Posts by Trevor_Pott

Re: VMware should keep their f$%@##ng mouth shout about Linux

Um. I seem to be managing my cluster from CentOS using the WebUI. What's your beef?

Re: So what's new?

You're absolutely wrong. Monitoring who is attending public protests or gatherings to discuss lawful change in government absolutely is suppressing them. Governments in the US do monstrous things on a whim. That's when innocent people aren't being gunned down, tased or worse.

The people in the United States have every right to fear for everything they have, from a job to material goods to their very lives if they are identified as being part of a group that someone in power doesn't like. Engaging in activities that are dedicated to tracking who is participating in anti-establishment activities absolutely is supression of those activities.

And don't get me started on bullshit tactics like kettling, or the insanity of Bill C-51 here in Canada.

Re: So what's new?

"Contrary to a later assertion, they also do not have a right under the US Constitution to assemble to change the regime or remove particular people from office; for that we have procedures to amend the Constitution, elections, and legal processes. "

Making use of the legal methods available to remove people from office, or make major changes to the constitution, etc requires that people assemble to discuss this. It absolutely is written into your constitution that people have the right to assemble to plot to overthrow you government. What isn't allowed is plotting to use violence to do so.

That said, given that your government is trying it's damnedest to prevent people from peaceful assembly to discuss peaceful methods of regime change, illegal assemblies to plan illegal violence may be the only path forwards for them.

When those in power seek to use that power exclusively to keep themselves in power (rather than to serve those who granted them the power their wield) there can be no reason. It becomes an issue of survival. And humans react badly - especially in groups - when they feel cornered.

Re: Telemarketers

Those who looted and rampaged for the very first time actually achieved results. The system in the US is so broken it probably needs more of that, rather than less. And that's the goddamned problem. We should be able to resolve our issues peacefully. With in the US of NSA this is no longer possible.

Re: Telemarketers

"The instigators, looters and arsonists deserved Hellfire missiles."

If you truly believe that, it's time for a civil war in your nation, and I fucking hope you lose. Badly.

Re: So what's new?

"The example of Baltimore a few weeks back suggests that general - i. e. "mass" - surveillance may be quite reasonable. "

How?

People have the right to protest. Some people may have rioted, but "guilt by association" is currently not legal in the United States. If people are rioting, you do the hard goddamned leg work of catching them. You do not associate everyone who is participating in a perfectly legitimate and legal protest with rioters, any more than you associate all members of a particular religious or ethnic group with terrorism.

You might try to say that the protests had been deemed illegal by the folks running the place, except that doing so is a violation of the constitution of the US of NSA, which specifically allows all sorts of assembly...even assembly aimed at changing the regime or removing specific people from power.

Unless, of course, you want to say that the constitution doesn't mean anything, or that the law should not apply equally to all people. In either case it would mean the law is invalid and should not be upheld, the nation as a whole should be defunct and the US of NSA should now be considered in a state of civil war.

The law applies to everyone or to noone. And the law of the land includes the first, fourth and fifth ammendments, at least in the US of NSA.

Re: It's a real pity

Metadata is data, you voyeuristic, sociopathic half-wit.

Re: As Ive said before

"For all the talk about the NSA database, I've never heard of any innocent person being the slightest bit harmed by any use of it. Its supposed dangers are entirely hypothetical, whereas the dangers posed by criminal conspiracies which might be tracked through such a database are demonstrably real."

I've been harmed by the NSA database. So fuck you.

And there are lots of "criminals" who haven't harmed anyone. Providing a perfectly harmless (when used appropriately, in moderation) substance such as marijuana, or engaging in sodomy, being gay, being a hardworking illegal immigrant...the list of people who have broken laws but ultimate been a benefit to society is huge.

Being a criminal emphatically does not mean you harm anyone. Some criminals do. Most criminals don't.

The law has long ago become not about protecting the citizens, but protecting those in power from the loss of their power, and/or imposing the paranoid morality of the crazy few upon all. Full stop.

"If you arent doing anything wrong you dont have anything to worry about"

Hands up, don't shoo- *blam*

*blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam*

All lives matter.

Re: OK

In the fullness of time? Probably the second amendment nutters who, as it is turning out, may be a hell of a lot less nutty than we think.

What the fuck world have we created?

Re: A weaker system

"A single 5TB drive could store an hours' worth of speech a day for 1.3 million people (8kbips sampling)."

More, if you use AMR instead of MP3...

Re: A weaker system

"The telcos aren't keeping what you're saying, just the info on what numbers you called."

Metadata is data!

@GH1618

You're a bad person. I will fight you and everyone who believes as you do with every ounce of my being until the day I die.

Re: @Trevor_Potts again

"If you know in advance that you suffer from sporadic or unintentional erections then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that you would be prepared to take appropriate action before or during such an event should it "arise" ( pun intended)."

A) Virtually all males "suffer" from this. It's not abnormal. It's simply part of begin male. I object strenuously to your using the term "suffer" here at all, as you again attempting to indicate that erections are bad, abnormal or harmful. They aren't.

Read this. It might start to alleviate your ignorance.

B) Why should I have to do anything about the fact that I might have an erection? There's nothing wrong with it. You have not yet manged to explain what might be wrong with having an erection or why anything should be done about it at all.

"If however you already know about your afflication"

Erections are not affliction. Erections that occur without conscious control aren't afflictions. They are a normal and healthy part of being a male.

"decide to walk through the park wearing thin white spandex shorts whilst taking the occasional glance at the local sunbathing, penis fearing , sunday school, virgin beauties then quite possibly you could be considered as having the "intent" to shock"

If the milled masses can't cope with the sight of an erection that's their problem. There's nothing abnormal, harmful or "bad" about an erection. Unless and until someone can prove that there is harmful intent there is no grounds to restrain me or my member from going about our day.

There is also no grounds to presume that either of us have an "intent to shock". Because, again, you've done nothing to prove that there's anything wrong or abnormal about having erections, or that I should consider them something to be hidden, worried about, be ashamed of or otherwise cover in a dick burkha.

"In the case of a gun owner, walking about Central Park whilst actually holding a cocked ( pun intended) and loaded pistol in your hand would be probably be considered "intent" to incite reaction"

Probably true, but that wasn't the comparison. An erection was simply compared to walking around with a gun. And you taking that bad comparison and then compounding it by now comparing a perfectly natural body function "to pointing a loaded gun at people" is outrageous and insane.

""Intent" is probably not so easy to prove but I think in many cases it could be shown that insufficient care was taken to mitigate the risks...."

WHAT FUCKING RISK?

Re: @Trevor_Potts again

"The problem, if there was to be one, would lie within the "intent" that the person has with the aforementioned item(s)"

To a very limited extend, I understand why some people might be concerned about an individual carrying a gun. Particularly if they are American urbanites and the gun in question is a handgun.

Do remember, however, that I am from a sparsely populated region of Canada, and have spent most of my life in places where it's absolutely not weird at all to see someone carrying a long gun around most of the day. I also grew up in a military community, so seeing folks armed as part of their duties was perfectly normal and nothing to worry about at all.

Where I have a problem is the assumption of intent based not on an individual in question's actions, but based upon the twitchings of the observer's paranoid mind spiders.

If I am lying on a nude beach with a full erection, by what right do you say I have intent to do anything wrong? If I am participating in a nude protest (or campus nude-and-freezing-polar-bear-dive or whatnot) by what right do you ascribe a different intent to me because of an erect penis versus a flaccid one?

A person carrying a gun has a choice about how they carry that gun. Someone participating in nude - or for that matter, clothed - activities has absolutely no control whatsoever over whether or not they have an erection.

So while I can almost, sort of, under some limited circumstances when dealing with observers possessed by mind spiders understand why "gun = panic" to some people, nothing anyone here has said explains to me on what grounds they presume intent, guilt, or anything else about a man based on the whether or not his penis is erect.

Re: @Trevor_Potts again

"I personally have no problem with you waving your erect penis around in public. I was attempting (and apparently failing) to explain why society-in-general finds such behaviour worrying, to the extent of drafting laws against it. I thought the gun analogy works, but obviously for you (and at least 42 others) it doesn't. So be it."

What you said boiled down to "presume everyone guilty instead of innocent".

Reality is "sex is bad because a priest told me so".

So that's actually two nerves struck. The first, anything that smacks of guilty until proven innocent makes me very, very unhappy. The second: religion is completely irrational and should never be allowed to be the basis for any law. Sadly, it is the basis for the anti-nudity nonsense, like it or not.

And have a good day yourself.

Re: @Trevor_Potts again

"You do however have conscious control over whether you reveal your penis to others."

Why should it matter if I do? Because you have religious hangups? Why should your bizarre belief in the ravings of desert madmen be allowed to affect my behavior, hmm? The threat of violence from people who uphold your right to force your beliefs on me is really the only reason I wear pants at all. Pants are evil.

"Indeed, but at the risk of collecting yet more downvotes, I would like to point out that an erect penis can be used for a lot of things that an flaccid penis cannot, just as a gun can be used for a lot of things that an absence-of-a-gun cannot. That is why the the items in question are more worrying to observers."

So we're guilty of violating your imagination unless proven innocent? What the fuck?

"Except, again, for what it can be used for. An observer seeing a fellow wielding a gun or an erect penis would be justly concerned at what that fellow might be about to do with it."

No, he's not justified at all in worrying about that, unless a threat has been made. If a threat has not been made, then it's just a person with a goddamned erection. Even a person with a gun is just a person with a gun unless and until they make a threat to something with it other than carry it around.

Why do you keep insisting that your ability to dream up fantasies should strip from others the presumption of innocence?

"They might, for instance, be worried that he will poke someone with it, or that it will go off accidentally in his hand. A fellow with no gun, or a flaccid penis, raises no such concerns."

So you're worried that my penis might touch you? Why is this a concern? How is it any different than my hand? Or my nose? My hair? My kneecaps are way less clean than my penis, I'm sure, but would you be afraid of them?

Or is it spooge you're afraid of? Maybe you'll get spooged on. Will you die? Will the world come to an almightly, grinding end? Or will you wipe it off and say "dude, not cool" and just go about your day?

Or are you fixated on the gun analogy here, the one that doesn't really work? Guns have safeties. And people can get training in how to handle guns. They don't tend to go off unless you're either stupid or you are intending to make them go off. That's even presuming that the gun is loaded and there's a round in the chamber, which would be an idiotic way to carry a gun around.

"But to pretend that observers need not be concerned at the implications of their unexpected appearance for unwanted physical attention, pregnancy, or at least laundry services is clearly nonsense. The flaccid penis presents a much reduced set of risks "

What an absolute load of horseshit. I should be judged and restrained, my freedoms removed because of what I might do, even those no intent to do so has been displayed?

An erect penis is not intent to rape, or to copulate, or even to do anything except be erect for a period of time before being non erect. You do not spontaneously get pregnant because you are in the presence of an erect penis. You don't even get spooged on unless there's some effort involved, so even your laundry tripe is revealed for what it is.

"Surely such a logical and empirical observation cannot be so controversial as the forum votes suggest?"

Your delusional paranoia and presumption of guilt is emphatically not empirical observation.

"However I assume that you do have conscious control over whether you reveal your penis in public. To extend my "flawed", "irrational and dangerous" analogy further, this is exactly why concealed carrying of weapons is permitted in many US states, whereas waving your weapon around in public is not. One behaviour is likely go unnoticed, whereas the other is likely to cause public anxiety and distress regarding the perceived risks."

If you are distressed by the sight of an erect penis then you need to be disturbed. Actually, you probably are disturbed, mentally, complete with delusions of sky fairies and the belief that sex, sexuality and nudity are somehow bad.

People with your mindset rule only through force of arms and violence. The day will come when there aren't enough of you crazies to force us to obey the paranoid and hateful voices in your heads. On that day, a magical world of no more goddamned pants will ensue. Maybe Kilts will become a thing again. Or we'll invent some form of protective covering for our legs that is not bloody pants.

Either way, it will be marvelous to be able to do so without folks with your mindset to oppress us. maybe I'll even live to see the day where I can walk in a public space and have well-ventilated, sweat free testicles. Publicly visible or not.

And there may, or may not be erections. Those occur on their own schedule. But you might consider investigating them, as they can be great fun and you sure as all hell need some.

Re: Oh great

"You sound a typical impatient car driver who think only he should be on the road."

And you sound like a self-important cyclist who thinks the laws of the road shouldn't apply to him.

Re: Death race

"More worryingly is that there is a culture building within motoring world where this is applauded."

This is a bad thing. Though if I'm being entirely honest, more than once I've wanted to run one or two of the cyclist buggers down for being utter fucksticks, but have thus far been able to restrain myself.

The problem isn't cyclists or motorists. It's self-important assholes. There are plenty of cyclists who think the law just doesn't apply to them. There are plenty of motorists who think the same.

The difference is that is a cyclist decides that the entire universe should just get out of their way, and YOLOs through a red light, or does 10kph on a 110kph hiway, right down the centre line (both of which happen all to frequently around here) then the cyclist is going to inevitably come to very real grips with the fact that the right of weight doesn't work in their favour.

A cyclist being an asshat at a motorist usually results in an injured or dead cyclist. A motorist being an asshat at a cyclist also results in an injured or dead cyclist.

I agree 100% that we need to have awareness raised such that asshat motorists are both aware of the law and prosecuted for breaking it. That said, we also need to crack down on asshat cyclists, because the quickest way for a cyclist to cut their risk in half is to obey the goddamned law in the first place.

Sharing the road requires predictability. Both sides need to agree on a code of behavior - in this case the law - and abide by it. That allows us to operate vehicles of all sizes without too many really nasty consequences. When anyone - on any vehicle of any size - decides the law doesn't apply to them, that's when bad things happen.

Of course, being human, it's a hell of a lot easier to just villainize "them" and ignore the failings of "us". Regardless of who is "us" and who is "them". :(

I don't have conscious control over whether or not I have an erection. I do have conscious control over whether or not I carry a gun. Thus your analogy is not only flawed, it's irrational and dangerous.

Perhaps more to the point, I can carry around both and erect penis AND a gun and proceed to use neither of them, except when and where appropriate. That part of this absolutely is under conscious control.

An erect penis is no different from an unerect penis. Or a woman's nipple. Or her elbow. Or some of the hairs on my ass. It's all just parts of a body, man. It's what you do with it that matters.

"Does simply looking at the average naked female body actually get you aroused ?"

Yep. Without fail. Hell, even partially naked ladies. And captain winkie doesn't seem to be particularly choosy.

"live naked bodies don't look "erotic" especially when outdoors."

That's not what my biology has to say on the matter.

"I would go as far as to say that arousal is a psychological state of mind that is "self induced" rather than "externally induced". Personally I can't ever think of any occasions when "spontaneus erection " has ever happened."

Okay, where's the proof of this? And if you are correct, where's the training/schooling/what-have-you to consciously control this? As I said, the religious school of guilt and shame didn't work. I have absolutely no conscious control over captain winkie that i am aware of. So I'm curious. It wasn't a subject that we were even allowed to discuss as children. In my society it's a subject that's taboo to talk abotu as adults.

Some people - most notably powerful ladies within the feminist movement - demand that we "control ourselves", and insist that all men can do it as a simple act of will requiring next to no effort. I've never in my life been able to exert any concious control over captain winkie, despite being in many situations where I wish I could.

So, hey, if you know of the magic solution, please do share. It would be useful, if I am to live in a society where apparently I am supposed to be able to exert mental control over my biology that I learn how.

Unless, of course, it's all opinion, and not backed by and empirical evidence or actual science.

I would pay rather a lot of money to be able to control when I where I experience arousal/get an erection/etc. I'm not talking about Viagra here, but the ability to just flick some sort of mental switch and not be tying up blood by engorging my dong, or having my thoughts race around carnal pleasures.

Or hell, the ability to be "ready to go" at a moment's notice, not just standing at attention but psychologically as well. That can be a stumbling block after a particularly difficult day.

Do other people have this talent/skill/mutation? Am I a freak for not having the ability to do this? Every time I read one of these things where men are expected not to be aroused, or not to look at {member of preferred sex} or not to think of {whatever is a thoughtcrime} I find myself wondering "is that even possible for the average man?"

And if it is, how do I remediate it? Are there schools? Genetic resequencing? What's the solution? A lifetime of religious "guilt and shame" about sex and sexuality didn't work. Surely if this is something enforceable by police then it is something I am expected to have conscious control over, and thus it is a life skill that should be relatively easily able to obtain?

Yes? No? Am I alone in my thinking and concerns here?

Re: What about good ol' wifi though?

IoT is (mostly) about ultra low power. WiFi gobbles the power. WiFi is also comparatively long range to most other IoT protocols. It's pretty much it's own thing, in it's own category.