Awkward wording, I know. And I even dropped a word. I'll try to fix it:
If one political party accepts science and the other rejects it on certain issues, using scientific research on those issues to make decisions does not equate to supporting the party that accepts it.
Maybe in a few more decades it'll be a vape-filled room, but for now it's still a smoke-filled room full of old white dudes...unless maybe certain Silicon Valley megacorps are involved:-P
Oh you mean I'm dismissing half the population's stupid-ass unscientific mind-sharts. Yes I will, gladly, no matter how many people hold such opinions. Finding the facts is easier now than ever before, there's no excuse for "concluding" that the facts are wrong.
"Near monopolies" is a fair term considering the tiny number of enormous companies that provide telecoms service in the US, and the fact that actual regional monopolies are the norm for home Internet service.
I'm surprised the companies had the balls to make this deal public though. This is the sort of deal that shouldn't be spoken of outside of the smoke-filled rooms where they're made. I guess these megacorps feel like they can get away with anything with Trump in charge.
Maybe while John Oliver was telling people to submit their comments to the FCC en masse, some group that didn't want the people's opinion to get through to the FCC simultaneously launched a DDoS attack on their site...it's possible.
What half am I dismissing? I'm siding with the vast majority of scientists on any issue you choose, if any parties disagree with science they are wrong on those issues. I am an unashamed diehard "partisan hack" for science though. Bullshit can get fucked.
I'm not saying there's a "party of science," I'm considering each scientific issue at the issue level. Science is right and on any issues where parties disagree, they are wrong.
Horseshit. If one political party accepts science and the other rejects it, using that science to make decisions not equate to supporting the party that accepts it. If Democrats believed that foodborne illnesses were caused by demons, the FDA would not be furthering a political ideology.
Where we would like to think that *somehow* facts will win the argument, there are way to many alternate realities floating around with their on version of facts and truth these days.
Fuck that. An abundance of lies does not mean we can't have an objective reality.
For the system to work this way, people would have to be harangued to re-enter their password when moving across different parts of the system, basically recreating the problems of early versions of Windows UAC on the web. And this would still only compartmentalize server-side exploits - a stolen password would still take everything in one fell swoop. It would be vastly worse than having your email account broken into under the status quo. Otherwise there has to be a publicly-accessible "central point of failure" somewhere.
I'm not sure if 2FA, as commonly implemented, could make it better or worse. Often the 2nd factor (typically a phone number) is used as a standalone recovery option, which opens up the possibility of breaking in with a GSM signalling hack or a local phone exploit. Even an ideal 2FA system, although effective, is very inconvenient.
I know a few people with nasty personalities who have started from poverty and become rich, but none who refuse to work. Refusal to work would make it impossible to gain wealth through work, so that's just a red herring, suggesting that those who have not become rich have failed to do so because they refuse to work.
I know many more people without nasty personalities who work hard and have remained poor. Doing everything right is not even close to a guarantee of success - it only gets you a slim chance of success.
You have one place to fix the weak login specifically, but ALL of the damage is already done and you'll have to fix things in many more places. It's better to compartmentalize things so that if someone breaks into your car rental shop's online login they can't transfer money out of your bank account, steal your airline travel information, and order $5k of dildos and lube to your house with same-day shipping, for example.
Talk about too many eggs in one basket! This is hoarding everyone's most precious eggs into one giant egg silo!
Not to mention this is almost THE nightmare account in terms of online privacy: one account for everything, linked to your real name through government ID. It could only be worse if it were controlled by a corporation rather than a government...at least you should be able to vote to keep marketers out!
UBI is inevitable eventually, I can't predict when, but it is an idea that will have its time.
I can tell you when. Either before we're reduced to violence to solve the problem, or afterward, when whichever group that survives believes that everyone who has survived the violence is worthy of receiving UBI (it may be called "family allowances" depending on who that is).
Greece's economy was ruined by the same idiotic borrow-and-spend, trickle-down tax policies that the American right fawns over, so I don't know why you're using them as an example of socialism failing.
Venezuela's economy was too dependent on oil and their economy was bound to eat shit when the price of oil dropped whether they were socialist or corporatocratic. Their failure is simply a failure to diversify their economy.
Universal Income doesn't account for everyone not working, when they are promised income for... "not working". It assumes most people will find meaninful work, when the reality is, most people won't, especial when taxes start to creep over 50% (feudal tax rate).
There's no problem with people not working when their work is not needed - that's the main reason UBI is being considered, the falling demand for human labor due to automation. As such, UBI does not assume that most people will find meaningful work, but that an ever-increasing fraction of the population will not be able to find work.
With a large surplus of labor, there will be no problem filling what jobs are still needed and anyone who doesn't feel like working due to high tax rates should feel free to quit so that someone without such hangups can take their place.
Well if you Americans are suddenly cool with British-style libel laws that's up to you, just don't be hypocrites about it. Trump might end up being a major victim of his own laws though. Didn't he make some pretty clear-cut statements about Barack Obama personally authorizing illegal spying on him during the campaign?
Yep those dastardly jackbooted "SJWs" don't want you calling people by the nastiest racial slurs you can think up, and have even made incitements to violence against ethnicities/religions/sexual orientations illegal in some countries! How can we call ourselves free if we aren't free to call for a lynching!? It's practically 1984 out there!
Hopefully Donald Trump will soon set things straight and totally not alter libel laws to make it illegal to say mean things about him.
Slashdot Mirror
Tomayto, tomahto.
This. It doesn't seem like a very difficult problem to solve.
If you're gonna try to make coal look clean and safe, a nuclear disaster is your best bet!
Awkward wording, I know. And I even dropped a word. I'll try to fix it:
If one political party accepts science and the other rejects it on certain issues, using scientific research on those issues to make decisions does not equate to supporting the party that accepts it.
Death to curated computing in all its forms. Long live general-purpose computing!
That's a local privilege escalation exploit, not a remote code execution vulnerability.
Maybe in a few more decades it'll be a vape-filled room, but for now it's still a smoke-filled room full of old white dudes...unless maybe certain Silicon Valley megacorps are involved :-P
Hehe they sure did! Shame what happened to Pepe the comic character, but it looks like the alt-right is cooked!
Oh you mean I'm dismissing half the population's stupid-ass unscientific mind-sharts. Yes I will, gladly, no matter how many people hold such opinions. Finding the facts is easier now than ever before, there's no excuse for "concluding" that the facts are wrong.
Another decent possibility...Ajit Pai is in charge of the place after all.
"Near monopolies" is a fair term considering the tiny number of enormous companies that provide telecoms service in the US, and the fact that actual regional monopolies are the norm for home Internet service.
I'm surprised the companies had the balls to make this deal public though. This is the sort of deal that shouldn't be spoken of outside of the smoke-filled rooms where they're made. I guess these megacorps feel like they can get away with anything with Trump in charge.
Maybe while John Oliver was telling people to submit their comments to the FCC en masse, some group that didn't want the people's opinion to get through to the FCC simultaneously launched a DDoS attack on their site...it's possible.
What half am I dismissing? I'm siding with the vast majority of scientists on any issue you choose, if any parties disagree with science they are wrong on those issues. I am an unashamed diehard "partisan hack" for science though. Bullshit can get fucked.
I'm not saying there's a "party of science," I'm considering each scientific issue at the issue level. Science is right and on any issues where parties disagree, they are wrong.
Horseshit. If one political party accepts science and the other rejects it, using that science to make decisions not equate to supporting the party that accepts it. If Democrats believed that foodborne illnesses were caused by demons, the FDA would not be furthering a political ideology.
Where we would like to think that *somehow* facts will win the argument, there are way to many alternate realities floating around with their on version of facts and truth these days.
Fuck that. An abundance of lies does not mean we can't have an objective reality.
For the system to work this way, people would have to be harangued to re-enter their password when moving across different parts of the system, basically recreating the problems of early versions of Windows UAC on the web. And this would still only compartmentalize server-side exploits - a stolen password would still take everything in one fell swoop. It would be vastly worse than having your email account broken into under the status quo. Otherwise there has to be a publicly-accessible "central point of failure" somewhere.
I'm not sure if 2FA, as commonly implemented, could make it better or worse. Often the 2nd factor (typically a phone number) is used as a standalone recovery option, which opens up the possibility of breaking in with a GSM signalling hack or a local phone exploit. Even an ideal 2FA system, although effective, is very inconvenient.
I know a few people with nasty personalities who have started from poverty and become rich, but none who refuse to work. Refusal to work would make it impossible to gain wealth through work, so that's just a red herring, suggesting that those who have not become rich have failed to do so because they refuse to work.
I know many more people without nasty personalities who work hard and have remained poor. Doing everything right is not even close to a guarantee of success - it only gets you a slim chance of success.
You have one place to fix the weak login specifically, but ALL of the damage is already done and you'll have to fix things in many more places. It's better to compartmentalize things so that if someone breaks into your car rental shop's online login they can't transfer money out of your bank account, steal your airline travel information, and order $5k of dildos and lube to your house with same-day shipping, for example.
Talk about too many eggs in one basket! This is hoarding everyone's most precious eggs into one giant egg silo!
Not to mention this is almost THE nightmare account in terms of online privacy: one account for everything, linked to your real name through government ID. It could only be worse if it were controlled by a corporation rather than a government...at least you should be able to vote to keep marketers out!
#survivorshipbias
UBI is inevitable eventually, I can't predict when, but it is an idea that will have its time.
I can tell you when. Either before we're reduced to violence to solve the problem, or afterward, when whichever group that survives believes that everyone who has survived the violence is worthy of receiving UBI (it may be called "family allowances" depending on who that is).
Greece's economy was ruined by the same idiotic borrow-and-spend, trickle-down tax policies that the American right fawns over, so I don't know why you're using them as an example of socialism failing.
Venezuela's economy was too dependent on oil and their economy was bound to eat shit when the price of oil dropped whether they were socialist or corporatocratic. Their failure is simply a failure to diversify their economy.
Universal Income doesn't account for everyone not working, when they are promised income for ... "not working". It assumes most people will find meaninful work, when the reality is, most people won't, especial when taxes start to creep over 50% (feudal tax rate).
There's no problem with people not working when their work is not needed - that's the main reason UBI is being considered, the falling demand for human labor due to automation. As such, UBI does not assume that most people will find meaningful work, but that an ever-increasing fraction of the population will not be able to find work.
With a large surplus of labor, there will be no problem filling what jobs are still needed and anyone who doesn't feel like working due to high tax rates should feel free to quit so that someone without such hangups can take their place.
Well if you Americans are suddenly cool with British-style libel laws that's up to you, just don't be hypocrites about it. Trump might end up being a major victim of his own laws though. Didn't he make some pretty clear-cut statements about Barack Obama personally authorizing illegal spying on him during the campaign?
LOL suck it centipedes!
Yep those dastardly jackbooted "SJWs" don't want you calling people by the nastiest racial slurs you can think up, and have even made incitements to violence against ethnicities/religions/sexual orientations illegal in some countries! How can we call ourselves free if we aren't free to call for a lynching!? It's practically 1984 out there!
Hopefully Donald Trump will soon set things straight and totally not alter libel laws to make it illegal to say mean things about him.