I cna't remember the article which sort of spoils this post but there's a technical fix for DDoS which ISPs are simply and webiste owners are simply not implementing. Maybe someone knows the article or set of facts I am forgetting and enlighten the rest of us.
I quote from the above post. I am sure (that is, I know for a fact) that this is staple fare amongst a *certain kind* or radically politically correct, social constructivist, radical feminist which I mean to distinguish from feminists generally, a group I and others include myself in.
Mr. Sexually Inadequate wonders why the women he encounters don't react like those he sees on porn sites panting and groaning in response to the guy's every demand and whim. He concludes, not entirely surprisingly, that women are untrustworthy, phoney bitch whores who deliberately tease guys like him then withhold what they've given to every other guy and so need to be taught a lesson.
This is an approach to social theorizing and sadly, and ultimately lawmaking, which is based on *nothing more than a narrative which sounds plausible to the narrative's creator.*
That's it. That's the sum total of the evidence used to support that narrative. Remember, this narrative is not just any tale, it's meant to be taken seriously as an accurate description of the casual relationship between two things- porn and rape.
There are no epidemiological studies or population based studies which show, for instance, that porn viewers:
"wonder(s) why the women he encounters don't react like those he sees on porn sites panting and groaning in response to the guy's every demand and whim."
Nor is there any evidence that, for a given porn viewer, he reasons as presented:
" He concludes, not entirely surprisingly, that women are untrustworthy, phoney bitch whores who deliberately tease guys like him then withhold what they've given to every other guy "
Nor any is this a product of evidentiary based reasoning :
"and so (women) need to be taught a lesson."
It's amazing AMAZING to me that entire legislatures can be pressured into action and effectively captured by this level of "evidence" and pass laws and allocate funds and based on a mere narrative.
Rape is not ONLY about sex it's about the fact that the rapist is a criminal, that is, is criminally inclined.
Historical Fact: people of both genders have always and will always engage in sex play which resembles, on the face of it, the worst kind of rape. Thus the books 50 Shades of Gray, The Story of O and Justine to name but the most well known. But these people who view this pornography- and these books ARE pornography, are not rapists and are not potential rapists. The reason is, they are not criminally inclined.
Think of what it means to be a criminal. You are anti-social, at least. You simply do not care about what happens to other people. Their feelings mean basically nothing to you and their suffering is a matter of indifference to you. When they genuinely scream and cry in pain, you're unmoved. You have no empathy.
This pretty much describes a lot of people in society who do a lot of other things than rape, although they may do that too if they get the chance.
As I see it, we have a criminal problem. In the executive suites, in the state legislatures, in Washington, in industry, everywhere we have a disturbingly largish segment of the population which starts off, say, beating up their fellow playmates or learning to be manipulative, and then progresses on to more and perhaps more subtle orviolent crimes depending on the circumstances.
Go after the people who express anti-social behavior patterns early, because they're nt just raping, they're assualting other men, they're ripping people off, they're writing bills for Congress which destroy the earth so they can profit, they're hiding how dangerous the products and drugs theor corporations create are. They're lawyers and think tank employees and broadcasters and CEOs.
Violence against a target is violence against a target. Sure, some fo them rape. But it's not because of pornpornporn. It's because up until they rape, everyone, including feminists looked the other way at their anti-social behavior, some even admired their aggression, some even preferred it and found it exciting.
I wanna be a company.. I wanna be a company...
BTW Hudson Institute - right wing reactionary extemism in think-tank form brought to you by Olin, Koch, Scaife, Walton (Walmart) and featuring on its board Scooter (Plamegate) Libby, Dick Cheney and Richard Pearle.
Your points are orthogonal to each other. The exposure of hypertext links has nothing to do with curation or no-curation. The rise of web pages as apps and opaque services which present ephemral content instead of durable content has nothing to do HTML and links to durable URLs.
What we want is durable findable content . Google actually did a good job at rating that content for the average surfer. Pages linking to pages takes care of the case where specialized cmmunities judgement is superior to Google's.
What does this have to do with Twitter and Facebook type apporaches? Nothing. The analogy of web 1.0 to the craftsman movement is interesting but ultimately non-informative. It's just an analogy and the consequences of their respective specific internal details for the two subject areas do not somehow parallel each other.
This is really a discussion about the difference between
findable, referenceable, durable, cohesive and relevant [text + image + graphics + video}
ephemeral [advertising copy + vacant images + video junk +infotainment]
Wow we're the two guys in the world who feel this way,. I knew there was someone else out there somewhere.
You acquire knowledge through reading; through either written words or equations on the page. Knowledge acquistion for humans is inherently and forever a process of abstract symbol processing- we process speech and scratches on a page and transform it into understanding. That's as natural as breathing. Plain text is the once and a future king of the internet.
Sure, interactive infographics is a real step forward in faciliating the comprehension of complex data sets and interrelationships but those are few and far inbetween and most of the web is a designed for something else.
Suer somethings are better demonstrated than explained verbally. No one is arguing with that.
But the vision of the web as a general purpose computing platform hosted in the cloud which distributes it's "resuts" to limited capacity machines (that would be yours) which more or less passively consume the output is the TVization of the web.
It's what the media companies crave because it puts them back into the seat of power they've always held- power to decide what you see, what you're told, what you know; the power to turn you on and and turn you off using draconic and insane theories of "intellectual property" like software patents and copyright-forever and take-down notices - the whole SOPA and PIPA machinery of innovation control and democracy annihilation which is being about to be passed into law through the TPP passage.
Pages like Huffpo and Facebook it's ilk are unendurable, with video splattered everywhere, their incessant loading , reloading, sputtering and changing. But worse, on a deeper level, they're deliberately designed not to inform readers but to *develop detailed profiles of reader's specific interests which are then sold to marketers and employers*.
They do this by making the headline, the actual content and the link-paths to their stories micro-interest sieves. With each follow-me link, with each carefully worded headline, every news story is broken out along predefined personality/interest micro topics. By the time you've clicked down to the actual story you wanted to read, you've told huffpo and their "partners" an enormous amount yourself personally, your personal circumstances, your private interests, private concerns and life circumstances.
When read Huffpo you repeatedly engage in the above cycle and they in turn tweak and retweak their sieves to be finer and finer over time - this is an iterative game for them- so it reads you back, like a book.
It knows you're a 23 y/o white woman living in THAT house with 3 roomates who's had an abortion, makes 23k a year working as a temp and is currently looking for a partner with which she can surprise one day by intimating she's willing to explore 50 Shades of Gray type S&M and that you have 34k in student loan debt you worry a lot about.
It knows that and it shares that information to "its partners" which is to say anyone with enough money who wants it, who in turn sell that to your potential employers, that grant issuing institution you applied to, that political organization you're thining about joining, perhaps to see how far you can go.
It sells it to the gatekeepers of your life so that when you show up in your new business causual outift to interview, you might as well be butt fucking naked with what you thought was your most private and personal information neatly typed out in Courier 12 on bond paper instead of you education and qualifications.
And that's if your just Joesephine Average. If you're Josephine Someone, then you've effectively given your political and ideological enemies an intimate and detailed roadmap to how exactly to manipulate you, to play on your hopes and fears, who in terms of micro-interests, educational background, gender, height, looks hair and eye-color, SES background to put in front of you in order to convince you to take path X.
And just remember, this information isn't "out there" for everyone to read (the very, very false 'transparent society' claim) oh fuck no. It's a closely guarded secret, a trove of defacto intelligence which the targets, the plebes, will never gain access to. It's a unilateral power play used by what used to be called "the man" to control and channel not merely your opinions on issues or even voting but the entire arc of your life.
That's what Facebook Huffpo and the rest of the Big Internet Media is- Google, Slashdot and its corporate owners, allof them.
The web which was going to be the great democratization of information and power has been flipped by the government, by the ruling class as an instrument of inteligence gathering and population supression; in simplest form, it's been turned into an endeavor of *lists of people* creation machine.
And dont make the mistake of thinking it's a two way street, because this
is what Facebook does to websites who's political position might effect its bottom line.
Take it from the survivors of 1930s Germany- all fascism begins with lists.
The new treatment uses a technique called transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, which involves strategically placing electrodes on the skin of the lower back. While receiving stimulation, the men's legs were supported by braces that hung from the ceiling. At first their legs only moved involuntarily, if at all. But they soon found they could voluntarily extend the distance their legs moved during stimulation. They doubled their range of voluntary motion after four treatment sessions.
Link to Original Source
Ex-machina (so so movie) and all that are not what we have to worry about. Neither is the Terminator. What we have to worry about is crap like tiny drones made of synthetic biological parts which have been programmed to autonomously seek and destroy things based on their target's DNA.
Sure, its a robot but that's not a very rich description of the problem, is it? The level of AI portrayed in movies is a still a hundred years away or more. Long before we have Terminator or Matrix or ex-Machina type AI, we will have something like what I described.
The fact is non-human single purpose "intelligence" in an autonomous "creature" of some kind will happen first, and be more than deadly enough to destroy us. That's what we need to worry about that's what we need to start thinking about.
Yeah sure . Turing is famous for his Turing machine model of computing. He had a full and robust life outside of the ENIGMA part of his life. The idea he never existed is ludicrious.
You need to critically review your evidentiary threshold for believing unlikely things and you need to be more critical about sources.
If you read the TOS they explicitly say that *some parts* (undefined) of what you're calling "privacy invading" (and that's being nice) features cannot be turned off.
You can assume that MS will know and record more or less everything you do on your machine and on the internet.
My adivice: stock up on 7 before you can't get it anymore or see if Linux will serve your needs.
The point is, codes need to be cracked or otherwise secret communication compromised and we can now, unlike during WWII, create encryption which can't be cracked. That was the onluy point I was making. I am not supporting, as I said, backdooring encryption. So I am not sure what your point is.
Also Turing didn't crack enigma Poland did. That's potentially interesting. References please.
Is it, among other things, a public relations gambit, in the wake of the PRISM scandal, intended to cast Silicon Valley companies as defenders of privacy?
this. Yes absolutely. Googe knew everything about PRISM except possibly it's classified name, thus their straightfaced "we had not heard nor did you know about PRISM". Ditto every other Silicon Valley company. Do you thik Intel got to where it is while defying the US Government's request for backdoors into their products? Or do you think the government did not request a backdoor?
There are legitimate threats out there people. Unreadable communications can be a real threat to national security- think ENIGMA and Turing. It's just a fact. But bad people has 1000 other ways to disguise their communications including all the variations on one time pads. At least with crypto you have a chance of getting the key or finding a flaw in the crypto or getting access to the pre-encrypted message creating event or the post encryption message reading event.
With other secret sharing schemes what is information is buried in the open in a way known only to the sharers. Is that really a more tractable problem to solve? I can think of a lot of ways to nominate portions of infomation junk as being significant. Woodward communicated with Deep Throat by putting a flowerpot with a red flag onto his balcony. Think of all the bits of information flying around,both public (Twitter) and private. Think of how the problem compounds when IoT comes online. There are enough ip6 addresses to give every grain of sand on earth 1000 unique IP addresses. Do the math. Each of these communicating to any other at will sending messages. Yeah.
Want to know where the real threat is coming from? It's coming from Silicon Valley VCs and companies they are funding. Just as none of these types, from the engineers to the investors ever really thought through what would happen if they made protocols and machines which were inherently (unfixably) insecure and then continued to not think about it, even as it became clear society was going to be critically depending on these protocols and machines, so 100,000 fold with IoT.
It's a headlng rush into chaos and oblivion driven by the most greedy, shortsighted and willfully ignorant members of our community. If you say "hey, maybe we shouldn't "democratizing" synthetic biology without thinking through the implications and how it could be used to deconstruct society and civilization, then you're a Big Government commie. Under the cover of spittingly stupid quips like of "well, any technology can be used for good or evil, I can kill you with a hatpin!" we are creating technology that will give one person th e power to take down whole cities, whole geographically or genetically defined populations, civilization itself.
And if you think no one would do that because of some variant of nuclear MAD then you really are a fucking idiot with no knowledge of history, people or the real world.
Forgot the link:
I RTFA and read the links. They're shocking and I don't use that word casually. I am posting the direct links here with the excerpts from the license agreement.
No human being who had these explained to them in an ordinary setting by someone they knew and trusted would knowingly agree to them.
Sign into Windows with your Microsoft account and the operating system immediately syncs settings and data to the companyâ(TM)s servers. That includes your browser history, favorites and the websites you currently have open as well as saved app, website and mobile hotspot passwords and Wi-Fi network names and passwords.
To enable Cortana to provide personalized experiences and relevant suggestions, Microsoft collects and uses various types of data, such as your device location, data from your calendar, the apps you use, data from your emails and text messages, who you call, your contacts and how often you interact with them on your device.
Microsoft can disclose your data when it feels like it
We will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to protect our customers or enforce the terms governing the use of the services.
Cortana also learns about you by collecting data about how you use your device and other Microsoft services, such as your music, alarm settings, whether the lock screen is on, what you view and purchase, your browse and Bing search history, and more.â
The author goes on to note:
Lots of things can live in those two words âoeand more.â Also note that because Cortana analyzes speech data, Microsoft collects âoeyour voice input, as well as your name and nickname, your recent calendar events and the names of people in your appointments, and information about your contacts including names and nicknames.â
The updated terms also state that Microsoft will collect information âoefrom you and your devices, including for example âapp use data for apps that run on Windowsâ(TM) and âdata about the networks you connect to.'â
Windows 10 generates a unique advertising ID for each user on each device. That can be used by developers and ad networks to profile you.
They intend to completely remove the notion of privacy from the tools we use to create share and store the most private thoughts we have.
This is Linux's Big Chance. People will reject this massive barefisted amoral invasion of privacy and flee- if they can get a decent computing experience out of some UNIX clone.
Not to turon this into a "What['s wrong with Linux" discussion but I have sincerely tried to move to Linux repeatedly and just found the experience awful. I am nto interested in learning a CLI to get normal stuff done-at all. The performance compared to Windows has always been terrible, my software is slow, the drivers are missing etc etc.
Perosnally I feel like Ubuntu is somehow in the thrall of a culutre of devs who are not interested in accomodating the masses and take it as a point of pride that finding getting installing and using applications still requires exiting to a CLI, which knowledge they love. Yes, many of them do want to share the love with you, but many people wanted me to share their love the Grateful Dead's music with me too and the thing is, I just don't like it.