134 karma · joined June 13, 2012
EDIT: Added last sentence.
Comment [a1]: Graphic of 2 terrorists sending email to each other, show email indicating threat and containing a number without country code
For me personally, the design principle of "separation of concerns" has always worked well, especially in a team environment. Having a pure designer (on photoshop or illustrator), then an html/css expert for coding pages and finally a programmer for adding dynamic content works out as a nice pipeline for web development. With ojjs, the programmer and html/css person would have blurred lines separating their responsibilities. It is a cool project, but it seems like a step backwards to me. Maybe it's just a step sideways or a better way of doing things for a team consisting entirely of programmers.
That's how I felt, but that is also what made me want to have a quick check with others before voicing that kind of opinion. Seems like when I am the most sure about something, I'm the most vulnerable to making a mistake.
Since we know that our (USA) entire financial system is backed by (Federal Reserve) bankers that loan money without moral guidelines, it could be conceived that a family like the Rothschild are at the top of the world power hierarchy. What do they always say in the detective movies, "follow the money".
I'm still of the opinion that nonfree does not equate to nongood. It should be more like "nonfree software is not easy to audit, therefore it is potentially not safe." When people make blanket statements that are overly simplistic, I automatically feel like their logic is compromised. Their emotions or prejudice are getting in the way of accuracy, which is important when making statements about what other people should do.
What other search engines are being suggested for use as a safer alternative to the major search engines? Did any of those companies respond by affirming their ability to protect your privacy in a way that is not technically possible?
The author's point is that you can't dodge the NSA's scrutiny, and if you think you can then you are either lying or uneducated about the NSA's capabilities.
UPDATE: What I'm trying to say is that the article doesn't really work when directed at Google or Yahoo because we already know that our privacy is compromised there.
http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2013/07/0...
Was it intended to be "Privacy, then, is not the trumpeting of the individual against society’s interests, but the protection of the individual FROM society’s own norms and values."?
I want to make sure I'm understanding the concept. The original means to me that the individual is protected by the norms and values of society. The revised version means the individual is protected from society's norms and values. It seems like both should be true.