to exorcise our pain
Let’s imagine that for some undetermined reason the whole world agree on this version of the story: sick marketing psychos, spokespersons, politicians, puppets, and a large variety of
broken the world. Reductio ad absurdum.
Maltagliati is a kind of pasta. The only page I’ve found on the english wikipedia about Maltagliati, is the Spätzle one. It looks like Wikipedia need an help on the etymology part: “spezzare” in italian means “to break” and the german word sounds pretty similar. Maltagliati means “badly cut”, in other words: “spezzati” (that means “broken”). Hacked. Now look at the Spaetzles, at the tools used to make them and … then listen at the sound of “spezzati” and the sound of “spaetzles”. Then go asking to the Ladin People that still live in Tyrol, wheter this is a good catch or not. I also don’t understand why Wikipedia mix the short versions (“buttons”) with the long versions (“noodles”). And they make also a wrong mapping to the italian Gnocchi … that indeed … should be mapped with the Knoedel - Canederli - the tyrolean gnocchi.
Frattaglie is a kind of meat that Wikiquotes translates with “offal, giblets”. But I’m tired to play with the words by now, so, while the Communication Scientists try to figure out if “ciccia” (ie: the title of this post) is hate speech or not - because it is in use both for selling “meat” to an unwilling kid at dinner time, and to nickname a “girl” - we go back to work.
In other words: I hate to speak. But I have to. Pidgeon English
The right to be consulted;
The right to encourage;
The right to warn.
Non Commercial && Non Derivative
The good part is that the BY-SA-NC-ND licence doesn’t exists: BY-SA-NC or BY-NC-ND.
I prefer this ones
The first triplet is more acceptable by arts pupils; the second by science pupils.
Both the triplets assert an amount of falsity in the language itself; making the censorship, any form of it, just … idiot; an abuse not because of constitutions and legal frameworks, but because of natural unconsistency; it is a bit deeper than ‘human rights abuse’. If you add on top the huge amount (a number ‘close to infinity’) of internet corners … and households … why do we practice mass-enforced or institutional enforced censorship, gagging, etc? It should be clear that it benefits single individual only, in single circumstances only. That usually means there’s a crime cover-up in the surroundings.
The UK&US govs and their tech giants are playing “scaricabarile” (it. “barrel-unloading”) … shitstorm? Self bullocks-slashing? Responsabilities dropping? Who knows … and who cares.
GOVs: our legal framework was built on top of the chance for the government to spy the people.
CORPs: if you spy the people they drop our tools and we don’t profit.
CORPs: our profit was built on top of the chance for the people to profit from electronics.
GOVs: if you profit from the people’s profit, we cannot spy.
They look like my father and my mother after divorce. And viceversa.
The only new feeling I have is … being thankful that Brazil, Russia, India and China exist; because EU haven’t been able to do anything more than guilty silence (it. omerta’); with very few exceptions
- Maximilian Schrems - Irish High Court - Court of Justice of the European Union
- Hans de With - Bundesverfassungsgericht
From Italy we got this puppet saying that our (unconstitutional) agencies (AISI/AISE/Copasir) are ‘not efficient’
when he was Ministry of Communications he openly signed a law without reading it; in that video instead is licking the balls to ROS (Italian special forces, of the military police), the ones that manipulated us world wide, and among other commendable things tortured this guy
to make him guilty of a bomb that killed the second in charge of the anti-mafia squad one month after the first in charge was bombed as well.
Note: this story is interesting because it popped up (again) after 25 exact years; it is useful to think about the ‘national security secrets’ … I’ve always appreciated the fact that USA had a public law/procedure about that; their people have always been sure that after a certain amount of years they would be able to write their history without lack of any detail. I don’t know how the whole thing is protected against time screws… ehm… the chance that those secret docs are produced in the future, to change the past, so that present choices are manipulated. Orwell docet. But the blockchain system can address this issue as well: if you push encrypted top secret docs inside the blockchain, and preserve their passwords only (to be released the 75th year after the facts, according to the current public rule); the docs are original. The only possible thing to happen is that the blockchain system is violated (ie: found unsecure), the blockchain blows (ex: termonuclear war), the passwords are stolen from the militaries, the passwords leak from military facilities, or the people of the future agree to release those documents before the 75th year deadline. The docs stay original, integer, safe; no post production of fake history.
But don’t name those things when you talk with Carabinieri (ROS); they prefer to remember Salvo D’Acquisto ONLY. Reliable people. In any case, the whole thing is way better than the previous one based on war machines.
Google and Facebook criticized the agreement for the restrictions it will place on activities like penetration testing, sharing information about threats, and bug bounty programs.
that more abused of crowd-sourcing (ie: to make it rain peanuts, instead of paying wages), were complaining. Eheh.
Ethereum is just one of the several efforts to enable complex financial functions in a cryptocurrency. I like that one because it embeds Turing-complete programming framework - enabling to realtime evolve the smart contracts - but others may be “incorporated” at some point in the future: Namecoin, Mastercoin (now Omni), Colored Coins, Counterparty, Ripple, Cripti, NXT, and BitShares. Just to name a few.
Some of those cryptocurrencies offload the cpu and load the memory, some others carry names or contracts. The technological domain (a triangle: cpu-memory-goodput) is not a problem: handheld devices are powerful enough to support end-to-end encryption (that in turn bypass inherent wireless unsecurity), wireless technologies too. The only question marks regard performance; and they can be answered on the go.
I see danger in all of them because their ability to replicate things like “bonds”, “futures”, and a whole world of fancy financial inventions: contracts/promises that became moral hazard and creative destruction many times already in the human history.
With very few exceptions I didn’t hands-on any of them, yet; I can’t, yet; my opinion is pretty empty of value. But this point was clear as soon as Bitcoin was out: it was a minimum tech for wider bunch of different uses. I’ve spotted DigiCash at the end of the 90s; I’ve spotted Ripple at middle 00s; BitCoin has been the most solid one. Theoretically.
It works like that:
one kid is the farmer and starts the game: “This morning I went to the pumpkin field and I saw 4 pumpkins missing!”
every kid is numbered, and the n. 4 must answer without any pause: “they were not 4 cucuzzi missing, but X cucuzzi!”
number X will then repeat the same, choosing another number to call another kid.
the special call “all the pumpkins” (it., sicilly slang: “tutto u cucuzzaru”) call the farmer.
During the game it is permitted to confuse and to cheat the player looking or pointing at him as if you want to call his number but changing the number.
the game goes one questioning and a penalty is applied to every mistake: an object is given to the farmer and returned at the end of the game; or the kid is excluded waiting until the last kid in game wins. After, it is possible to start again.
In the case something like Ethernum-based technostructure would be “raised to constitutional level” (the whole information system made of it) - full stack: from the chip’s opto-isolator to the electronic currency flowing - I would probably be the first to welcome NSA/GCHQ/BfV/AISI/etc by having a monitor account in “my company” using this protocol: “What You See Is What You Get”. More allowances must be discussed using the Ethernum contracting capabilities.
That said, the only thing that don’t look very clear is this: I don’t give a fuck about asserting principles. Those were already asserted 300 years ago, before, and after
And in particular, about anonymity, about 20 years ago
“I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she’s too young to have logged on yet. Here’s what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say ‘Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?’” ( Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation )
Principles are just the civil way to solve a litigation, that brings to reimbursements, to invert abuses. In other words, things like this
“Schrems is also suing Facebook in a class action suit […]. Participation in the suit is presently limited to 25,000 Facebook users, although other users can still register an interest. Schrems is suing the Irish subsidiary of Facebook in the Vienna courts for €500 in damages per participant.”
are ridicolous. Parassites. It looks like 25000 cancer sick people to sue Phillip Morris because of cancer, after 100 years of incremental war on cigarettes. Note: I’m a smoker.
These instead, are not
“His personal wealth, as of December 2015, is estimated to be $46 billion”
charity for “up to $1 billion in shares in each of the next three years”.
Telecommunications regulators in India have ordered the suspension of Facebook’s controversial program to bring free basic Internet services to mobile phone users in the country. […] Facebook and its partners are violating the principle of net neutrality […] the program offers free web searches using Microsoft’s Bing service but Google searches incur a charge.
It means that that’s not charity, nor philanthropy. And if you read it vertically: “His charity for Telecommunications regulators in India”, it is even worse.
Finally, this states that Facebook was a scam
And the same applies to any on-line data-related business activity. Google included.
We - the hacktivists, only - want those money back, only. On our desks
- Without the need to apply at some kind of dark office, to step as foreigners into a lesser rights jurisdiction, from remote by using an industry-standard computer instead of anyone, and without being profiled (AGAIN!) first
- Without Daddy Zuckerberg to bind them to a contract before delivery: we’ll finalize the money later, according to our comprehension of capabilities and needs; not by proxy.
Twenty years ago I was there, I’ve been here all this time doing the same thing (again, and again, and again, and again); and I still haven’t found time to make a kid because I’m worried about not being able to be anonymous myself, in order to keep him anonymous as well. Safe. I call it “social responsibility”
You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. (Abraham Lincoln)
That is the opposite of “social network”; the opposite of monetizing other people.
Don’t worry Zucky - “it. zucca, zucchina”, “en. pumpkin”; “it. zucca vuota”, “en. empty head” - there’s no need for you to go to Europe to be sentenced - you’re not Edward Snowden - because we don’t want you; we want your money. All the ones that we refused since Google inception, because of our ethical concerns about privacy.