Posts Tagged ‘free speech’

2012w43

Sunday, October 28th, 2012

Idiocracy

No one can have missed the outrageous idiocracy in Italy which simply left me with a single question:
If they had warned, and panic had ensued, and people had gotten killed while trying to escape, and no quake would have hit… then what?… Seems like a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”…

The US is implementing a “six strikes” type of deal (similar to the ?now defunct? French HADOPI) and apparently the “independent expert” used to draft a “reasonable” law might not have been so independent as they should have… being a former RIAA lobbying firm… The corruption surrounding the copyright industry is truly sickening.

I am probably waaaay to paranoid, but this reeks of false flag operation. Gotta keep the populus scared of them terrorists now don’t we?

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech.

More and more I am beginning to think that the correct course of action is to completely boycott anyone who use the DMCA since it is used as a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel. I think this comment sums it up pretty well.

Surveillance / Privacy

Outsource government and corporate surveillance to people themselves… great…

Wait! Wait! Wait! You mean to say that geo-tagging can compromise ones privacy and security?!?! Nooo, who’d have thought?

Cool stuff

A distributed twitter thingy I think it’s cool and all, really cool, but I’d still go for identi.ca.

Sleipnir is a small proxy which you run, to intercept requests and serve local files instead. Not sure when or where I’d find use for it, but interesting concept none the less.

A rather good run-through of various tools for UNIX-like systems

Jeff Atwood wrote a post about the future of Markdown, and much have since been written and people have had opinions but from one of those discussions, what I found most interesting was Pandoc.

Stuff I learned

Great answer on how to better control node placement in a graphviz diagram.
And another answer on a similar question, although this should probably be considered an ugly-hack. Then again, there’s a time and place for everything.

Last week I prodded in some Perl code, and found myself unable to visualize just what the heck the internal structure of a variable looked like, and thought to myself Had this been PHP, I would have used var_dump(); I wonder if Perl have something similar?

Of course Perl has something similar.

use Data::Dumper;
print Dumper $my_mystery_var;

Source: Perl Mongers

Race-condition-free deployment with the “symlink replacement” trick

Food for thought

Why we can’t solve big problems.

Here’s a peculiar productivity hack: Hire a person to slap you in the face.

Compliance: The boring adult at the security party.

Why we buy into ideas: how to convince others of our thoughts

Anti-Terror Laws

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

I watched the episode of NCIS (season 6 episode 6) last Tuesday, and made an observation in the end of the episode which I made a mental note to blag about later. The time has now come for that.

In order to discuss the observation, I will need to rehash parts of the story, including the ending, so if you haven’t seen it but will, STOP READING NOW!

So the team is hunting a serial killer, who’s great plan is to get caught, in order to get famous. “Who remembers the name of the police who caught Bundy” or something to that effect is uttered in one of the final scenes. Essentially the bad guy wants his 15 minutes of fame, and is willing to literally kill for it. He gloats before Gibbs that he will be famous, but Gibbs will just be a footnote at most.

So Gibbs pulls some strings, and the final scene depicting the news-cast that evening shows a black silhouette with a white question mark superimposed, instead of the photo, while the reporter announces that due to “suspected association with terrorists” they cannot reveal his identity.

I have to say, they did it skillfully. I was exhilarated “yay, the bad guy failed”, but then later that evening I got to thinking “wait just one goddamn minute”. And then it struck me. They were, in the show, without even the least bit of apologetic behavior, just depicting a rather troublesome breach in what that law is supposed to do.

Sure, they didn’t turn a (fictitious) serial-killer into a star for some unstable psyche to idolize, but consider the implications here for a while. What would stop another agent/agency from “implicating” an outspoken protester (for the sake of the argument let’s say the object of the protests is the government) as a suspected terrorist. Well that just gave them the ?authority? to silence him and ship him off to some shit hole so that he won’t be causing trouble.

And the only thing standing between him, and said shit hole, is the strength in his arguments. If the arguments are weak, he is not a problem, and letting him be just adds to the government image of tolerating different opinions, while if the arguments are strong, he would be a problem.

I find that thought to be incredibly scary. How about you?