If only we had two the NSA and a meta-NSA... the meta-NSA's job is to spy on the NSA. Then we could listen to the NSA and accept advice from them only when the meta-NSA tried to undermine it -- because then we would know that it was a suggestion that actually made the meta-NSA's job harder. We could set it up such that however many files the NSA has in its possession, the meta-NSA's job is to copy as many as possible, and the more documents that the meta-NSA does copy, their pay goes up and the NSA's pay goes down. That way we maintain enmity between them.
> aircraft carriers ain't going away anytime soon
Gotta have someplace to park the drones, right? How are the rolling drones for repairing the flying drones coming along?
In Britain: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
In USA: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
The publisher could've just said, "No, we're not changing it for Americans who we think will be scared off by the word 'philosophy'. It's just one of our DRM changes that happened to end up in a particularly visible location."
Aren't they still legally under a gag order even if it has been disclosed? The FISA letters don't say "keep quiet about this unless it is already public." They say "keep quiet about this period."
It's hard for me to see how we will allow various technologies like self-driving cars to go forward while still holding back the war machines. I mean, I want to hold back the war machines, but writing a law to keep those two use cases separate will be tricky. A child runs out into the street... does the self driving car hit the child or swerve possibly hitting some other car? Does the car evaluate the people in the other vehicle? Whatever logic we put into the cars, that's the same logic -- inverted -- that would run the war machines.
I hope we have high wisdom politicians writing that particular body of law. I know... improbable... but hope springs eternal.
So, if there's some video I don't like on the Internet, I just go there and add a comment saying that it is this Irish dude doing whatever it is that is in the video? I can think of lots of embarrassing videos that various celebrities would like to see go away. Just add "Hey! That's Eoin McKeogh!" to the video and then sue in Ireland.
This is just one of many problems I see with this ruling. It just was the most interesting one.
I think that's why the court required the "when notified" part. I don't agree, but at least it is feasible to implement.
In the USA, there are all sorts of homeowner associations that control a neighborhood's "view shed", aka the objects that are visible in the sky within a neighborhood. I've seen them successfully push back against businesses wanting to build tall buildings nearby on exactly the grounds that it created an invasive space. I don't know what the answer is, but it does seem like someone should be able to get a private space that still has view of the sun and we should find a legal structure that makes that possible.
That legal structure may be allowing drones... and allow people to shoot the damn things as soon as they are within eyesight of private property. Could be fun!
Wow... slashdot just provided a perfect counter example. In this case, anonymity wasn't the problem. It was people reacting to information from a credible source. Did anyone stop to vet the information? Nope. They sold their shares. That's what we have to get ahead of --- stop reacting and start fact checking.
"Stocks plunged and recovered within minutes after the hacked AP Twitter account sent out a tweet that indicated that the White House had been the victim of an explosion and that President Obama had been injured. '...the Dow Jones Industrial Average took a quick 143-point plunge, before recovering most of its losses within minutes. The three-minute plunge triggered by the tweet briefly wiped out $136.5 billion of the S&P 500 index's value, according to Reuters data. Interestingly, Tuesday has been the best day of the week for the blue-chip this year with an average return of 0.46 percent. If the index closes in the black today, it will have been up for the 15th consecutive Tuesday. The last time the Dow rose for 15 straight Tuesdays was in 1927.' An analyst said, 'That goes to show you how algorithms read headlines and create these automatic orders – you don't even have time to react as a human being.'"
The point is that the GP was talking about all anonymous speech, and Chill's point is that to discuss anonymous speech as the problem, you have to cover all anonymous speech. Chill's point is on topic. You might dispute aspects of it, but he does correctly highlight a case where anonymous speech was considered a valuable public good. And you criticizing him behind a veil of anonymous is truly amusing.
Whistleblower laws exist because there are tons of reasons why someone needs to be able to remain anonymous when reporting an issue. There are plenty of reasons to have to stay in the shadows in order to get data out there. As much as you say it is a problem in this case, I can point to many cases where it was critical to very good results. The previous parent is right -- we need to be more aware when data is coming from an anonymous source and try to verify it. If we pass it along, it needs to be with a gigantic "this could be a lie" tag unless we verify it ourselves.
Conversely, knowledge of a source wouldn't have necessarily helped this problem. Suppose you have someone who really thinks they heard a name on the radio scanner. This person is a known credible source and posts with their name, "I heard this on the radio..." You may have just as many people take that as carte blanche to go after the poor devil who was named as you have from the anonymous source. Again
Named sources or anonymous sources: the problem is the reaction, not the telling.
Did you read the article? It was someone impersonating a diplomat and encouraging problems between nations, which has this bad habit of leading to conflict of various kinds. That's what "diplomatically damaging" means. Free speech does not extend to impersonating someone and falsifying information.
When institutions like U. of Texas in Austin, U. of Okla and U. of Missouri are all now being funded by the state BELOW 20% of their general budget, it is hard to consider these to be public institutions. Those are the schools I have reason to know about. I'm told the situation is the same across USA -- we are dismantling public universities. I've heard suggestion among some donors to OU that the name should change to University IN Oklahoma since the state isn't choosing to be "of" the school anymore. Too many schools are begging rich alumni for gifts. At some point, the schools will become more in the service of those alumni than of the public.
Not useless. It has to match the whole line. If the regular expression matches zero characters, then the rest of the line is left as the next token in the string. You're thinking of it as a parser... think of it as the results of a parser -- the parser ran, and it returned the complete line of characters as a token when given this regular expression. Does that help you understand why this works?