gwgarry

China would be fucking stupid to hand Snowden over to US authorities. Just like the US encourages dissenters to take refuge in the US, China should do the same. If you don't agree with your government and want to air their dirty laundry, we will give you amnesty. This would be good for the world as a whole.

So Google can eavesdrop on everyone's communication globally and relay that to the US government. If I were a foreign government I would tell them to fuck off. There is no point in having a spy network of a corporation that belongs to another nation in your airspace. If they want to build such a network, open source the technology and let nations' own organizations that are under the democratic control of those nations build that technology.

apt-get update; apt-get upgrade after you try that on a clone machine. it's not a PITA unless you're super lazy which apparently many people are.

> The recent (say, last decade) disparity has been lack of mature containers on the platform of choice, which is Linux for most cloud-based projects. I don't know many people who would switch their projects to run on FreeBSD or Solaris just to use containers instead of VMs.

OpenVZ. VServer. Many people did that in the old days. Before Xen it was all about FreeBSD.

Which is stupid. I would think to myself I am being accused of a crime, I better remain silent lest they try to pin this on me.

I have tried being polite, but it's quickly getting to the point where the righteous indignation is such that you want to resort to cursing the judge for his moronic legal fiction to justify this.

Fuck the news, acquire knowledge. :D The reason it pops up is someone noticed it, posted it online, and it grew viral because it's something people like to hear.

I guess it is no longer relevant.

Most humans don't know the answer to this question all of the time.

Real privacy doesn't exist. It's also a legal fiction. People assumed the legal fiction of online privacy existed because they fear that big baby government will fuck over innocents or people that are not a real threat to society. Their fears came true.

100% of opinions can be manufactured. Polls lie.

The outcome in this case of being conspiracy minded is good:

1) You don't trust your data online. 2) You keep as much of it in your control as you can. 3) You stop using Facebook and look for alternatives that don't catalog your life. 4) Foreign governments start being weary of putting all their citizen's information in the hands of the US government through their various private corporations.

> That means something.

No it doesn't. How would you even start approaching to prove that I can only fathom.

> Most of these companies are effectively saying they're agreeing to subpoenas

While at the same time they are actively supplying exploits so that their software can be compromised for political gain. Their software is unsafe, and anything that they're saying is by law allowed to be false or deceptive information, hence why you can't prove the first part.

> 'watch your thoughts form as you type'

Is that not what Google claimed it could do with its machine learning algorithm?

> a lot more holes in Snowden & Co's story than the opposite

Do you work for the government or tow the party line for fun. All your shit sounds like the old this is not "reasonable" this is a conspiracy theory line. When everyone knows the reality is that nothing reasonable is going on.

Yes and unlike Microsoft they probably don't give access to their exploits to NSA before they patch their systems. /sarcasm. They will say whatever the government tells them to say, your data is not safe, and if you don't think this is true, you're a fool and an idiot.

What about user exploitation... when are you going to combat that?

Snowden's job is done. They will leave him alone as the US leaves alone dissidents once they have briefed the CIA and various other organizations and given testimony on how they have a secret, secret plan on the basis of which the US can start a war with the country.

Kettle, I mean American, meet pot, I mean Chinese.

Most people don't give a shit because it does not effect them. If we can show them that it does effect them, their opinions will change. And it does effect everyone, because if you have to worry about explaining what you say to other people or face consequences then freedom of speech and freedom of conscience is effectively dead.

Yes and these ass holes will keep lying their teeth out and now no one will believe them.

These edge cases are stupid. If 99% of Americans are safe, that's good enough. Dudes that actually break the law are not our problem, government should get them. The problem is all the other people who are doing nothing wrong other than have opinions or beliefs that the government does not like. Or in the case now are simply sending e-mails. If we can make it harder to get their shit that's enough.

This whole idea that no we can't do it, is defeatist. We can and we should do it, and then we should do more. As much as we can to make it as hard as possible. And if the government still wants to do shit, then let them. That's their prerogative.

Well you better be very careful about what you say because you don't want to denied entry to the US now do you?

Nationalists don't really care about the rights and freedoms of other people. They are only concerned about the rights and freedoms of their own country.

In another words the entire discourse is about rhetoric and not about truth, apparently because the public can't handle the truth and the terrorists will use the truth to destroy our civilization -- dozens of terrorists... You know as compared to the needs and rights of 300 million Americans, I think this is perfectly reasonable. They even through in a little Red hate mongering to justify their case.

What we have is this:

"Inverted totalitarianism is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash."

What we need is this:

The Theory of Communicative Action has three interrelated concerns: (1) to develop a concept of rationality that is no longer tied to, and limited by, the subjectivistic and individualistic premises of modern philosophy and social theory; (2) to construct a two-level concept of society that integrates the lifeworld and systems paradigms; and, finally, (3) to sketch out, against this background, a critical theory of modernity which analyzes and accounts for its pathologies in a way that suggests a redirection rather than an abandonment of the project of enlightenment.

Where is the FBI consultant that told him this? I am sure he signed a contract.

Or it could mean Google is lying or just trying to create rhetoric to confuse the public to keep them from looking for alternatives to their search engine and other services.

Time for Americans to wake up to the tyranny they have been subjecting the rest of the world to since WWII. If foreigners don't have rights, then sooner or later those same rules will get applied to Americans. In fact that's already happened, just not on American soil yet.

US: China, we scared, you all scary with your cyber-espionage. Sure we hack, topple nations, all in good fun. But when you do it, you so serious.

China: Fine, give us Taiwan.

US: No.

China: Fine we continue to have fun too!

I think there has to be a level of tolerance which is justifiable by science and working around the issue by other means -- for instance only so many kids without a certain vaccine can be in the same peer group. Else you are a totalitarian and we've seen that this type of thinking produces problems.

You can/have to put the kids that don't have vaccines under a special surveillance and work around the issue. Should society subsidize those costs? Perhaps.

Diversity is good. A few children who are not vaccinated is probably in the best interest of humanity. Imagine at some point in the future a vaccine does cause genetic problems, what then? Do you want to risk 100% of the population on that?