Yeah yeah, fantasizing about the motivations of the precious few who do give a fuck because you're too weak to; that's such a new concept, and not unintentionally ironic at all.
Don't mention it
does not really infringe on their rights in any way
Privacy in itself is a right, so how does that work?
Well, fuck that guy, and all the other hypocrites parroting similar views. Either mankind is doomed, or those bootlickers will be identified and despised as such - funny how they never get over that, huh? As in, fuck you, you chose your bed, now sleep in it. Forever.
Somebody is saying this is inevitable - and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true.
I've heard quite a lot of people that talk about post-privacy, and they talk about it in terms of feeling like, you know, it's too late, we're done for, there's just no possibility for privacy left anymore and we just have to get used to it. And this is a pretty fascinating thing, because it seems to me that you never hear a feminist say that we're post-consent because there is rape. And why is that? The reason is that it's bullshit.
We can't have a post-privacy world until we're post-privilege. So when we cave in our autonomy, then we can sort of say, "well, okay, we don't need privacy anymore, in fact we don't have privacy anymore, and I'm okay with that." Realistically though people are not comfortable with that. Because, if you only look at it from a position of privilege, like, say, white man on a stage, then yeah, maybe post-privacy works out okay for those people. But if you have ever not been, or if you are currently not, a white man with a passport from one of the five good nations in the world, it might not really work out well for you, and in fact it might be designed specifically such that it will continue to not work out well for you, because the structures themselves produce these inequalities.
So when you hear someone talk about post-privacy, I think it's really important to engage them about their own privilege in the system and what it is they are actually arguing for.
-- Jacob Appelbaum ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3h46EbqhPo&t=7m46s )
There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and privilege, or to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws. These are simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will and that must face the test of legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by other institutions that are more free and more just, as has happened often in the past.
-- Noam Chomsky
The author states "I have a full time job so you might want to know that twister is a hobby."
So WTF are you even on about.
It's not our fault that just about anything coming from that general direction makes everybody else seem like a super intelligent saint. Your jealousy is duly noted.
Would you call that deep experience in securing systems, or rather deep experience in not securing them, even actively making them weaker, and not talking about that fact? It's like saying a butcher has deep experience about what animals need to be alive; technically true, but that doesn't make a butcher a great veterinarian.
We have deep experience in protecting our national infrastructure
I beg your pardon? This coming from the fuckwits who insist on just about everything having unfixed holes and/or backdoors? Unless by "deep experience" they are referring to having their heads up their asses, I call BS.
What do you think would increase security more, in the long run - firewalls by the NSA, or firing squads for the NSA? Sad thing is, what starts out as a polemic rhetorical question is actually not that easy to answer, now is it.
There is no left and right in this - there are just two large groups of people misled by sometimes opposing "values". In all aspects that matter, they are exactly the same.
Put a pitchfork in them, they're clones
Now all we need is AI to play shovelware games for us.
It's right here. More energy in the system, more chaotic weather. It doesn't just mean it gets "warmer everywhere all the time".
the government DID NOT kill or imprison them all
in 1970 the US military killed college students
Why is this at +5, and the post you replied to at 0? It should be the reverse. There is the difference between "killing some" and "killing all", which in this case is the difference between a good point and a strawman.
I find it shameful to use this incident to argue for defeatism and rolling over in advance, when the very people who faced it back then did NOT: http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/collections/exhibits/arch/1970/70Images/Kent2.gif
I doubt what happened at Kent State even put a dent in the protests, maybe even the opposite.
If everybody protests, who is going to do the killing? You're aware the leaders of the world are depending on a lot of misled people working for them, right? Chauffeurs, pilots, cops, soldiers, doctors, nurses... the list is very long, and the so called elite are basically sitting ducks once the lies wear off.
It's also a huge red flag considering you're only supposed to store hashes of some variety, never the password itself. If how long the password is doesn't affect the length of what you store in the database at all, what is the point of limiting it, right?
Idiosingularicracy will not take 500 years to arrive, that's for sure.