So amongst people who have a vested interest in in continued research grants to study a a supposedly apocalyptic catastrophe, there is a consensus that there will be an apocalyptic catastrophe that requires research grant money for them to study; of course there is.
Conspiracy theory, and it's just as nutty as the other conspiracy theories that I hear about.
These security experts wouldn't recommend it, but they're relying on security through obscurity.
Yes, it's an acknowledgement that obscurity IS an additional layer to security. It's not the means to security, it's just an additional roadblock to throw up. When discouraging hacking, if your target is hard or obscure, most people will look elsewhere. Sure, it won't dissuade the truly dedicated who are looking to take you in particular down, but some obscurity is better than no obscurity.
If you can't tell whether you have a virus without an AV, then you are dumber than you look. I've cleaned many friend and family computer where they got a virus without an AV, then asked for help. Turns out it's quite easy to get a virus without an AV, and from my experience, not to hard to get one with.
I've had a lot of Windows machines that act "funny" without any virus involvement at all. Sometimes it's a failing piece of hardware that neither windows nor the hardware driver detects as being a problem. Sometimes Windows just f's itself up in weird ways, whether it's the registry, a bad windows update, both, or something else.
Not ignoring the earlier ruling is a legitimate course of action in a 1st amendment case.
But it's not a First Amendment case. You don't get FA protection for this type of stolen material. If it was considered either in the public interest or political speech, that might be different because those types of speech get slightly more protection. And if Gawker had removed the tape but then said "Hogan had sex with X and Z on April 3rd," they would have been safe on First Amendment grounds. But no, that doesn't absolve them for hosting that tape and continuing to host it. The First Amendment does not cover that.
Pay some nobody a small lump of cash to leak the video to a news outlet with big pockets (but not so big you think you can't win in court), then sue the news outlet.
Or don't, when the news outlet shows some integrity and human decency, and doesn't publish the sex tape. Whoops, there goes your bizarre scenario.
Integrity and human decency aren't even necessary. They just ask their legal team "hey, will we get into big trouble for posting this? Oh, we will? Doesn't sound like it will be worth it."
Keep in mind that judges and the courts have a lot of power themselves. If your lawyer or their legal team do things that the judge interprets as "wasting his time," they have a lot of latitude to put that legal team in a world of hurt. "High frequency" works in the finance world, because that world is designed to award such actions and there are basically no facilities to punish traders who do this. The legal system is the exact opposite of all those points.
I think the better solution would be to break the power that prevents competition coming in. IE, the Comcasts and the AT&Ts should have exactly the same amount of access to the lines and the poles as Google or Sonic or any other provider, no more, no less.
Burying the lines means that other ISPs have LESS access to customers than the regional monopoly/duopoly. Burying lines is one large reason why a municipality would consider granting them monopolies in the first place.
Careful! You'll get a lot of politicians and their apologists hemming and hawing and acting faux-outraged that you would suggest that a campaign contribution and a bribe are anything alike. Those major contributions, why don't affect the sort of access a company or individual gets, or what priorities the candidate will focus on, or in any way affect who gets contracts.
In Nashville, Google is being blocked by Comcast and AT&T who are stonewalling on moving their cables out of the way on NES utility poles. It's not that Google doesn't want to offer service, they literally can't because they can't run their cables.
Bury the damn cables and eliminate those unsightly poles and wires susceptible to storm damage and outages.
Then it becomes 10x as expensive to service them if there's a problem, or if you want to upgrade them.
Carbon Dioxide is the foundation of the world's food chain. It's not pollution
Water is absolutely essential to our way of life, but if you drink gallons of it, you're going to die. Water intoxication is a real thing.
Venus has a lot of carbon dioxide as well. Since it's in the Goldilocks Zone, it should be able to support life, yet its heavier, carbon-rich atmosphere led to a runaway greenhouse effect that renders the existence of liquid water, and life based on that, impossible. Having a nice amount of something required for life as we know it is beneficial. Too much.. not so much.
Weather is not climate, but neither are they unrelated. Climate doesn't dictate individual short-term weather patterns, but it does affect long-term trends.
It's a strange attitude to have, because it implies that everyone else should be trying to murder them to protect themselves
Humanity is still fairly "tribal." We appreciate local society, and tend to greatly favor the interests of our own society over that of any others. It's how we evolved, it's how we developed civilization, divided ourselves into countries, waged war, etc. It's one constant that has been mostly true since before the stone age. We pretend we are never governed by "instinct" or anything else developed thousands of years ago, but that development is hard to get away from.
The deniers do not care, they will be dead before the worst hits. As long as they can live high on the hog on their imaginary money until they die, they are happy. There is not one drop of concern for the future of humanity or life on earth in general.
If you can live high on "imaginary money" until you die, then I don't think that money ended up being imaginary.
It depends on the political leaning of the answerer. Someone on the left wing will say that the private company is trying to cheat the government out of money, and/or if they can do it for cheaper it will be shoddy work or with underpaid/abused staff. Someone on the right wing will always find a way to pin wrongdoing on the government, no matter who did the work.
Nuclear power is inherently devastating. We can't afford to keep laying waste to vast expanses of land and killing thousands of people, potentially millions in the vain hope that some day, some time, we will come up with a design that can't be fucked up, by arrogance, ignorance or fully intentionally. You do know what they say about idiots and supposedly idiot proof things, right?
What do you mean, we can't "keep" doing that, when it's only happened once (Chernobyl) since the advent of nuclear power?
Of course it's a tsunami that actually did the damage, but yes, you have to plan around it. The wall was not high enough, but worse than that, the switching stations for the pre-1990s generators were still located in poorly or unprotected low-level ground. Emergency diesel generators and batteries were located in the -basement-, and engineers raised red flags that this was dangerous, concerns that were left unaddressed. There were two Fukushima nuclear plants, and Fukushima II didn't have nearly the sorts of problems that Fukushima I had..
Not saying you are wrong, but let's put the same metrics to use on other energy sources: how much economic damage, loss of valuable land, and social ramifications of losing entire cities to sea level rise from the continued emission of burning oil and coal?
I fully agree that would be a disaster. That's why I'm advocating renewables as an alternative.
Renewables are great, but they don't yet generate baseload, always-on power, and we have yet to find the magic batteries that would allow wind/solar/etc to function as that. Hydro works, but that's not available everywhere. The baseload power generators at the moment are coal, gas, and nuclear.
Slashdot Mirror
So amongst people who have a vested interest in in continued research grants to study a a supposedly apocalyptic catastrophe, there is a consensus that there will be an apocalyptic catastrophe that requires research grant money for them to study; of course there is.
Conspiracy theory, and it's just as nutty as the other conspiracy theories that I hear about.
These security experts wouldn't recommend it, but they're relying on security through obscurity.
Yes, it's an acknowledgement that obscurity IS an additional layer to security. It's not the means to security, it's just an additional roadblock to throw up. When discouraging hacking, if your target is hard or obscure, most people will look elsewhere. Sure, it won't dissuade the truly dedicated who are looking to take you in particular down, but some obscurity is better than no obscurity.
Never even read email from unknown sources, let alone open attachments from there.
Or if you do, make sure all attachments are turned off. No auto-loading flash or linked images. There's nothing wrong with text-only email.
If you can't tell whether you have a virus without an AV, then you are dumber than you look. I've cleaned many friend and family computer where they got a virus without an AV, then asked for help. Turns out it's quite easy to get a virus without an AV, and from my experience, not to hard to get one with.
I've had a lot of Windows machines that act "funny" without any virus involvement at all. Sometimes it's a failing piece of hardware that neither windows nor the hardware driver detects as being a problem. Sometimes Windows just f's itself up in weird ways, whether it's the registry, a bad windows update, both, or something else.
You're right, both of them have the non-existent credibility that the Indonesian man does.
Wives and kids come and go (especially today, thanks to the divorce revolution).
Holy shit, nice hand-wave!
I hope that when you get into legal trouble, you stick to your guns and refuse to deal with any lawyers.
Not ignoring the earlier ruling is a legitimate course of action in a 1st amendment case.
But it's not a First Amendment case. You don't get FA protection for this type of stolen material. If it was considered either in the public interest or political speech, that might be different because those types of speech get slightly more protection. And if Gawker had removed the tape but then said "Hogan had sex with X and Z on April 3rd," they would have been safe on First Amendment grounds. But no, that doesn't absolve them for hosting that tape and continuing to host it. The First Amendment does not cover that.
Pay some nobody a small lump of cash to leak the video to a news outlet with big pockets (but not so big you think you can't win in court), then sue the news outlet.
Or don't, when the news outlet shows some integrity and human decency, and doesn't publish the sex tape. Whoops, there goes your bizarre scenario.
Integrity and human decency aren't even necessary. They just ask their legal team "hey, will we get into big trouble for posting this? Oh, we will? Doesn't sound like it will be worth it."
Keep in mind that judges and the courts have a lot of power themselves. If your lawyer or their legal team do things that the judge interprets as "wasting his time," they have a lot of latitude to put that legal team in a world of hurt. "High frequency" works in the finance world, because that world is designed to award such actions and there are basically no facilities to punish traders who do this. The legal system is the exact opposite of all those points.
I think the better solution would be to break the power that prevents competition coming in. IE, the Comcasts and the AT&Ts should have exactly the same amount of access to the lines and the poles as Google or Sonic or any other provider, no more, no less.
Burying the lines means that other ISPs have LESS access to customers than the regional monopoly/duopoly. Burying lines is one large reason why a municipality would consider granting them monopolies in the first place.
Because believing that current CO2 levels has an effect on global temperatures requires you to believe in homeopathy
No it doesn't. The effects of CO2 are well-known and well-studied in the lab. It doesn't require woo-woo or faith.
Careful! You'll get a lot of politicians and their apologists hemming and hawing and acting faux-outraged that you would suggest that a campaign contribution and a bribe are anything alike. Those major contributions, why don't affect the sort of access a company or individual gets, or what priorities the candidate will focus on, or in any way affect who gets contracts.
In Nashville, Google is being blocked by Comcast and AT&T who are stonewalling on moving their cables out of the way on NES utility poles. It's not that Google doesn't want to offer service, they literally can't because they can't run their cables.
Bury the damn cables and eliminate those unsightly poles and wires susceptible to storm damage and outages.
Then it becomes 10x as expensive to service them if there's a problem, or if you want to upgrade them.
A Jordanian flag. Wow, the flag of one of tbe US's most faithful allies in tbe middle east. What a bunch of wild-eyed radicals.
I think the parent really meant a Palestinian flag, there were several of them hoisted by Sanders supporters on the floor of the DNC.
Carbon Dioxide is the foundation of the world's food chain. It's not pollution
Water is absolutely essential to our way of life, but if you drink gallons of it, you're going to die. Water intoxication is a real thing.
Venus has a lot of carbon dioxide as well. Since it's in the Goldilocks Zone, it should be able to support life, yet its heavier, carbon-rich atmosphere led to a runaway greenhouse effect that renders the existence of liquid water, and life based on that, impossible. Having a nice amount of something required for life as we know it is beneficial. Too much.. not so much.
Weather is not climate, but neither are they unrelated. Climate doesn't dictate individual short-term weather patterns, but it does affect long-term trends.
Oh please....
It's a strange attitude to have, because it implies that everyone else should be trying to murder them to protect themselves
Humanity is still fairly "tribal." We appreciate local society, and tend to greatly favor the interests of our own society over that of any others. It's how we evolved, it's how we developed civilization, divided ourselves into countries, waged war, etc. It's one constant that has been mostly true since before the stone age. We pretend we are never governed by "instinct" or anything else developed thousands of years ago, but that development is hard to get away from.
The deniers do not care, they will be dead before the worst hits. As long as they can live high on the hog on their imaginary money until they die, they are happy. There is not one drop of concern for the future of humanity or life on earth in general.
If you can live high on "imaginary money" until you die, then I don't think that money ended up being imaginary.
Who is incompetent here?
It depends on the political leaning of the answerer. Someone on the left wing will say that the private company is trying to cheat the government out of money, and/or if they can do it for cheaper it will be shoddy work or with underpaid/abused staff. Someone on the right wing will always find a way to pin wrongdoing on the government, no matter who did the work.
Nuclear power is inherently devastating. We can't afford to keep laying waste to vast expanses of land and killing thousands of people, potentially millions in the vain hope that some day, some time, we will come up with a design that can't be fucked up, by arrogance, ignorance or fully intentionally. You do know what they say about idiots and supposedly idiot proof things, right?
What do you mean, we can't "keep" doing that, when it's only happened once (Chernobyl) since the advent of nuclear power?
Of course it's a tsunami that actually did the damage, but yes, you have to plan around it. The wall was not high enough, but worse than that, the switching stations for the pre-1990s generators were still located in poorly or unprotected low-level ground. Emergency diesel generators and batteries were located in the -basement-, and engineers raised red flags that this was dangerous, concerns that were left unaddressed. There were two Fukushima nuclear plants, and Fukushima II didn't have nearly the sorts of problems that Fukushima I had..
Not saying you are wrong, but let's put the same metrics to use on other energy sources: how much economic damage, loss of valuable land, and social ramifications of losing entire cities to sea level rise from the continued emission of burning oil and coal?
I fully agree that would be a disaster. That's why I'm advocating renewables as an alternative.
Renewables are great, but they don't yet generate baseload, always-on power, and we have yet to find the magic batteries that would allow wind/solar/etc to function as that. Hydro works, but that's not available everywhere. The baseload power generators at the moment are coal, gas, and nuclear.
Oh! Storage! Why, it sounds so simple.
I mean, we need to invent the technology first, but that's no biggy.