Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Techdirt Profile

anonymousanonymouscoward

About Anonymous Anonymous CowardTechdirt Insider




Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 25th, 2018 @ 11:50am

    Fake left, move right, explain up while moving down

    "...a regulation designed to increase our privacy..."

    Was it actually designed to increase privacy, or was a bunch of platitudes that supported one agenda or another thrown together so that it met a multitude of goals that were actually other than the ones stated? The process used to move it through the legislature certainly seems to suggest so.

  • Sep 25th, 2018 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: The party the parties need but won't have

    Closed mindedness could be likened to bipartisanship. What is attempted now. Everyone talking past the others, not listening and only striving toward their own agenda, everyone else be damned. That is why I call it closed mindedness, no one listens.

    What we need is non-partisanship. Where people listen to each other with open minds, leaving their prejudices and ideologies aside and doing what is right for the majority. Doing right for everyone is a panacea, but if one leaves out their ideology and prejudices when making decisions, those decisions would likely be better.

    It is sort of like talking about supreme beings. One side promotes their supreme being. Another side promotes their different supreme being. Still another side promotes their different still supreme being. And yet another side promotes that the concept of supreme beings is just ridiculous. So when one of those sides makes decisions based upon the dogma that is dictated by adherents to their supreme being it is possible that that decision is antithetical to anyone who is not partial to that flavor of adherent. When someone says in 'supreme beings we trust', everyone else has to ask, who's or which supreme being? The point is, that decisions need to be made without reference to any supreme being as there may be moralistic values in ones thinking, there leaves little room for reason, or anyone who is not of that particular moral persuasion.

    The same goes for partisanship and its band-aid cure bipartisanship, and why non-partisanship is necessary for all of our well being, which necessitates listening and leaving ideology and prejudice out of the decision making process. So except for #1, we are in agreement.

  • Sep 25th, 2018 @ 8:53am

    The party the parties need but won't have

    One could argue that eliminating political parties could ameliorate such ideological initiatives (and I have and will continue to do so). But that action would not remove the tension between so called conservative (in their various flavors) and so called liberals (in their various flavors) or that fact that some exist as so called moderates (in their various flavors). It might help to exclude the power structures (party leadership, organization, influence, and therefore pressure). That could be a good thing.

    The thing is, I don't think it will stop anyone from actively listening to anyone who is not of their ideological persuasion. So what is the cure for closed mindedness? Teaching about tolerance in peoples formative years might help, but that would necessitate there be existing tolerance in the school systems, which we know does not currently exist. Which leaves what?

  • Sep 24th, 2018 @ 11:02am

    Re:

    I heard that Comcast just bought SKY. Wait till the try to wrap their heads around the rules over there.

  • Sep 24th, 2018 @ 8:30am

    Economic Competitiveness in Politics, new rules

    I am still trying to figure out how the whole hurting competition thing fits into Session's rhetoric. Is he saying that if Facebook or Twitter ban some conservatives then other social media platforms are harmed? Or is he saying that 'conservatives' are harmed? Since 'conservatives' are not engaged in business, as 'Conservatives Inc.' where do the antitrust issues arise?

    Or is Session's and minions seriously trying to tie politics with commerce? Now there is some understanding that corporations are major players in the economics of politics in both the hard and soft money arenas, but politicians seem to attempt to distance themselves from what certainly appears to be graft (except when accepting checks or large bags of cash). Now we have a government agent with a fairly high level of responsibility telling us that political money should be competitive. Some of those corporations give to both parties, or both candidates as a hedge on their bets. Is Sessions suggesting that all corporate contributions be equally divided between parties/candidates?

    If he is, then he may be shooting his team in the foot/head as that would eliminate any advantage. Something he is clearly trying to endorse, but only for his side (at least in his limited way of thinking).

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 6:58pm

    Re: Big Deal

    Because they are public servants. Do we want to know when they need or want to take a shit? No, unless it happens at the same time as they claim to be apprehending, or observing, or interacting with a suspect. What if the 'shit' time corresponds with a shooting (provable by forensics that it was the officers gun) that is not near the 'shit place'? What do we believe then?

    There are other things that might be 'discoverable' for the defense. All of them must be available.

    There are some things that are not our business. There is some difference between what we think is our business and what they think is our business, but they work for us. The difference between what we think and what they think is not for them to decide. It is up to a court. Not them, not their union, the court. What is the court going to decide against? Things not pertinent to the instant case. The case might be criminal or the case might be about how the agency conducts their business. Depending on the case in front of the court, all communication are pertinent until determined not to be.

    Otherwise, we give in to them, and that is just not acceptable.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 6:30pm

    Re: Capturing capitalism at its finest:

    Oh, totally forgot, there's this:

    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/14/skripal-poisoning-suspects-passport-d ata-shows-link-security-services/

    Which was linked in the article above, but in case you missed it...

    How could anyone set up a farcical, comedic, satirical, slapstick situation any better? And this was real life! Not actually copyright-able.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 6:23pm

    Capturing capitalism at its finest:

    at least as understood by a socialist trained capitalist.

    Petroff & Boshiroff may be trademarked in Russia with the limitations of:

    "The trademark will allow its holders to manufacture and sell industrial chemicals and perfume, as well as operate fitness centers and travel agencies"

    In Russia.

    But that won't prevent the next Ian Flemming, or John le Carré or Carl Hiassen or other from creating a slapstick comedy of how two Russian Laurel and Hardy wannabe's actually managed to accomplish a murder in the UK and at the same time enticed someone to make that trademark...well...known...as it is likely the only way for it to be known...for anything...except killing.

    Like they wanted to be known, even if they didn't use their real names, they are now known. Suspecting for either of them to come forward for the ignominious fortunes redeemed by this trademark would be but a national camaraderie event. The FSB will be proud and totally understanding of making their business public.

    Oh, and let's not forget the scent. There was a perfume involved, wasn't there? That's gonna make some...erm...really high charts, of the kind of charts that are beneficial or something...wont' it?

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 5:34pm

    Re: Re: RTBF dyslexia

    I should add, working with a software development company (early 1980'S) that was writing back end software (Accounting type stuff and some more) for an existing POS (point of sale terminal) we got involved as Alpha testers, and with that unusual access to the development team. Back then, what the held did I know?

    But it came to pass that the first manual, the one for accounts payable, was not just good, it was really great. The next manual to come out (I forget which it was, but it was not discernible to any rational English language speaker) we were less than pleased.

    Speaking with the owner of the software development company I was told that he had gone out of his way to find a computer illiterate technical writer to write the manuals. The problems was that he wound up living in the environment, and he learned. That learning came out in the second manual, and the owner could not see his way to firing his technical writer because he knew too much.

    To this day, problematical or not, I see tech manual writers as knowing too much, when they should also know everything. Knowing too much means they can't explain it to Joe blow (the quintessential computer know nothing), and knowing everything (what actually happens when you install it in x and y and z environments, etc.) which might mean there is no need for a support department (given a certain quantum license for exaggeration). In some cases that might mean a savings, in others an opportunity for continuing revenue, and in others having customers who know enough to sue you.

    Personally I would rather manuals make sense, for Joe blow, but have appendices that work for not just the rest of us, but for those who actually know what they are doing.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 5:11pm

    Re: RTBF dyslexia

    Because they are both extemporaneous, unnecessary, self aggrandizing, and puerile?

    Now if manuals actually made sense??

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 5:05pm

    Re:

    Well there may be, as you point out, a difference between denigrating and discriminating, but on the receiving end that difference might be moot.

    Which reiterates the point that English teachers may be failing their students in the ability to verbally send disparaging messages without violating anyone's rights or feelz.

    Not that sending disparaging messages is a good thing. There is the opposite tactic of praising those portions of an opponents position that actually benefit their opposition. That takes critical thinking. Something not in an English teachers purview, nor in any high school curriculum that I know of (whoa do I wish that were different).

    Eliminating institutional hatred is a different discussion, though there might be some in the defendants in this case.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 4:49pm

    Re: Re: tl;dr

    That.

    I would add, this isn't Bamboo Harvester's normal discourse, and (to him) if something is going on there is no need to tell us about it, but there is also no need to take it out here.

    Usually I look forward to reading Bamboo Harvester's comments. Not today. Chill! Take a pill. Whatever works for you. It takes more speech to correct inequities in speech.

    If your trying to correct the speech of the high school student, you are way past time. If you are trying to correct us in our speech (over this issue) then tell us what the issue is where you think we have gone overboard. It's not clear yet simply because references to police officers is just not the same as race, religion, or sexual orientation or any of the other legally exempted traits. I don't think we have, but it appears you think differently.

    Without attacking, tell us where.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 4:24pm

    Re: hmmm...

    Take it easy. Take a look at his profile. Bamboo Harvester has been a respected member of this community for quite a while now. He might be a lawyer, but if not his comments about the law have been regarded respectfully and sometimes as insightful. That there are issues with his point of view on this issue does not mean he is some Internet asshole. It means that he has some issues with points of view expressed by others here. I may think he is wrong, and others might think he is wrong, but there may be others still who agree with him.

    Calling him an asshole is not the same as calling cops pigs. One is fairly generic, the other is personal. Many of my generation called cops pigs. If it was or is an accurate description is a matter of perspective (see my comments elsewhere on this page), but none of the references made today were personal, nor was the high school student whom the article was about.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 4:10pm

    Re:

    I hear ya. Remember WordPerfect reveal codes? Tried the same thing in MS Word and was sadly disappointed. I only bring it up as it was an explicit example of MS denigrating program capabilities.

    My first personal computer was an Apple IIc. A whole 128 KB of ram and one 350 KB floppy disk drive. Had to switch between OS and program and data floppies. Used the hell out of their spreadsheet and text programs.

    Then I worked for a company that only had DOS style machines and Lotus 123, and WordPerfect (I forget the version). What I learned was how to do the things I did in Apple in dos based programs, but I learned how locked down the Apple OS was. They gave me enough to run the programs. DOS however gave a whole lot more, and as I tried, and erred, more and more and more. I learned that Apple wanted control, and DOS less. Then came Windows and the control started to disappear. Then came Linux and the control came back.

    What's next?

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 3:47pm

    The Tree of Deception (not disapeared)

    The police are just trying to aid the prosecutors in their preparations for Brady material. It's not such a bad thing, if it doesn't actually exist any longer, then it is not discoverable. Easy peasy. /s

    The thing is, those communications are public records, they work for the public, and with some limitations they KNOW that they are required to be able to produce those records.

    Now, since that app came from higher ups, and with instructions on how to use (which could mean technical or practical, without more detail who knows?) the app, there is culpability not just at the user level, but in the chain of command. How high up does it go? When who writes the budget, and who approves the budget and the product get bought, how could any of them be left out?

    Since the messages are legally required to be available if needed, then there is no question about whether a law has been broken. What remains is politics. Where does the blame get put? What does the blamee get in return for accepting that blame (extra pensions, under the table payments, something from the union rather than the department)? And, let us not forget, those who should have been in the know, and were likely in the know (whether they share blame or not) are actually as guilty as the end users who texted things they KNEW would not be discoverable, and managed, somehow, to escape blame.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 3:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Offending others is terrible... unless we're doing it.'

    Given the 1st Amendment, it is not up to the teacher, nor school administrators to do anything about what any student says, unless they break some law in doing so. Threaten someone, law break. Denigrate a legally protected minority, law break. Cast aspersion on a not legally protected anyone, no law break.

    The teachers and administrators are not there to decide how one thinks. They are there to aid in learning. In some respects they can only aid in the learning that is part of the curriculum prescribed by the school district. There should be no aiding in learning about ideology, other than that ideology exists and here are some examples. They should not be teaching 'an ideology'.

    If the teacher thought the student could have been more respectful, then maybe they should have had a conversation with the parents. Beyond that, unless rules are actually broken. they should piss up tree while lying under it.

    Slurs are dehumanizing, so blame the English teachers for failing to give the students sufficient vocabulary to express themselves (with denigration or not is not the point) with more appropriate disapprobation.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    While your premise is likely true, I wonder about how one defines recent history vs very recent history vs current news and recent news, and this was the year that was?

    In one way I could count recent history as history made while I was alive. Then you might be younger and use that definition to disclaim my version. Another way to look at it, is in the last 100 years is recent, whereas in the last 50 years could be very recent, and last week, while destined to become history, is current news, while last month is recent news. Where does one put 10 years ago?

    It is not only a matter of perspective, but a matter of respecting the perspective of others. If I was dead I would not care. Since I am alive, and lived through the 60's and beyond, the reference to cops as pigs is something more than just history. It is something I lived through, and to some level, believed.

    Today, being older, more mature (which are not necessarily the same thing) I don't call cops pigs, but I do disrespect them more than my brethren did in the 60's because they give me reason to.

    To the good cops out there, know that I value you, but disdain your failure to out the bad ones, no matter what the cost.

    Now, take out the age thingy and put these words in the mouth of a high school student expressing their concern over police brutality in recent weeks, months, years and tell us where those administrators have anything to yabber about.

    Sorry, only some of that was directed at you Bruce C.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Criminal records

    I haven't read the GDPR regs (I don't live in Europe so not directly effected) but from what I have read, I wouldn't see why not. For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if the Holocaust gets redacted and France won WWI and WWII, Bonaparte turns out to be a good guy.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 1:30pm

    Re:

    Besides, it is a legitimate historical reference when one is studying recent history, like say the 1960's and 1970's. Of course, in some cases there might be some more recent references.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 1:27pm

    Follow the Money

    I am wondering what proof we have that the NSA is not still using these exploits? For that matter, what proof do we have that the NSA isn't responsible for the Cryptocurrency Mining?

    I can imagine there are some black ops for they don't want to ask for funding in any kind of an outright way. If one wants to keep a secret, tell no one. If one must, tell one other. Funding takes more than one.

More comments from Anonymous Anonymous Coward >>