Have you seen the number of times Google executives visited the White House during the current Administration? (Note: It is during the current Administration that Google rose to its current level of power as an arbiter of the Internet). Are you sure they are not "our brave and fearless leaders"?
The key phrase from your link "The European Commission remains the sole initiator of legislation," The European Parliament cannot pass any legislation which is not first presented to it by the European Commission. The European Council can "provide impetus to guide legislative policy", which I interpret to mean that the European Council can cause enough of a PR problem for the European Commission that they give the European Parliament legislation to address an issue (although, from my reading, and my experience, that legislation will not actually reflect the will of the people).
Ultimately, the problem with the EU was that it was DESIGNED to not be responsive to the will of the people. Its founders and architects (even those who came in later and "redesigned" it) all believed that the wars of Europe were the result of unfettered Democracy (when, in fact, those wars were the result of governments run EXACTLY the way they designed the EU to work).
After which you immediately gave the answer " It works, it's universal(and I believe unencumbered by patents) and the peripherals are everywhere." Which of course is why Apple wants to replace it with a jack that is not universal and IS encumbered by patents.
It often takes much longer to confirm that a bad check is a bad check. I am not sure why. However, I read somewhere that some bad checks need to be physically inspected by the "issuing" bank to determine that they are forgeries. My understanding of that situation is that the check is written against an account which does have money in it to cover the amount of the check, but the check is not actually written by a person with authority to disperse money from that account.
I am not sure on this because all of the articles I found on the subject merely stated that it sometimes takes weeks to confirm that a check is good or bad. None of them discussed why that is the case.
Well, President Obama and Hillary Clinton have both held up Australia's gun laws as an example the U.S. should follow. The Australian gun law they are referring to was a mandatory government buyback of guns (which is where they confiscate your guns, but give you money when they do it).
Are you saying that there were not more people who wanted to see Game 7 of the NBA championships (to use a recent example of very high priced scalped tickets) than there were seats at the game?
I do think the idea of a reverse auction would work very well to eliminate scalpers. It would probably in the long run lower the prices of tickets for many of these events.
The fact of the matter is that event planners LIKE these bots purchasing tickets. They like "selling out" minutes(or seconds) after the tickets go on sale. It creates greater hype for their shows.
The problem with someone like Bill Gates offering to "build infrastructure" in Bolivia is that most of the money will end up in the pockets of the politically powerful in Bolivia, and very little infrastructure will get built.
You might want to re-read the summary. These 100,000 chickens were going to be delivered by Heiffer International, which has a track record going back to WWII of delivering livestock to the desperately poor in third world countries. Having worked with a different charity that works with the poorest of the poor in third world countries I can tell you that a small investment in the lives of the very poor can have big results. Projects which invest a small amount of money making a difference for the very poor are much more effective at improving the situation than projects which invest a large amount of money in a "big" change.
Of course they would accept anonymous checks. The people in power in Bolivia would be able to get that money into their own bank accounts with no fear that the poor would be able to use it to become more politically powerful.
Any company which claims that a paper medical record is less secure than a medical record stored on the cloud clearly does not understand security (or is willing to lie about it) and none of their claims about keeping your information secure is to be trusted. Any method of gaining access to the contents of paper medical records other than having to go to the office where they are stored and physically handle them can be used to gain access to electronic forms of those same records (including electronic records on the cloud). In addition, there are many ways of gaining access to electronic records stored on the cloud which will not work for paper records.
Thank you for the reminder. I have an iphone because that is what my company standard is(I actually have the option of choosing a non-standard phone, but since I need to support users with company phones...and only IT gets to choose a nonstandard phone...I decided I better have what everyone else has. I may change to an Android when I get to replace this one). I meant to disable imessage a while back and forgot to do so. I just took care of that.
You make a good point. The thing about this that I am trying to wrap my head around is the logic involved:
It is OK for the FBI to have these cameras, because people do not have an expectation of privacy in the locations where these cameras are recording.
However, the FBI cannot reveal the specific locations of these cameras because the majority of people would then consider them an invasion of privacy.
If people would consider these to be an invasion of privacy, then they have an expectation of privacy in the places these cameras record.
Cloud providers, for instance, will usually be quite happy to enter contracts promising that they'll protect your data from illegal release,
The key word here being "illegal release" and what the definition of "illegal" is. "Oh, that wasn't an illegal release, a government agency provided us with a official letter telling us to release that information to them. How were we supposed to know that wasn't legal?"
This study shows what should have been obvious to everyone: if you put your data on someone else's server (the cloud), you are putting your data in their control. It is then your data only so long as it is in their best interests for you to have it.
I am confident that if someone else controls the hypervisor there will be a way for that someone else to access the data stored on any virtual machines running on that hypervisor. You say that the cloud is not any more inherently insecure than hosting your own servers. However, that is clearly not true, because if I host my own servers, I can determine exactly who has access to them (the fact that many IT departments do not keep their servers any more secure than if they were on the "cloud" does not mean that it is not possible). Further, you argue against something I never said. I never said that there was not a valid use for the "cloud", all I said was that it is inherently insecure. If you need a place to store data that does not need security, the "cloud" is perfectly acceptable.
Yes, it is a big deal. But the key thing here is that the summary implies that this only works from the hypervisor to unwind encryption on a virtual machine which it is hosting.
What this means is that the "cloud" is inherently insecure and that it cannot be secured. Something I have suspected since the "cloud" first became a thing.
Yes, the system is broken, but that does not mean that this lawsuit should be dismissed. It is clear to me from the information presented that there is a basis for a lawsuit. Now, there may be other reasons why the lawsuit should be thrown out, but the one presented by the website's lawyers in this case is not one of them. The Dow-Corning silicon implant issue was a result of bad science and is a reason for us to be skeptical of "consensus" science (at the time of those lawsuits, the consensus was that when silicon breast implants burst it led to health problems).
This is not an "extra" first step in the process. It is standard. In a normal lawsuit there are many pre-trial motions made by the lawyers on both sides. Normally, the judge rules on those motions and the trial proceeds accordingly (or not). In this case, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit because they claimed a federal law prevented them from being held liable as alleged in the lawsuit. Apparently, the trial judge ruled against them and they appealed. The appeals court has now also ruled against them. The ruling is that they can indeed be held liable. Now the case can proceed to determine if they SHOULD be held liable. Having skimmed the information on this case, I agree that the case should move forward. I do not know if they should be held liable, but my inclination is that they should not be. However, the situation is just shy of where I would feel the other way.
Please note that all we have here is a judge ruling that they CAN sue, not that the website is liable. All that has happened is that their lawyer made an argument that the judge agrees would be the basis for the website being liable. Now, the lawyer has to prove that the website is indeed liable. Having read the summary and the comments it appears to me that there is a basis for suing the website. Now they have to prove in a court of law that the website knew that it was being used by a rapist to lure victims and chose to take no actions. It appears from some of the comments made here that the website was not only not warning the models but actively trying to silence others who were attempting to warn potential victims (key word in that statement is "appears").
Their position was that we should keep the samples...your "counter" to that is that we should keep the samples for a DIFFERENT reason than theirs.
As to whether or not your thinking is crackpot or not. I do not think it is crackpot, but those who are arguing for destroying all of the known samples of the smallpox virus would say that it is.
I have to tell you that your comment does not actually counter the post to which you replied. They made an argument for maintaining the current stocks of smallpox virus. You proceeded to say their was a problem with their view by making a weaker argument for maintaining the current stocks of the smallpox virus.
Their argument was based on the assumptions being made by those who are promoting getting rid of all KNOWN stocks of the smallpox virus. You argued against those assumptions. Those who assume that the only places where the smallpox virus exists are the known stocks will ignore your argument as coming from a "crackpot conspiracy theorist" (I think they are wrong). On the other hand, at least some of them will be receptive to the OP's argument.
It is an individual right to the means of violence..that is, it is an acknowledgement that the government ought not have a monopoly on violence. That is a different thing than being about armed opposition to government. It means that an individual is recognized to have the right to use violence to protect themselves from violence
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen the number of times Google executives visited the White House during the current Administration? (Note: It is during the current Administration that Google rose to its current level of power as an arbiter of the Internet). Are you sure they are not "our brave and fearless leaders"?
Interestingly enough, at the time, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two cities with the largest Christian population in Japan.
The key phrase from your link "The European Commission remains the sole initiator of legislation," The European Parliament cannot pass any legislation which is not first presented to it by the European Commission. The European Council can "provide impetus to guide legislative policy", which I interpret to mean that the European Council can cause enough of a PR problem for the European Commission that they give the European Parliament legislation to address an issue (although, from my reading, and my experience, that legislation will not actually reflect the will of the people). Ultimately, the problem with the EU was that it was DESIGNED to not be responsive to the will of the people. Its founders and architects (even those who came in later and "redesigned" it) all believed that the wars of Europe were the result of unfettered Democracy (when, in fact, those wars were the result of governments run EXACTLY the way they designed the EU to work).
Hey, you are correct, gun availability does matter: http://www.beliefnet.com/news/...
What's wrong with the standard 3.5mm jack?
After which you immediately gave the answer " It works, it's universal(and I believe unencumbered by patents) and the peripherals are everywhere." Which of course is why Apple wants to replace it with a jack that is not universal and IS encumbered by patents.
It often takes much longer to confirm that a bad check is a bad check. I am not sure why. However, I read somewhere that some bad checks need to be physically inspected by the "issuing" bank to determine that they are forgeries. My understanding of that situation is that the check is written against an account which does have money in it to cover the amount of the check, but the check is not actually written by a person with authority to disperse money from that account.
I am not sure on this because all of the articles I found on the subject merely stated that it sometimes takes weeks to confirm that a check is good or bad. None of them discussed why that is the case.
Well, President Obama and Hillary Clinton have both held up Australia's gun laws as an example the U.S. should follow. The Australian gun law they are referring to was a mandatory government buyback of guns (which is where they confiscate your guns, but give you money when they do it).
Are you saying that there were not more people who wanted to see Game 7 of the NBA championships (to use a recent example of very high priced scalped tickets) than there were seats at the game?
I do think the idea of a reverse auction would work very well to eliminate scalpers. It would probably in the long run lower the prices of tickets for many of these events.
The fact of the matter is that event planners LIKE these bots purchasing tickets. They like "selling out" minutes(or seconds) after the tickets go on sale. It creates greater hype for their shows.
The problem with someone like Bill Gates offering to "build infrastructure" in Bolivia is that most of the money will end up in the pockets of the politically powerful in Bolivia, and very little infrastructure will get built.
You might want to re-read the summary. These 100,000 chickens were going to be delivered by Heiffer International, which has a track record going back to WWII of delivering livestock to the desperately poor in third world countries. Having worked with a different charity that works with the poorest of the poor in third world countries I can tell you that a small investment in the lives of the very poor can have big results. Projects which invest a small amount of money making a difference for the very poor are much more effective at improving the situation than projects which invest a large amount of money in a "big" change.
Of course they would accept anonymous checks. The people in power in Bolivia would be able to get that money into their own bank accounts with no fear that the poor would be able to use it to become more politically powerful.
Any company which claims that a paper medical record is less secure than a medical record stored on the cloud clearly does not understand security (or is willing to lie about it) and none of their claims about keeping your information secure is to be trusted. Any method of gaining access to the contents of paper medical records other than having to go to the office where they are stored and physically handle them can be used to gain access to electronic forms of those same records (including electronic records on the cloud). In addition, there are many ways of gaining access to electronic records stored on the cloud which will not work for paper records.
Thank you for the reminder. I have an iphone because that is what my company standard is(I actually have the option of choosing a non-standard phone, but since I need to support users with company phones...and only IT gets to choose a nonstandard phone...I decided I better have what everyone else has. I may change to an Android when I get to replace this one). I meant to disable imessage a while back and forgot to do so. I just took care of that.
Yeah, because the people pushing AGW have no vested interest that they are promoting (Al Gore, among others).
You make a good point. The thing about this that I am trying to wrap my head around is the logic involved:
It is OK for the FBI to have these cameras, because people do not have an expectation of privacy in the locations where these cameras are recording.
However, the FBI cannot reveal the specific locations of these cameras because the majority of people would then consider them an invasion of privacy.
If people would consider these to be an invasion of privacy, then they have an expectation of privacy in the places these cameras record.
Cloud providers, for instance, will usually be quite happy to enter contracts promising that they'll protect your data from illegal release,
The key word here being "illegal release" and what the definition of "illegal" is. "Oh, that wasn't an illegal release, a government agency provided us with a official letter telling us to release that information to them. How were we supposed to know that wasn't legal?"
This study shows what should have been obvious to everyone: if you put your data on someone else's server (the cloud), you are putting your data in their control. It is then your data only so long as it is in their best interests for you to have it.
I am confident that if someone else controls the hypervisor there will be a way for that someone else to access the data stored on any virtual machines running on that hypervisor. You say that the cloud is not any more inherently insecure than hosting your own servers. However, that is clearly not true, because if I host my own servers, I can determine exactly who has access to them (the fact that many IT departments do not keep their servers any more secure than if they were on the "cloud" does not mean that it is not possible). Further, you argue against something I never said. I never said that there was not a valid use for the "cloud", all I said was that it is inherently insecure. If you need a place to store data that does not need security, the "cloud" is perfectly acceptable.
Yes, it is a big deal. But the key thing here is that the summary implies that this only works from the hypervisor to unwind encryption on a virtual machine which it is hosting. What this means is that the "cloud" is inherently insecure and that it cannot be secured. Something I have suspected since the "cloud" first became a thing.
Yes, the system is broken, but that does not mean that this lawsuit should be dismissed. It is clear to me from the information presented that there is a basis for a lawsuit. Now, there may be other reasons why the lawsuit should be thrown out, but the one presented by the website's lawyers in this case is not one of them. The Dow-Corning silicon implant issue was a result of bad science and is a reason for us to be skeptical of "consensus" science (at the time of those lawsuits, the consensus was that when silicon breast implants burst it led to health problems).
This is not an "extra" first step in the process. It is standard. In a normal lawsuit there are many pre-trial motions made by the lawyers on both sides. Normally, the judge rules on those motions and the trial proceeds accordingly (or not). In this case, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit because they claimed a federal law prevented them from being held liable as alleged in the lawsuit. Apparently, the trial judge ruled against them and they appealed. The appeals court has now also ruled against them. The ruling is that they can indeed be held liable. Now the case can proceed to determine if they SHOULD be held liable. Having skimmed the information on this case, I agree that the case should move forward. I do not know if they should be held liable, but my inclination is that they should not be. However, the situation is just shy of where I would feel the other way.
Please note that all we have here is a judge ruling that they CAN sue, not that the website is liable. All that has happened is that their lawyer made an argument that the judge agrees would be the basis for the website being liable. Now, the lawyer has to prove that the website is indeed liable. Having read the summary and the comments it appears to me that there is a basis for suing the website. Now they have to prove in a court of law that the website knew that it was being used by a rapist to lure victims and chose to take no actions. It appears from some of the comments made here that the website was not only not warning the models but actively trying to silence others who were attempting to warn potential victims (key word in that statement is "appears").
OK, so a man who thinks that Stalin wasn't all that bad, is moderate right wing
No, most of how we are getting better has to do with producing more food in the areas which need food. It has nothing to do with the IoT.
It's kind of funny that you say that. As the number of people on this planet has increased, the number who are starving has gone down.
Their position was that we should keep the samples...your "counter" to that is that we should keep the samples for a DIFFERENT reason than theirs.
As to whether or not your thinking is crackpot or not. I do not think it is crackpot, but those who are arguing for destroying all of the known samples of the smallpox virus would say that it is.
I have to tell you that your comment does not actually counter the post to which you replied. They made an argument for maintaining the current stocks of smallpox virus. You proceeded to say their was a problem with their view by making a weaker argument for maintaining the current stocks of the smallpox virus.
Their argument was based on the assumptions being made by those who are promoting getting rid of all KNOWN stocks of the smallpox virus. You argued against those assumptions. Those who assume that the only places where the smallpox virus exists are the known stocks will ignore your argument as coming from a "crackpot conspiracy theorist" (I think they are wrong). On the other hand, at least some of them will be receptive to the OP's argument.
It is an individual right to the means of violence..that is, it is an acknowledgement that the government ought not have a monopoly on violence. That is a different thing than being about armed opposition to government. It means that an individual is recognized to have the right to use violence to protect themselves from violence