I briefly examined the references and as best I can tell, the term "marine heat wave" is a term invented in while cloth in 2016.
This isn't something researchers have been investigating for decades, and given the youth of the proposed idea, there is very little empirical data (their model results are not data) at all.
Maybe in the future will will learn that this is valuable science. At present, it is nothing more than problematic speculation, contradicting some real science.
Bullshit. It's been known as "pirate copying" and "pirate copies" since we were trading floppies in the school yard 30 years ago, obviously completely non-commercial. You just made up your own terms, your own definitions and is going on a rant because nobody gets it "right" even though you're the one trying to redefine everything.
Because you were progagandized into believing it. Not my problem, ace.
30 years isn't much compared to about 150. And your misuse of a legal term is not my problem.
Neither real copyright piracy (which consists of making unauthorized copies and selling them), nor downloading, are "theft".
Copyright violations are not theft. When you steal something, you deprive the owner of the presence or use of that thing.
E.g., if you stole my TV, I would no longer have it and not be able to use it.
When you copy a videotape or CD or DVD, you don't deprive either the copyright holder, or the person who owned the original you copied, of anything. Anything at all.
Further, multiple studies have shown that copying nearly always occurs in situations in which there would not have been a sale anyway. (I.e., person does not have the money to buy the CD, or a movie ticket.)
So usually, it isn't even depriving the copyright holder of any theoretical profit.
Copyright violations are NOT "theft". It's a completely different area of the law.
"Copyright piracy" is a legal term that has been around for about 150 years. Though some copyright owners (I'm looking at you, Disney) certainly want to make people think it means something else. That's why they call everything piracy.
But actually it refers to people who make unauthorized copies and distribute them, usually for personal gain (like profit).
In other words, "piracy" basically means people who make copies and sell them.
Piracy is a crime. But just downloading -- if that's all you're doing -- is NOT piracy, and is not a crime. It is a civil violation, comparable to making a personal copy of a videotape.
People who upload videos to torrent sites might be pirates -- if they do it for some kind of personal gain -- but not people who just download.
Having said that: many (but not all) torrent programs force you to upload at the same time you are downloading. Technically, that might be considered piracy in some cases, but usually isn't. It's a pretty damned hard case to make in court.
Also, there does exist software that does not force you to upload when you download. Though you might have to look hard to find it.
Windows 10 sucks. In more ways than one. Not only is it slow even on newer machines, bit calls home FAR too often.
I run Win 10 in a VM. But it's a VERY good machine, so I can assign resources to the VM beyond most laptops. Even so, 10 is sluggish, and my network monitor is constantly popping up, telling me that 10 is telling Microsoft about damned near everything I try to do.
I only have a couple of programs I still need Windows for, so for the most part I'll stick with Linux and MacOS.
THEY keep getting faster, and don't care what I do.
"Transfer" typically means transfer ownership. There is no way anyone can stop you from transferring by hand to someone, because they can always make a few file marks and claim they made it themselves.
And you can loan it to someone (in most states). That isn't transferring ownership.
But you can't sell it.
You run risks when you are making so many that the BATFE decides you are now in the business of building them.
Nonsense. There is nothing in the law (I have seen it) about how many you can make. The definition of being "in the business" is if you have sold any. You can make 1,000 of them for your own use, if you're that stupid. You just can't SELL them. There are no ATF regulations against stockpiling them. It's only about transfer.
I'd bet money that selling a few of what you made (outside of a buyback) would probably make you look more like a manufacturer as well.
YOU CAN'T SELL THEM. At all. That is explicitly illegal. It wouldn't make you look like an illegal dealer, it would in fact make you an illegal dealer.
As I stated in my original comment: *IF* they live up to it and continue to deliver on that promise, it's the safest DNS out there, with the possible exception of OpenDNS... but faster.
This whole so-called "security issue" ignores the fact that Cloudflare already offers its own DNS resolvers, at 1.1.1.1 and 1.0.0.1.
AND -- this is the big point -- they guarantee that they keep no records and do not even log the traffic going through those servers.
Frankly, I trust that a whole lot more than any promise from Google.
And yes... as long as cloudflare continues the same policy, and live up to it, it is a heck of a lot more secure than going through some random DNS resolver you don't even know.
Slashdot Mirror
This is very clearly a case of a worker's market. HR and others have been used to it being an employer's market, for years.
Time to step up to the new reality.
Workers want their employers to comply, not the other way around. And they have the clout to make it happen.
That's putting it a bit simplistically, but that's the gist of it.
It is no longer an employer's market. And if they want to get ahead, they'd better start getting on the bandwagon.
And most of established HR (from the last 10-15 years) should be sharply told to change their game, or they will be shown the door.
"in while cloth" = "in whole cloth"
I briefly examined the references and as best I can tell, the term "marine heat wave" is a term invented in while cloth in 2016.
This isn't something researchers have been investigating for decades, and given the youth of the proposed idea, there is very little empirical data (their model results are not data) at all.
Maybe in the future will will learn that this is valuable science. At present, it is nothing more than problematic speculation, contradicting some real science.
It works because it makes Andrea feel safe. That's what security theater is all about.
Not it isn't. That's only part of what it's about.
It's about making you feel safe and complacent as your rights are eroded right around you, largely unnoticed.
This has always amused me.
These people don't want to get rid of guns. They just want only government to have guns.
What an amazingly stupid idea.
Good point.
I covered this in my comment.
I already said it.
And they can only sue for distribution if there is intent to gain personally... i.e., piracy.
Well... to clarify, they can sue, but they probably have no chance of winning unless they can show that your motive was personal gain.
Distribution per se is no crime. Only unauthorized distribution with an intent of personal gain.
If you let me copy your DVD, you haven't "distributed with intent of gain", unless I pay or trade you something for that DVD.
Bullshit. It's been known as "pirate copying" and "pirate copies" since we were trading floppies in the school yard 30 years ago, obviously completely non-commercial. You just made up your own terms, your own definitions and is going on a rant because nobody gets it "right" even though you're the one trying to redefine everything.
Because you were progagandized into believing it. Not my problem, ace.
30 years isn't much compared to about 150. And your misuse of a legal term is not my problem.
Here are some citations from around 1900.
In 1852 France accused the US of wanton "copyright piracy".
You really shouldn't open your mouth when there are no facts in the brain driving it.
It's not only far below the standard of most Western countries, we pay more for it than they do for better speeds.
Pai and his cronies are corporate shills, not responsible regulators. He needs to be shown the door.
This leak looks like lawsuit material to me.
What's with these companies, can't keep basic data secure?
Were they born in the '40s?
Neither real copyright piracy (which consists of making unauthorized copies and selling them), nor downloading, are "theft".
Copyright violations are not theft. When you steal something, you deprive the owner of the presence or use of that thing.
E.g., if you stole my TV, I would no longer have it and not be able to use it.
When you copy a videotape or CD or DVD, you don't deprive either the copyright holder, or the person who owned the original you copied, of anything. Anything at all.
Further, multiple studies have shown that copying nearly always occurs in situations in which there would not have been a sale anyway. (I.e., person does not have the money to buy the CD, or a movie ticket.)
So usually, it isn't even depriving the copyright holder of any theoretical profit.
Copyright violations are NOT "theft". It's a completely different area of the law.
I really wish people would get ths straight.
"Copyright piracy" is a legal term that has been around for about 150 years. Though some copyright owners (I'm looking at you, Disney) certainly want to make people think it means something else. That's why they call everything piracy.
But actually it refers to people who make unauthorized copies and distribute them, usually for personal gain (like profit).
In other words, "piracy" basically means people who make copies and sell them.
Piracy is a crime. But just downloading -- if that's all you're doing -- is NOT piracy, and is not a crime. It is a civil violation, comparable to making a personal copy of a videotape.
People who upload videos to torrent sites might be pirates -- if they do it for some kind of personal gain -- but not people who just download.
Having said that: many (but not all) torrent programs force you to upload at the same time you are downloading. Technically, that might be considered piracy in some cases, but usually isn't. It's a pretty damned hard case to make in court.
Also, there does exist software that does not force you to upload when you download. Though you might have to look hard to find it.
Oh... and my go-to version of Windows is 7. It is far more performant and far less snoopy.
+1.
Windows 10 sucks. In more ways than one. Not only is it slow even on newer machines, bit calls home FAR too often.
I run Win 10 in a VM. But it's a VERY good machine, so I can assign resources to the VM beyond most laptops. Even so, 10 is sluggish, and my network monitor is constantly popping up, telling me that 10 is telling Microsoft about damned near everything I try to do.
I only have a couple of programs I still need Windows for, so for the most part I'll stick with Linux and MacOS.
THEY keep getting faster, and don't care what I do.
Oh... and by the way.
I wasn't going to say this but I thought it was pretty obvious. Maybe not.
Cloudflare does its own caching. It doesn't query the "root resolvers" every time.
It has to, once in a great while, to check whether a domain has been changed. But once in a while is a very damned far sight from every time.
But as long as it continues to get 200s from the endpoint it usually doesn't have to.
they / the
More clarification:
If you have what looks like a damn factory, but there aren't any guns around, you're probably busted.
But if you have what looks like a factory, and they product is all in the basement, the law is okay with you.
"Transfer" typically means transfer ownership. There is no way anyone can stop you from transferring by hand to someone, because they can always make a few file marks and claim they made it themselves.
And you can loan it to someone (in most states). That isn't transferring ownership.
But you can't sell it.
You run risks when you are making so many that the BATFE decides you are now in the business of building them.
Nonsense. There is nothing in the law (I have seen it) about how many you can make. The definition of being "in the business" is if you have sold any. You can make 1,000 of them for your own use, if you're that stupid. You just can't SELL them. There are no ATF regulations against stockpiling them. It's only about transfer.
I'd bet money that selling a few of what you made (outside of a buyback) would probably make you look more like a manufacturer as well.
YOU CAN'T SELL THEM. At all. That is explicitly illegal. It wouldn't make you look like an illegal dealer, it would in fact make you an illegal dealer.
Utter nonsense.
You can test it yourself with a VPN and open-source DNS Leak detectors.
I can, and I have. And you're blabbering gibberish.
The sort of "glitch" that article publishes are not just detectable, but were detected. Imagine that.
Face slap
This is not standard Cloudflare. This is Cloudflare DNS service, which is already available. Read about it.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
That doesn't matter if they have no logs to turn over.
That's the whole point, man.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Citation?
Yes, thank you.
It is their written privacy policy.
As I stated in my original comment: *IF* they live up to it and continue to deliver on that promise, it's the safest DNS out there, with the possible exception of OpenDNS... but faster.
See my own comment further down the page.
What we really need anyway is Distributed DNS so it can't be bogarted.
Yes, I know that's not an easy thing to ask for. But sooner or later, it will be figured out.
In the meantime, Cloudflare's guaranteed secure and private DNS servers are the best we have, other than OpenDNS.
Granted, it's all based on a privacy guarantee in their Terms of Service, but it's worded correctly and I trust that a lot more than I trust Google.
This whole so-called "security issue" ignores the fact that Cloudflare already offers its own DNS resolvers, at 1.1.1.1 and 1.0.0.1.
AND -- this is the big point -- they guarantee that they keep no records and do not even log the traffic going through those servers.
Frankly, I trust that a whole lot more than any promise from Google.
And yes... as long as cloudflare continues the same policy, and live up to it, it is a heck of a lot more secure than going through some random DNS resolver you don't even know.