slumdev
Joined 7 years ago
Karma
701
Submissions
655
Member since
Feb 27
Recent submissions
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
And you would use the actions of a few agents provocateurs to smear the rest of the peaceful protestors who were let in by police?
Comment · 5 years ago
It's pretty common to imagine the worst faults of oneself as being the motivators of one's opponent.
Comment · 5 years ago
How can you storm a building when the police are holding the door open for you and ushering you in?
Comment · 5 years ago
Apart from their obligations under the law, AOL did not police content. In one example, AOL banned explicit discussions of homosexual activity but did not ban anti-homosexual hate speech. They policed the first type of speech because the CDA required them to prevent the transmission of explicit material to minors, but they did not police the second type of speech because it was not illegal.
Facebook and Twitter are actively policing speech that is not illegal.
That is why your analogy is inapt.
Comment · 5 years ago
Compuserve and a number of other credible alternatives to AOL existed during that time. Usenet and BBSes also existed. Myspace and Facebook (initially) were only for teenagers, college students, and people who never grew out of those phases. You might as well put Livejournal in this list, because none of those platforms (at those times) were as effective at corralling and suppressing wrongthink as Twitter and Facebook have been today.
Comment · 5 years ago
The idea of allowing any kind of inbound connection into a secured network (other than to/via its DMZs) is anathema.
I don't even disagree with the logic, but the BigCorp Infosec Team heavy-handed approach to working with developers invites the developers to produce creative circumventions.
Comment · 5 years ago
> because I know better than the netsec team
For anyone who's been around the block a few times, there's a good chance this is true.
Most organizations' netsec teams are too busy throwing money at vendors to keep up.
Comment · 5 years ago
The last time I needed an x-ray for a broken bone, I asked the x-ray tech for a lead vest to protect my torso and groin area.
He told me that it was pointless because I would be exposed to more background radiation throughout the course of my normal life. He did not understand that ionizing radiation damage is cumulative and that there is no safe limit for exposure. Annoyed with my request, he gave me the vest anyway.
Is there a safe limit for exposure to PFAs? I would readily concede that the risk to an individual is probably negligible, but like in the case of x-rays, population-level risks probably do exist for even the smallest exposure.
That said, I would also support eliminating all sources of PFAs, just like we tried to do with CFCs and asbestos.
Vandalism would only apply to those who stole or defaced something, certainly not the majority.
And neither of these charges justifies holding a political prisoner for 6+ months without trial, as the US government has done.