I have two RX 470s. The best ones, actually. The Sapphire RX 470 Nitro+ with 8 GB of (Samsung) memory clocked at 2000 MHz by default. If you want to buy from Billy G over here, hit me up first. I'll undercut that bitch.
So the article was about how to keep the vendors from locking out all firmware with the radio control or finding one that doesn't do it so he could update the the non-sensitive part and you proceed to tell him at length why the radio control is locked, not addressing the question asked or at all.
Way to go dipstick.
He was replying to someone who was bitching about the FCC in general.
but THIS new fcc won't do a fucking thing for **us**. they'll probably go even farther and actually prohibit fiddling with router and ap firmware completely instead of just radio settings.
Go call that poster a dipshit for veering off course. Austerity Empowers merely replied to them. The lock on radio control is not an example of the FCC being jerks.
Because it makes sense. No, not all users. But users who care, and most importantly, the choice needs to be made when changes are made, especially to root level certs.
Often the only indication the user has that they are being MITMed is precisely because the browser did not use the OS cert store.
That's not a good reason for multiple cert stores managed by multiple parties. That's like having multiple gates to the same city where the North gate requires one set of ID and the South gate requires a different set.
The fact that Chrome and FF use their own cert stores and update them unilaterally without the user ever knowing is absurd.
The browser should use the cert store on the OS. And the OS should update the certs. (And when MS updates certs, it should optionally present detailed info to the user about changes.)
The entire concept of CAs is built around trust in an environment where none of the actors and powers that be are trustworthy.
Why is this modded troll? It's completely correct. There's no new sampling algorithm that can prevent clipping at the sensor level. That's a physical issue.
Lying to Congress under oath is a big no-no, and was serious enough for impeachment. See the fact that it happened. Apparently, they CAN'T find anything to nail Trump with.
Congress cannot simply vote the President out of office without cause, you moron. He has to be declared unfit (he isn't) or be found guilty of some impeachable offense (he hasn't been) and then subsequently recalled.
I get that you want to see him tossed to the curb, but let's not enter make believe bullshit land to try to make it happen.
Uh, they need an impeachable offense or a declaration that he's unfit. Being an ass and a moron doesn't make him unfit, and we have no evidence for anything that could get him impeached. (And as I've stated, being impeached doesn't mean he gets kicked out.)
Frankly, we just don't know that you're not raping frogs on a daily basis. How many talking heads and university professors should be calling for your head?
If anyone has evidence, put up or shut up. We nearing a full year of NOTHING since the initial cries of Trump & Russia "hacking" the election.
No, the people trying to get him into trouble over such a thing are going to have to prove it and get the Republican-controlled Congress to not grant him an exception (which is within their power to do).
The emoluments clauses absolutely have a requirement to prove that it's a title or an emolument. Having a business and making a profit is not an emolument.
Impeachment isn't possible unless there's some evidence of something, and impeachment won't actually remove him from office. Bill Clinton was impeached. And declaring him unfit for duty isn't going to fly just because you don't like what he's doing. Further, this isn't "voting" him out of office, which is what rahvin112 referred to.
Exactly what constitutes an impeachment offense is left vague by the Constitution, and is largely a political matter. I think Trump's probably violated enough laws in his time so Congress could find something. It looks to me like Trump's business holdings are not careful to avoid accepting money from domestic or foreign governments, so it'll probably be possible to get him on one of the emoluments clauses.
He's not being gifted money or titles by any foreign prince (or head of state), is he?
Holding foreign business interests does not violate any emoluments clause, nor does profiting off of them. It would have to be shown that foreign moneys received or foreign titles held received were gifts, bribes, etc., conditional upon or predicated upon certain actions or policies while holding US office. Further, Congress could vote to except any such violation.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing he meant "no gut at all".
save $40.00 a device for shipping from China
Uh...
How many iPhones do you think fit in a shipping container?
https://www.axios.com/tech-job...
It's to the right of the headline. It's been this way for a while. It's dumb.
The worst part about high moisture mozzarella is shredding it.
I want delicious mozz on my pasta and pizza, but I lose large portions of it because it essentially turns into glue when you start shredding.
If they all fell out of the sky I think DJI would have caught the bug in pre-production.
You haven't had much experience with DJI, have you?
A Nintendo Switch? They have it
If you want to pay 3rd party scalper prices, sure.
If you just want a Switch at the normal price, nowinstock.net and brickseek.com are your best bets.
I'd be mildly interested in this if it weren't way out in New Hampshire.
I hope you guys have enough success to get a similar movement going for a state out west. I enjoy the sun.
I have two RX 470s. The best ones, actually. The Sapphire RX 470 Nitro+ with 8 GB of (Samsung) memory clocked at 2000 MHz by default.
If you want to buy from Billy G over here, hit me up first. I'll undercut that bitch.
That's the joke.
Why in the FUCK is your init system messing with this type of shit?
What's next? Will you add an email client?
So the article was about how to keep the vendors from locking out all firmware with the radio control or finding one that doesn't do it so he could update the the non-sensitive part and you proceed to tell him at length why the radio control is locked, not addressing the question asked or at all.
Way to go dipstick.
He was replying to someone who was bitching about the FCC in general.
but THIS new fcc won't do a fucking thing for **us**. they'll probably go even farther and actually prohibit fiddling with router and ap firmware completely instead of just radio settings.
Go call that poster a dipshit for veering off course. Austerity Empowers merely replied to them.
The lock on radio control is not an example of the FCC being jerks.
Hell no. I begrudgingly use an Android phone.
Not always. Update Chrome and they'll blacklist/whitelist things in addition.
Because it makes sense. No, not all users. But users who care, and most importantly, the choice needs to be made when changes are made, especially to root level certs.
Often the only indication the user has that they are being MITMed is precisely because the browser did not use the OS cert store.
That's not a good reason for multiple cert stores managed by multiple parties. That's like having multiple gates to the same city where the North gate requires one set of ID and the South gate requires a different set.
The fact that Chrome and FF use their own cert stores and update them unilaterally without the user ever knowing is absurd.
The browser should use the cert store on the OS. And the OS should update the certs. (And when MS updates certs, it should optionally present detailed info to the user about changes.)
The entire concept of CAs is built around trust in an environment where none of the actors and powers that be are trustworthy.
Why is this modded troll? It's completely correct. There's no new sampling algorithm that can prevent clipping at the sensor level. That's a physical issue.
Lying to Congress under oath is a big no-no, and was serious enough for impeachment. See the fact that it happened.
Apparently, they CAN'T find anything to nail Trump with.
Congress cannot simply vote the President out of office without cause, you moron.
He has to be declared unfit (he isn't) or be found guilty of some impeachable offense (he hasn't been) and then subsequently recalled.
I get that you want to see him tossed to the curb, but let's not enter make believe bullshit land to try to make it happen.
Uh, they need an impeachable offense or a declaration that he's unfit. Being an ass and a moron doesn't make him unfit, and we have no evidence for anything that could get him impeached. (And as I've stated, being impeached doesn't mean he gets kicked out.)
Frankly, we just don't know that you're not raping frogs on a daily basis. How many talking heads and university professors should be calling for your head?
If anyone has evidence, put up or shut up. We nearing a full year of NOTHING since the initial cries of Trump & Russia "hacking" the election.
No, the people trying to get him into trouble over such a thing are going to have to prove it and get the Republican-controlled Congress to not grant him an exception (which is within their power to do).
The emoluments clauses absolutely have a requirement to prove that it's a title or an emolument. Having a business and making a profit is not an emolument.
Impeachment isn't possible unless there's some evidence of something, and impeachment won't actually remove him from office. Bill Clinton was impeached.
And declaring him unfit for duty isn't going to fly just because you don't like what he's doing. Further, this isn't "voting" him out of office, which is what rahvin112 referred to.
Exactly what constitutes an impeachment offense is left vague by the Constitution, and is largely a political matter. I think Trump's probably violated enough laws in his time so Congress could find something. It looks to me like Trump's business holdings are not careful to avoid accepting money from domestic or foreign governments, so it'll probably be possible to get him on one of the emoluments clauses.
He's not being gifted money or titles by any foreign prince (or head of state), is he?
Holding foreign business interests does not violate any emoluments clause, nor does profiting off of them. It would have to be shown that foreign moneys received or foreign titles held received were gifts, bribes, etc., conditional upon or predicated upon certain actions or policies while holding US office. Further, Congress could vote to except any such violation.
He's not eligible for impeachment. Even if he were to be impeached, that would not remove him from office. See Billy Boy.