If you don't trust an OS vendor, isn't using a network monitoring tool on a different host entirely, with physical access to the wire, pretty much the only way to go? If they were so motivated, the OS would basically be a rootkit with device drivers and a userspace API...
Put the host to be inspected on a secured wireless network, then use another host on the same network to sniff wireless packets. That works too.
Voter fraud is a worse problem.
It is? Give examples. In-person voter fraud is almost non-existent. Ballot box stuffing, payola and other forms of voter fraud are not affected by requiring ID.
It's "non-existent" because democrats try very hard to keep people for even looking for it.
You won't find your fat-fold encased penis if no woman ever looks for it either. That doesn't mean your fat-fold encased penis isn't there.
Just means the FBI will only be hiring people who are good at lying about wrongdoing. Which is probably really more useful and what they want in the long run.
But it's not what they want. You know what the word is for "guy who can blithely lie his way through a polygraph?" It's "spy."
Polygraphs are pseudoscientific bullshit, but the only people they weed out are the honest ones. I know you're worried about abusive/sociopathic cops, and that's one problem. But if I if I can switch to Fedspeak, for a moment - the risk isn't that the FBI's recruitment policies select for sociopaths, it's that they select for double agents. Moronic ideologue non-threats like AQ/IS and domestic terrorists like the Sovereign Citizen derpers might not make it past this screening, but they're practically begging FSB and PLA to infiltrate them. It's assinine, it's self-destructive, and it doesn't even serve the larger gains of the FBI, just of the bureaucrats who have a vested interest in the revolving door between the IC and polygraph-reliant clearance-processing industry.
Likewise, they are insuring their agents are clueless socially broken idiots who are also sanctimonious twatwaffles about it.
Which makes them neither effective nor able to get the best and brightest. From what I have observed about the next generation of folks entering college about now, they will nave ZERO chance of hiring anybody in that age group. It'll be easy to identify the FBI undercover guy, he'll be the one with the walker and the gray hair.
This is talking about the premeditated killing of a civilian by another civilian ("murder") occurring as a cause of specific data transmissions on the public TCP/IP-based internet ("online").
If you're going to count radio-control systems and military systems then you can go back a LOT further than armed drones, but that's not what this story is about.
Does "Swatting" count?
If so, then yeah I believe it could or has happened already. Skype is being used to call local police forces on the other side of the planet to send the cops to peoples' houses over trivial shit like rivalries in video games.
Given the nature of many police forces, it won't be long before (or has already occurred) someone gets shot by police over it, or police shot by home owners (if in some states. Not you Texas, your gun laws suck.)
The problem is that hiding your picture results in far fewer messages, by a factor of eight.
I don't doubt it. There is no point in messaging someone without a picture. You could be talking to a land whale for all you know. There are some seriously fat, ugly women out there, and a high percentage turn to online dating as men find their appearance so revolting in real life. Attractive women are getting laid the old fashioned way. There's no need to get computers involved.
You also gotta watch out for "myspace angles" type photos. Be vary wary of a woman without arms, hands, or body in the photos. Chances are she outweighs you if you don't see that stuff.
I know a woman who works in IT across the street, while cute, she's about 150 pounds overweight. I ran across her on OkCupid (blocked her right away) but her photos make her look MUCH better than she actually is, even though there are lots of them. Somehow, she either used old photos, or manipulated the photo (pre or post snap) to remove her gigantic gut.
I expect the women with NO photos available are either cheating, or way worse than that. I skip right over them, and my first response to being messaged by one would be "put a picture up in your profile or fuck off".
Like it or not, physical beauty is tremendously important to most men. If you don't have it, or won't show it, you are going to be last in line out of the gate.
getting stared down with that "how dare YOU talk to ME" look
I can only imagine how beta you are...
While callous, the above comment has a point.
This new "dating site" system is going to make the whole set of men the women browse considerably more "beta" as a whole.
BTW, guys who gotta call other guys "beta" are likewise beta themselves. If you are alpha, you know it, and everybody else knows it and it doesn't have to be said.
Note that "behaving like a jerk", which is the problem here, is orthogonal to "making the first move".
"Behaving like a jerk" and "OMG he's so cute" can be valid responses to the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR. The match up between whatever trips her trigger and what he's doing make it "good" or what she doesn't like about him (her friend told her he's unemployed) plus the same behavior makes him "creepy."
This reality stems from biology, women as the investors and men as the spreaders of DNA.
I don't think it is fair of the creators to compare it to Tinder though - there are a range of online dating sites designed to cater to different expectations - eHarmony and Match are geared to long term relationships for instance, while Tinder and Zoosk are much more geared toward casual dating/hookups.
Which is funny, because even the younger crowd of females on Tinder typically say something about "soulmates" or "not DTF" or whatever rejection of casual hookups they care to add. Then, many of them can be worked into casual hookups with proper application of game. (Which I don't have, btw, just noted this from watching others.)
Women just message the men they like instead.
No kidding. Having a steady stream of people interested in you seems like being "In the drivers's seat" to me. What exactly is the problem?
Women just don't want to go through the work of filtering (or briefly looking at a profile in order to decide not to respond or block the sender) and this requires a whole new method?
How about women accept that dating is work, even if you are a woman?
Just use adblock+. It is much faster.
Faster at what? Bankrupting the people who bring you free content? Hosting and time/effort to build and maintain websites is expensive. People should get paid to deliver websites just as you benefit non-monetarily by viewing a web page.
Entitlement mentality much? How much is left on your EBT card this month?
If they didn't want to go out of business, they would run their own ads and keep careful watch on what those ads do.
It's a pain in the ass to block stuff, but a bigger pain in the ass to get infected, or clean PCs of grandma and other relatives all the time. Nobody would bother blocking if ads weren't intrusive and dangerous.
Indeed.
My hosts file (across my Windows, Linux, and OSX) machines have been using the excellent MSVP hosts (http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm) for years.
Plus, it speeds up internet browsing instead of having the browser ping 10+ different domains.
Yup. Been using that for years. Very nice. Very little in the way of bullshit from Google or anywhere else.
" Bono said the new tech "can't be pirated" "
Since when is Bono qualified to have an opinion on this subject? He should make songs and not talk about things he hasn't got a clue about.
Considering the new album, he's not really qualified to make songs either.
The trick is that doctors need to stop treating schizophrenics like we're sick. They need to start treating us like we're real people that just happen to have a different sense of reality. In a sense, I sort of agree with you, in another, totally not. Depression is also another way of viewing reality. Is someone who's depressed "wrong" about concentrating on the negative aspects of living? No... but I think most people who're depressed would rather NOT be depressed. Obviously telling someone who's depressed to just "cheer up", and "things aren't that bad" isn't going to help much. But like a disease, it's an aspect of yourself you'd rather not have and aren't in total control of, and want to be "cured" of. So the disease model isn't too far from the truth. I don't see how scizophrenia is much different.
You yourself don't really like your symptoms, wouldn't you rather they be gone? So I'm not sure I really understand your point.
I have met (and married) people who "didn't feel normal" when they weren't depressed and would have constant lapses in treatment drugs (even if they worked, which most didn't).
While they didn't enjoy being depressed, they enjoyed "not being themselves" less, or were so screwed up the cause-effect understanding was broken.
Depression while also a complicated and layered description containing many different states, is not similar in that people always want to not be it.
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
