Woah. This is a pretty cool reactive article. It's the first one that I've personally encountered which reacts like it's supposed to, engaging me as I read.
Congratulations to whoever put this together, it was very well done.
I agree...except that if you select any text it prompts you to tweet it. For readers that compulsively select text as they read (like me), it's infuriating.
I'm in the same boat, I've considered looking for a Chrome extension to kill all scripts that do this. I've used text selection to mark my place for longer than I can remember and all the popups are starting to get extremely annoying. I fear that I am in the minority when it comes to this though...
This is probably the coolest site I have seen in terms of reactiveness. They even had the insight to have the backgrounds of the videos the same color as the site background. Awesome!
This might be the coolest news article layout I've seen...It's awesome to see HTML5 video used in an unobtrusive, classy way like this.
I was also excited to see they're using Video.js, with a super subtle theme that matches the rest of the site (when controls are showing). Really well done.
Since most news and media sites are plagued by buggy Flash video players which barely if ever work for me on Linux, this in contrast was really refreshing.
Normally I would completely agree. However, since it doesn't autoplay until the active video is fully on screen and there is a prominent link to turn autoplay off right next to the video control, I'm willing to forgive the use of autoplay this time.
All Flash video for me, FF24 on Linux. Thankfully, because Flashblock did its thing and suppressed it all. What an horrific example of presentation over content.
Anyway there is no 'HTML5 video'. It's H264, or VP8, or whatever.
The video player is Video.js with light styling (or controls disabled entirely). Other than that it's all CSS and some JS to trigger events (such as play/pause in the player at scroll points).
"You ask me proofs that it works, I can show you proofs that the lack of it really fails"
That is so flawed from a logic point of view that I won't even bother.
"We can't be transparent .. we have to get comfortable with the idea that we're delegating to somebody.."
There are two things here:
1) Most people agree that we can't talk about the details of implementation of a strategy agreed to by the US people to defend our country. The problem is that the mass surveillance that we've heard of in the last 5 months is not exactly a "detail of implementation" is it? It's a whole gods damn strategy that the US people didn't directly agree to. (Now yes, it's a democracy, we elected representatives who agreed to this. So what? Our constitution doesn't give full power to our representatives. If they didn't think for a second that a question of that magnitude might require some public debate, they are wrong, period).
2) He talks about trust. The problem is that trust is not something that you just ask for. If you are corrupt, lie, cheat, and all around screw up for long enough, people will stop trusting you.
> not exactly a "detail of implementation" is it? It's a whole gods damn strategy that the US people didn't directly agree to ... we elected representatives who agreed to this.
Well, the people who wrote the law which the NSA is claiming authorizes this also said they didn't agree to this.
So much for any kind of "rule of law" or "oversight".
The claim that "the US people didn't directly agree to [broad NSA traffic/metadata analysis]" is a mere cavil at best; "the US people" need not "agree", nor particularly need our representatives, who debate and pass laws, but who do not interpret them -- such questions are considered and ruled upon by judges, and ultimately by the Supreme Court. (Or by the FISC, whose members' appointment by the Chief Justice I'd argue gives them roughly equivalent standing.) The final root of the current question being whether NSA acted in accord with applicable law, and whether said law is itself in accord with the Constitution, the Supreme Court or its FISC delegate is the proper venue in which to settle it -- and the sort of pointless, ugly public furball we see before us gains no one anything who has the slightest interest in the rule of law.
Does this seem perhaps unsavory to you? A hair totalitarian, perhaps? Should the will of the people not be the ultimate sovereign? I bid you welcome to the Republic! -- the Republic built upon the rubble of the popular-sovereignty concept as codified in the failed Articles of Confederation, the Republic which for at least the last century or so has actually done a pretty solid job of living up to its primary design goal, which put simply is to keep the levers of power safe from the mob, and vice versa. Of course, the Republic has lately grown a thick, sclerotic crust of permanent civil service at the boundary between the two, and that's hardly ideal, but given that the only plausible alternative at this point is the catastrophe of mob rule, I'm perfectly happy to take what I can get. So should you be; especially in the modern era, genuine democracy has some really nasty failure modes, not least of which was das tausendjährige Reich.
Please, do replace "p" and "q" with whatever you had in mind then meditate on the meaning of "=>". If you still don't get it refer to doctoboggan's counter-example.
Maybe it's something along the lines of "an effective security mechanism implies safety; if there is no safety then it follows that no effective security mechanism is in place"
The description about Feinstein is wrong. She didn't backtrack about anything. She's only pretending to do it, while passing Newspeak bills with backdoors that codify and legalize NSA's mass spying.
Feinstein has done nothing but help the NSA so far. She's not going to just stop because she suddenly developed a conscience. I wish Californians would just recall her, because otherwise we're stuck with her and her pro-surveillance state bias until 2018. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad, if she wasn't also the head of the Intelligence Committee, and having tremendous power in the Senate to continue things as they are.
She continues to support the NSA while at the same time proving she doesn't know exactly what they are doing. Not really two things that should be combined.
This is the same lawmaker who wanted to ban "the shoulder thing that goes up". She should have been laughed out of office long ago, but for some reason enough people love this authoritarian idiot enough to keep her in office since 1992. It boggles the mind.
In a two party system, being in office a long time isn't necessarily a sign of being loved by your constituents, it can just be a sign of being disliked less than the alternatives that get offered when elections come around.
And there's few political organizations in the country better at producing candidates unacceptable to the the statewide constituency they are offered to than the Republican Party of California.
Feinstein (and Pelosi, also pro-NSA and representing San Francisco of all places) could easily be removed from office via a primary challenge. Doesn't necessarily need to be a Republican opponent.
Dear God I hope so, but it's going to take politically-connected heavy hitters to care about it and I don't see that happening.
For instance, it's baffling to me that Ron Conway doesn't care about this issue, given his entire portfolio is internet startups. I think Arrington was right to call him out on that.
With these NSA revelations, I feel like there is still an elephant in the room nobody has yet started talking about...
THIS DATA CAN BE USED TO UNDERMINE YOUR STARTUP.
It's not just privacy we should be concerned about. It's our economy.
Whether it is corporations willfully collaborating in secret with the government or government secretly infiltrating corporations - either way, this presents a serious opportunity for exploitation of the public marketplace.
Because with this amount of data, the NSA has a goldmine of business intelligence that it can put to 'strategic use' via third-party 'partners' who can actively participate in the market; ie- COMPETE WITH YOU.
This is unfair and a terrible flaw in an economic system.
I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK GCHQ has this sort of activity explicitly as one of its three principal mandates - it's something along the lines of "protect the economic interests of the UK". You can imagine the applications to the UK's huge arms industry, for example, which has historically had very strong ties to the government.
Totally aside from the content, this is a really good example of effective design of long-form exposition in the medium of a web browser. Designed for the affordances of the screen, without sacrificing in-depth textual content.
I found myself only watching the videos while I am usually more attracted to text than video. So I question the effectiveness of it. Maybe others noticed the same behaviour?
Why are so many people persuaded by arguments of the form, "It doesn't matter what the government knows if you have nothing to hide?"
I'm not questioning why the NSA uses this argument -- clearly, they use it because it works -- people are persuaded by it. What I'm asking is, why does it work?
Just World fallacy: the belief that things happen for a reason, that bad things happen to those who deserve it, and that the world is ultimately fair.
That is, they prefer to believe the government is a superhuman entity that has everyone's best interests at heart, rather than facing the reality that it's made up of fallible, selfish humans who are only interested in covering their own asses.
He uses archive footage in his exceptionally well written articles to make a hybrid documentary that is not plodding (like how TV is if you actually count the words per minute) and not devoid of moving pictures (every picture tells a thousand whatever).
I wish more news and current affairs was presented in this mixed-medium way.
The problem I have is that on my smallish (13"? Not too small) monitor, the top and bottom of the video are always very close to the top and bottom of the viewport. On a 24" monitor it would be better, but I found watching the videos to feel very claustrophobic.
Can someone explain why, if I change the slider to indicate that I have only one friend, the number of "friends of friends" is 163? Is my only friend really so popular?
Congratulations to whoever put this together, it was very well done.