A lot of them seem that way. Somehow magically offended. "What did you say to me?" *blink blink* Hey we don't like your type around here.
At least half of them seem to have or need some excuse, even if they know they completely invented it. Or they are "harmed" simply by someone else existing.
They extend protection to historically privileged and powerful people...
That's not protection, merely another weapon for the "because i felt like it" arsenal. Codifying contempt of cop. Sort of like the arrested for resisting arrest gambit.
Surely i would agree with slapping additional fines on someone who is belligerent, loud, and abusive because they are disturbing the peace - even inside police holding cell. Where there probably other people being held as well. But a five year felony sentence for saying something? WTF. Police or not.
I suppose it is better than a beating, secret indefinite detention, or completely invented charges, which is what i imagine they think anyone dealing with police should fear already, and if they don't, they must be really dangerous people.
Well that's a completely foolish request. All of it should have been killed ages ago, but Obama is still a huge disappointment whether he was convinced these things were good ideas or he was swallowed and stymied by the system. He seems to have enough bad behaviors all his own, though. Thing is, if presidents are ever serious about dismantling bad programs, they shouldn't offer excuses or ignore demands, but should ask for help from the public.
Another part of the problem is presidents hardly control what people think they control, even when they are granted powers to start something, changing or stopping the entrenched unelected parts of government is not easy, particularly in the power-wielding bodies. Screwing up or repurposing beneficial parts seems a fair bit easier.
The bigger problem in particular here is that most people are ok with authoritarian behavior if they think it doesn't directly affect them.
Or, the system has only been trashed five times before. Whatever. Won't happen again. But if it does, it's just the cost of business and i can blame someone else or hide the fact that it happened.
Well, Gates really set a culture that hasn't changed much, and set the foundations of an OS that really hasn't changed much either. But yeah i am not sure why Gates is still invoked. Or Monkey-Boy Ballmer for that matter. Particularly in situations where a general-purpose OS shouldn't be in use anyway.
The non-politically correct are exactly the same with a different set of beliefs. I love the way people think stupidity and insularity falls along ideological lines. What a hoot.
It's also true that MS does not warrant their products to be used in any critical systems. So networking Windows and critical infrastructure together is against MS advice, and also stupid. Just like connecting critical infrastructure, including SCADA systems, to the internet.
What is even more hilarious is that hospitals being insecure is surely a HIPAA violation. Never mind a threat to the lives and welfare of patients. And as hospitals are generally now parts of mega-system healthcare, it should be easy to hold corporate central accountable.
Well i guess it is easier to make sure our armed forces can malware-attack other countries. That will help, i am sure.
It's kind of funny how everything in hospitals had to be "Y2K Compliant" and what a big deal people made over it in general, but since the rise of serious criminal malware markets people really don't seem to get any of it or give a hoot. And that is nothing new, but the seriousness of it with the spread of IoT and generically networking lots of devices that have been around for ages without such... still seems to go rather more unnoticed.
Maybe because it is real and doesn't have enough doom and conspiracy flavouring? Or the right sort? I just don't understand why people prefer to react to imaginary threats instead of real ones. Even when it is malware and criminal hacking, they have all sorts of weird ideas and fears, but you can't get them to change behavior or harden their devices against real problems.
> The idea that people are just such suckers they believe whatever Facebook puts in front of them is silly.
While i doubt one can remotely blame Facebook for any of this, feel free to replace Facebook in that sentence with a whole host of other things and it's pretty valid. People also disbelieve both true and untrue things very frequently for equally bad "reasons" as they believe things. I am not sure whether for any particular subject it is germane if they are independently stupid, or believe something stupid because they heard it somewhere.
The central government has a patent on that or what?
On the other hand, these power grabs masquerading as national security upgrades aren't solely limited to governments with long histories of repression.
I sometimes wonder which governments those might be. Or where the bar on that is.
I can only assume WSJ goes off the rails every time a banker is appointed to an office of financial regulation, or entertainment industry lawyers and executives are appointed to relevant offices like the copyright office. Right?
Who the hell knows how Trump is responsible for the Do Not Call law. I can't even imagine. But you'll have to separate that from standard Trump-bashing, for which you can thank only Trump by making it political and increasing the popularity of it.
Clinton is and has been blamed for all sorts of things she has nothing to do with either, for a very long time. Not that i much support her either given actual things that are wrong with her.
But frequently the difference is that bashing a flaming non-stop moron will be fun simply for entertainment value. General stupid corrupt politician bashing will continue as well, with or without merit, and dragged into any conversation on the thinnest pretext. But if that is astroturfing, then i don't know what to call endless months of Hillary-bashing here that have been so far out of alignment with reality as to be hysterical. Emails! Noes! Treason! Hang her! There is always someone with crazed hyperbolic statements and extra exclamation points hanging around. I don't see the above comparison as anything other than a funny and apt connection. I mean, Shiva dude must need some kind of actual job at some point, yeah? Perfect fit, unless he looks to Trump like a terrorist or the kind of fellow who is the sort that should leave rooms in a stretcher. Of course he is equally fitting for a position in a Clinton administration for reasons that are not as concisely humourous.
tl;dr, that is one of the less frothing and agenda-oriented comments i have seen here where someone felt there was an opportunity to 2016-election-Godwin the comment section.
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
Re: Re: He has a point if you research it
Many in crowd trying to get anarchist groups to stop destroying property, anarchists refusing. Others encouraged to leave area.
https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/796950741411708928
On the post: Take Note: Copyright Troll Gets Stiff Response From Someone It Tried To Bully, Immediately Runs Away
Re: Cry-bullies
At least half of them seem to have or need some excuse, even if they know they completely invented it. Or they are "harmed" simply by someone else existing.
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says The Shape Of Rubik's Cube Should Not Be Trademarked
Re:
...on the internet.
On the post: Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers
That's not protection, merely another weapon for the "because i felt like it" arsenal. Codifying contempt of cop. Sort of like the arrested for resisting arrest gambit.
Surely i would agree with slapping additional fines on someone who is belligerent, loud, and abusive because they are disturbing the peace - even inside police holding cell. Where there probably other people being held as well. But a five year felony sentence for saying something? WTF. Police or not.
I suppose it is better than a beating, secret indefinite detention, or completely invented charges, which is what i imagine they think anyone dealing with police should fear already, and if they don't, they must be really dangerous people.
On the post: It's Too Late For President Obama To 'Dismantle' The NSA's Mass Surveillance
Another part of the problem is presidents hardly control what people think they control, even when they are granted powers to start something, changing or stopping the entrenched unelected parts of government is not easy, particularly in the power-wielding bodies. Screwing up or repurposing beneficial parts seems a fair bit easier.
The bigger problem in particular here is that most people are ok with authoritarian behavior if they think it doesn't directly affect them.
On the post: Hospitals Now Seeing 20 Ransomware Attacks Per Day On IT Infrastructure
Re: Re: Re: Re: NEVER pay a ransom
On the post: Hospitals Now Seeing 20 Ransomware Attacks Per Day On IT Infrastructure
Re: Re:
On the post: In The Rush To Blame Facebook, Come The Calls To Suppress Ideas People Disagree With
Re:
On the post: Hospitals Now Seeing 20 Ransomware Attacks Per Day On IT Infrastructure
Re: Re:
What is even more hilarious is that hospitals being insecure is surely a HIPAA violation. Never mind a threat to the lives and welfare of patients. And as hospitals are generally now parts of mega-system healthcare, it should be easy to hold corporate central accountable.
Well i guess it is easier to make sure our armed forces can malware-attack other countries. That will help, i am sure.
On the post: Hospitals Now Seeing 20 Ransomware Attacks Per Day On IT Infrastructure
Maybe because it is real and doesn't have enough doom and conspiracy flavouring? Or the right sort? I just don't understand why people prefer to react to imaginary threats instead of real ones. Even when it is malware and criminal hacking, they have all sorts of weird ideas and fears, but you can't get them to change behavior or harden their devices against real problems.
On the post: If You're Blaming Facebook For The Election Results, You're An Idiot
While i doubt one can remotely blame Facebook for any of this, feel free to replace Facebook in that sentence with a whole host of other things and it's pretty valid. People also disbelieve both true and untrue things very frequently for equally bad "reasons" as they believe things. I am not sure whether for any particular subject it is germane if they are independently stupid, or believe something stupid because they heard it somewhere.
On the post: If You're Blaming Facebook For The Election Results, You're An Idiot
Re: Countdown
On the post: Chinese Government Implements Cybersecurity Law Designed To Spy On Citizens, Quell Dissent
The central government has a patent on that or what?
I sometimes wonder which governments those might be. Or where the bar on that is.
On the post: Court Says Recording Of Public Interaction Involving Police Officer Not A 'Confidential Personnel Record'
Re: Re: Re: Re: About time
On the post: Not Even Your Light Bulbs Are Safe From Shitty Internet Of Things Security
Re:
On the post: Not Even Your Light Bulbs Are Safe From Shitty Internet Of Things Security
On the post: James Comey To Congress: About Those Hillary Clinton Emails I Mentioned Last Week? Meh, Forget About It, Nothing To See
On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory
On the post: Here's The Truth: Shiva Ayyadurai Didn't Invent Email
Re:
On the post: Here's The Truth: Shiva Ayyadurai Didn't Invent Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: heres the thing...
Clinton is and has been blamed for all sorts of things she has nothing to do with either, for a very long time. Not that i much support her either given actual things that are wrong with her.
But frequently the difference is that bashing a flaming non-stop moron will be fun simply for entertainment value. General stupid corrupt politician bashing will continue as well, with or without merit, and dragged into any conversation on the thinnest pretext. But if that is astroturfing, then i don't know what to call endless months of Hillary-bashing here that have been so far out of alignment with reality as to be hysterical. Emails! Noes! Treason! Hang her! There is always someone with crazed hyperbolic statements and extra exclamation points hanging around. I don't see the above comparison as anything other than a funny and apt connection. I mean, Shiva dude must need some kind of actual job at some point, yeah? Perfect fit, unless he looks to Trump like a terrorist or the kind of fellow who is the sort that should leave rooms in a stretcher. Of course he is equally fitting for a position in a Clinton administration for reasons that are not as concisely humourous.
tl;dr, that is one of the less frothing and agenda-oriented comments i have seen here where someone felt there was an opportunity to 2016-election-Godwin the comment section.
Next >>