I hope at least Europeans wake up and realize that the greatest danger is not Russia, but our supposed allies over at the stupid side of the Atlantic.
We do believe that USA has become a less reliant ally, but Canada is still cool, so it's the mixed side of the Atlantic. As for the greatest danger, since the invasion of Georgia, former Soviet countries got the message pretty quickly and the invasion of Ukraine finally waked up the most naive. Besides Russia, the only other concerns we have here is potential implosion of USA and nuclear war with North Korea. Even ISIS is barely remembered.
More like people believed that she was a crook and just putting out e-mail leaks triggered “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. Can you remind me what was in the leaked e-mails, that showed Hillary was a crook?
That article just oozes propaganda: it's the Russians, again, and everything they got was fake anyway. Trust us! We are way too smart to get hacked!
The Russia has stated its interest in swinging French elections quite overtly and there is quite enough evidence to believe that Russian state is behind these activities (from signatures of the attacks to the metadata in the leaks). It's like you are trying to invoke Godwin's law during WWII. Besides, they didn't say they were too smart to get hacked, nor that they didn't get hacked. Just that they hacked and leaked made-up material.
What does it say that the IT team had enough resources to generate honeypots but couldn't actually... SECURE the emails and just assumed they were going to get hacked anyway?
I guess it shows competence. Lately the question is not “if you get hacked?”, but “what do you do when hacked?”. The risk of any compromising leak is that it could contain fabrications that seem kind of legit. This problem is exacerbated when the leak happens just days before the election, since that is enough time to find dirt and write sensational articles, but not enough time to verify the truthfulness.
The security team correctly identified the threats and used effective countermeasures.
The Tuskegee experiments and Nazi Germany don't really represent scientists as a whole. You could say we have a lot more reason not to ever trust the Catholic Church (and religionists generally).
I generally agree. The reason I brought in the problems with ethics in science was because [at least in/.] I have observed the sentiment that we can trust scientists to do the right thing. Sort of proof by comparison.
Total speculation, but you don't need a warm-blooded animal to live in freezing climate. Starting from winter hibernation, to heat generation from muscles or internal organs (which is more easy for large animals). It is more problematic to find a spot that was frozen for the whole 70 million years.
Because they understand that political lobbying is much more effective that excommunication nowadays. Can you get federal funding for stem cell research in 2017? Mostly no, [...]. And they didn't need to burn anyone at the stake.
Please don't move the goalposts. PopeRatzo was clearly stated that the Church would “slap down pretty hard”, which indicates direct use of power. John Oliver exercises much more “slapping power” than the Catholic Church in the USA.
Even the lobbying wasn't that effective since human embryo research is still allowed, just not the federal funding.
Giordano Bruno was also a Catholic monk, who advanced the "infinite universe" theory, and got burned at the stake by the Vatican for his trouble.
Correlation is not causation. He was heretical on quite a few issues and if his only heresy would have been his scientific work, my guess would be that he would have lived a lot longer. Case in point — how many did the Church burn because of scientific work? I am not aware of any such definite case.
I take your point, however. The Catholic Church has been pretty good on most science - up and down- but you've got to be careful, because if Science starts to suggest something that makes the Vatican too uncomfortable, they might get slapped down pretty hard. Though Benedict seems a decent sort in that regard.
Well, right now Catholic Church is very uncomfortable with embryonic research. I don't see the hammer falling.
The pope before him would have gladly started burning witches and homosexuals again if he could.
This is a good reason not to ever trust any group of people. If you think well of scientists, look up Tuskegee syphilis experiment. For a wide scale corruption of science, look up Nazi Germany.
For me, an unknown had a chance of being better than a known bad.
Yeah, it's a common mistake. I live in Eastern Europe and there is every system you can think of. Stable rich states with really good social safety nets and high personal freedoms, and right in the neighbourhood nominally socialist states, that can fall apart if the strogman get a heart attack. Capitalist states of varying degree of regulations. No to mention plain old kleptocracies. Once you see how they all look like, the unknown is not that unpredictable. Here in Latvia, we had two governments run by businessmen and it was rather obvious that they indeed ran the state like a business, as in, bankrupting the state is an option, if it means more profit for the CEO. Since then we haven't elected any more businessmen.
TL;DR world is full of lessons to be learned and things can always get much worse.
When you start your research with your conclusion already in hand, you're no longer researching, you're just finding additional support for your thesis.
I guess you stop reading scientific articles at the abstract, since those usually have conclusions in them.
That must have been the best part of 20 minutes when I could see ads this century
You mean overt ads. Ads that are integrated into the content are not skipable. And we are not even talking about positive feedback loops in curated feeds.
That is hindsight 20/20. no one knew what would happen.
While technically true, the outcome was not surprising for those who have seen populism before. It's not that he promised great things, it's that his just said “things will be great” without any substantiation.
Also, from what I understand it is as much as congress as it is the executive as to why he doesn't have a full cabinet.
Nomination is squarely in the hands of the president and his team. I am not aware of any blocking action from the congress.
If your line of reasoning is valid, privacy should be the least of you concerns. Did you know that USA has a freaking armed forces?!? They have developed capability to snipe anyone with ease. If some town is rebellious, they can just carpetbomb it. And don't get me started on nukes./s
How dare they release proof of my illegal and immoral activity to the people I was about to con into electing me to the highest position in the land.
This is not a court decision or even a breaking story by a reputable news agency. This a leek. And more importantly — shortly before the election. As with any breaking story, at first there is a ton of confusion and disinformation and it takes time to figure out what is true and what is just a fantasy. You can't just do that in a day. If you think this leek is a "proof", I am glad you were raised in such an honest and trusting community.
Actually, it probably was written by the bank. Banks have IT departments, and they often write their own custom software.
Disclaimer: I work for a company that writes software for banks.
At least our clients all have IT staff that at least is able to modify database directly. They can't change the code we write, but if they need to make configuration or input data that we did not anticipate, whey have access to the database and can do the magic themselves. In this case overriding age input should be trivial, but perhaps bank was reluctant to change things without testing for side effects first.
I agree about manual update of the database, but in this case it seems that software patch was needed. It did surprise me a bit that bank didn't have admin to do it. One other solution for situations where input is improbable yet possible possible: application can ask the operator to check or re-enter the dubious input.
There is no way to take every edge case into account when designing systems. She is clearly an edge case. Why is this even here?
Because when you think “this will work for 99% of cases” the corollary is “the rest of 1% can go fudge themselves”. Sometimes that is fine, but if a person can't get their pension, that is certainly not ok. Consider this a cautionary tale for programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
Since America and France have never interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, it is outrageous that they are interfering in ours.
Congratulations!!! You have won the whataboutism prize! You can now buy stuff made by slave kids, since the USA had slavery!
I hope at least Europeans wake up and realize that the greatest danger is not Russia, but our supposed allies over at the stupid side of the Atlantic.
We do believe that USA has become a less reliant ally, but Canada is still cool, so it's the mixed side of the Atlantic. As for the greatest danger, since the invasion of Georgia, former Soviet countries got the message pretty quickly and the invasion of Ukraine finally waked up the most naive. Besides Russia, the only other concerns we have here is potential implosion of USA and nuclear war with North Korea. Even ISIS is barely remembered.
Clinton was affected because she was a crook
More like people believed that she was a crook and just putting out e-mail leaks triggered “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. Can you remind me what was in the leaked e-mails, that showed Hillary was a crook?
That article just oozes propaganda: it's the Russians, again, and everything they got was fake anyway. Trust us! We are way too smart to get hacked!
The Russia has stated its interest in swinging French elections quite overtly and there is quite enough evidence to believe that Russian state is behind these activities (from signatures of the attacks to the metadata in the leaks). It's like you are trying to invoke Godwin's law during WWII. Besides, they didn't say they were too smart to get hacked, nor that they didn't get hacked. Just that they hacked and leaked made-up material.
What does it say that the IT team had enough resources to generate honeypots but couldn't actually... SECURE the emails and just assumed they were going to get hacked anyway?
I guess it shows competence. Lately the question is not “if you get hacked?”, but “what do you do when hacked?”. The risk of any compromising leak is that it could contain fabrications that seem kind of legit. This problem is exacerbated when the leak happens just days before the election, since that is enough time to find dirt and write sensational articles, but not enough time to verify the truthfulness.
The security team correctly identified the threats and used effective countermeasures.
The Tuskegee experiments and Nazi Germany don't really represent scientists as a whole. You could say we have a lot more reason not to ever trust the Catholic Church (and religionists generally).
I generally agree. The reason I brought in the problems with ethics in science was because [at least in /.] I have observed the sentiment that we can trust scientists to do the right thing. Sort of proof by comparison.
Total speculation, but you don't need a warm-blooded animal to live in freezing climate. Starting from winter hibernation, to heat generation from muscles or internal organs (which is more easy for large animals). It is more problematic to find a spot that was frozen for the whole 70 million years.
Because they understand that political lobbying is much more effective that excommunication nowadays. Can you get federal funding for stem cell research in 2017? Mostly no, [...]. And they didn't need to burn anyone at the stake.
Please don't move the goalposts. PopeRatzo was clearly stated that the Church would “slap down pretty hard”, which indicates direct use of power. John Oliver exercises much more “slapping power” than the Catholic Church in the USA. Even the lobbying wasn't that effective since human embryo research is still allowed, just not the federal funding.
They could easily prosecute her for war crimes, obstruction of justice, and mishandling classified information.
And my dad could easily beat up your dad. Any reason we should believe your [so far] unfounded assertions?
An investigation isn't going to find anything wrong that Trump did.
Do you have any justification for the claim? Or is this another example of truthiness?
Giordano Bruno was also a Catholic monk, who advanced the "infinite universe" theory, and got burned at the stake by the Vatican for his trouble.
Correlation is not causation. He was heretical on quite a few issues and if his only heresy would have been his scientific work, my guess would be that he would have lived a lot longer. Case in point — how many did the Church burn because of scientific work? I am not aware of any such definite case.
I take your point, however. The Catholic Church has been pretty good on most science - up and down- but you've got to be careful, because if Science starts to suggest something that makes the Vatican too uncomfortable, they might get slapped down pretty hard. Though Benedict seems a decent sort in that regard.
Well, right now Catholic Church is very uncomfortable with embryonic research. I don't see the hammer falling.
The pope before him would have gladly started burning witches and homosexuals again if he could.
This is a good reason not to ever trust any group of people. If you think well of scientists, look up Tuskegee syphilis experiment. For a wide scale corruption of science, look up Nazi Germany.
For me, an unknown had a chance of being better than a known bad.
Yeah, it's a common mistake. I live in Eastern Europe and there is every system you can think of. Stable rich states with really good social safety nets and high personal freedoms, and right in the neighbourhood nominally socialist states, that can fall apart if the strogman get a heart attack. Capitalist states of varying degree of regulations. No to mention plain old kleptocracies. Once you see how they all look like, the unknown is not that unpredictable. Here in Latvia, we had two governments run by businessmen and it was rather obvious that they indeed ran the state like a business, as in, bankrupting the state is an option, if it means more profit for the CEO. Since then we haven't elected any more businessmen.
TL;DR world is full of lessons to be learned and things can always get much worse.
When you start your research with your conclusion already in hand, you're no longer researching, you're just finding additional support for your thesis.
I guess you stop reading scientific articles at the abstract, since those usually have conclusions in them.
If this is indeed your level of understanding, you have just illustrated the point of The Raven perfectly.
That must have been the best part of 20 minutes when I could see ads this century
You mean overt ads. Ads that are integrated into the content are not skipable. And we are not even talking about positive feedback loops in curated feeds.
That is hindsight 20/20. no one knew what would happen.
While technically true, the outcome was not surprising for those who have seen populism before. It's not that he promised great things, it's that his just said “things will be great” without any substantiation.
Also, from what I understand it is as much as congress as it is the executive as to why he doesn't have a full cabinet.
Nomination is squarely in the hands of the president and his team. I am not aware of any blocking action from the congress.
Not when you consider all of Europe. Russia has a murder rate about twice that of America.[...] When you look at the entire continent, Europe "wins".
If you want to compare Europe vs. America, please include Central America and South America. That you make your comparison more valid.
Well, yes. Apparently the job required wrench and rivet fastener.
If your line of reasoning is valid, privacy should be the least of you concerns. Did you know that USA has a freaking armed forces?!? They have developed capability to snipe anyone with ease. If some town is rebellious, they can just carpetbomb it. And don't get me started on nukes. /s
Just so you know... a leek is that big-daddy green-oniony looking thing that goes really great in soup.
Frankly, those 9GB might as well be :)
How dare they release proof of my illegal and immoral activity to the people I was about to con into electing me to the highest position in the land.
This is not a court decision or even a breaking story by a reputable news agency. This a leek. And more importantly — shortly before the election. As with any breaking story, at first there is a ton of confusion and disinformation and it takes time to figure out what is true and what is just a fantasy. You can't just do that in a day. If you think this leek is a "proof", I am glad you were raised in such an honest and trusting community.
Actually, it probably was written by the bank. Banks have IT departments, and they often write their own custom software.
Disclaimer: I work for a company that writes software for banks.
At least our clients all have IT staff that at least is able to modify database directly. They can't change the code we write, but if they need to make configuration or input data that we did not anticipate, whey have access to the database and can do the magic themselves. In this case overriding age input should be trivial, but perhaps bank was reluctant to change things without testing for side effects first.
I agree about manual update of the database, but in this case it seems that software patch was needed. It did surprise me a bit that bank didn't have admin to do it. One other solution for situations where input is improbable yet possible possible: application can ask the operator to check or re-enter the dubious input.
And yet it did happen. Since such computer code lives decades and life expectancy is increasing overall, it's almost bound to happen.
There is no way to take every edge case into account when designing systems. She is clearly an edge case. Why is this even here?
Because when you think “this will work for 99% of cases” the corollary is “the rest of 1% can go fudge themselves”. Sometimes that is fine, but if a person can't get their pension, that is certainly not ok. Consider this a cautionary tale for programmers.