alan_cx

My take is that laws exist to protect our rights. Police exist to protect those rights by enforcing the laws that protect those rights. There for the police exist to protect our rights, including the right to protest. There is no discussion for the police to engage in, they just should do their job. If the police are not protecting protest, they are failing at a very basic level and, IMHO, cant claim to be called "police".

I thought that was the whole point of building lots of nukes on both sides. They called it MAD, mutually assured destruction.

Yeah, I keep trying to settle on DDG, but every time I get frustrated with the results and end up back on google.

I remember back when google first appeared, I used it and never turned back. Its was immediatly clearly superior to everything else, and not problematic to stick with it. I never felt like I was making do with an inferior engine, hoping it would improve. Sadly, DDG has never, in my experience, achieved that. Given that, I think its asking too much for users similar to me to keep going back to DDG to see if its improved. In the end, that is too much effort. Its a waste of my time when I have things I need to do. Users need to see an immediate gain, or reason to stick. Just sticking it to google and/or supporting the underdog isn't enough when we need useful, relevant search results.

I suppose what people like me are looking for is a google that's not google. But its the whole google thing, all the snooping, data retention, privacy busting techniques, and what not, which enables such great results. I guess there is a cost to everything.

I am glad that the likes of DDG are out there, but for now, for me, they are just an interesting side show. Hopefully at some point in the future they will provide a comprehensive viable alternative for google.

A question was asked. That implies a lack of knowledge. Given that lack of knowledge, how is one to know if the question is regarded by people who do have that knowledge as "stupid"?

From the little I understand of psychology, essentially all you need to do is get the accused to doubt their memory, then push them over the edge. Consequently, I think that high quality CCTV wouldn't be necessary. A blurry hint would be enough to convince a softened defendant.

FWIW, here in the UK we have an entertainer called Derren Brown. He specializes in psychological "magic". A while ago he did a show where he set up a punter to believe he had committed murder. The mark reacted exactly as your friend client. IIRC, he actually gave himself up to the police, really believing was guilty. IMO, very disturbing and going by the TV episode, even though Im sure it didnt show everything, too simple.

If any one is interested in tracking it down, Derren Brown - The Experiments. Episode The Guilt Trip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Derren_Brown#D...

Added: Sorry, the point is that Im shocked that you are saying your police actually do this, in this way. When watching these shows its easy to assume that there is some extra trickery going on, so it cant happen to a real person in real life. Your case shows that it can.

"Most academic computer science is funded by the American government. Does that mean that all academic computer science is backdoored by the military?"

If you were some one who believed that your liberty or even life depended on it, then yes, you would have to assume that. Obviously day to day, it really doesn't matter. When it actually does matter, you have to assume the worst.

Im with you in spirit, just a thought or two....

"Powers that be have always treated people outside the system as sheep."

Isnt it that people inside the system are sheep? People outside the system are considered renegade, some how dangerous to the system, and there for the enemy? People inside the system are implicitly going along with the system, and while they do, no problem.

And if you try to fight from with in the system, the system is designed to quickly put the threat you pose down.

How that applies to Aaron, I dont know. Was he inside or outside? And frankly, is there a difference these days? Cant help thinking that one of the big illusions these days is the notion that one is off grid, outside the system, and not part of it. The system seems to know no boundary and we are part of it no matter what we want or choose.

Problem I have is that there is no way of knowing why posts are down-voted. Quality? Politics? Just wrong? No idea. Sometime I see posts which are factually correct, but clearly unpopular and voted down. And to be utterly fair, I'm not even sure why I've down-voted or flagged in the past. Cant even remember if I've flagged.

Now Im actually thinking about it, I think I'll only up-vote in the future, and I think that would be if I think I've learned something from a top notch post. Anything else feels like some sort of censorship, vanity or whatever.

Im with you in spirit, but the US partly gets away with all this because other countries not only support them, but aid them. Prime sorry example, UK and GCHQ. Cant help thinking that if a lot of US allies simply said no, something might change. If the international community stood up to the US Gov, Americans themselves might then ask more question about the internal working.

Sadly here in the UK, Im vaguely sure we out do the US in terms of privacy invasion. So, I'll have a Coke and a smile and......

I guess its a comment about the morality of the rich. The idea being that to get rich, whatever rich is, it is assumed that they effectively stole from the poor. So taking it back is re-appropriation, or some such.

Personally, I see tax as the civilised way of doing that. Granted, that doesn't work that well, but then given our democracies, that up to the masses to vote for it, who are basically the poor.

Possibly easier than piloting the real thing. No g-force, total vision, simple controls, and so on. With various fail-safes and controllers, its made much easier

Dont get me wrong, I've tried flying normal RC planes, and Im rubbish at it, it is still hard and skillfull. But, if you spend some time on YouTube looking at what people can do with these things, you'll end up wondering if they are bending physics.

Hiding something does not equal a conspiracy theory. I mean, do you believe that behind every door there is a conspiracy? Do clothes equal a conspiracy to hide the human body? Is covering a seed with soil a conspiracy to hide seeds? If you think yes, than please tell us what you think a conspiracy is. Or are people just trying to protect property, keep warm and grow plants? Maybe they are conspiring to protect property with carpenters?

In this case, I think its reasonable to thing that covering up the ship and bodies are to protect dignity.

Why should any insider do that?

Snowden did it, and look what happened. Nothing. Sad truth is, the majority don't care. If they did, then it would be reflected in voting, and things would change. But no. Mean while, Snowden is a wanted man in exile.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like this one little bit, but it seems I'm in a minority.

My take on that is that spying is supposed to have as it primary justification the objective of determining a foreign nations true intentions. Its a method to confirm or disprove what is said. Germany, for example, says its no threat to the US, and US spying will hopefully confirm this. And of course vice-versa. So, spying on politicians and policy makers can be argued to be legit. However whole sale spying on citizens is not.

What gone wrong here is that spying is now used for law enforcement, instead of a tool for diplomacy.

Not disagreeing, but a number of people have many email addresses. No idea how that stacks up with people with SMS though.

"There's cultural incentive to report results that are favorable even if they are wrong."

Indeed, but unfortunately in western capitalism there is sometimes a financial incentive to report results that aren't favourable even if they are wrong. A bit like what happened with the banks, or with tobacco companies.

Slightly bemused by the reaction. From what I can make out, this is is the same as when someone speaks in a thick accent and you can't understand them until something else prompts you as to what they are saying, then suddenly more of what they say becomes clear. Maybe here in the UK, accents are much wider apart than they are in the US.

Some one in a village back then could be pretty sure that someone in another village 500 miles away would not get to hear something they objected to and come 500 miles to punish them for something they might not have any problem with. If a local villager objects, there is a chance of face to face conversation and resolution according to local customs.

Im not sure but I think people want privacy more now because they are more concerned about the consequences of faceless people ruining their lives for reasons they don't know or understand, that actual local privacy.

I live in UK village, and I want privacy because I am not an American and I dont expect to be subject to US law which from my POV is a very disturbing and frightening thing. OK, we Brits need to deal with our UK/US relationship at a political level, but even so, I am happy for most of my life to be known to those around me, but I sure as hell dont want some Yank spook having anything on me whatsoever. I assume Americans dont want British spooks having info on them either.

Over all though, I do think its new uncontrolled consequences people are scared of.

No.

First up, I agree 100% with the idea that this sort of thing is systematically wiping out both freedom and the illusion of freedom. Of course we all know that over time it will close in getting worse and worse until we become little more than controlled cattle. However.....

Government has every right to think its what people want. Or, to put it another way, it is not what they don't want. The mass population simply doesn't care, since they know that it probably won't ever affect them. And if it does, well, the mass population won't care, they'll just see it as a bit of bad luck, happening to someone they don't know, who is not them, their family, friend or colleague.

What I don't see anywhere, US, here in the UK, or anywhere else is any form of mass objection. When you look at the numbers, protesters/population, petitioners/population, and so on, you'll see it is a small minority who actually care. As a politician, I'd be concerned about the mass population and their votes. Thats where the power is, not with a loud(ish) minority.

Im with you, I really am. I actually suffer minor anxiety symptoms as I read and think about this stuff. It really creeps me out. But the tragic fact is, the vast majority don't give a toss.

This will only change when majorities show signs of really caring about the issue.

My 10 year old daughter has autoimmune liver disease. It also affects her kidneys and bladder. She is being lined up for transplants. Its devastating to her, and the family. Yet, despite numerous letters and meetings with her consultants, therapists, and social services, the moronic arrogant staff at her school refuse to take it seriously and cause her and us unbelievable problems and stress. It borders abuse.

Not at all.

If the EU and Brazil are using US cables, the US is just interfering with its own cable. Fair enough. Entirely different if the US attacks a cable it does not own. It changes the game. It could be considered a hostile act against allies.

Im not sure google have any clue what people want.

The general impression I get is that they facilitate hundreds and hundreds of projects, let them develop, and if it looks good, let them loose into the wild and see what sticks. Most people only get to see the successful ones. I think the vast majority of these projects never see the wild.

In contrast, I get the impression that other big tech companies lean towards thinking something up, then trying to push on to users.

Perhaps I've just fallen for PR, but thats the impression I get.

"But threatening to shoot up a school, in the light of recent events... really? "

Yes, absolutely, really. If you are in playground type ranting slanging match, you go of the most extreme things to say, which could cause shock in the recipient. Right now, things like school shootings are the current shock fodder, and well in peoples minds. So people will use that subject. Same with pedophiles and terrorists. And of course, many strands of comedy also use this.

There is nothing whatsoever strange about this.

No he didnt. All he did was say that its not an instant justification for something just because there is a market for it, by listing examples of things that have a market, but society doesn't want sold. Just because there is a market for something, it doesn't mean it should be sold.

I disagree that pop music is some how damaging, bad or undesirable, thats just snobbery. Its not my thing, but then I dont expect other people to like my taste in music. Its stupid, its like arguing that blue is good, and yellow is bad.

We all know that there are various filters, different for each ISP, which exist because the government pressured them in to it. Generically and collectively we are all oh so terribly lazy and refer to them as a UK porn filter.

Please stop believing that we are stupid enough to take that short hand as literal.

Yeah, until China hypothetically dumps its bonds, which is what is being discussed.

Good analogy though, because separating conjoined twins in a manner analogous to dumping all its bonds would kill both. The US economy would be in ruins, and the US would reply the only way it knows how, war. I suppose war is as much an economic tool as anything else. But there is another reason why China could never dump its bonds, it would destroy its biggest market, the US.

Capitalism, the biggest force for peace we have....... (If reading that last bit made you feel nauseous, imagine how I felt typing it. Im trying to kid myself it's ironic, but its not working.)

I don't see that as an internet thing, its about long distance control, or remote control. Its the same thing when people say its easy for politicians to send troops to war, or when a soldier controls a drone. They don't directly witness the outcome. The internet is just a more efficient, wider spread, easier to access example of it. Maybe also, its the same sort of thing as common folk committing minor insurance fraud. They don't see a victim.

Often wondered.... If a website were set up which had just one button one the page, and message saying the following: "After 10 million unique hits, a nuclear missile will be launched at a random capital city" Then lots of genuinely convincing stuff about it being about it being real, such that it was know to be for real. Also probably restrict it to adults, some how. (No, I don't quite know how, but this is a thought experiment after all.) How long would it take to hit the 10M? Would anyone really click?

Anyway, its clear to me that the more remote something is, the more people disassociate from it. The internet is just another example.

Im normally all for having a go at Americans for being so insula, and not realising there is a rest of the world out there, well, the NSA know, but, you know... stereotypes and all that.

But in all fairness, the Ukraine borders the EU and there are political ties or ambitions there concerning the EU. No, I don't know all the details and I wont pretend to, but ultimately, it affects the EU. The US, on the other hand, is a world away and frankly what goes on in the Ukraine is not exactly a big deal to the US or its people. Yes, on a being informed of big events in the world level, it should be reported in the US, but I can understand the US not being that interested. Im sure there are levels of concern for the US, but its a much bigger deal to us in Europe.

Dunno.

I recommend looking up the evolutionary purpose of laughing. Then apply it to the people who used humour in this instance. IMHO, its a perfectly natural response. Appropriateness is there for irrelevant. Certainly not an issue by which one should get one one's high horse and judge others by.

As such, I have to ask: Is it appropriate to judge such people?