories? Got a link to a story about each of 'em so I can look it up and read more about that?
That's the stupidest definition ever. The problem with that is that you just think anyone who doesn't agree is irrational. It's highly subjective. There is almost no rational thought involved in morality. There's even less when we speak of ethics.
Seriously, that's straight up retarded as a definition. "I don't agree, therefore you're not rational." We consider it morally acceptable to deny the Holocaust in my country. It's stupid but it's still moral. It is even possible to deny it, or at least the numbers, without being prejudiced against Jews. It's still stupid - but it's possible.
In Germany, denying the Holocaust is an immoral act. It is also illegal. As are symbols of the Nazi party... Those are moral (and legal) acts where I live and might (in theory) be used for a whole host of reasons other than immoral reasons. I'm having trouble thinking of one - subject chosen specifically for the difficulty. Ah - one could hang a Nazi flag up, outside their house, and have people dressed in brown shirts that salute it every morning - and still be moral. How? Well, I had to reach for this one but in this case, they're doing so because they want to ensure that people never forget the dangers of allowing the government to do stuff like kill Jews en mass. See? Perfectly moral here - even for a rational actor. Not so in Germany, not only illegal but they'd consider it immoral. Why? Emotions.
In Aztec culture, human sacrifice was considered moral - the historians think they were *eager* to be sacrificed, at least some of them. (What greater good can you give your people but continued survival via blessings from the gods because your blood was spilled?) That was rational at the time and according to their beliefs. Today, we'd not consider that rational nor moral.
I can list many, many more instances. Even rational is subjective as it's based on what information is at hand.
That's the most retarded definition ever. It's horrible and you should feel bad for quoting them and propagating such nonsense! Seriously... That's no better than saying that it's moral because I say it is moral, which is pretty much the custom at the moment and throughout history. It's entirely circular reasoning and should be considered evidence that the universe is not that fragile. Why? That much irony and idiocy is concentrated in one place and it didn't collapse. It's the most irrational thing I've seen, read, or heard all year. While that might not mean much, I had Fox News talk radio playing earlier.
On a serious note, what the hell sort of definition is that and were they stoned when they came up with it? Also, no... I'm not a religious person though I do have a belief system. It's easiest to say that I'm a secular Buddhist.
> Socialist libertarian doesn't really work. Socialist implies the government takes such a cut of the GDP that libertarian is practically impossible. Money corrupts and the rest is already written.
I have to politely disagree. The ideology that is Libertarianism is not tied to, for instance, a specific economic model. That and, I'm a bit loathe to use the term but it's the shortest way to explain it. There are things that could be interpreted as Socialist that I support. However, I used logic and reason to reach those conclusions and not some sort of emotional response.
I'd also further the point by mentioning that Libertarianism is about the liberties of an individual as well as the obligations therein. It's right there in the title. If you're curious, there's actually a fine Wikipedia article on it. Read just the first four (or is it six?) paragraphs. They're short. They're pretty good. They're well worth a few minutes to read them.
You'll have to present a better argument than that. ;-) You can't just say they don't work without providing some sort of argument - considering that I manage to hold these views simultaneously, have subjected them to critique and scrutiny, as well as having defended them successfully. We can have that conversation, if you want. I'd really stress a quick read of the opening part of the Wikipedia article prior to doing so. The whole article is pretty good, or was the last time I looked.
Lots of people have some strange beliefs about what Libertarianism is. Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian (and she was an idiot). Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. In fact, trying to shoehorn those into the ideology is crazy and yet they seem to have managed to convince people that it is so - thus the definitions have been added to but nothing has been subtracted. I'm still very much a Libertarian - even though the moniker has been co-opted by people who really don't seem to understand the "liberty" aspect. You can often tell when they confuse the definitions of liberty and freedom.
At any rate, I'd absolutely love to have this conversation with you - if you want to have it. We might have to agree on a few definitions first but once that's done, we should be good to go.
Given that we've not taken it by forceful freedom, I'm inclined to think there's no oil of meaningful worth in this area. The Middle East is a big area, it's actually more than deserts interspersed with ponds of oil. I know it is expensive for people to travel but it's worth it. The Middle East has some beautiful things and some great people - Israel is one of those places that has lots of beauty, history, and good people.
I post every day, pretty much. 'Snot like I've got a heavy schedule. At least I am free for most of the time. I've always got a tab open at Slashdot and I meander around a bit. I'd probably let them pay me $25 a day to post. Depending on the company, I might even "shill." (Though, I gotta be honest - I'm going to be dishonest and do it under a different username. I'm not entirely altruistic.)
I'd probably just donate all the money to the ACLU or something. Assuming I take 2 weeks off, work 7 days a week..
25*7*50 = 8750
That's a good donation to the ACLU. It'd even pay my internet bill(s).
35*3*12 = 1260
So, even if I let it pay for my three DSL lines (at home) it'd still leave me with ~7500 to donate to the ACLU. That's not bad at all! Err... I have internet here, as well as cable television. I don't actually know what it costs me and I can't seem to figure it out by looking at their site. I can't say that I've any recollection of seeing a bill for it. So, I have no idea what I pay for 'net here. I'm not usually here so I guess I won't count it.
'Snot bad speeds and I think it's fairly inexpensive. I get 50 down and either 5 or 10 up. It's far more than I need. At home, each line's real throughput is 13.5/1.5 and it's plenty for me. I'd switch to 10/5 if I could - I'd like to be able to tweak those numbers dynamically or with profiles. I have three disparate connections - and I can saturate all three and still get better than I pay for. (I pay for 12/.75.) However, they won't just let me pay 'em extra and buy all 45/6 in one pipe. (I also can't bridge 'em and get the throughput that way.)
It's no big deal, I just have a connection in the shop/garage, in the house that was here when I bought the place and had rehabbed instead of torn down (guesthouse sounds too pretentious and makes me feel like I'm projecting an image that I'm uncomfortable with), and the one in the house. I've buried conduit and run wired connections so that I have access to all three and I've configured the networks to allow interoperability between them. It works and I'm able to have a "spare" as well as having a dedicated line for sharing my torrents. I seed a whole lot of Linux ISOs. Even on my slow DSL, it's not uncommon to see me wracking up some impressive throughput totals.
By the way, you wouldn't happen to play KoL, would you?