Today's conservatives are defined by regressive social policies, and, in many cases, outright racism.
Can you give some examples where conservatives are outright racist? I know of cases where there are claims of subtle racism such as the travel ban or keeping non citizens from entering our country, but nothing outright.
For the most part conservatives don't think the way you characterize them. They think law and order protects society so that society as a whole can prosper. Conservatives believe creation of wealth is the best way to lift everyone out of poverty and so they favor policies that make wealth creation as easy as possible. All conservatives that I know give to charities.
I think we are better off, if we stick to actual policy discussion instead of broad characterizations which I would argue is the same recipe that leads to racism. I probably would not have said anything, but your comment got modded up to 5 and maybe your comment about the fishermen was interesting, but you went off the rails with your conservative rant.
While most EVERYONE wants net neutrality, there are many, mostly on the right, that don't want the government involved in regulating the Internet because they are concerned about the unintended consequences of this. This is legitimate position and while you may not agree with it, it is misguided to pretend this view does not exist and to chalk it off as corruption.
If there were three completely independent vote counting systems managed by 3 completely independent organizations that would be a reasonable measure against tampering. If there is a discrepancy for a given voting station then you could take either the two counters that agree or the average count. If the systems are way off, you could invalidate all the votes at that station and have anyone who voted at that station vote again.
A text book case of treason would be something like joining the enemy that the United States is at war with or leading an insurrection against the government. I don't think there are any examples of someone convicted for the treason you refer to in the United States history so I think that would qualify as the opposite of text book. If Russia actually used force to install Donald Trump in office like in a military coup than maybe. At most this would be a highly unusual case of treason and if you are being honest with yourself you will admit it is a stretch. It is a lot like someone on the right saying that former president Obama gave money to Iran is treason. The government of Iran is considered our enemy; a supporter of terrorism and their rockets were used to kill US soldiers in the very recent Iraq conflict. President Obama gave them our money which aids and comforts them. He did this on his own without the approval of the congress and so maybe we should put him on trial for treason.
Why would you want Israel taken down a few notches, it is one of the few middle eastern countries with a democracy where freedom of religion is protected and its people are free to practice the religion they choose. It should be no surprise that the US supports democracies like itself around the world.
I think you are mistaken. The sanctions on Iran were passed by the US congress. They can be waived by the President, but are subjected to be renewed every 6 months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What is new is that many companies got together and created a standard protocol for general purpose authentication. If adopted, it will allow the authentication to happen where the user decides it is convenient and safe (e.g. secure password manager device). Right now, the general state of things is that authentication typically takes place in the application and in a manner that the application decides. You have to trust that the application was designed in a safe manner and that it will not leak your secrets. Think of this as what the SSL standard did for encrypted communications. SSL makes it easy for a application to do encrypted communications in a secure manner. FIDO makes it easy for a application to do authentication in a secure manner.
To clarify your post. In all of the links you posted apple is using your private information in an attempt to improve the product and is not selling it to anyone.
Maybe competent, but it is easy to be complacent in a government job because in general there is less pressure and incentive to do better than the private sector because the competition and pressure is not there. I saw this when I worked for local street department. The long time workers on the department were very good at what they did, but when it came to the actual job of repairing the roads the private companies did it much faster with very good quality. I saw this in the military. There was some really smart technical people who understood the networking equipment in my company, but it was the contractors who were essential and who really understood how to make it work.
Because most tech companies and most developers want to spend their time working on the new and current products. If you have to go back to older products and have to retrofit the Linux kernel for security patches or some major change it can be a lot of effort to make the change and retest it. It helps when you can have all your products on the same code base. This is very difficult with Linux. New hardware is typically only available in the newer kernels. So either you try and maintain a bunch of different code bases or you must move older products to the latest code base and hope things don't break.
While Linux is great in many ways, I look forward to it being superseded by a micro kernel and an operating system environment with APIs built around semantic versioning that make it easy to update and replace individual components.
Bleatig about fake ews makes you sounds foolish, because you're drawing an equivalence between this and something like pizzagate which was completely fabricated.
I would say news that is close to the truth, but leaves out important details or context is just as bad if not worse than news based on flat out lies. It is harder for people to detect the deception. Have you ever heard it said that the best lies contain large elements of truth?
The article is claiming that the FCC position is the complete opposite from what the FCC says it is in the document. The article is pulling something out of context to make a false assertion. Here is another section from the FCC document, that explains the true position of the FCC:
Below we examine both how consumers perceive the offer of
broadband Internet access service, as well as the nature of the service actually offered by ISPs, and
conclude that ISPs are best understood as offering a service that inextricably intertwines the information
processing capabilities described above and transmission.
Did anyone else read the article and find that the examples citing the fcc not understanding the internet were pretty weak? Take the first example:
The FCC Still Doesnâ(TM)t Understand That Using the Internet Means Having Your ISP Transmit Packets For You
The article cites the following statements taken from the fcc document
End users do not expect to receive (or pay for) two distinct servicesâ"both Internet access service and a distinct transmission service, for example.â
Certainly what the fcc is saying is true, that users expect to pay a single access fee for internet access. So how does this relate exactly to the articleâ(TM)s claim that the fcc doesnâ(TM)t understand using the internet means having your ISP transmit packets for you? Maybe I am missing something but it seems if the article is not in sync with what the fcc is trying to say and why the fcc chose to use this hypothetical counter example.
Quickly drop packets that don't have a correct cryptographic signature necessary to talk with a site. Make it a slow process requiring some human intervention to get a temporary cryptographic signature necessary to send a packet to a site. This way, the denial of service attack would be limited by the speed of the human. There would still be the problem of the site that gives out the cryptographic signature, but that function could be spread out and optimized making it impractical to attack.
Please site a reference for this. There was no secret plan. Nixon was quoted before the 1968 elections saying “If I had any way to end the war, I would pass it on to President [Lyndon] Johnson.” All evidence prior to the 1968 election was that Nixon would end the war, not win the war, through a combination of diplomatic and military pressure. He actually did increase the aggressiveness of aspects of the war such as going after the enemy in sanctuary areas, but as a strategy of applying pressure, rather than seeking an all out military victory.
I am not trying to defend Nixon or his strategy, I just don't like political narratives based on false and misleading information.
Are you sure the tv was not slow because it was running Linux? I have seen a number of Linux based products running on embedded hardware, that take longer than 10 seconds to boot up. Maybe because they were not optimized, under powered, or special hardware bring up but I do see it happen. On the other hand, I don't think using Java or even something slower like python for the user interface would actually make much of a difference for the boot time.
There is nothing in the communications captured between the Russian ambassador and Flynn that have anything to do with influencing the election. All of these communications took place well after the election was done. Here is a time line:
Why is a joint cybersecurity unit a bad idea? It is not that much different than military joint exercises which many consider valuable. At a personal level, relationships can be built, ideas can be shared, we can keep tabs on each other. It seems like a good step towards peace.
The submitter says that for New York City "more than a quarter of households are still using dial-up". Where are they getting this information? I found this article that says the 2014 Census Bureau counted New York City with 30,000 house holds with dial up. Lets assume 5 members per house hold, that would be roughly 1 or 2 percent of the population of New York City, not even close to 25 percent.
Slashdot Mirror
Today's conservatives are defined by regressive social policies, and, in many cases, outright racism.
Can you give some examples where conservatives are outright racist? I know of cases where there are claims of subtle racism such as the travel ban or keeping non citizens from entering our country, but nothing outright.
For the most part conservatives don't think the way you characterize them. They think law and order protects society so that society as a whole can prosper. Conservatives believe creation of wealth is the best way to lift everyone out of poverty and so they favor policies that make wealth creation as easy as possible. All conservatives that I know give to charities.
I think we are better off, if we stick to actual policy discussion instead of broad characterizations which I would argue is the same recipe that leads to racism. I probably would not have said anything, but your comment got modded up to 5 and maybe your comment about the fishermen was interesting, but you went off the rails with your conservative rant.
While most EVERYONE wants net neutrality, there are many, mostly on the right, that don't want the government involved in regulating the Internet because they are concerned about the unintended consequences of this. This is legitimate position and while you may not agree with it, it is misguided to pretend this view does not exist and to chalk it off as corruption.
If there were three completely independent vote counting systems managed by 3 completely independent organizations that would be a reasonable measure against tampering. If there is a discrepancy for a given voting station then you could take either the two counters that agree or the average count. If the systems are way off, you could invalidate all the votes at that station and have anyone who voted at that station vote again.
Can we agree to tie voting with filing taxes since you do have any issue with the checks and balances for paying taxes?
I thought we were a nation of checks and balances.
Or maybe Republicans (wrongly or rightly) are just convinced that net neutrality equals more government regulation.
A text book case of treason would be something like joining the enemy that the United States is at war with or leading an insurrection against the government. I don't think there are any examples of someone convicted for the treason you refer to in the United States history so I think that would qualify as the opposite of text book. If Russia actually used force to install Donald Trump in office like in a military coup than maybe. At most this would be a highly unusual case of treason and if you are being honest with yourself you will admit it is a stretch. It is a lot like someone on the right saying that former president Obama gave money to Iran is treason. The government of Iran is considered our enemy; a supporter of terrorism and their rockets were used to kill US soldiers in the very recent Iraq conflict. President Obama gave them our money which aids and comforts them. He did this on his own without the approval of the congress and so maybe we should put him on trial for treason.
Why would you want Israel taken down a few notches, it is one of the few middle eastern countries with a democracy where freedom of religion is protected and its people are free to practice the religion they choose. It should be no surprise that the US supports democracies like itself around the world.
I think you are mistaken. The sanctions on Iran were passed by the US congress. They can be waived by the President, but are subjected to be renewed every 6 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What is new is that many companies got together and created a standard protocol for general purpose authentication. If adopted, it will allow the authentication to happen where the user decides it is convenient and safe (e.g. secure password manager device). Right now, the general state of things is that authentication typically takes place in the application and in a manner that the application decides. You have to trust that the application was designed in a safe manner and that it will not leak your secrets. Think of this as what the SSL standard did for encrypted communications. SSL makes it easy for a application to do encrypted communications in a secure manner. FIDO makes it easy for a application to do authentication in a secure manner.
To clarify your post. In all of the links you posted apple is using your private information in an attempt to improve the product and is not selling it to anyone.
Maybe competent, but it is easy to be complacent in a government job because in general there is less pressure and incentive to do better than the private sector because the competition and pressure is not there. I saw this when I worked for local street department. The long time workers on the department were very good at what they did, but when it came to the actual job of repairing the roads the private companies did it much faster with very good quality. I saw this in the military. There was some really smart technical people who understood the networking equipment in my company, but it was the contractors who were essential and who really understood how to make it work.
Because most tech companies and most developers want to spend their time working on the new and current products. If you have to go back to older products and have to retrofit the Linux kernel for security patches or some major change it can be a lot of effort to make the change and retest it. It helps when you can have all your products on the same code base. This is very difficult with Linux. New hardware is typically only available in the newer kernels. So either you try and maintain a bunch of different code bases or you must move older products to the latest code base and hope things don't break.
While Linux is great in many ways, I look forward to it being superseded by a micro kernel and an operating system environment with APIs built around semantic versioning that make it easy to update and replace individual components.
Bleatig about fake ews makes you sounds foolish, because you're drawing an equivalence between this and something like pizzagate which was completely fabricated.
I would say news that is close to the truth, but leaves out important details or context is just as bad if not worse than news based on flat out lies. It is harder for people to detect the deception. Have you ever heard it said that the best lies contain large elements of truth?
Pai was originally appointed by Barack Obama as a Republican representative on the fcc.
Try reading and understanding the paragraph that the article is paraphrasing.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Dai...
The article is claiming that the FCC position is the complete opposite from what the FCC says it is in the document. The article is pulling something out of context to make a false assertion. Here is another section from the FCC document, that explains the true position of the FCC:
Below we examine both how consumers perceive the offer of broadband Internet access service, as well as the nature of the service actually offered by ISPs, and conclude that ISPs are best understood as offering a service that inextricably intertwines the information processing capabilities described above and transmission.
Did anyone else read the article and find that the examples citing the fcc not understanding the internet were pretty weak? Take the first example:
The FCC Still Doesnâ(TM)t Understand That Using the Internet Means Having Your ISP Transmit Packets For You
The article cites the following statements taken from the fcc document
End users do not expect to receive (or pay for) two distinct servicesâ"both Internet access service and a distinct transmission service, for example.â
Certainly what the fcc is saying is true, that users expect to pay a single access fee for internet access. So how does this relate exactly to the articleâ(TM)s claim that the fcc doesnâ(TM)t understand using the internet means having your ISP transmit packets for you? Maybe I am missing something but it seems if the article is not in sync with what the fcc is trying to say and why the fcc chose to use this hypothetical counter example.
What does the color of his skin have to do with anything? You used "white guy" together with negative adjectives.
Quickly drop packets that don't have a correct cryptographic signature necessary to talk with a site. Make it a slow process requiring some human intervention to get a temporary cryptographic signature necessary to send a packet to a site. This way, the denial of service attack would be limited by the speed of the human. There would still be the problem of the site that gives out the cryptographic signature, but that function could be spread out and optimized making it impractical to attack.
Better to slash taxes on businesses, before getting into a trade war. That way we get the best of both; cheaper manufacturing and cheaper imports.
Please site a reference for this. There was no secret plan. Nixon was quoted before the 1968 elections saying “If I had any way to end the war, I would pass it on to President [Lyndon] Johnson.” All evidence prior to the 1968 election was that Nixon would end the war, not win the war, through a combination of diplomatic and military pressure. He actually did increase the aggressiveness of aspects of the war such as going after the enemy in sanctuary areas, but as a strategy of applying pressure, rather than seeking an all out military victory.
I am not trying to defend Nixon or his strategy, I just don't like political narratives based on false and misleading information.
https://mediamythalert.wordpre...
Are you sure the tv was not slow because it was running Linux? I have seen a number of Linux based products running on embedded hardware, that take longer than 10 seconds to boot up. Maybe because they were not optimized, under powered, or special hardware bring up but I do see it happen. On the other hand, I don't think using Java or even something slower like python for the user interface would actually make much of a difference for the boot time.
There is nothing in the communications captured between the Russian ambassador and Flynn that have anything to do with influencing the election. All of these communications took place well after the election was done. Here is a time line:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
Why is a joint cybersecurity unit a bad idea? It is not that much different than military joint exercises which many consider valuable. At a personal level, relationships can be built, ideas can be shared, we can keep tabs on each other. It seems like a good step towards peace.
The submitter says that for New York City "more than a quarter of households are still using dial-up". Where are they getting this information? I found this article that says the 2014 Census Bureau counted New York City with 30,000 house holds with dial up. Lets assume 5 members per house hold, that would be roughly 1 or 2 percent of the population of New York City, not even close to 25 percent.
https://www.lawnstarter.com/bl...