Well this certainly sheds some light on Google's decision to try to force SSL encryption by factoring that into their page ranking algorithm(s). Among the speculation was the idea that it was a way of flipping off the NSA, and like-agencies, by making their job harder by encouraging others to encrypt their traffic. In my opinion, this speculation now has more sturdy ground to stand on.
It's a shame that we're reduced to posting our outrage on the internet and left with no real actionable moves on the issue. We can fight it by working towards encrypting our data/traffic, but we can't force a public conversation on the issue that would result in stopping the all-out effort to collect an analyze the actual data. We'll forever be in a cat-and-mouse game over the issue. With the people involved in this having a significant leg up over the global community and always being one step ahead.
I get that this sort of thing can, and likely is, used to protect the general public from nefarious actors. What's a shame is that at this point we assume it's also used against the general public, an assumption that comes with good reason.
Yes, testimony matters, it absolutely does. But not the testimony the media shows us. Ascribing legitimacy to The Court of Public Opinion is dangerous.
The police chief gave a brief press conference following the event which was an admitted restatement of the officer's view of what happened, with everything qualified with the word allegedly. Since then his department has lost jurisdiction over the investigation and the FBI has yet to issue a statement.
Neither of which is 'one side' saying anything of any importance. The media has convinced tons of people that they have, but that doesn't actually mean that they have.
People are going nuts over something with no facts in the case. They have the officer's statements via the police chief, witness statements via the media, and a bunch of publicity seeking individuals with no clue what actually happened riling everyone up.
No, but I can blame them for going after headlines instead of reporting responsibly; which they do far too often.
I can also blame the people that fall for it every time as well, as they're equally part of the problem.
The other side isn't saying much because there is an investigation going on. Too many people are not willing to wait for it. They'd rather make assumptions and draw their own conclusions then chastise those that refuse to accept them prematurely.
The rush to judgement that the officer did something wrong is no more correct than the rush to judgement that Mr. Brown was a criminal (or at best a future criminal) who did something wrong. Both sides are equally irresponsible at this time, which is something that used to be worth a chuckle but more and more has just become sad.
The rush to judgement in situations like this is just sickening. And that goes for both sides.
No investigation by anyone has revealed anything about either side. I can't figure out what's worse anymore - the media's complete dive into yellow journalism or the fact that so many people on the USA fuel the yellow journalism.
It's easy as long as you're taking everyone's sensitivities into account all the time.
My point is that the person that has a problem with what they consider obvious stereotyping that's a problem with discrimination has easily overlooked something others would consider an obvious stereotype that leads to discrimination...
If we're going to lambast the OP for being sexist, then this commenter should be lambasted for being ageist. Yet I bet if you ask the commenter they'll say they don't behave like an ageist and would rather not be called such...
yet said commenter doesn't bother affording the OP the same level of discourse or benefit of the doubt.
today's political correctness is full of this sort of hypocrisy.
in my opinion the better option is for people to stop being so sensitive and to look for actual discrimination instead of perceiving it from people they know nothing about based on one line on the internet...
>Like others, I find the title of this thread problematic. I also find your apparent refusal to understand _why_ it is problematic, even more problematic. You could have said parents instead of mom. Think about why you didn't.
Hah. So it's ok to be ageist but not sexist? Think about why you don't see 'parents' as ageist...
This is the problem with today's politically correct climate - it's not about what the person is intending to say anymore, it's about how people perceive what is said. And if a group perceives it as offensive then look out, because it doesn't matter what your intentions were anymore because your intentions are now being decided by others for you. Any hypocrisy in those people's stances is obviously to be ignored.
It's an interesting dynamic to watch. It's a shame you have to tip toe so much, it almost seems to take away from the actual issues these days.
Using a HUD to read/write texts/tweets? It seems like the creators missed all the studies about the dangers of distracted driving.
And pilots use HUD's so this must be safe? That would potentially hold water, if the pilots were using huds to tweet, text, and select music while landing... instead they're using huds to display important information...
I like the technology, I just don't like the suggested use cases for it...
CALEA was enacted in 1994, well before the recent issues with the NSA.
I don't like what the NSA is doing either, but companies like Sprint are obligated to provide these sorts of things to law enforcement for other reasons than just NSA spying. It's also for other legal investigation using warrants.
They shouldn't be abusing it by collecting more than they're due, regardless of how anyone feels about the NSA.
Your comment is the exact same as PG's - because you don't see it with your own two eyes it must not exist.
There are millions of people that are working off of microsoft exchange servers, using websites hosted by microsoft IIS, involved in environments managed using active directory, work collaboratively with others using sharepoint (there's lots of job opportunities as a shairpoint dev, by the way), .NET developers, people working with Azure and Office 365, use SQL server databases, using microsoft office products, having their traffic pass through UAG systems, and so and so on. In addition they're one of the leading tech companies when it comes to helping fight spam and cyber crime activity (when I say one of the leading tech companies I mean one of the leading tech companies that's mission statement isn't to mainly fight spam and cyber crime.)
Hyper-v, file shares, remote desktop gateway and services, the list of services microsoft has its hands in is very, very long. Microsoft does a whole hell of a lot more than just produce an office suite and an operating system.
Just because you're personally surrounded by linux and mac users doesn't mean microsoft is irrelevant. It just means your scope on the world is narrow enough that it's out of your personal bubble.
There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize it for what it is - your own little world that is not a perfect representation of the real world.
If the premise is that Microsoft no longer has a death grip on the technology sector, with the ability to throw its weight in whatever direction it pleases whenever it pleases, then I would agree with that.
Dead? Not even close.
(But they may be dead in the not too distant future. i do not have a crystal ball. but right now they're hardly dead, 7 years after PG's essay.)
Yeah, he was right, people that design software no longer had to worry about Microsoft.
Except that it's 2014 and Microsoft is still relevant. The techy bubble on the west coast may all be using Mac's but microsoft products can still be found throughout the rest of the world.
I like PG, and love his essays, but this one was just bad. I'm not even talking about his prediction, just the way he puts it out there. It's just a very pathetic read.
For ~20 years Microsoft was a bully and received much criticism for it. Now they're just another tech company that's successful at the end of the day and has a lot of products out there being used by a lot of people. Now they're dead?
Give me a break. The whole Microsoft-hate bandwagon is absolutely pathetic to watch. It's just like the Apple-hate bandwagon.
So for drug convictions it's unfair? possession or distribution? what about manufacturing? is the crime for possession change depending on amount? what about the type of drug?
i think the way our country approaches the issue of drugs is not only pointless but down right dumb. about as dumb as breaking the law 3 times when you know that there's a three strikes rule on the books. i just don't have sympathy for people that can't learn from their mistakes. these laws are in place for a reason, these people knew they were in place, and now we're all supposed to feel bad for them about their decisions making? sorry, i don't buy it.
as for celebrities, i don't think we can really model the entire country around how they're treated. i'd prefer they be treated like everyone else too, but money buys lawyers and not all lawyers are created equally.
Crimes. Plural, not singular. Three strikes laws exist for a reason.
Does stealing a wallet justify sitting in jail for life? No.
Does getting caught committing your third burglary? Well, that's a much more interesting question and everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinions. But no one is entitled to completely twist the facts and then demand everyone agree with them or feel sorry for their own positions on it.
The point of the justice system is to adequately determine punishments for crimes committed.
The point of prisons is to provide a place to isolate people from society that have been deemed not fit for society (permanently or temporary.)
Neither one is there to reduce crime. They're reactive not proactive systems. Society uses them as examples to deter future crime, but that does not make that their job.
Wait, are we actually supposed to get worked up over this? The ACLU so clearly tip toed while writing the descriptions of these cases as to clearly walk a line between lying about the case and giving us the context needed to understand why these people are in jail for life.
"Patrick had no violent criminal history and had never served a single day in a Department of Corrections facility" - Right, but he obviously had a drug problem since he did NA in prison and probably got in trouble previously, just not enough to go to the Department Of Corrections facility (what his crimes and punishments were are left as an exercise to the reader)
The other stories have similar issues. Blame it on the abusive and threatening boyfriend, not the previous drug convictions and a three strikes law. Life in prison for borrowing a truck from a friend that accidentally reported it stolen?
Look, innocent people get in trouble for things they didn't do. Not innocent people get in trouble for things they didn't do, but were just in the wrong place at the wrong time due to the other things that they did do. It's an unfortunate part of the system and I'm all for things that minimize overcharging and punishing innocent people.
But anyone who can't read between the lines on these is either a sap or just believing what they want to. They even led into it with a statistic about race to soften you up. There are three strikes laws for a reason. There's massive amounts of context missing from these. It's a shame, I generally like the ACLU and what they do, but this is awful.
You point out that moderates and independents not participating in primaries gives the extremes more say over the candidates everyone else gets to choose from.
For general elections you use the same style argument - the more normal people excuse themselves from the equation the larger the impact of the extremes.
You point out that moderates and independents not participating in primaries gives the extremes more say over the candidates everyone else gets to choose from.
For general elections you use the same style argument - the more normal people excuse themselves from the equation the larger the impact of the extremes.
I'm glad there is public awareness and debate on the issue, but I find it troubling that there is severe lack of contribution to the debate (can we even call it that at this point?) from the NSA's part. I think it's in error to assume that there is nothing positive the NSA gets from this in terms of protecting the country, or maybe more specifically that the NSA has a vested interest in knowing the mundane details of the average citizen's life.
I'm as curious as the next person about how what they do is constitutional under the 4th amendment. I'm as against the idea of a police state, and am concerned about the direction of this country in a post-9/11 world as those at the protest. But there's two sides to every issue (often more), and on this one all we get is a bunch of awful PR that has to be walked back. I don't think it's a 100% useless and/or nefarious operation.
Is there nothing positive the NSA/US Government can tell us about these tactics that wont compromise their mission?
It's a shame that we're reduced to posting our outrage on the internet and left with no real actionable moves on the issue. We can fight it by working towards encrypting our data/traffic, but we can't force a public conversation on the issue that would result in stopping the all-out effort to collect an analyze the actual data. We'll forever be in a cat-and-mouse game over the issue. With the people involved in this having a significant leg up over the global community and always being one step ahead.
I get that this sort of thing can, and likely is, used to protect the general public from nefarious actors. What's a shame is that at this point we assume it's also used against the general public, an assumption that comes with good reason.