Whoops! Sentences are hard! That invitiation must have been lost in the mail, that is.
Uh, I'm sorry, the invitation to the club meeting where we let "them" into "our ranks".
(hint: Collective accountability is a bullshit philosophy.)
Snowden made a decision to break the law because he believed his cause was good which justified breaking the law. What if the NSA used the same argument? What if they believe their cause is just as good and justified and more important then adhering to any laws?
Who is ultimately right is for the courts to decide. But the government will try its damndest to prevent the courts from ever seeing this kind of case, if they can help it.
no he didn't. He doesn't understand the context and is using a specific type of crime as all crime, it is not.
For example, the paper does not include homicide. It's a report on interviewed victims, not a report of all violent crime.
Now that's just dishonest. disgbo said that "men are FAR more likely than women to be victims of violence, physical intimidation, violent crime, and other physical threats". dirk asked for evidence. The report digsbo cited, and the one he provided below, are exactly the evidence proving his claim.
Lets look at a more accurate and detail review, shall we?
Now who's cherry-picking? This report is about domestic violence only, which is but a small subset of all "violence, physical intimidation, violent crimes and other physical threats". Overall, men are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators in our culture. The argument that women have to be more conscientious about their safety just doesn't seem justified by the evidence.
I agree with the use of #YesAllWomen to bring awareness to sexual harassment, which is still prevalent, but I disagree with its use to highlight some belief that women live under some vague but constant threat of male violence that the rest of us don't, like this tweet. If the message is more targeted at things like domestic violence, that's justified by the evidence.
I don't buy for a second that men are more likely to be the victims of violence, intimidation and other physical threats. Men are more likely to do all of those, but they are more likely aimed at women.
digsbo already cited the relevant reference showing that men have more to fear from others than women do, but are you really so suprised that male on male violence is more prevalent than male on female? Who gets in more bar fights? Who is the more likely victim of gang violence? There's still a stigma around hitting women, so when tempers flare in any situation, who is more likely to receive a punch to the face?
You are basically calling the person feminine which is only an insult if you believe men are superior to women.
That's not how insults work. Sure, the people who started using that insult probably believed that, but words have momentum and growing up in a culture that uses some words derogatorily means you're simply more likely to use them that way when conveying an intention. That doesn't mean the user has given even a moment's thought to what's actually been said. Trying to tie this to some mental attitude towards women as a whole is weak at best.
Is that a joke, kids can definitely do those things. They obviously can't go to as far of extremes as an adult can
You just explained it yourself, and the younger they are, the more limited you are. The original poster said that kids would interfere with their ability to travel, which as a general proposition is true, irrespective of the fact that it may not be true in specific circumstances.
What? The only symptom he listed that might be related was decreased interest in women. I've never seen any of those other symptoms listed in relation to depression.
That's a little simplistic. Genetics also account for a signficant fraction of a young person's behaviour.
Traveling with kids isn't that hard. You can get a backpack with a kid seat that will work till they are about five. When they are eight, they can walk fast enough to keep up.
Walking around isn't the hard part. The hard part is going the places you'd want to go, which may consist of places that won't hold a kid's interest, which limits your enjoyment of it if you force them, or places they simply cannot go (rock climbing, hiking, etc.).
2. Access to top secret data that still hasn't been released showing a compelling need for this information gathering?
If that were the case, he would only need to release some of that information to justify those actions. More than likely the bulk surveillance infrastructure is to maintain a political and economic advantage over other countries.
But even if they had a good director, they can't just undo the Prequels. They're already out there, and they've already ruined Star Wars.
Some of the fan edits actually make the prequels decent movies.
That story doesn't need to be set in Space, require aliens, Jedi, Sith or the Force, and is told literally every day on the news.
Art imitates life.
Everybody in other countries with an ounce of brains in their heads could reasonable assumed that this is going on, and everybody in America with an ounce of brains can reasonably assume that other countries (including our allies) is either doing the same thing or trying to gain the means to do so.
Not everybody was aware of the extent this was happening, like the NSA trying to subvert encryption protocols and hardware devices. Certainly those well-versed in security culture probably suspected, but the confirmation of how pervasive it is was still surprising.
You're missing the point: our network infrastructure is already DoS vulnerable. A remote DoS is just another drop in a full pool. To suggest that a DoS vulnerability "compromises" the remote system doesn't seem justified.
I'm not referring to any specific DoS, just DoS as a general class aren't necessarily security vulnerabilities, ie. specific DoS vulnerabilities might also be security vulnerabilities, but being a DoS vulnerability does not automatically also make it a security vulnerability.