Every time I notice someone linking to 'em, I donate to 'em.;-) So, the tab is open. We'll see what the responses are to your post later and that will determine how much I donate this time. Last time, it was ColdFyord who posted it so he got a bunch of responses. We'll see if you get more responses than he. And no, don't let my donating stop you folks from doing so too. I've added them to my yearly list as well so they're on the list with the ACLU, EFF, and the Maine Chapter of the ACLU. (They get to double-dip, I like 'em.)
Here's another one attempting to twist that history into a knot. Check Wikipedia. Free Speech Zones were brought into the world by the Democrats in 1988 at the DNC in New York. Don't any of you remember this stuff?
Free Speech Zones were a DNC creation. 1988, New York. The Democrats brought those into the world. No, that doesn't make the use of such by any group any better but I think it'd be nice if you were honest about it.
Even if it's not censorship, it's manipulative, dishonest, and unethical.
I'd say that it's bordering on censorship as it's (from the claim) hiding data. It's not government censorship (that we know of) and it's not illegal or anything. It's just sleazy and yes, yes I am pretty hard left. (Albeit for very different reasons than most.)
Oh absolutely but I do wish we could politic while being intellectually honest. Unfortunately, there's too much at stake and people are just brainwashed. The things they say, they can't even believe the shit that comes out of their own mouths. Well, I hope they don't but I'm pretty sure I'm wrong and that they do.
Hmm... *snickers* If only there were some place for intelligent discourse and civil discussions. Oh well, nobody would bother to make anything like that or be in the process of working on it.
Yeah, I don't think they can really stop 'em. In a reply below, I indicated a couple of ways to just grab the damned data even if they don't give me permission. Given that the Feds almost certainly have lots of bandwidth and raw access to the pipes via the providers, I'm thinking they don't really need permission. I've got three disparate DSL connections in Maine and one cable connection here in Florida - I could saturate my lines and pull down nothing but text and probably scrape quite a bit of it without even needing to rely on a handful of VPS instances or spinning up something at Amazon. That won't get me IP addresses and other data but it'd get me quite a bit.
Now that I think about it a bit more - they've got machine learning down pretty well. I'm not familiar with it (but I'm a little interested in learning more about it) but it could probably be set up to just grab certain types of feeds and to ignore those from everyone from Aunt Jenny to the movie theater announcements. It could probably be set to just grab the more juicy feeds and reduce the bandwidth and compute cycles needed. Aggregated with other public information, I could probably pull a bunch of stuff down and narrow things down quite nicely - even if I don't have much else for starting information.
I think you and I should sign up for our free 7 day trial!
I don't think you need a license to call yourself a private investigator. It's easy enough to incorporate so we can hide our names. I kind of want to see what's on the other side of that site. Where's HumpWumpus? He'd probably be game for this with us.
> The only question is, does twitter know about the 3rd party company the Feds are going through for access or not?
Plausible deniability. I guess it's a thing for companies too. I was mentioning below, it's public data - posted on a public server. Give me a handful of VPNs so that I can get enough bandwidth into it and I can scrape the site in real time. On top of that, this is the Feds - they've got access to the pipes and probably have more aggregate data than even Twitter has.
I wonder if they even believe it themselves? Seriously, I'm turning into quite a conspiracy kook or something. I mean, yeah, I fully expected what Snowden released but what more is there?
As for this? It's well known that the Three Letter Agencies use front companies. So, a company called New Standard Aggregates INC is now just buying the data. They get the PR boost and they people actually believe that the feds are having to revert to scraping the site with scripts. Or, maybe, they have no idea that the Feds can just scrape the site - seeing as it's public. Hell, I can scrape the site - though I might need to use multiple connections to keep up with it. Okay, so I'd need lots of fat pipes to keep up with all the data going to them but I can order that and just use VPNs. I wouldn't even have to leave my house. I doubt I'd even have to script it - I'd just use HTTrack and a bunch of VPNs and scoop until my heart's content.
No, I won't get GEO IP location and things like that but I can probably do something to automate locating the posters. More so if I were the NSA and had access to the pipes.
That was my first exposure to AMD. I had a K6-II 350 MHz that I'd overclocked so that it was just a wee bit below 500 MHz. It was actually quite a nice little system. I had, IIRC, 512 MB of RAM even. It was pretty speedy for its day.
The most disappointing thing about politics threads is the sheer amount of intellectual dishonesty. I suppose you're blissfully unaware of it. And no, no... I'm most definitely not on the political right.
Do they really mean what they say or did they "block them" from this service while giving them an all you can drink tap right at the source? What's to stop the Feds from accessing the service under a fictitious name or via a legitimate company?
I must shamefully admit that the book is in my collection but I've just not been able to get into it. I've tried a few times but I just can't. I could probably force myself through it but there's no enjoyment in that. I'm hoping that the "right moment" will strike and I'll be ready and able.
I'm kind of partial to the courts being public by default. It's hard to uphold our end of the social contract, which is to observe and ensure justice is being served, if we're not privy to the proceedings, judgment, and sentencing. It is, after all, our duty to make sure that the justice being done in our name is actually just. Default to public and do what we can to ensure all possible information is public with very few exceptions. Secret courts have, historically, been bad ideas.
Any one of a couple of 'em. You *did* say that it didn't fit "any definition" after all. Nah, they fit a couple of 'em. Just not *your* definition. (Perhaps not the legal definition either.) But they certainly fit at least one of the definitions. They're kind of vague like that.
IMAP works with @hotmail and @outlook addresses. I prefer their spam filtering to GMail's so I use them for my "public" address (see next to my name here) and my email client is Thunderbird at the moment.
For domain email hosting, I've actually had good luck with Yandex. Yeah, I know that Putin is reading my email but at least they're probably not using it to sell it to people or to try to market stuff to me. There's also the side benefit that the NSA might not actually have a tap inside the Yandex servers. Well, they probably do actually but I'm going to pretend they don't.
> The employees will come away with something on their resume, and they will have stories about the stupid money that was floating around in the "good old days".
That sounds vaguely familiar.;-) Just about 20 years ago, actually.
I've recently gone through a bought where I used Lubuntu but took one install and put a bunch of different desktops on it. I then would use 'em for a while and then purge them. Why? Pretty much for the reason you're expressing - I wanted to know if they'd screw shit up. See, I'm not in a position where my computer *has* to work - I have multiples and ample time. That and since last September, I've been on the road. Sort of... But what this means is that I'm using VNC and using the device as not much more than a dumb terminal.
But, I've been parked down here in Florida since December (going back home soon) and I've refreshed the hardware that was here in this house here so I'd ample spare hardware to play with and none of it was essential. If I broke it, I could burn it to the ground and have a new install in 20-30 minutes, complete with getting anything I needed *locally* installed and configured - remember, I'm just using it a as a dumb terminal.
Perfect? No, not really. I can't actually think of any problems that I had - however. I'm not recollecting any show-stopper bugs. Nothing needed to be burned to the ground. Nothing pressing. They all just kind of worked - except for one which, for some reason, ended up doing something wonky and wouldn't let me back into the OS on reboot. It wouldn't login. It took a minute but then I dropped into tty an took ownership of ~/.Xauthority and all was good from there. That was after installing XFCE and that's the only bug that I found.
If I'd thought about it, I'd have taken screen shots and documented it - it'd make good blog fodder and maybe help people out. I didn't. Still, that's the only issue I had but, I confess, I didn't go through them all with a fine toothed comb to check for bugs - I only noted what appeared and that was the only one that I saw.
If you're curious, I stuck with LXDE. I did not try LXQt because that was expected to be delivered in 16.04 at the time but they changed their minds and stuck with LXDE so I've still not tried that. I also played with a bunch of WM systems in the same time-frame. It was remarkably bug-free/simple. Your experiences may differ but I hadn't any issues with it.
Pick a different flavor. I like the official flavors - for a whole host of reasons. I also prefer LXDE over any other DE. So, I'm a Lubuntu user. They're going to go to LXQt but they didn't and 16.04 is short LTS (not long LTS, really) but that means I can stick with LXDE for a while longer or just install it myself. I may just start spinning my own soon enough but, for now, I love the Ubuntu ecosystem. I may also like LXQt but I've not tried it so I shan't opine.
It's Linux. You can do anything with most any distro - if you're willing to put in some leg work. I just stick with the Ubuntu ecosystem because it's the most robust for desktop users. I did snap a dev licensed copy of RedHat - I've used both Fedora and CentOS and used to use RedHat a long, long time ago. I've not yet actually installed it - not even in a VM. I figure that I'll wait until I'm back home and have spare bare metal laying around and skip the VM stage - maybe just use it on the metal and VMs on top of it via VMWare.
At any rate, there's a billion and three choices - and that's just sticking within the official Ubuntu flavors and relying on their repositories. You can slap Cinnamon up - it's in the repo. Install it, make sure it works, set to default to it, and purge the existing old and you're good to go. Do it on a LTS and life is good, no? The main thing I'm waiting for is the kernel that lets me just slap a new kernel in without rebooting (I think I have it now - I've yet to set up and check it out with uname -a and whatnot) and then I'm good. I don't care if I build up a couple of dozen old kernel files because I didn't reboot. I'm okay with that. I guess 4.2+ should enable live patching? I'm not 100% positive and I'm not sure where to check - I've seen varied claims. But, that's the "killer feature" I'm waiting for and, I guess, that's about it.
I guess i can just stuff my own kernel into it but having "official" support is good. Or, should I say, having it it officially supported (thus not breaking crap) is good.
I've been watching this Ultimate guy for a long while now. I'm pretty sure he's insane and I'm not sure I trust him. However, he's working on a neat tool to enable you to easily wrap your own distro (based off Ubuntu) and run with it. I'm not sure that I'd rely on his particular builds. I am interested in the tool. I'd like a nice easy to use tool that would enable me to roll my own distro. I kind of like the online version OpenSUSE has. That's really neat. Hell, I'd even like something like that that was self-hosted where I could just tick and it would pull in the packages for me. It'd be nice if it added the requisite repos as well.
Does the Many Worlds/Universes theory actually assert that there will be infinite rules and variations in physics? My understanding was that in the other worlds the physics should be exactly the same as they are here and that such was considered almost a requirement in order for that theory to even be plausible?
So, in other words, if there's entropy in this universe and that entropy is unavoidable in this universe than it should (or *must*) also be the same in every other universe. I'm not sure if it was Cox, Greene, or Susskind that I recall mentioning that?
You know shareholders isn't just a matter of publicly traded shares, right? There are all sorts of examples out there - the important part of this is that corporations covers a whole lot of ground. My children are shareholders - even on paper, to a non-publicly traded corporation. It's even a for-profit corporation. I'd consider looking at what incorporation actually is before going further in this discussion. The use of the term shareholders does not imply nor limit it to publicly traded, NASDAQ. NYSE, or any other entity. I imagine there's a Wikipedia article or two if you're actually interested in learning.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time I notice someone linking to 'em, I donate to 'em. ;-) So, the tab is open. We'll see what the responses are to your post later and that will determine how much I donate this time. Last time, it was ColdFyord who posted it so he got a bunch of responses. We'll see if you get more responses than he. And no, don't let my donating stop you folks from doing so too. I've added them to my yearly list as well so they're on the list with the ACLU, EFF, and the Maine Chapter of the ACLU. (They get to double-dip, I like 'em.)
Here's another one attempting to twist that history into a knot. Check Wikipedia. Free Speech Zones were brought into the world by the Democrats in 1988 at the DNC in New York. Don't any of you remember this stuff?
Free Speech Zones were a DNC creation. 1988, New York. The Democrats brought those into the world. No, that doesn't make the use of such by any group any better but I think it'd be nice if you were honest about it.
Even if it's not censorship, it's manipulative, dishonest, and unethical.
I'd say that it's bordering on censorship as it's (from the claim) hiding data. It's not government censorship (that we know of) and it's not illegal or anything. It's just sleazy and yes, yes I am pretty hard left. (Albeit for very different reasons than most.)
Oh absolutely but I do wish we could politic while being intellectually honest. Unfortunately, there's too much at stake and people are just brainwashed. The things they say, they can't even believe the shit that comes out of their own mouths. Well, I hope they don't but I'm pretty sure I'm wrong and that they do.
Hmm... *snickers* If only there were some place for intelligent discourse and civil discussions. Oh well, nobody would bother to make anything like that or be in the process of working on it.
Yeah, I don't think they can really stop 'em. In a reply below, I indicated a couple of ways to just grab the damned data even if they don't give me permission. Given that the Feds almost certainly have lots of bandwidth and raw access to the pipes via the providers, I'm thinking they don't really need permission. I've got three disparate DSL connections in Maine and one cable connection here in Florida - I could saturate my lines and pull down nothing but text and probably scrape quite a bit of it without even needing to rely on a handful of VPS instances or spinning up something at Amazon. That won't get me IP addresses and other data but it'd get me quite a bit.
Now that I think about it a bit more - they've got machine learning down pretty well. I'm not familiar with it (but I'm a little interested in learning more about it) but it could probably be set up to just grab certain types of feeds and to ignore those from everyone from Aunt Jenny to the movie theater announcements. It could probably be set to just grab the more juicy feeds and reduce the bandwidth and compute cycles needed. Aggregated with other public information, I could probably pull a bunch of stuff down and narrow things down quite nicely - even if I don't have much else for starting information.
I think you and I should sign up for our free 7 day trial!
I don't think you need a license to call yourself a private investigator. It's easy enough to incorporate so we can hide our names. I kind of want to see what's on the other side of that site. Where's HumpWumpus? He'd probably be game for this with us.
> The only question is, does twitter know about the 3rd party company the Feds are going through for access or not?
Plausible deniability. I guess it's a thing for companies too. I was mentioning below, it's public data - posted on a public server. Give me a handful of VPNs so that I can get enough bandwidth into it and I can scrape the site in real time. On top of that, this is the Feds - they've got access to the pipes and probably have more aggregate data than even Twitter has.
I wonder if they even believe it themselves? Seriously, I'm turning into quite a conspiracy kook or something. I mean, yeah, I fully expected what Snowden released but what more is there?
As for this? It's well known that the Three Letter Agencies use front companies. So, a company called New Standard Aggregates INC is now just buying the data. They get the PR boost and they people actually believe that the feds are having to revert to scraping the site with scripts. Or, maybe, they have no idea that the Feds can just scrape the site - seeing as it's public. Hell, I can scrape the site - though I might need to use multiple connections to keep up with it. Okay, so I'd need lots of fat pipes to keep up with all the data going to them but I can order that and just use VPNs. I wouldn't even have to leave my house. I doubt I'd even have to script it - I'd just use HTTrack and a bunch of VPNs and scoop until my heart's content.
No, I won't get GEO IP location and things like that but I can probably do something to automate locating the posters. More so if I were the NSA and had access to the pipes.
LOL I *know* who you are Mr. AC... :P
That was my first exposure to AMD. I had a K6-II 350 MHz that I'd overclocked so that it was just a wee bit below 500 MHz. It was actually quite a nice little system. I had, IIRC, 512 MB of RAM even. It was pretty speedy for its day.
The most disappointing thing about politics threads is the sheer amount of intellectual dishonesty. I suppose you're blissfully unaware of it. And no, no... I'm most definitely not on the political right.
Do they really mean what they say or did they "block them" from this service while giving them an all you can drink tap right at the source? What's to stop the Feds from accessing the service under a fictitious name or via a legitimate company?
I really am turning into a conspiracy theorist. :/
It's hard to tell these days.
I must shamefully admit that the book is in my collection but I've just not been able to get into it. I've tried a few times but I just can't. I could probably force myself through it but there's no enjoyment in that. I'm hoping that the "right moment" will strike and I'll be ready and able.
That's probably a fair indicator as to the underlying reason for their failing to understand the summary and to accuse it of being clickbait.
I'm kind of partial to the courts being public by default. It's hard to uphold our end of the social contract, which is to observe and ensure justice is being served, if we're not privy to the proceedings, judgment, and sentencing. It is, after all, our duty to make sure that the justice being done in our name is actually just. Default to public and do what we can to ensure all possible information is public with very few exceptions. Secret courts have, historically, been bad ideas.
Any one of a couple of 'em. You *did* say that it didn't fit "any definition" after all. Nah, they fit a couple of 'em. Just not *your* definition. (Perhaps not the legal definition either.) But they certainly fit at least one of the definitions. They're kind of vague like that.
IMAP works with @hotmail and @outlook addresses. I prefer their spam filtering to GMail's so I use them for my "public" address (see next to my name here) and my email client is Thunderbird at the moment.
For domain email hosting, I've actually had good luck with Yandex. Yeah, I know that Putin is reading my email but at least they're probably not using it to sell it to people or to try to market stuff to me. There's also the side benefit that the NSA might not actually have a tap inside the Yandex servers. Well, they probably do actually but I'm going to pretend they don't.
> they are not a "taxi" service in any definition of the word.
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
> The employees will come away with something on their resume, and they will have stories about the stupid money that was floating around in the "good old days".
That sounds vaguely familiar. ;-) Just about 20 years ago, actually.
I've recently gone through a bought where I used Lubuntu but took one install and put a bunch of different desktops on it. I then would use 'em for a while and then purge them. Why? Pretty much for the reason you're expressing - I wanted to know if they'd screw shit up. See, I'm not in a position where my computer *has* to work - I have multiples and ample time. That and since last September, I've been on the road. Sort of... But what this means is that I'm using VNC and using the device as not much more than a dumb terminal.
But, I've been parked down here in Florida since December (going back home soon) and I've refreshed the hardware that was here in this house here so I'd ample spare hardware to play with and none of it was essential. If I broke it, I could burn it to the ground and have a new install in 20-30 minutes, complete with getting anything I needed *locally* installed and configured - remember, I'm just using it a as a dumb terminal.
Perfect? No, not really. I can't actually think of any problems that I had - however. I'm not recollecting any show-stopper bugs. Nothing needed to be burned to the ground. Nothing pressing. They all just kind of worked - except for one which, for some reason, ended up doing something wonky and wouldn't let me back into the OS on reboot. It wouldn't login. It took a minute but then I dropped into tty an took ownership of ~/.Xauthority and all was good from there. That was after installing XFCE and that's the only bug that I found.
If I'd thought about it, I'd have taken screen shots and documented it - it'd make good blog fodder and maybe help people out. I didn't. Still, that's the only issue I had but, I confess, I didn't go through them all with a fine toothed comb to check for bugs - I only noted what appeared and that was the only one that I saw.
If you're curious, I stuck with LXDE. I did not try LXQt because that was expected to be delivered in 16.04 at the time but they changed their minds and stuck with LXDE so I've still not tried that. I also played with a bunch of WM systems in the same time-frame. It was remarkably bug-free/simple. Your experiences may differ but I hadn't any issues with it.
Pick a different flavor. I like the official flavors - for a whole host of reasons. I also prefer LXDE over any other DE. So, I'm a Lubuntu user. They're going to go to LXQt but they didn't and 16.04 is short LTS (not long LTS, really) but that means I can stick with LXDE for a while longer or just install it myself. I may just start spinning my own soon enough but, for now, I love the Ubuntu ecosystem. I may also like LXQt but I've not tried it so I shan't opine.
It's Linux. You can do anything with most any distro - if you're willing to put in some leg work. I just stick with the Ubuntu ecosystem because it's the most robust for desktop users. I did snap a dev licensed copy of RedHat - I've used both Fedora and CentOS and used to use RedHat a long, long time ago. I've not yet actually installed it - not even in a VM. I figure that I'll wait until I'm back home and have spare bare metal laying around and skip the VM stage - maybe just use it on the metal and VMs on top of it via VMWare.
At any rate, there's a billion and three choices - and that's just sticking within the official Ubuntu flavors and relying on their repositories. You can slap Cinnamon up - it's in the repo. Install it, make sure it works, set to default to it, and purge the existing old and you're good to go. Do it on a LTS and life is good, no? The main thing I'm waiting for is the kernel that lets me just slap a new kernel in without rebooting (I think I have it now - I've yet to set up and check it out with uname -a and whatnot) and then I'm good. I don't care if I build up a couple of dozen old kernel files because I didn't reboot. I'm okay with that. I guess 4.2+ should enable live patching? I'm not 100% positive and I'm not sure where to check - I've seen varied claims. But, that's the "killer feature" I'm waiting for and, I guess, that's about it.
I guess i can just stuff my own kernel into it but having "official" support is good. Or, should I say, having it it officially supported (thus not breaking crap) is good.
I've been watching this Ultimate guy for a long while now. I'm pretty sure he's insane and I'm not sure I trust him. However, he's working on a neat tool to enable you to easily wrap your own distro (based off Ubuntu) and run with it. I'm not sure that I'd rely on his particular builds. I am interested in the tool. I'd like a nice easy to use tool that would enable me to roll my own distro. I kind of like the online version OpenSUSE has. That's really neat. Hell, I'd even like something like that that was self-hosted where I could just tick and it would pull in the packages for me. It'd be nice if it added the requisite repos as well.
Hmm... Now you've piqued my interest. ;-)
Does the Many Worlds/Universes theory actually assert that there will be infinite rules and variations in physics? My understanding was that in the other worlds the physics should be exactly the same as they are here and that such was considered almost a requirement in order for that theory to even be plausible?
So, in other words, if there's entropy in this universe and that entropy is unavoidable in this universe than it should (or *must*) also be the same in every other universe. I'm not sure if it was Cox, Greene, or Susskind that I recall mentioning that?
Note: I am NOT a theoretical physicist.
You know shareholders isn't just a matter of publicly traded shares, right? There are all sorts of examples out there - the important part of this is that corporations covers a whole lot of ground. My children are shareholders - even on paper, to a non-publicly traded corporation. It's even a for-profit corporation. I'd consider looking at what incorporation actually is before going further in this discussion. The use of the term shareholders does not imply nor limit it to publicly traded, NASDAQ. NYSE, or any other entity. I imagine there's a Wikipedia article or two if you're actually interested in learning.