A moon is a large, spheroid satellite of a planet. Yes, "large" and "spheroid" are vague, deal with it. I'd also argue that a "moon" should be natural in composition, but perhaps not in origin (maybe you tow another planet's moon to your planet).
The name of our moon is Luna. Luna orbits (the Barycenter between itself and) Terra. Alternatively, you can call it "Earth's moon", "our moon", or, in context, "the moon".
The "horrifying" results are part of why I use Bing. I do NOT want Bing turning into another censored safe space filled only with curated right-think like Google.
I strongly disagree from this: there's no "who" for ethics...
Of course there is. They're a human construct and open to human interpretation.
You realizes that you are doing exactly this, no?
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the fact that when someone cries about ethics they're really crying about their own morals (or worse, just their own interests) and how someone did something that doesn't align with them. I'm not making a judgment on anyone's morals. I'm merely pointing out that "ethics" are nothing more than widely established (even if not actually widely accepted or held) morals. The term itself is nothing but an abused proxy held up as some accepted paradigm.
Ethics are values set by a society or organization.
Morals are your own internal values.
That's the common bullshit. Look at what that really means, though. If YOUR values don't match up with society's, then it's nothing more than someone forcing their values on you, as society's values don't reflect your own. My statement above stands correct and true.
You can just say B. MM is used to designate million because backwards countries see an M and think thousand (mille) before they think million. When they see a B or "billion" they wonder what happened to "milliard", but they don't get confused further and start thinking of some other B number. They're just lost on the long scale from the first issue.
Disagreed. If you don't want shit leaving your network and you move to break encryption, you're still an attacker and you're still breaking encryption.
I don't care what your reasoning is. I don't care if you OWN the hosts involved. I don't care what you're trying to prevent. By decrypting the traffic on a machine that is not one of the two endpoint hosts that are trying to talk to each other, you are in the wrong.
It's perfectly logical that an intermediary device can decrypt and re-encrypt data with no flaw in the security protocols, if suitable certificates and trust are configured on both the originating device and the intermediary.
Fucking WRONG.
Any such intermediary is breaking the protocol by doing that, even if it does so successfully. The protocol is to facilitate END-TO-END encryption between TWO AND ONLY TWO hosts on the network.
A host in the middle decrypting that traffic for any reason is by definition an attacker.
Correct. Any other stance is just wrong. If you don't trust a host on your network communicating with the outside, then don't allow that to happen at all. If some things must be allowed, then work on a whitelist.
If you're trying to read encrypted traffic when you are not one of the 2 hosts involved in the encrypted connection, then you are hostile and malevolent - no matter your purported reasoning or intention.
If the UK is attacked with any sophisticated weapon, there is only one suspect.
The UK.
Most Western nations are in a death spiral. No "bad guy" like Russia has any reason to attack them. It's better (and more fun) for those "bad guys" to sit back and watch the Eurozone collapse while poor Britons aren't even allowed to get off the ride.
If some attack occurs the most likely suspect will be the UK itself (or an ally nation running a false flag at the behest of the UK). War is a great distraction and a great way to seize (or re-seize) power while cracking down on those pesky citizens who think they should have any say in their lives or their government.
And the entire world will nuke Moscow until it is a deeper hold than the Mirny mine.
Nope. No other nation will nuke Russia for an attack, alleged or real, against the UK. It's likely that not even the UK would do that. Anyone nuking Russia would be nuked themselves. You can't take out all of Russia's launch capability at once. You don't even know where half of it is (subs).
Regular nuclear weapons already bypass anti-missile technology, the technology isn't even able to hit things that broadcast their exact positioning. And nothing worse than x-band radar (very expensive) can tell the difference between chaff and warheads anyway.
Wrong. Our public anti missile technology is pretty damn effective. The simplest and most effective strategy against missile defense systems is to send a bunch of warheads and overwhelm the defenses. As long as some get through you succeed. You can either target multiple locations at once or litter a single target. You can do it from multiple locations around the globe or from just one with MIRV.
As for our non-public missile defense systems, lasers make even the fastest missile look slow. Once this becomes public it'll be almost useless. Overwhelming laser systems with numbers will still be effective, but you'll need more numbers. You don't need to send hundreds of warheads however, just hundreds of targets, a few of which are real.
But nuts who actually launch nukes will configure them to just detonate in atmosphere if they detect a temperature increase from a laser (and if they're far enough away from their own nation, perhaps). For these kinds of crazies the target isn't a specific location but a nation as a whole. Getting close is close enough.
Do you really think the Hawaii missile alert was an accident?
You mean downloading Megs of jQuery just so I can do a couple of $("#content").html("Text") is slowing things down? How could that be document.getElementById("content").innerHTML = "Text" is much longer to write.
I rarely do Javascript, but when I do I always typo getElementById as getElementByID the first time.
He has public stated: "This whole two-week effort have been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election" "revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside leftwing opposition groups,"
So your beef is that he told the plain and obvious truth?
Slashdot Mirror
Moon Moons are huskies (the dogs). Not moons.
A moon is a large, spheroid satellite of a planet. Yes, "large" and "spheroid" are vague, deal with it. I'd also argue that a "moon" should be natural in composition, but perhaps not in origin (maybe you tow another planet's moon to your planet).
The name of our moon is Luna. Luna orbits (the Barycenter between itself and) Terra.
Alternatively, you can call it "Earth's moon", "our moon", or, in context, "the moon".
Are you STILL mad that Trump won? You've got over 6 more years, kiddo! Get used to it.
Buy a pregnancy test and see what that does to your receipts and for how long.
The "horrifying" results are part of why I use Bing. I do NOT want Bing turning into another censored safe space filled only with curated right-think like Google.
Another 4:20 tweet. Dude is just asking for the SEC to toss him in prison at this point.
I strongly disagree from this: there's no "who" for ethics...
Of course there is. They're a human construct and open to human interpretation.
You realizes that you are doing exactly this, no?
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the fact that when someone cries about ethics they're really crying about their own morals (or worse, just their own interests) and how someone did something that doesn't align with them. I'm not making a judgment on anyone's morals. I'm merely pointing out that "ethics" are nothing more than widely established (even if not actually widely accepted or held) morals. The term itself is nothing but an abused proxy held up as some accepted paradigm.
Ethics are morals.
Ethics are values set by a society or organization.
Morals are your own internal values.
That's the common bullshit. Look at what that really means, though. If YOUR values don't match up with society's, then it's nothing more than someone forcing their values on you, as society's values don't reflect your own. My statement above stands correct and true.
Ethics are morals. The ONLY difference is that when people want to shame or punish your for not sharing their morals, they call them ethics instead.
You are an idiot.
Shit. Meant to spell out Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess. (If you don't know OoT or BotW you're a bad person.)
OoT was better than MM
Wind Waker was better than MM.
BotW was better than MM. Almost as good as OoT.
MM was better than SS and maybe TP.
You can just say B. MM is used to designate million because backwards countries see an M and think thousand (mille) before they think million. When they see a B or "billion" they wonder what happened to "milliard", but they don't get confused further and start thinking of some other B number. They're just lost on the long scale from the first issue.
Disagreed. If you don't want shit leaving your network and you move to break encryption, you're still an attacker and you're still breaking encryption.
I don't care what your reasoning is. I don't care if you OWN the hosts involved. I don't care what you're trying to prevent. By decrypting the traffic on a machine that is not one of the two endpoint hosts that are trying to talk to each other, you are in the wrong.
It's perfectly logical that an intermediary device can decrypt and re-encrypt data with no flaw in the security protocols, if suitable certificates and trust are configured on both the originating device and the intermediary.
Fucking WRONG.
Any such intermediary is breaking the protocol by doing that, even if it does so successfully. The protocol is to facilitate END-TO-END encryption between TWO AND ONLY TWO hosts on the network.
A host in the middle decrypting that traffic for any reason is by definition an attacker.
Correct. Any other stance is just wrong. If you don't trust a host on your network communicating with the outside, then don't allow that to happen at all. If some things must be allowed, then work on a whitelist.
If you're trying to read encrypted traffic when you are not one of the 2 hosts involved in the encrypted connection, then you are hostile and malevolent - no matter your purported reasoning or intention.
If the UK is attacked with any sophisticated weapon, there is only one suspect.
The UK.
Most Western nations are in a death spiral. No "bad guy" like Russia has any reason to attack them. It's better (and more fun) for those "bad guys" to sit back and watch the Eurozone collapse while poor Britons aren't even allowed to get off the ride.
If some attack occurs the most likely suspect will be the UK itself (or an ally nation running a false flag at the behest of the UK). War is a great distraction and a great way to seize (or re-seize) power while cracking down on those pesky citizens who think they should have any say in their lives or their government.
And the entire world will nuke Moscow until it is a deeper hold than the Mirny mine.
Nope. No other nation will nuke Russia for an attack, alleged or real, against the UK. It's likely that not even the UK would do that. Anyone nuking Russia would be nuked themselves. You can't take out all of Russia's launch capability at once. You don't even know where half of it is (subs).
Possibly a war crime too, since there is a legal requirement to minimize civilian casualties.
There is no law in war. I know you peace time snowflakes like to think that there is, but the truth is the winners simply put on a show afterward.
Regular nuclear weapons already bypass anti-missile technology, the technology isn't even able to hit things that broadcast their exact positioning. And nothing worse than x-band radar (very expensive) can tell the difference between chaff and warheads anyway.
Wrong. Our public anti missile technology is pretty damn effective. The simplest and most effective strategy against missile defense systems is to send a bunch of warheads and overwhelm the defenses. As long as some get through you succeed. You can either target multiple locations at once or litter a single target. You can do it from multiple locations around the globe or from just one with MIRV.
As for our non-public missile defense systems, lasers make even the fastest missile look slow. Once this becomes public it'll be almost useless.
Overwhelming laser systems with numbers will still be effective, but you'll need more numbers. You don't need to send hundreds of warheads however, just hundreds of targets, a few of which are real.
But nuts who actually launch nukes will configure them to just detonate in atmosphere if they detect a temperature increase from a laser (and if they're far enough away from their own nation, perhaps). For these kinds of crazies the target isn't a specific location but a nation as a whole. Getting close is close enough.
Do you really think the Hawaii missile alert was an accident?
Meanwhile people on the chans can watch a live video feed of a flag against a blue sky and within a day locate it and vandalize it.
Until you go to let out the winner, but the loser was faking and tackles you to the ground while the winner stabs you to death.
You mean downloading Megs of jQuery just so I can do a couple of $("#content").html("Text") is slowing things down? How could that be document.getElementById("content").innerHTML = "Text" is much longer to write.
I rarely do Javascript, but when I do I always typo getElementById as getElementByID the first time.
*Barring certain protected classes, such as because of age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, etc.
And in CA, political beliefs / affiliation. Where is Facebook, again?
We're not talking about the CEO. To almost all people, this is a no-name exec who is certainly not the face of the company.
He has public stated: "This whole two-week effort have been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election" "revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside leftwing opposition groups,"
So your beef is that he told the plain and obvious truth?