Yup. Chrome is my whore browser. I know it'll just work with any random trash site because Chrome is a whore and lets sites do whatever they please, and if a site is tested at all it's tested in Chrome.
Or he had ans still has a plan and the plan is leaving the program in place but actually enforcing it and letting people only hire foreigners when Americans with those skills can't be found. Or the existing plan isn't ready for immediate deployment. Or the existing plan involved legislation that has to go through Congress and will just kill the program entirely. Or the existing plan is to issue an executive order at any point in time and call for the immediate halt of the program. Or...
As a creator of a simulation, you are that simulation's god. Technology outside of the simulation that is able to affect it, is both unattainable and impossible to model by those within the simulation. It is magic.
*prior* is a function of time. Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. Hawking's equations suggest that time only approaches a limit of zero at the Big Bang but never achieves it. Ergo, the question you're asking doesn't even make sense semantically. cf. "do you have an understanding of this reality that agrees with observation?"
Ergo, it's fucking stupid. If you suppose that some initial state of the Universe existed at some fundamental T0, before the clock started ticking, then: How was it set into motion? Who created the initial state? Why does the Universe exist at all?
These aren't questions for science to answer. This is the realm of religion. To suggest that the universe we're in is a simulation is no different than suggesting some deity created everything. These questions are by their nature unanswerable. If we pierce the veil and escape from our simulation, meet some god, ascend to another plane, etc., we'll just be at level 2 wondering if there's a level 3. There always exists the possibility that there's something beyond your bubble that is influencing your bubble in ways you can't perceive.
If someone throws my kid into the ocean or picks them up or touches them, I will quickly eliminate them permanently and then go after my kids.
No you won't, you irresponsible twat. You'll bitch and moan and demand they be arrested and try to sue. If you were someone who took action, your little fucking shits wouldn't be running around to the point where someone decided they needed to be punted away.
Fuck you. It used to be that a terror running loose would be smacked in the mouth by whoever they were terrorizing, then they'd run home to their parents and get another smack for being an insufferable little shit.
Now the terrors run loose and no one can do a damned thing about it without getting arrested and sued.
Saying "This bullshit is a problem and I don't know how to deal with it." begs the question. She's declaring things she doesn't agree with as "bullshit" without any evidence. We know for a fact that false flag operations have happened and continue to happen. And when a liberal comes and tells you otherwise, that you need strong evidence for such claims, just ask them about who is inciting violence at all the peaceful protests after Trump won the election. They'll claim Trump's paid goons are inciting violence in order to paint the peaceful left as violent rabble and justify breaking up their protests. They'll have less evidence than the people who spout the "bullshit" they decry.
Second, saying you don't know how to deal with it implies that something must be done to deal with it.
Bullshit is nowhere near as problematic as trying to establish some official method of determining what is and what isn't bullshit and then "dealing with it".
You underestimate people who use 4Chan. They recently located a terrorist training camp based off of a single, shitty photo. Russia then blew it the fuck up. They also recently identified the location of an individual based only on a livestream of a flagpole. 4Chan is a very diverse place that many people of many backgrounds and skillsets frequent.
Actually, part of journalism is, in fact, writing down what the subject tells you. The White House has their "press release" and the journalists report what was in the release. It wasn't fake news, it was real news, it just so happened to be false. Reporters given false information from seemingly trustworthy sources, with no readily available means to validate the information, aren't spreading fake news.
Yes they are, dumbass.
Journalism 101: DO NOT REPORT ANYTHING YOU CANNOT VERIFY WITH AT LEAST 2 SEPARATE SOURCES.
If you're reporting on what someone said, and they said something factual (and not an opinion), and you know those facts are false or unsupported, you must also report that those facts are false or unsupported. It doesn't matter who is saying it.
Once the traffic reaches the endpoint (the other end of your VPN tunnel) its decrypted. The VPN provider and their bandwidth suppliers (The VPN providers ISP)can then see all your traffic:-)
The VPN encapsulation layer is decrypted. If you've got HTTPS inside there it's still HTTPS. Further, you typically have many users connecting to one VPN. The VPN's ISP will have a harder time tracking any individual, and will not be able to associate traffic with a user at an address, a user of a certain age or sex, etc. The VPN provider could track in more detail, however, as they manage the individual connections, know who's paying for service (unless you're using fake info when signing up, paying with pre-paid gift card you bought for cash and NOT from a retailer, etc.).
A: They're providing fake certs for the domains you're accessing and you trust those certs for some reason.
B: The client you use injects legit certs for the proxy into your OS's or browser's cert store for every site you visit. Many corporate network management systems do this. They inject bullshit certs into your machine as trusted for everything. You're fucked unless yo do something the client isn't aware of (like cert pinning, using tunnel to somewhere else with a pre-shared key, a self-signed cert, etc.).
C: They've broken the encryption algorithm or key exchange protocol negotiated by you and the site.
So leaving a block of 500m people to try and get trade deals and negotiate with other countries when representing 60m will make us stronger? Not even close we'll just become insignificant?
We're now desperate for trade deals, so we'll take whatever scraps the US or Chine deigns to offer us and we'll thanks them for it.
As for your predicted war that is the exact reason the EU was set up to promote peace between it's members - something it's been entirely successful at!
But you're right a war with Russia is probably more likely as Europe being disunited is much better for their interests.
As for Europe being the cause of the war you may want to look at where we got our power from when we had an empire - by invading, subjugating and committing war crimes. Presumably this is the glorious era you'd like Britain to return to?
The British people made an ill informed choice based on blatant lies and wishful thinking.
You're a clown.
People want to trade with France, Germany, etc. Nobody wants to trade with Britain because you don't make anything anyone wants. If you want to trade, start making things people want. That's got nothing to do with the EU. Negotiating trade is easy if you have something people want and aren't so small that someone (like the British) will come in and just turn you into a colony. Britain isn't that small.
It all comes down to this: What have you got to sell that others want? As an American, I can't think of a single thing off the top of my head. But if you have something, that's your leverage. Access to a market of 500 million vs. 60 million isn't an issue unless you want better terms than the EU has or you make establishing those terms unnecessarily difficult. Companies and governments aren't going to skip that market unless you give them a reason to. You have 2 fucking years for the transition. I think you can get it done. Stiff upper lip, cheerio, think of England and all that, chap!
The EU wasn't set up to promote peace. It was set up to prevent member countries being gobbled up and parceled out every time there's a major war. How many times have borders been redrawn and countries been renamed? If you think the EU has successfully promoted peace in Europe, turn on the fucking news.
A war with Russia? No. Russia may seek to reclaim some former states which illegally left (such as Ukraine) and others which they abandoned. Russia won't be rolling tanks into your borders unless you attack them first. They simply don't have the military or support infrastructure to wage war against a superpower or an ally of a superpower. No one in the west gives a shit about the various chunks in central and eastern Europe. Russia may try to bring those into its fold or at least its influence. NATO and the UN are a joke, especially with Trump rightfully saying he's sick of them, so the smaller nations most people can't locate on a map either have to rely on the EU or stand up for themselves. Good luck in either case.
The war would be between (and amongst) remaining EU nations and upstarts in the Middle East. I don't think it would devolve into such a state unless two of the major nations in the EU (GB, France, Germany) threw up their arms and bailed out. Everyone else will (officially) stay out of it as long as possible to avoid triggering WWIII. Then they'll get in and trigger WWIII. If you learn one thing from history, learn the fact that we tend to repeat it.
Brits voted to leave because they're sick of the EU controlling their policies and laws, influencing their culture, forcing them to take in dangerous immigrants, taking their money, making them kowtow to backwards nations and religions who like to stone women for being raped, etc. They want their fucking sovereignty back. Consider yourself lucky - you get it after an election and 2 years of planned transition. Compare that to what it took for the Empire's former colonies to gain freedom.
Which side did you root for when you watched Braveheart?
Revenue was RMB 24,184 million (US$3,751 million), an increase of 39% year-over-year; China retail marketplaces revenue was RMB18,340 million (US$2,844 million), an increase of 41% year-over-year; and mobile revenue was RMB13,084 million (US$2,029 million), an increase of 149% year-over-year;
Annual active buyers on our China retail marketplaces increased to 423 million, an increase of 16 million over the prior quarter, while mobile MAUs in March reached 410 million, an increase of 17 million over December 2015;
GMV transacted on our China retail marketplaces was RMB742 billion (US$115 billion), an increase of RMB142 billion (US$22 billion), or 24% year-over-year, with mobile GMV accounting for 73% of total GMV;
Our cloud computing and Internet infrastructure business continued its rapid expansion, with revenue increasing 175% year-over-year to RMB1,066 million (US$165 million), representing an acceleration of the 126% year-over-year growth rate achieved in the prior quarter; and
Non-GAAP free cash flow was RMB4,388 million (US$681 million) in the quarter and RMB51,279 million (US$7,953 million) for fiscal year 2016.
Those number and that growth is making Amazon shake in their little booties. Alibaba hasn't even TRIED to enter western markets. People in the west are seeking out Alibaba on their own accord. Most of the third party sellers on Amazon are in fact people who buy in bulk from Alibaba and relist on Amazon for double or triple the price.
The US never declared war on North Vietnam. Vietnam was much more like the current conflict in the middle east. A military occupation mainly for political bullshit and not an actual war, despite all the soldiers and killing and horror.
If we had fought in Vietnam as if it were a fucking war we wouldn't have had anywhere near the casualties. The whole problem with Vietnam is that no one supported the fucking war - not the troops, not the people, and not even the government. We were trickle feeding our men into a damned meat grinder for no fucking reason.
Why is this offtopic? This is exactly what the pro-EU people are scared of.
When the big, strong nations leave a group, the net result is that remainder become weaker while the ones leaving become stronger without the anchors around their neck. Yes, transition periods may be rough. Stop being shortsighted.
The EU was always more of a charity than an actual union, and the people of GB finally got fucking sick of it. (They were never in whole hog anyway, they were smart enough to stand up for themselves when they said "fuck no" to the Euro.)
The real question isn't what happens to Britain, but who will leave next? Germany or France? Or will the EU derpuses scramble hard enough and fast enough to prevent that from happening? Or maybe even prevent Britain from leaving? It's basically a 2-year break up where the EU can cry, look sad, and say "But I can' change!!".
I predict that if Britain and either Germany or France leaves, the EU will either completely dissolve or will play host to a major war that it can't handle. Not any of the current terrorism, skirmish, conflict, occupation, etc. bullshit, but actual war with advancing battle lines and seized/razed cities and nations. This would have the potential to become WWIII.
So while I think the British people made the right choice, I fear that the dissolution of the EU could result in Europe doing what it does best - destroying itself and dragging the rest of the world into the conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Chrome is my whore browser. I know it'll just work with any random trash site because Chrome is a whore and lets sites do whatever they please, and if a site is tested at all it's tested in Chrome.
Or he had ans still has a plan and the plan is leaving the program in place but actually enforcing it and letting people only hire foreigners when Americans with those skills can't be found. Or the existing plan isn't ready for immediate deployment. Or the existing plan involved legislation that has to go through Congress and will just kill the program entirely. Or the existing plan is to issue an executive order at any point in time and call for the immediate halt of the program. Or...
You're a retard. Even adding those numbers together, you don't get "most Americans".
X voted for HRC. {ALL AMERICANS} - X did not. X {ALL AMERICANS}/2. MOST AMERICANS didn't vote for her.
As a creator of a simulation, you are that simulation's god.
Technology outside of the simulation that is able to affect it, is both unattainable and impossible to model by those within the simulation. It is magic.
*prior* is a function of time. Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. Hawking's equations suggest that time only approaches a limit of zero at the Big Bang but never achieves it. Ergo, the question you're asking doesn't even make sense semantically. cf. "do you have an understanding of this reality that agrees with observation?"
Ergo, it's fucking stupid. If you suppose that some initial state of the Universe existed at some fundamental T0, before the clock started ticking, then:
How was it set into motion? Who created the initial state? Why does the Universe exist at all?
These aren't questions for science to answer. This is the realm of religion. To suggest that the universe we're in is a simulation is no different than suggesting some deity created everything. These questions are by their nature unanswerable. If we pierce the veil and escape from our simulation, meet some god, ascend to another plane, etc., we'll just be at level 2 wondering if there's a level 3. There always exists the possibility that there's something beyond your bubble that is influencing your bubble in ways you can't perceive.
Yup. It's not about control, it's about liability.
Microsoft To Sell Customized Edition of Samsung Galaxy S8 Android Smartphones
I think you mean "to offer for sale", because they sure as fuck aren't gonna actually sell any!
If someone throws my kid into the ocean or picks them up or touches them, I will quickly eliminate them permanently and then go after my kids.
No you won't, you irresponsible twat. You'll bitch and moan and demand they be arrested and try to sue. If you were someone who took action, your little fucking shits wouldn't be running around to the point where someone decided they needed to be punted away.
Fuck you. It used to be that a terror running loose would be smacked in the mouth by whoever they were terrorizing, then they'd run home to their parents and get another smack for being an insufferable little shit.
Now the terrors run loose and no one can do a damned thing about it without getting arrested and sued.
Yeah, much of the media fucked up after 911.
After? You are in your 20s and know less than Jon Snow.
Saying "This bullshit is a problem and I don't know how to deal with it." begs the question. She's declaring things she doesn't agree with as "bullshit" without any evidence. We know for a fact that false flag operations have happened and continue to happen. And when a liberal comes and tells you otherwise, that you need strong evidence for such claims, just ask them about who is inciting violence at all the peaceful protests after Trump won the election. They'll claim Trump's paid goons are inciting violence in order to paint the peaceful left as violent rabble and justify breaking up their protests. They'll have less evidence than the people who spout the "bullshit" they decry.
Second, saying you don't know how to deal with it implies that something must be done to deal with it.
Bullshit is nowhere near as problematic as trying to establish some official method of determining what is and what isn't bullshit and then "dealing with it".
You underestimate people who use 4Chan. They recently located a terrorist training camp based off of a single, shitty photo. Russia then blew it the fuck up. They also recently identified the location of an individual based only on a livestream of a flagpole. 4Chan is a very diverse place that many people of many backgrounds and skillsets frequent.
Actually, part of journalism is, in fact, writing down what the subject tells you. The White House has their "press release" and the journalists report what was in the release. It wasn't fake news, it was real news, it just so happened to be false. Reporters given false information from seemingly trustworthy sources, with no readily available means to validate the information, aren't spreading fake news.
Yes they are, dumbass.
Journalism 101: DO NOT REPORT ANYTHING YOU CANNOT VERIFY WITH AT LEAST 2 SEPARATE SOURCES.
If you're reporting on what someone said, and they said something factual (and not an opinion), and you know those facts are false or unsupported, you must also report that those facts are false or unsupported. It doesn't matter who is saying it.
Once the traffic reaches the endpoint (the other end of your VPN tunnel) its decrypted. The VPN provider and their bandwidth suppliers (The VPN providers ISP)can then see all your traffic :-)
The VPN encapsulation layer is decrypted. If you've got HTTPS inside there it's still HTTPS.
Further, you typically have many users connecting to one VPN. The VPN's ISP will have a harder time tracking any individual, and will not be able to associate traffic with a user at an address, a user of a certain age or sex, etc. The VPN provider could track in more detail, however, as they manage the individual connections, know who's paying for service (unless you're using fake info when signing up, paying with pre-paid gift card you bought for cash and NOT from a retailer, etc.).
Oh look, the binary guy being wrong again.
They can't see the content unless:
A: They're providing fake certs for the domains you're accessing and you trust those certs for some reason.
B: The client you use injects legit certs for the proxy into your OS's or browser's cert store for every site you visit. Many corporate network management systems do this. They inject bullshit certs into your machine as trusted for everything. You're fucked unless yo do something the client isn't aware of (like cert pinning, using tunnel to somewhere else with a pre-shared key, a self-signed cert, etc.).
C: They've broken the encryption algorithm or key exchange protocol negotiated by you and the site.
A VPN is a type of proxy.
Everyone knows you have to go behind seven proxies.
So leaving a block of 500m people to try and get trade deals and negotiate with other countries when representing 60m will make us stronger? Not even close we'll just become insignificant?
We're now desperate for trade deals, so we'll take whatever scraps the US or Chine deigns to offer us and we'll thanks them for it.
As for your predicted war that is the exact reason the EU was set up to promote peace between it's members - something it's been entirely successful at!
But you're right a war with Russia is probably more likely as Europe being disunited is much better for their interests.
As for Europe being the cause of the war you may want to look at where we got our power from when we had an empire - by invading, subjugating and committing war crimes. Presumably this is the glorious era you'd like Britain to return to?
The British people made an ill informed choice based on blatant lies and wishful thinking.
You're a clown.
People want to trade with France, Germany, etc. Nobody wants to trade with Britain because you don't make anything anyone wants. If you want to trade, start making things people want. That's got nothing to do with the EU. Negotiating trade is easy if you have something people want and aren't so small that someone (like the British) will come in and just turn you into a colony. Britain isn't that small.
It all comes down to this: What have you got to sell that others want? As an American, I can't think of a single thing off the top of my head. But if you have something, that's your leverage. Access to a market of 500 million vs. 60 million isn't an issue unless you want better terms than the EU has or you make establishing those terms unnecessarily difficult. Companies and governments aren't going to skip that market unless you give them a reason to. You have 2 fucking years for the transition. I think you can get it done. Stiff upper lip, cheerio, think of England and all that, chap!
The EU wasn't set up to promote peace. It was set up to prevent member countries being gobbled up and parceled out every time there's a major war. How many times have borders been redrawn and countries been renamed? If you think the EU has successfully promoted peace in Europe, turn on the fucking news.
A war with Russia? No. Russia may seek to reclaim some former states which illegally left (such as Ukraine) and others which they abandoned. Russia won't be rolling tanks into your borders unless you attack them first. They simply don't have the military or support infrastructure to wage war against a superpower or an ally of a superpower. No one in the west gives a shit about the various chunks in central and eastern Europe. Russia may try to bring those into its fold or at least its influence. NATO and the UN are a joke, especially with Trump rightfully saying he's sick of them, so the smaller nations most people can't locate on a map either have to rely on the EU or stand up for themselves. Good luck in either case.
The war would be between (and amongst) remaining EU nations and upstarts in the Middle East. I don't think it would devolve into such a state unless two of the major nations in the EU (GB, France, Germany) threw up their arms and bailed out. Everyone else will (officially) stay out of it as long as possible to avoid triggering WWIII. Then they'll get in and trigger WWIII. If you learn one thing from history, learn the fact that we tend to repeat it.
Brits voted to leave because they're sick of the EU controlling their policies and laws, influencing their culture, forcing them to take in dangerous immigrants, taking their money, making them kowtow to backwards nations and religions who like to stone women for being raped, etc. They want their fucking sovereignty back. Consider yourself lucky - you get it after an election and 2 years of planned transition. Compare that to what it took for the Empire's former colonies to gain freedom.
Which side did you root for when you watched Braveheart?
From your own link, you clown:
In the quarter ended March 31, 2016:
Revenue was RMB 24,184 million (US$3,751 million), an increase of 39% year-over-year; China retail marketplaces revenue was RMB18,340 million (US$2,844 million), an increase of 41% year-over-year; and mobile revenue was RMB13,084 million (US$2,029 million), an increase of 149% year-over-year;
Annual active buyers on our China retail marketplaces increased to 423 million, an increase of 16 million over the prior quarter, while mobile MAUs in March reached 410 million, an increase of 17 million over December 2015;
GMV transacted on our China retail marketplaces was RMB742 billion (US$115 billion), an increase of RMB142 billion (US$22 billion), or 24% year-over-year, with mobile GMV accounting for 73% of total GMV;
Our cloud computing and Internet infrastructure business continued its rapid expansion, with revenue increasing 175% year-over-year to RMB1,066 million (US$165 million), representing an acceleration of the 126% year-over-year growth rate achieved in the prior quarter; and
Non-GAAP free cash flow was RMB4,388 million (US$681 million) in the quarter and RMB51,279 million (US$7,953 million) for fiscal year 2016.
Those number and that growth is making Amazon shake in their little booties.
Alibaba hasn't even TRIED to enter western markets. People in the west are seeking out Alibaba on their own accord. Most of the third party sellers on Amazon are in fact people who buy in bulk from Alibaba and relist on Amazon for double or triple the price.
He better cash out. Alibaba makes Amazon look like a corner market. Buying Souq.com and making Kindles won't change that.
That was the recommended disposal method by the ER.
Do you have that in writing? What ER? That's blatant, harmful bullshit.
Please don't fucking flush drugs down the toilet.
Unless the EU degrades so much without Britain (or France, or Germany) that they offer them better terms.
Or do you think the EU will be better off without Britain? If so, they why do you even care that they're leaving? You should be glad to see them go!
If you're a Brit, then too bad - you had a fair election.
The US never declared war on North Vietnam. Vietnam was much more like the current conflict in the middle east. A military occupation mainly for political bullshit and not an actual war, despite all the soldiers and killing and horror.
If we had fought in Vietnam as if it were a fucking war we wouldn't have had anywhere near the casualties. The whole problem with Vietnam is that no one supported the fucking war - not the troops, not the people, and not even the government. We were trickle feeding our men into a damned meat grinder for no fucking reason.
Why is this offtopic? This is exactly what the pro-EU people are scared of.
When the big, strong nations leave a group, the net result is that remainder become weaker while the ones leaving become stronger without the anchors around their neck. Yes, transition periods may be rough. Stop being shortsighted.
The EU was always more of a charity than an actual union, and the people of GB finally got fucking sick of it. (They were never in whole hog anyway, they were smart enough to stand up for themselves when they said "fuck no" to the Euro.)
The real question isn't what happens to Britain, but who will leave next? Germany or France? Or will the EU derpuses scramble hard enough and fast enough to prevent that from happening? Or maybe even prevent Britain from leaving? It's basically a 2-year break up where the EU can cry, look sad, and say "But I can' change!!".
I predict that if Britain and either Germany or France leaves, the EU will either completely dissolve or will play host to a major war that it can't handle. Not any of the current terrorism, skirmish, conflict, occupation, etc. bullshit, but actual war with advancing battle lines and seized/razed cities and nations. This would have the potential to become WWIII.
So while I think the British people made the right choice, I fear that the dissolution of the EU could result in Europe doing what it does best - destroying itself and dragging the rest of the world into the conflict.