The CALEA mandate is yet another in a long list of privacy violations. Francisco Franco would be proud of the US.
The research shows that if the tapping capability is there, law enforcement will use it. i.e. although mobile/cell phones *can* be tapped, landlines are favoured for tapping by ratio of something greater than 10:1 (I don't remember anything more accurate, but you get the idea).
While the likelihood of somebody else tapping your Internet traffic may be low, the probability is never nill.
Now that all compliant ISPs have the taps in place, the number of capable ISP employees that can run a tap has very likely increased while the effort in making a tap has decreased. So, if you look at a tap-capable ISP employee as a commodity to be bribed, the market just became more accessible through competition. As a consequence it more likely that, say, a group of private investigators, previously unable to afford the resource, now could.
Of course, if you're not cheating on your wife, you won't have as much to worry about. But suppose you're email address is in the address book of someone who is, rightfully or wrongfully, being investigated for a criminal offence...
Recap: The more available this resource is for *someone*, the more available it is for *anyone*, and the more it gets used anyway.
Obligatory bow of the head: I, for one, welcome our new overlords.
If you don't want to bow your head, it's not obligatory. I often use Relakks, an anonymous IP provider in Sweden. I am not an employee or agent of Relakks (I'm not even a Swede), but I find the service well worth the 5 Euro/month despite the, naturally, slightly slower connection, which is 1) a PPTP VPN tunnel 2) through Sweden.
This card is a poster child of Gluttony, Greed, Envy & Lust. That pretty much constitutes a majority of deadly sins, there. I'd think twice about what exactly it is that you're doing in trying to find out more information about this card.
You definitely don't want to be anywhere near one of these things if the apoclypse starts.
On a personal note, this card outperforms my development server in clock speed, memory and power consumption.
Now I'm not saying I'm humble or meek or anything but seriously... G80 IS THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST!!!!11!!1
The cost of the service is 5 euros per month, and it is available now at www.relakks.com. A portion of the subscription fees will go towards the Pirate Party's work in changing the copyright and privacy laws and making the service obsolete.
This notion needs to be ported to *Management*...
1) Provide Middle Management services, a portion of the cost of which goes towards making Middle Management obsolete
To say that advertising has no value is incorrect.
Your point is pragmatic and well made.
My meaning, however, unclear as it was, is that while advertising has a strong influence (read value) in the world it also (in a very fundamental, laws-of-nature sense) has no intrinsic value.
True, advertising aims to (and usually does) return more money to those who pay money for it but money and value are not the same thing. The value that paper rectangles and metal discs (or, currently, representations of them on a bank statement/balance sheet) are only tangible representations of a belief in value. Take away the belief and you take away the value (c.f. NYSE Stocks in 1929, Deutsch Marks circa 1945, etc.).
Advertising exists because it works. So it does has value; mostly to the manufacturers and merchants, but even I benefit from it to a lesser degree.
Advertising's existence is truly significant... namely in that it does work. That's what I was saying. Practically everywhere you have 1st world you have advertising. There's even plenty of advertising in the 2nd world although some of might be just propaganda. Modern western civilisation ships with the built-in advertising module. Humans have progressed from barbarism to consumerism, along with their respective value systems, savoury and otherwise.
Advertising's geography is quite telling. Advertising outside the United States is somewhat juvenile in comparison. There are large swathes of continent where advertising is minimal and quite insignificant and irrelevent. Many people in such areas manage to get by without its 'benefits'. I live on the edge of region that was until recently one of the poorest in Europe. Reversal of fortune has made many of the inhabitants here wealthier than they could have possibly imagined in their childhood. Many landowners who have sold off lots are now millionairs. Their habits, however, change more slowly. They eat the same, dress the same, drive to town in the same old tractors. Advertising and fashion and such are now taking hold, though mostly with the younger generation (under 30). They are definitely influenced by advertising. They are being convinced that progress is buying a flash new car, wardrobe (every season), flat-screen TV, and that it's a Good Thing (true or not). Meanwhile the language, traditional music, etc. drifts more towards extinction.
I'm not saying that progress is good or bad. It happens regardless, by definition. Whatever helps serve to get you through today, tomorrow, August, winter has value. If fashon plays a role, so be it. If advertising comes with the package, oh well. I don't have to like it and I feel quite fortunate to have minimised it as much as possible while comfortably living month-to-month (geeks are in demand here like lifeguards are in Mongolia) in a somewhat first world country with a beautiful bay view and no TV.
Whatever my digression, advertising has real value culturally, financially, psychologically, etc. even thouth it has no intrinsic value whatsoever. What does? gold? fashon? music? pigeons? Maybe food and shelter have intrinsic value to people. But advertising? The notion just doesn't sit well with me eventhouth I 'benefit' from it as well. Most advertising seems to me an excess of consumerism and carries a large set of inappropriate and backward (negative) values. I don't mean that positive and negative value have a nullifying effect. Really, value comes from belief. Everything has value in some sense, and nothing does in another.
Hence the paradox. It's meant to be very Zen or something.
It's okay to 'benefit from' advertising (although I'd prefer to use the more value-neutral 'be influenced by'). I won't tell anyone. Don't let your "in" sneakers define you as a person.;)
Maybe I've just seen Fight Club too many times and don't have the balls to blow shit up.
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
- Vice President Dan Quayle, Hawaii, 8/11/89 (interview broadcast on CNN, referenced in 9/1/89 Washington Post article: "A Quayle Vision of Mars")
Linux is free, but I paid for Windows. [...] Windows (sadly) has value to me.
I don't really advocate piracy yet I can't really condone paying for Windows.
It's a nice paradox (which I like to think is zen in some way - moral strafing) that gels well with over-empathising in the sadness of valuing Windows.
I know Windows, Linux and everything else only has the value we attribute it. That's not why I wouldn't want to pay for Windows. That has more to do with how I despise Microsoft and its shitty OS.
Also paradoxical is the phenomenon of advertising. It has absolutely no value whatsoever and is a complete waste of human intellect yet it has become much more than just tolerated. It has evolved into a integral part of modern civilisation (at least in as much as economies are concerned).
So, while I concur that a free, ad-supported OS is anathema I can't say I'm not expecting it to catch hold. Computers are increasingly taken up by the non-savvy masses. The same masses that constitute modern civilisation. What do they value (besides 'clever' advertising)? Free shite. That sounds like a perfect niche for Microsoft.
So now a question of ethics (heh). Which is worse: hacking out the ads of a free MS OS or pirating a non-free one?
Nice recap. I like recaps. I'm slow like that. It's why I like reading the Sunday paper. Besides, I missed out on the comments the first time. I'm slow like that. Do I care? No. I'm just seeking recognition in any way possible.
Anyway... the aspect of this story that interested me most was the ACLU guy's whining about the First Amendment. The problem is that using Facebook isn't a right either in the human or the consitutional sense. Consider the lack of critical thought in designating Facebook-use as an activity protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the ACLU is too quick to embrace this kind of "Slip-n-Slide logic" when their efforts could be better placed elsewhere after only the slightest bit of thought.
Could anything ever come of this?
The absolute worst that could happen is that some athlete(s) refuse(s) to stop using Facebook and get(s) cut. Some litigation over retroactive contractual changes ensues that results in a "grandfathering" permission for existing athletes to use Facebook while new contractees are forbidden. No big deal. No slippery slope.
If it's not a blatent violation of constitutional rights (or basic human rights), it really just isn't as much fun, anyway, is it?
Let us not forget the great developments in privacy and security that countless Spaniards were forced to discover under [[Generalissimo]] Francisco Franco.
If Franco were alive today, he would certainly tax blank media and given the tax to copyright holders.
Of course, he would have killed the copyright holders first and taken ownership of the copyrights, but that's besides the point.
The point is that shortsighted legislation (or tyranny, for that matter) inspires people to creativly circumvent it: The Franco Factor.
O.K., the real point is... some things the Spaniards do post-Franko is funny... much in the same way that some things Germans do post-Hitler is funny, like leaving the coin change as a tip in restaurants.
CME prediction *may* also be useful to virology. The frequencies of CMEs vary with sunspot cycle (~11 year period). Moreover, solar radiation has biological impact as well and sunspot cycles (and thus, CMEs) have been strongly corelated with flu epidemics and pandemics: 1918 Spanish Flu, 1957-58 Asian Flu, etc.
The idea is as straightforward as radiation inducing viral mutation. We are currently at the low point in the cycle. The current, highly pathogenic H5N1 (a subtype/mutation of the Influenza A virus) and SARS both coincided with most recent peak in sunspot activity (mid 1998-2003).
If we are on the brink of a pandemic as several virologists suggest, there is a good likelihood that predicting CMEs could help in anticipating viral mutation vectors. A stockpile of engineered viral subtypes and mutations could thus be used to engineer vaccines preventatively. Every little bit helps, right?
So CME prediction may be useful if you assume that interfering with pandemics is a Good Thing. It might not be... who am I to judge? All the same, I'm looking to survive the next pandemic. I'd rather not die from drowning in my own fluids or other some such fun.
Then again, if the flu Came From Outer Space! then I suppose the usefulness of CME prediction remains with telecoms and power companies.
Slashdot Mirror
...is magnetic rat brain.
...the presupposition here being that scientology is a religion...
The CALEA mandate is yet another in a long list of privacy violations. Francisco Franco would be proud of the US.
The research shows that if the tapping capability is there, law enforcement will use it. i.e. although mobile/cell phones *can* be tapped, landlines are favoured for tapping by ratio of something greater than 10:1 (I don't remember anything more accurate, but you get the idea).
While the likelihood of somebody else tapping your Internet traffic may be low, the probability is never nill.
Now that all compliant ISPs have the taps in place, the number of capable ISP employees that can run a tap has very likely increased while the effort in making a tap has decreased. So, if you look at a tap-capable ISP employee as a commodity to be bribed, the market just became more accessible through competition. As a consequence it more likely that, say, a group of private investigators, previously unable to afford the resource, now could.
Of course, if you're not cheating on your wife, you won't have as much to worry about. But suppose you're email address is in the address book of someone who is, rightfully or wrongfully, being investigated for a criminal offence...
Recap: The more available this resource is for *someone*, the more available it is for *anyone*, and the more it gets used anyway.
If you don't want to bow your head, it's not obligatory. I often use Relakks, an anonymous IP provider in Sweden. I am not an employee or agent of Relakks (I'm not even a Swede), but I find the service well worth the 5 Euro/month despite the, naturally, slightly slower connection, which is 1) a PPTP VPN tunnel 2) through Sweden.
Remote controlled pigeons caused yesterday's international market crash that originated in China
From TFA
Hmmm... no mention whether Vista or other Microsoft operating systems will come under fire of the same arguement.
This card is a poster child of Gluttony, Greed, Envy & Lust. That pretty much constitutes a majority of deadly sins, there. I'd think twice about what exactly it is that you're doing in trying to find out more information about this card.
You definitely don't want to be anywhere near one of these things if the apoclypse starts.
On a personal note, this card outperforms my development server in clock speed, memory and power consumption.
Now I'm not saying I'm humble or meek or anything but seriously... G80 IS THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST!!!!11!!1
Are nuclear powered rovers a *bad* idea?
In the past? Is that like in the '60s?
What is the basis for the argument?
From TFA:
tri-shestiorki pyatdyecat dva
dyevatnadcet dvadcet dva
tweaking out yet?
Your point is pragmatic and well made.
My meaning, however, unclear as it was, is that while advertising has a strong influence (read value) in the world it also (in a very fundamental, laws-of-nature sense) has no intrinsic value.
True, advertising aims to (and usually does) return more money to those who pay money for it but money and value are not the same thing. The value that paper rectangles and metal discs (or, currently, representations of them on a bank statement/balance sheet) are only tangible representations of a belief in value. Take away the belief and you take away the value (c.f. NYSE Stocks in 1929, Deutsch Marks circa 1945, etc.).
Advertising's existence is truly significant... namely in that it does work. That's what I was saying. Practically everywhere you have 1st world you have advertising. There's even plenty of advertising in the 2nd world although some of might be just propaganda. Modern western civilisation ships with the built-in advertising module. Humans have progressed from barbarism to consumerism, along with their respective value systems, savoury and otherwise.
Advertising's geography is quite telling. Advertising outside the United States is somewhat juvenile in comparison. There are large swathes of continent where advertising is minimal and quite insignificant and irrelevent. Many people in such areas manage to get by without its 'benefits'. I live on the edge of region that was until recently one of the poorest in Europe. Reversal of fortune has made many of the inhabitants here wealthier than they could have possibly imagined in their childhood. Many landowners who have sold off lots are now millionairs. Their habits, however, change more slowly. They eat the same, dress the same, drive to town in the same old tractors. Advertising and fashion and such are now taking hold, though mostly with the younger generation (under 30). They are definitely influenced by advertising. They are being convinced that progress is buying a flash new car, wardrobe (every season), flat-screen TV, and that it's a Good Thing (true or not). Meanwhile the language, traditional music, etc. drifts more towards extinction.
I'm not saying that progress is good or bad. It happens regardless, by definition. Whatever helps serve to get you through today, tomorrow, August, winter has value. If fashon plays a role, so be it. If advertising comes with the package, oh well. I don't have to like it and I feel quite fortunate to have minimised it as much as possible while comfortably living month-to-month (geeks are in demand here like lifeguards are in Mongolia) in a somewhat first world country with a beautiful bay view and no TV.
Whatever my digression, advertising has real value culturally, financially, psychologically, etc. even thouth it has no intrinsic value whatsoever. What does? gold? fashon? music? pigeons? Maybe food and shelter have intrinsic value to people. But advertising? The notion just doesn't sit well with me eventhouth I 'benefit' from it as well. Most advertising seems to me an excess of consumerism and carries a large set of inappropriate and backward (negative) values. I don't mean that positive and negative value have a nullifying effect. Really, value comes from belief. Everything has value in some sense, and nothing does in another.
Hence the paradox. It's meant to be very Zen or something.
It's okay to 'benefit from' advertising (although I'd prefer to use the more value-neutral 'be influenced by'). I won't tell anyone. Don't let your "in" sneakers define you as a person. ;)
Maybe I've just seen Fight Club too many times and don't have the balls to blow shit up.
for Dan Quayle.
Phoenixes... quayles... same difference.
I don't really advocate piracy yet I can't really condone paying for Windows.
It's a nice paradox (which I like to think is zen in some way - moral strafing) that gels well with over-empathising in the sadness of valuing Windows.
I know Windows, Linux and everything else only has the value we attribute it. That's not why I wouldn't want to pay for Windows. That has more to do with how I despise Microsoft and its shitty OS.
Also paradoxical is the phenomenon of advertising. It has absolutely no value whatsoever and is a complete waste of human intellect yet it has become much more than just tolerated. It has evolved into a integral part of modern civilisation (at least in as much as economies are concerned).
So, while I concur that a free, ad-supported OS is anathema I can't say I'm not expecting it to catch hold. Computers are increasingly taken up by the non-savvy masses. The same masses that constitute modern civilisation. What do they value (besides 'clever' advertising)? Free shite. That sounds like a perfect niche for Microsoft.
So now a question of ethics (heh). Which is worse: hacking out the ads of a free MS OS or pirating a non-free one?
Nice recap. I like recaps. I'm slow like that. It's why I like reading the Sunday paper. Besides, I missed out on the comments the first time. I'm slow like that. Do I care? No. I'm just seeking recognition in any way possible.
Anyway... the aspect of this story that interested me most was the ACLU guy's whining about the First Amendment. The problem is that using Facebook isn't a right either in the human or the consitutional sense. Consider the lack of critical thought in designating Facebook-use as an activity protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the ACLU is too quick to embrace this kind of "Slip-n-Slide logic" when their efforts could be better placed elsewhere after only the slightest bit of thought.
Could anything ever come of this?
The absolute worst that could happen is that some athlete(s) refuse(s) to stop using Facebook and get(s) cut. Some litigation over retroactive contractual changes ensues that results in a "grandfathering" permission for existing athletes to use Facebook while new contractees are forbidden. No big deal. No slippery slope.
If it's not a blatent violation of constitutional rights (or basic human rights), it really just isn't as much fun, anyway, is it?
Indeed!
What exactly is this global warming project, anyway?
If it's to combat Scientists Blocking out the Sun I'm all in favour! Where do I sign up?
Let us not forget the great developments in privacy and security that countless Spaniards were forced to discover under [[Generalissimo]] Francisco Franco.
If Franco were alive today, he would certainly tax blank media and given the tax to copyright holders.
Of course, he would have killed the copyright holders first and taken ownership of the copyrights, but that's besides the point.
The point is that shortsighted legislation (or tyranny, for that matter) inspires people to creativly circumvent it: The Franco Factor.
O.K., the real point is... some things the Spaniards do post-Franko is funny... much in the same way that some things Germans do post-Hitler is funny, like leaving the coin change as a tip in restaurants.
CME prediction *may* also be useful to virology. The frequencies of CMEs vary with sunspot cycle (~11 year period). Moreover, solar radiation has biological impact as well and sunspot cycles (and thus, CMEs) have been strongly corelated with flu epidemics and pandemics: 1918 Spanish Flu, 1957-58 Asian Flu, etc.
The idea is as straightforward as radiation inducing viral mutation. We are currently at the low point in the cycle. The current, highly pathogenic H5N1 (a subtype/mutation of the Influenza A virus) and SARS both coincided with most recent peak in sunspot activity (mid 1998-2003).
If we are on the brink of a pandemic as several virologists suggest, there is a good likelihood that predicting CMEs could help in anticipating viral mutation vectors. A stockpile of engineered viral subtypes and mutations could thus be used to engineer vaccines preventatively. Every little bit helps, right?
So CME prediction may be useful if you assume that interfering with pandemics is a Good Thing. It might not be... who am I to judge? All the same, I'm looking to survive the next pandemic. I'd rather not die from drowning in my own fluids or other some such fun.
Then again, if the flu Came From Outer Space! then I suppose the usefulness of CME prediction remains with telecoms and power companies.