You don't understand. Encryption used for good won't be affected. Only encryption used for evil will be susceptible. It's been mathematically proven...
To confuse matters further, many see the role of leader as a poisoned chalice. That person will have to lead the UK through the Brexit negotiations and will be responsible for the outcome.
The more cynical of us saw last year's leadership contest - which Theresa May won - as proof that the Brexit supporters realised this and bailed early so they wouldn't have to take responsibility, yet could step in after 2019 with an unblemished record.
Unfortunately, May monumentally screwed things up three years early. If you watch pictures of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson after the referendum, they don't look like people that have won, they look distraught - like they were thinking "shit, we have to own this now". Something they proceeded not to do.
This election was so full of own goals that you had to wonder if any of the parties actually wanted to win! Just Google "Dianne Abbott interview" and watch the train wreck. A leader who wants to win doesn't use a person like that as a vote winner.
I think it comes down to experience with the system. For me it makes complete sense, but I have the advantage of having grown up in Ireland where the system is very similar and where we've had many coalition governments.
I certainly don't think I could have explained it any better to somebody who's grown up with a different system.
An interesting aside, I picked up a lot about British politics (before I moved to the UK) from Jeffrey Archer's novel "First Among Equals". When that novel was published in the US one character was removed as - according to Archer - "the publisher did not believe the American audience would understand a multi-party political system"
She said that "her Christian faith helps her make difficult decisions", so unfortunately she the one who's created that association. I would guess - based on her feeble understanding of technology - that your encryption would be safe because it's used for good, but encryption used for bad would be back-doored.
I agree though - I know Christians (and atheists) who loathe her policies and see her conduct as very "unchristian". I also know Christians (and atheists) who thinks she's great and completely support tearing up human rights laws.
I'll apologise in advance for this. My experience is that the louder a person is about their Christian beliefs, the less Christian their actions are. The people who walk the walk don't do it for the Kudos so they're often under the public radar. That's a trend I've seen - I don't view it as a rule.
How else could you describe her performance in this election? Her actions certainty meet the definition of idiocy.
Idiot may be defined as "a stupid person", but it is often used to describe "someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way".
How often have you done something stupid and though to yourself "you compete idiot"? I'd never describe myself as a genius, but I did achieve a 2.1 in Aero Engineering, so I can't be that stupid. Yet in some aspects of my life I've been an immense idiot.
They are, but their conduct and opinions are far from the status quo in Europe. The party's founder - Ian Paisley - once "renounced the Pope as the antichrist" in the European parliament, and his successor - Peter Robinson - led the "Clontibret Invasion" where 200 loyalists vandalised an torn south of the border.
The DUP are the exception, not the rule, and I'd describe their opinions as rare in main stream politics.
The funny thing is that May lambasted Corbyn for being a terrorist sympathiser, but now she trying to firm a government with a party which had links to terrorists.
I think that's very much the case in this election. My constituency - which would elect a sex-offender if you put a blue* rosette - normally has the Lib Dems as runners up with Labour in 3rd. This time it was Tory, Labour, LD (60%, 20%, 15%). For the first time I saw a good few "Vote Labour" posters in Windows in my town, so I think they played the "Vote Tactically" game well.
I didn't see anything that firm about it. She was fairly quiet as remain supporters go. A she's shown she's willing to flip to whatever opinion increases her tenure. Leave won the referendum so she became a Brexit supporter. She unequivocally said there'd be no early general election, but the moment the polls gave her a sure win she changed he mind that "it was needed".
Funnily enough (not really), that was a major selling point for some of my colleagues. To paraphrase one - "we need to get rid of the stupid human rights so we can lock up these terrorists". You know those rights that I don't think I've never needed, nobody else should have them either...
Interestingly enough, one of those people filed for bankruptcy (as well as having a large amount of debt written of by my employer) - I wonder how he'd feel about a return to Debtor's Prison too?
The Mail and the Express to this, but thenâ I avoid any papers that do.
I actually wrote a tamper monkey script that randomly* capitalises 10% of words in an article and installed it on several people's computers in our office. So far nobody's noticed, which says something about the readers, the writers, or both.
My personal theory about why some papers do this is that they need to remind their readers about which part of the article they need to be angry about.
* I had originally planned on capitalising key words like Jew, Christian, Muslim, immigrant, foreigners, etc. However was advised not to by my boss as this would just make them angrier.
No it doesn't. It just means they're going to hold themselves to higher standards than the federal government requires. If the population don't agree they can elect different mayors.
It's like how the UK didn't sign up to the EU working time directive, but the Ordnance Survey - a semi state body - opted into it, which was good for employees.
After the EU referendum a colleague of mine said "now we're leaving the EU I'll be able to fly the Union Jack". I queried why and it turned out that when he ran a business in the 80s he tried putting up a flag pole and was told to take it down.
So he was told 30 years ago by the the [British] local council to take down the flag pole he put up because it contravened [British] planning rules, and somehow it was the EU's fault.
I have a colleague who raves about them. He only flies with them, tells other people that they'reâ daft not to fly with them. Yet, almost every time he comes back from holiday there's a story about something that went wrong. I bet he's glad he didn't go abroad for the long weekend...
Ok, I wasn't aware of that. It's still slightly dubious. As an Irish emigrant I'm not required to pay tax back on foreign earnings back in Ireland, so have no need to relinquish my citizenship.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the casing wasn't ejecting properly so he needed gravity to help.
0 change in efficacy, over 0 influence, so undefined...
You don't understand. Encryption used for good won't be affected. Only encryption used for evil will be susceptible. It's been mathematically proven...
To confuse matters further, many see the role of leader as a poisoned chalice. That person will have to lead the UK through the Brexit negotiations and will be responsible for the outcome.
The more cynical of us saw last year's leadership contest - which Theresa May won - as proof that the Brexit supporters realised this and bailed early so they wouldn't have to take responsibility, yet could step in after 2019 with an unblemished record.
Unfortunately, May monumentally screwed things up three years early. If you watch pictures of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson after the referendum, they don't look like people that have won, they look distraught - like they were thinking "shit, we have to own this now". Something they proceeded not to do.
This election was so full of own goals that you had to wonder if any of the parties actually wanted to win! Just Google "Dianne Abbott interview" and watch the train wreck. A leader who wants to win doesn't use a person like that as a vote winner.
Machiavelli has nothing on British politics!
I think it comes down to experience with the system. For me it makes complete sense, but I have the advantage of having grown up in Ireland where the system is very similar and where we've had many coalition governments.
I certainly don't think I could have explained it any better to somebody who's grown up with a different system.
An interesting aside, I picked up a lot about British politics (before I moved to the UK) from Jeffrey Archer's novel "First Among Equals". When that novel was published in the US one character was removed as - according to Archer - "the publisher did not believe the American audience would understand a multi-party political system"
She said that "her Christian faith helps her make difficult decisions", so unfortunately she the one who's created that association. I would guess - based on her feeble understanding of technology - that your encryption would be safe because it's used for good, but encryption used for bad would be back-doored.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
I agree though - I know Christians (and atheists) who loathe her policies and see her conduct as very "unchristian". I also know Christians (and atheists) who thinks she's great and completely support tearing up human rights laws.
I'll apologise in advance for this. My experience is that the louder a person is about their Christian beliefs, the less Christian their actions are. The people who walk the walk don't do it for the Kudos so they're often under the public radar. That's a trend I've seen - I don't view it as a rule.
How else could you describe her performance in this election? Her actions certainty meet the definition of idiocy.
Idiot may be defined as "a stupid person", but it is often used to describe "someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way".
How often have you done something stupid and though to yourself "you compete idiot"? I'd never describe myself as a genius, but I did achieve a 2.1 in Aero Engineering, so I can't be that stupid. Yet in some aspects of my life I've been an immense idiot.
They are, but their conduct and opinions are far from the status quo in Europe. The party's founder - Ian Paisley - once "renounced the Pope as the antichrist" in the European parliament, and his successor - Peter Robinson - led the "Clontibret Invasion" where 200 loyalists vandalised an torn south of the border.
The DUP are the exception, not the rule, and I'd describe their opinions as rare in main stream politics.
The funny thing is that May lambasted Corbyn for being a terrorist sympathiser, but now she trying to firm a government with a party which had links to terrorists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Ceramics maybe, but definitely not leather. That's would mean Theresa May could wear her favourite trousers.
If I'd have come up with a response that good I would have karma whored the hell out of it!
I think that's very much the case in this election. My constituency - which would elect a sex-offender if you put a blue* rosette - normally has the Lib Dems as runners up with Labour in 3rd. This time it was Tory, Labour, LD (60%, 20%, 15%). For the first time I saw a good few "Vote Labour" posters in Windows in my town, so I think they played the "Vote Tactically" game well.
* Blue = Tory, Red = Labour
No. The reason Sinn Fein don't take their seats is because they refuse to sit an institution they don't see as legitimate.
I didn't see anything that firm about it. She was fairly quiet as remain supporters go. A she's shown she's willing to flip to whatever opinion increases her tenure. Leave won the referendum so she became a Brexit supporter. She unequivocally said there'd be no early general election, but the moment the polls gave her a sure win she changed he mind that "it was needed".
Funnily enough (not really), that was a major selling point for some of my colleagues. To paraphrase one - "we need to get rid of the stupid human rights so we can lock up these terrorists". You know those rights that I don't think I've never needed, nobody else should have them either...
Interestingly enough, one of those people filed for bankruptcy (as well as having a large amount of debt written of by my employer) - I wonder how he'd feel about a return to Debtor's Prison too?
Forward thinking was never her strong point.
Surely the USAF self insures?
The Mail and the Express to this, but thenâ I avoid any papers that do.
I actually wrote a tamper monkey script that randomly* capitalises 10% of words in an article and installed it on several people's computers in our office. So far nobody's noticed, which says something about the readers, the writers, or both.
My personal theory about why some papers do this is that they need to remind their readers about which part of the article they need to be angry about.
* I had originally planned on capitalising key words like Jew, Christian, Muslim, immigrant, foreigners, etc. However was advised not to by my boss as this would just make them angrier.
No it doesn't. It just means they're going to hold themselves to higher standards than the federal government requires. If the population don't agree they can elect different mayors.
It's like how the UK didn't sign up to the EU working time directive, but the Ordnance Survey - a semi state body - opted into it, which was good for employees.
What about the RBS banking outage?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
I came to say this. I read the Telegraph and Guardian and - like you say - split the difference.
I've told this story before, but...
After the EU referendum a colleague of mine said "now we're leaving the EU I'll be able to fly the Union Jack". I queried why and it turned out that when he ran a business in the 80s he tried putting up a flag pole and was told to take it down.
So he was told 30 years ago by the the [British] local council to take down the flag pole he put up because it contravened [British] planning rules, and somehow it was the EU's fault.
Only purgatory?
I have a colleague who raves about them. He only flies with them, tells other people that they'reâ daft not to fly with them. Yet, almost every time he comes back from holiday there's a story about something that went wrong. I bet he's glad he didn't go abroad for the long weekend...
Ok, I wasn't aware of that. It's still slightly dubious. As an Irish emigrant I'm not required to pay tax back on foreign earnings back in Ireland, so have no need to relinquish my citizenship.
"The only positive thing I can say about this is that I prefer that bigots be open about their prejudice, and for that I thank you."
I like that one. It'll compliment my "free speech is a wonderful tool - it provides bigots the rope from which they can hang themselves"