People who think comparing the US Government and Google or Facebook should thank God, or the power of evolution, for the existence of the medulla, which controls autonomic systems like breathing and heartbeat. Because clearly they don't have enough intelligence to maintain those activities on their own.
I mean, you are passing this off as "thought"??
"Google gets my info." "NSA gets my info." "Therefore the threat from each is the same."
The compared things (Google=NSA) are not alike enough for the comparison to be useful. When Google has SWAT teams, courts and prisons, THEN maybe your bullshit 'argument' would be worth examining, but not until.
Till then, good luck remembering to breathe you fucking idiot.
Hide and watch. Someone obliquely responsible for hiring Johnson and funding his efforts as a lobbyist against patent reform will be appointed. Someone more prominent than Mr. Johnson, who has never gotten his* hand dirty. Of whom it can be said "He* brings a uniquely wide experience in the field and correspondingly impressive expertise."
Because we need that kind of expertse.
*-Sorry bout the "incorrect though statistically defensible"...errr...misogynistic pronoun. I hope the usage didn't trigger anyone. It's like the War on Women all over again. Times a thousand.
"Only Obama has ever done this sort of thing. All prior occupants of the whitehouse and halls of congress have been pure as the driven snow. This makes it much more difficult to bear, it's terrible."
*sigh* You know it's really sad when Obama supporters have to point to the fact that all other politicians have been (mostly) corrupt to assuage their bitter, bitter disappointment.
We're too far into his presidency for 'But...but...BUSH!!", and Reid and Pelosi have too much power to say 'But...but...CONGRESS!'. So now, all they're left with is "Well, historically, he might not be the worst!". A ringing endorsement indeed.
I knew they (Obama supporters) were in trouble when, faced with the clear fact that for many of his supporters, getting the DEA off the backs of marijuana users was a primary concern, he literally laughed at them. The fact that many of them voted for him again in 2012 was a clear sign he knew he only had to be "better than the Republican candidate" to win.
Only in that roundabout way can we blame the Republicans for the duplicity exhibited by our POTUS.
I have to think it's doable, ideally in a manner that would allow those motivated and tech savvy enough (a modest level?) to circumvent it, but creating backlash from everybody else, hopefully a considerable amount. That judge may already be getting pounded, possibly by his own family, which must number among them some people under the age of 60 screaming "WTF you fucktarded looser?? What were you thinking??"
Maybe Google is concerned people would start using all those other search engines, like...ummm...Bingo? Is that one??
Whatever else Eugene has accomplished, it's certainly motivated more than a few people to WD-40 those rusty Rhetoric class and Philosophy 210 skillz and bring them to bear on Mike's common sense explication of this story. These comments have only succeeded in sharing their authors' opinion of their own intelligence and analytical ability. Sadly, this does little to answer the question of whether or not this 'Eugene' device satisfies the conditions of the Turing Test.
More importantly, such respondents do not deal with the question of whether software like Eugene (and predecessors) is not more a "program designed to imitate human conversational function", manipulating symbols and text of which it has no real understanding, than an actual "thinking machine". (This was Searle's objection to the test in his 1980 paper, Minds, Brains, and Programs.)
When a computer/program can incorporate prior content of a conversation into an original thought or proposition, it will be somewhat convincing, and might actually win the Loebner Prize. (Not to say that's ever a motivation for such research.) Indeed, the 'winner' of the first Loebner competition (Weintraub's PC Therapist) did so by the programmed emulation of pauses and misspellings common to human respondents, not by 'intelligence'. Unless you want to argue that our intelligence is defined by it's limitations and inefficiencies.
I doubt Turing would consider Eugene a "thinking machine", or an example of "artificial intelligence". Now, when a software/hardware construct can misconstrue obvious common sense objections such as Mike has raised here and then respond as if he had instead presented a tightly-reasoned, peer-reviewed thesis...THEN I'll be impressed. Because choosing the response "Let me show off how smart I am." rather than, you know, actually contributing something, really does demonstrate (the misuse of) human intelligence; as well as some other, less commendable human traits.
In the example you present (NDA), you've sold off your RIGHT TO UTILIZE your free speech(and only about a very specific subset of well-defined things), but you haven't "exchanged it for money" in the sense that your hypothetical Chinese employer can use it and you no longer can.
Ah, people will be down with militarized police forces, SWAT teams serving every single subpoena for every single thing, and military force used against fellow citizens IF IT'S THE RIGHT FELLOW CITIZENS.
ICP has been declared a 'gang'. Excessive, or rather, "extreme force as dictated by the violent nature of the perpetrators and consistent with the safety of law enforcement personnel" force is allowed, even recommended.
Just target the Tea Party, Christians, libertarian groups and all those other bad people (all funded by well-known Nazis the Koch Brothers) and large segments of the commentariat, the professoriat and the fucking-liberal-doucheiat will be completely down with justifying any level of violence, in the interest of bringing about the "hegemony of the good guys". Hell yeah.
Eventually we'll get to see if our troops will fire on their own families and friends to defend 'the government', after said government's interests become synonymous with the interests of the 1%
Loreena McKinnit (Canadian Folk/Celtic/World music artist) couldn't get a record deal. So she spent ten years working her ass off building relationships with her audience, with music stores and gift shops that would carry her CDs and tapes (this was a while ago) and eventually developed a fan base of near a hundred thousand people and she was getting 70% of the purchase price of her music!! (reasonably priced, too!)
When she went in to Warner Bros. to finally get a deal, she was able to show them what she was currently making, the "standard contract" went into the garbage and she negotiated a REAL deal with the studio.
Amusing that this red-headed, harp-playing soprano took the studio by the throat and dictated terms and screaming tatoo-leather-and-spikes metalheads are left whining about getting assraped.
The named companies are no longer the agile, aggressive innovators of Silicone Valley past. They are the RCA, GE, Kodak and JC Penney of the 21st century. (if not already the tech equivalents of Exxon, ADM, the **AAs and Goldman Sachs)
And with today's political/regulatory climate being so amenable to protecting "Big Anything", it's more likely they'll 'innovate' new and improved lobbying methods to protect their status and profitability than do anything to continue the vibrant and stimulating climate in which they themselves were formed.
If people can't see that they need to vote for whoever these two corrupt parties are most passionate about excluding, we deserve more of what we're getting.
And shame on any of you people (and when I say "you people" I mean YOU PEOPLE) who think there's a good guy/bad guy dichotomy between the two parties. The Democrats sweet talk you with good intentions and pay off the 'right' people, and you roll over to have your belly scratched.
I had a post suddenly show up as "awaiting moderation" and it was after I'd posted criticizing what I'd thought was a bit of 'groupthink' and I worried it was in some way punitive.
But I got a very quick response indicating a word or combination of words might have set off the spam filters. And since it had been a typically wordy post, I had to concede that possibility. It was soon posted and haven't had a problem since.
Other students at the school don't like him, bully him.
School administrators see the kid, and proof of bullying...and THEY bully him and call the cops on him!
Cop sees him, says "You must be guilty of something...one from column A, one from column B." and hauls him off.
Judge sees him, says "You're guilty of whatever they charged you with. Case closed."
Man, at every step of the way this poor kid elicits a real negative response-not just from the other kids, but from adults-in their PROFESSIONAL roles! The unanimity of negative response to this kid is mind-boggling. He should be studied. Maybe he emits some kind of pheremonal scent opposite that of babies or something. Alternatively, there's more to the story that hasn't come out. I'd suspect that, rather than the existence of some hitherto undiscovered "He Hate Me" gene.
Seriously though, the politicians' solution is alarming. It was a recording of public activity, in public-how is freaking "wiretap law" even invoked?? What "loophole" is he talking about? Sounds like a bad law we are to be grateful to politicians for carving little exceptions out of. Ugh.
Lastly, even the very best-reported "media narratives" are incomplete and unnuanced (somewhere in the range of, ooh...100% of the time). If a law needs to gain public support through appeal to the media narrative surrounding a well-known case rather than its merits...it's probably a bad law. So Tim's statement is not stupid at all.
As the motive/rationale for Zero Tolerance Policies of all sorts is to remove certain 'transgressions' from the requirement of due process and case-by-case evaluation, we see from this case that this is probably a good ides. It is clear that school administrators lack staff with the prerequisite wisdom (or three-digit IQs)to interpret such cases correctly.
But however well-motivated these policies ("We're idiots, you can't expect us to exercise common sense!"), we also see from this case that ZTP can still offer the opportunity for admins to demonstrate their stupidity by interpreting upward the class of things banned by said policies. (finger guns, pew-pew laser shootouts at recess, pop tart guns and pictures of parents who are serving in the military, etc)
Dumb as may be those tasked with implementing the policies, "Zero Tolerance" should NEVER be accepted as substitute for rational thought, reasonable polices, and common sense.
Hell, in our legal system, we pretty much conclude that murder is bad, m'kay? but even there we allow for extenuating circumstances! Plus, there is a slippery slope of things that "we should never allow"...free meth in the lunch room? Zero tolerance. Bombs? Zero tolerance. Guns? Zero tolerance. Bigotry? Zero tolerance. Gender discrimination? Zero tolerance. Exclusionary socialization? Zero tolerance...and ultimately, we are left with the same people who can't differentiate between a chewed pop tart and a gun defining what is allowed and disallowed in our children's behavior.
Human interaction, even that of children, is a messy, complex business. Zero Tolerance policies are an attempt to pretend otherwise, or to "solve" some aspects of human interaction by decree. As we see over and over again, such wishful thinking policies are ineffective fictions, and should be done away with.
Gee...and I remember learning, in "Civics Class", back when we had "Civics Class", that the government operated for the good of the people, indeed, was to serve the people!! Doesn't seem to be the case, does it? Seems more like every department, agency, and "Office of ...." aspires to empire-building, expanded 'responsibilities', increased influence, staff and budget ad infinitum and horrific screams at any HINT of reduction.
How can this be? Well, I hate to be an asshole*, but it's your fault.
Yep. As long as you buy into the fiction that there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in this leviathan of a scam. and support the 'good guys', you are supporting crony capitalism, corruption and a status quo that props up undeserving elites. The examples are endless, but you keep falling for "Oh we have to stop those mindless, racist, gun-loving Puritanical homophobic redneck science-haters!" (or, possibly, "We have to stop those America-hating, race-baiting, culture-degrading, reality-deconstructing, vote buying redistributors of 'wealth' I worked for!!")
They're ALL in on it. They divide you over stupid inconsquentialities like abortion and gun control while steadily increasing and entrenching their own power. There are no 'good guys'. Sorry.
a) It's wrong to say Hayden's was a sexist comment. It isn't sexist because he would characterize ANYBODY'S negative reaction to "enhanced interrogation methods" as being overly emotional, including most of the outraged comments here.
b) But he would also be wrong, as the outraged reaction is NOT overly emotional, but rational and moral.
c) And Feinstein, who is an idiot political hack liberal 1%er and wrong on everything from budgetary, environmental, economic, and foreign policy issues to mindless gender legislation, domestic spying, IP/copyright/patent issues and on and on, is, God help me, absolutely RIGHT on this one.
And that just seems wrong, somehow. Looks like I picked the wrong decade to give up sniffing glue.
Yep. Resistance developed rapidly, even in the 50s. Didn't take much research to confirm that. (Had to wade through both DDT-promotional and "WE didn't kill those African kids" CYA slant though. Easy to tell which is which-the latter detail the history of the DDT ban by noting Kennedy's panel on the subject, the former note the ban occurred during NIXON'S presidency, put into effect by NIXON'S new agency, the EPA.)
Clearly, DDT is no longer the magic bullet it once actually was (wiped out typhus and malaria outbreaks that significantly effected the course of WWII). Arguably, it was overuse that created the pressures leading to such rapid development of resistance.
Still, hard to blame Africans for being suspect of the motives of First Worlders when many argued for the DDT ban based on the fact that it did, indeed save lives, a prospect met with considerable dismay by some:
“My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem,”, Alexander King, found, Club of Rome;
Paul Ehrlich, repeatedly (who always wanted more deaths to confirm his own predictions...kind of selfish, I'd say);
“By using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations.”, Michael McCloskey, Director, Sierra Club, 1971.
Of course, the Africans who are suspicious of Malthusian First Worlders may be the same folks who deny AIDS is real...maybe even some of the same who have advocated/carried out ethnic, tribal and religious genocides of various scales, so the 'intrinsic value of human life' seems to be much up for debate anyway.
I love the "Underpants Gnome" logic that's always at work in proposals like that of Ms. Rice:
Step 1: Remove anonymity of posters/gain access to real IDs. Step 2: Step 3: Comments of greater maturity, seriousness, and, ultimately, value!
Of course, the vague, non-specific "process step" 2 is nothing other than the exercise or threat of real-world status, wealth, legal pressure and other resources which constitute REAL bullying, as opposed to the verbal kind which Ms. Rice finds so unacceptable.
I find it disturbing that so many well-intentioned folks, in the name of "internet civility", are eager to restore these irrelevant-to-discourse advantages to the powerful and famous.