GHFigs

I find it difficult to believe that you're truly concerned with 'the value of HN'.

While JeorgR's point isn't well articulated

There is no point being articulated at all in the above comment. It's an vague insinuation meant to derail. Please don't prop up his shitposting just because you think you might agree with something he might have meant.

If you're not here to tell us that (e.g.) you think Bill Gates is racist because of the books he read this year then what do you really even have to say? White guilt platitudes? Come on. That's not a conversation, that's an insult.

If you (et alia) actually believe it's an important issue, then you would actually be selective about when the subject is broached, so that actual intelligent conversations between willing and engaged participants could actually happen. Injecting "awareness" at every opportunity just debases the whole topic and turns into a sick game of making appearances and gestures. Nobody wants to talk about the supposedly important subject because everybody's tired of getting yelled at by the deafly intolerant and inflexible blowhards that keep bringing it up.

"This is the short-term goal to cool the fuel for the F-35; however, the long-term fix is to have parking shades for the refuelers," Resch said.

But what color are they going to paint the shades?

The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements is a 1951 social psychology book by American writer Eric Hoffer that discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism.

The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. Hoffer argues that even when their stated goals or values differ mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable. Thus, religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics and rhetorical tools. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

Change up your metaphor. Sometimes it's best to think of your "stuff" as a stack to go through sequentially, sometimes a library to collect and browse, sometimes transactions to be budgeted on some kind of ledger of your time and attention, etc.

When you find a metaphor that works for you, the "rules" become rather intuitive. Lately I think of my information consumption habit as something of a diet: Eat when you are hungry. Stop eating when you are full. Stock only enough food for your anticipated needs. Favor nutritious foods. When possible, share meals with friends and family.

Glad to see The Intercept is still bringing those hard-hitting revelatory leaks instead of merely capitalizing on public idolization with hagiographic exclusives.

My view of this part of the Constitution is that the person and their device are protected and law enforcement is wrong.

You seem to not sharing the Constitution's distinction between warrantless and warranted searches. The complaint being fielded by some in law enforcement is that recent changes in encryption mechanisms in iOS and Android will render many warranted searches useless.

In the US, major carriers Verizon and Sprint have operated CDMA-based networks whose devices did not use SIM cards. I think it was the iPhone 4 that Apple once shipped 3 different versions of in the US: AT&T (GSM), Verizon (one set of CDMA bands), and Sprint (another set of CDMA bands).

If you travel to Canada or anywhere else, you take out the Apple SIM and put in your local SIM.

You could just take out the Apple SIM.

Apple's new campus is powered by the outrage and impatience of people that won't download VLC or ffplay to watch their two-hour commercials before they're available on YouTube.

Do you believe that your beliefs are dictated by single "well-timed news articles" directed by "the powers that be"?

What happens when they blame strong cryptography for the next gut-wrenching tragedy involving innocent kids and a bombing / school shooting / kidnapping / pedophile?

Pedophiles (or more specifically: child pornographers) routinely use strong cryptography and effectively nobody cares.

People with ADHD report it significantly improved their lives.

The confounding thing with stimulants of all varieties is that even people without any problem tend to report improvement.

So why not "Windows X"? Oh...

I understand where you're coming from. I have an uncle that feels the exact same way about black people and Muslims. Wait, what?

They are going straight into "think of the children mode" ... apparently "what about the terrorists?" isn't as effective anymore.

"They" in this case is the chief of a metro police department, whose forensic and surveillance resources are more often spent on pedophiles and drug dealers than terrorism. What else would they say?

If the article's authors wanted a "what about the terrorists?" quote they would have gone to a counter-terrorism official, just like they rang someone at the DEA for a "but drug organizations!" quote.

You're reading a paint-by-numbers article about government impotence and corporate supremacy like it's finely crafted pro-government propaganda.

Let's hope the public will see through their manipulative talking points.

You (and most HN commenters) didn't. Why should they? e.g.:

a) "Beyond lobbying the companies, there is little law enforcement can do without congressional action."

b) "A half-dozen police and federal officials interviewed said that Apple, in particular, was taking an aggressive posture on the issue."

When you take away the outrage-kindling, the gist of the article is that the stodgy old Washington government is incompetent and hip California tech companies are glorious. Not exactly a controversial opinion among the commentariat.

"Instead of criticizing one person based on a picture, I criticize thousands of people based on a picture! That'll show him!"

For what it's worth -- and here I have to wonder how much it's worth to criticize someone's point of view based on a photograph of them -- that's a dress uniform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_uniform

if you already know that you definitely won't be okay

This "okayness" is something people determine by looking at their community and peer group, not by looking at statistics. It's the same effect that causes the middle class to buy houses and cars that it can't really afford.

In my experience with a certain retailer, the former is a decision made for you: they'll schedule you for 32-34 hours if they schedule you at all. As soon as you introduce any friction outside of what they're legally obligated to accept, you get squeezed out.

Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts...

In practice, many low-wage workers already get these resources, but via the government (i.e. your taxes) rather than the company.

Choose Opera Now, Opt-out of Chrome/Firefox fanboy slapfights.

Alternate questions: Why do authors keep using generic and vague titles? Why do submitters keep submitting content with generic and vague titles?

that's glib nonsense

0. Are you sure you didn't just misunderstand what was being said?

there is essentially no evidence that actions are unaffected by beliefs and viewpoints

1. I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. I was responding to a post that specifically refers to "unacceptable viewpoints", not unacceptable actions. It's the refusal to make a distinction at all that is unsettling, especially when it's being described as the proper heuristic for determining whether someone is above scrutiny or not.

and that's precisely what you're asking us to uncritically accept

2. I'm not asking you to uncritically accept anything. I'm stating my personal unwillingness to uncritically accept the notion that thinking the wrong thing or having a minority point of view ought to itself a punishable offense. A person's merit is not the sum of the popularity of his beliefs.

In short, let's leave politics out of this kind of stuff UNLESS the candidate is demonstrably in one of the outer circles of "unacceptable viewpoints".

It's deeply unsettling that you refer to beliefs and viewpoints instead of speech or actions, and moreover that a person's political views are only to be scrutinized if they're minority views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

I realize why you are complaining about people not doing a "cursory reading", but the fact is, a cursory reading can support as many false statements as just reading the article.

Kind of makes you wonder what value the The Intercept is adding, doesn't it?

Something must be done.

At this point in the debate it has been observed on a number of occasions that ranking officials at the NSA are dishonest. They have made comments both sworn, and in general press releases / statements (on the record) that have later been proven false; and we have reason to believe those officials knew they were making false or misleading statements at the time. So in short, the NSA, and the intelligence community in general have destroyed their credibility.

Do you include William Binney, 30 year veteran of the NSA, in that cohort?

Dismissing someone's concerns by saying they aren't real doesn't address the concerns, it just sweeps them under the rug because they aren't perceived as being important enough to give a shit about.

Conveniently, you've also accurately described what happens when someone expresses concern about negative side effects of new social rules.