Liked most of your post, but don't forget that corporations don't really pay taxes either. They pass any tax they pay on to the purchasers of their goods - that's us or an intermediate company which marks their own prices for the things they sell up to cover the cost of what they're buying, inflating the end price balloon farther the further the end product is away from the raw materials.
Just because it is the default doesn't mean it is the most popular. Fedora and the rest offer the major desktops either in spins or in packages. I download a KDE spin. That was painful a while back while plasma was first coming out and I switched to lxde and mate for awhile, but plasma has stabilized and I'm back to KDE.
GNOME, on the other hand (along with the wayland backend) has just gone through its painful next iteration, so it isn't surprising that it isn't as heavily favored right now. Perhaps in a while, once things have stabilized it will be back on top. Not for me, but for the majority of Fedora, RHEL, CentOS users who are content to have all their choices removed or hidden by their GNOME masters and have desktops that look like phones.
There is good and bad doing it both ways. With staggered primaries many candidates are forced to drop out due to funding eliminating them from consideration by states that vote later. That is just as bad. If you disagree, just look at the last election.
I'd also say that the behind the scene's manipulations in non vote tallied primaries should be done away with. Let all the people vote in the primary - not just the party members who can make it to a party meeting on a particular day to pick the slate of candidates for the primary. Way too much corruption and control by the party bosses - at least in my state.
The primary doesn't have to be as early if everyone votes at once. The advantage will still be to the candidates who put the most work into meeting with the people and getting their ideas out there. The same effort will still need to be expended by each candidate to get their names on the ballot in every state. But at least many states - some large states - won't be disenfranchised from picking the candidate they thought was best because that candidate was forced out of the race due to lack of funding or poor results in a few early states.
I don't particularly care if a presidential candidate gets out and shakes my hand - or that of anyone else in my state. I'd much rather they put their time into getting their message out on the internet where every candidate is equal. Certain candidates were excellent in the last election in getting out and pressing the flesh. History will be the judge of whether the process failed or not.
The battle is always couched as a battle for the Presidency, and I will grant you this is an important role. But a President is largely constrained to act on bills Congress passes. Elect the best people from any party for every office there is. Not everyone will think alike. Some will truly like R or D and sometimes the R or D is truly the best
But encourage people to vote for the best man or woman running in every race. Get stand out candidates to actually run for a third party slot for local or state races. Make people think about the choice. Remind them of their choices the previous election who didn't get a chance - either due to the primary process being stacked against them or because they were third party. Not many will break away from the R or D in any given year, but if people can even start thinking that way it is a very small step. Maybe my generation won't see a difference, and maybe your generation won't either, but eventually someone will.
I too voted for Johnson this year. I did so knowing that my state would support R without a doubt and that my vote would mean nothing, but at least I'm not ashamed of the fact. That doesn't mean I may not vote R next time - or D. It depends on who is the best person for the job in question.
Register in the major party that is most likely to win the majority of the races in your state. Vote for the best candidate in that party. Then in the general election - vote for whoever you feel is best.
This does two things. First, it means that the primary ballot will not be as likely to be overwhelmingly for one candidate because many are voting in the major party. Second, once you have done the best you can to try to get the majority party to pick a candidate you can live with via the primary, voting your conscience in the general will make you feel better. It probably won't matter for most offices anyway, but that's life. There are usually not enough candidates competing for election in a third-party to make the primary matter.
There are some states where the outcome is close enough that this isn't safe, but most states are pretty solidly red or blue. In these cases, there is nothing wrong with voting with the major party in the primary and then for the best candidate that survives in the general.
What really needs to change is the first past the post. Have the primary election countrywide on the same day - just like the general election. That, by itself, would do more to make sure that the best of the lot cleared the primary and not just the candidate with the most money of their own or their friends. It would also help to eliminate the influence of a few states that get to vote earlier than others.
You're still missing my point. An encrypted document in and of itself didn't make you a criminal in those days. The government may or may not have been able to decrypt it eventually, but the most it could do if intercepted was mark you as a person of interest for more resources to be allocated to. Then, if you actually broke the law, they could handle that within the limits of the rest of the amendments. The existence and contents of the original document weren't directly actionable.
With a master key, this changes. The government can read the document (and every document in an automated environment) and then decide whether or not you are of interest. This falls much closer to the garrisoned soldier situation than just having solidiers near the town. The contempt citation is accurate if you actually do end up breaking a law, but the whole due process is different now that what was originally intended, and I believe the founding fathers would be against what is being proposed. Personal privacy won out in that day. I think it still would in their minds, regardless of what all is going on.
While correct, you're missing the point. Ciphers have been around for a very, very long time. They weren't used as extensively in the past as they are today. But they've been around throughout history. A quick wikipedia search references Egyptian hieroglyphs for example. The technology progressed over time and the cost to break the encrypted text increased over time to what we have today.
Nonetheless, encrypted communications were available when the constitution was written and they were in use. Yet the constitution makes no mention of preventing the citizens from using encrypted communications or in forcing the users to decrypt the documents on demand.
The federal government gave itself the rights mentioned, but did not choose to worry about the technology of the day providing documents that they could see, but couldn't decrypt without a lot of work or the help of one of the parties on either end of the transmission. They had just fought a revolution against a government that employed big brother tactics (like garrisoning soldiers in people's homes). They didn't want the government doing any of that type of crap anymore.
The FBI and others might really wish today that the writers had considered encryption, but they didn't choose to. The writer's generation relied on spies and good old footwork to figure things out. They didn't rely solely on documents. Good for them.
If Google, Bing, FB and the rest are forced to pay for the news in the first place via their advertising dollars, then the link followed should always work and provide access to the complete text of the article they linked to. Drop the paywall for any reference from a search engine that has already paid for the content.
He was given dominion over the various and sundry living things on the Earth. He was put in the garden of Eden to dress and keep it. That last would be the closest parallel. We've done a particularly poor job of "keeping it".
Well of course you could do that, but that still doesn't prevent any man in the middle attacks between the actual switch and the proxy. If you're on an isolated network, it might not matter so much. If you're managing remote equipment, it might.
Anyway - only meant to be a reason why the deploy https everywhere and break anything that tries to present a cert we don't like (even if created in-house and the in-house root is marked as trusted) can be problematic. I don't care if I get warned, but if I've identified the cert I should be able to mark it as trusted. That is getting harder and harder to do.
Should HP fix it? Of course. There should be a method where you can just install your own existing cert instead of going through a CSR process just for these situations. How many people are left at HP who could fix it is an exercise left to the people in charge at HP.
Guess I'm missing something in your answer. I mean install a wildcard certificate on an HP switch so it identifies itself correctly via https when directly addressed.
It is also worth noting the population density differences between the few large Canadian cities and most major cities in the US. Someone said Vancouver was one of the most dense with something like 800 or so people per sq. km. Looks like many of the areas of NYC are are over 10,000. People density and the friction that causes also plays a large part in violence ends to disputes.
What I'm saying is that if you live up to the tenets of your religion - and you can insert a great many religions as an example - you aren't supposed to kill, you aren't supposed to hate people. Christianity espouses love to all. We may not do it right all the time, but the ideals of many religions are designed to have a society that lives and behaves well toward one another as one of the primary goals. The fact that the nation has gotten so far away from God and respect for His creation is the problem. Guns won't solve it, but trying to solve the gun issue without solving the human issue is pointless. There are too many other ways to cause mayhem.
It's not the drugs that are the problem. It isn't the drug culture either. It's the "war on drugs", criminalization, and incarceration that is the problem in the US. It's been just as effective as the prohibition and had all the same baggage that came along with it. I can't say about Canada, but there seem to be some areas in the EU at least that have laxer attitudes about drugs than here. If it isn't criminal and is cheaper and easier to obtain, there would be less criminal involvement, less fights for territory control, fewer gang related deaths. There would undoubtedly be more drug related deaths, but that is another problem that again needs to be addressed at the people level rather than the gun/drug/alcohol level.
There's a toxic drug culture in the United States as well. Get people off the illegal drugs, dry up that trade, eliminate the gangs associated with it along with the need to commit other crimes to fund people's habits, and the gun / murder statistics would be much saner in the United States of America.
Again, fix the people and the problem is drastically reduced. The problem isn't the weapons.
The good guy with a gun angle is pretty silly to think about only when you are considering the people being shot at from a height advantage in an unprotected open area with a big high rise nearby. Don't forget about the people in the room next door or across the hall from where the shots were fired from. An armed person who was proficient with their weapon may well have made a difference from close at hand. Most would not have tried, but someone ex-military or ex-cop might have been brave enough to try if they saw what was happening below. Like the parent says - you just never know.
What the framers of the Constitution had in mind was that the people should be permitted to have military grade fully functional weapons at their immediate disposal to keep the government from getting out of hand. Even then, not everyone could afford their own cannon or warship, but the framers had in mind that anyone who could, should be permitted to do so.
A news story says that some neighbors are getting bent out of shape down south by a man with a fully operational WWII tank parked in front of his house. The framers would have been OK with this, although they would have considered it a relic and would have preferred a modern variant.
The problem isn't the weapons. The problem is the people's morals. When everyone has a proper fear and reverence for God again, you won't have to worry about who has a fully automatic pistol on their hip. And even the crazy people who don't have any business with a fully automatic pistol on their hip would be far less likely to actually use one if there were no gun free zones and the probability was 100% that at least a few people where they were intending to cause mayhem were armed and knew how to use their weapons - it's why gun free zones are so popular as a target environment today.
You can argue we have an Department of Defense today, with all that entails along with a National Guard. The debate on which model would be better - the one the framers of the Constitution championed or the one we have now actually makes us safer (when including the debt and animosity caused by all of our wars) could go on for pages. I hope it doesn't. But have no doubt about what the framers intended.
Slashdot Mirror
Liked most of your post, but don't forget that corporations don't really pay taxes either. They pass any tax they pay on to the purchasers of their goods - that's us or an intermediate company which marks their own prices for the things they sell up to cover the cost of what they're buying, inflating the end price balloon farther the further the end product is away from the raw materials.
Just because it is the default doesn't mean it is the most popular. Fedora and the rest offer the major desktops either in spins or in packages. I download a KDE spin. That was painful a while back while plasma was first coming out and I switched to lxde and mate for awhile, but plasma has stabilized and I'm back to KDE.
GNOME, on the other hand (along with the wayland backend) has just gone through its painful next iteration, so it isn't surprising that it isn't as heavily favored right now. Perhaps in a while, once things have stabilized it will be back on top. Not for me, but for the majority of Fedora, RHEL, CentOS users who are content to have all their choices removed or hidden by their GNOME masters and have desktops that look like phones.
There is good and bad doing it both ways. With staggered primaries many candidates are forced to drop out due to funding eliminating them from consideration by states that vote later. That is just as bad. If you disagree, just look at the last election.
I'd also say that the behind the scene's manipulations in non vote tallied primaries should be done away with. Let all the people vote in the primary - not just the party members who can make it to a party meeting on a particular day to pick the slate of candidates for the primary. Way too much corruption and control by the party bosses - at least in my state.
The primary doesn't have to be as early if everyone votes at once. The advantage will still be to the candidates who put the most work into meeting with the people and getting their ideas out there. The same effort will still need to be expended by each candidate to get their names on the ballot in every state. But at least many states - some large states - won't be disenfranchised from picking the candidate they thought was best because that candidate was forced out of the race due to lack of funding or poor results in a few early states.
I don't particularly care if a presidential candidate gets out and shakes my hand - or that of anyone else in my state. I'd much rather they put their time into getting their message out on the internet where every candidate is equal. Certain candidates were excellent in the last election in getting out and pressing the flesh. History will be the judge of whether the process failed or not.
The battle is always couched as a battle for the Presidency, and I will grant you this is an important role. But a President is largely constrained to act on bills Congress passes. Elect the best people from any party for every office there is. Not everyone will think alike. Some will truly like R or D and sometimes the R or D is truly the best
But encourage people to vote for the best man or woman running in every race. Get stand out candidates to actually run for a third party slot for local or state races. Make people think about the choice. Remind them of their choices the previous election who didn't get a chance - either due to the primary process being stacked against them or because they were third party. Not many will break away from the R or D in any given year, but if people can even start thinking that way it is a very small step. Maybe my generation won't see a difference, and maybe your generation won't either, but eventually someone will.
I too voted for Johnson this year. I did so knowing that my state would support R without a doubt and that my vote would mean nothing, but at least I'm not ashamed of the fact. That doesn't mean I may not vote R next time - or D. It depends on who is the best person for the job in question.
Register in the major party that is most likely to win the majority of the races in your state. Vote for the best candidate in that party. Then in the general election - vote for whoever you feel is best.
This does two things. First, it means that the primary ballot will not be as likely to be overwhelmingly for one candidate because many are voting in the major party. Second, once you have done the best you can to try to get the majority party to pick a candidate you can live with via the primary, voting your conscience in the general will make you feel better. It probably won't matter for most offices anyway, but that's life. There are usually not enough candidates competing for election in a third-party to make the primary matter.
There are some states where the outcome is close enough that this isn't safe, but most states are pretty solidly red or blue. In these cases, there is nothing wrong with voting with the major party in the primary and then for the best candidate that survives in the general.
What really needs to change is the first past the post. Have the primary election countrywide on the same day - just like the general election. That, by itself, would do more to make sure that the best of the lot cleared the primary and not just the candidate with the most money of their own or their friends. It would also help to eliminate the influence of a few states that get to vote earlier than others.
You're still missing my point. An encrypted document in and of itself didn't make you a criminal in those days. The government may or may not have been able to decrypt it eventually, but the most it could do if intercepted was mark you as a person of interest for more resources to be allocated to. Then, if you actually broke the law, they could handle that within the limits of the rest of the amendments. The existence and contents of the original document weren't directly actionable.
With a master key, this changes. The government can read the document (and every document in an automated environment) and then decide whether or not you are of interest. This falls much closer to the garrisoned soldier situation than just having solidiers near the town. The contempt citation is accurate if you actually do end up breaking a law, but the whole due process is different now that what was originally intended, and I believe the founding fathers would be against what is being proposed. Personal privacy won out in that day. I think it still would in their minds, regardless of what all is going on.
While correct, you're missing the point. Ciphers have been around for a very, very long time. They weren't used as extensively in the past as they are today. But they've been around throughout history. A quick wikipedia search references Egyptian hieroglyphs for example. The technology progressed over time and the cost to break the encrypted text increased over time to what we have today.
Nonetheless, encrypted communications were available when the constitution was written and they were in use. Yet the constitution makes no mention of preventing the citizens from using encrypted communications or in forcing the users to decrypt the documents on demand.
The federal government gave itself the rights mentioned, but did not choose to worry about the technology of the day providing documents that they could see, but couldn't decrypt without a lot of work or the help of one of the parties on either end of the transmission. They had just fought a revolution against a government that employed big brother tactics (like garrisoning soldiers in people's homes). They didn't want the government doing any of that type of crap anymore.
The FBI and others might really wish today that the writers had considered encryption, but they didn't choose to. The writer's generation relied on spies and good old footwork to figure things out. They didn't rely solely on documents. Good for them.
Someone is way too awake for the end of the year, but great answer!
How much does a rotor blade on a UH-60M run anyway?
If Google, Bing, FB and the rest are forced to pay for the news in the first place via their advertising dollars, then the link followed should always work and provide access to the complete text of the article they linked to. Drop the paywall for any reference from a search engine that has already paid for the content.
As long as we stay friends with Australia.
He was given dominion over the various and sundry living things on the Earth. He was put in the garden of Eden to dress and keep it. That last would be the closest parallel. We've done a particularly poor job of "keeping it".
Well of course you could do that, but that still doesn't prevent any man in the middle attacks between the actual switch and the proxy. If you're on an isolated network, it might not matter so much. If you're managing remote equipment, it might.
Anyway - only meant to be a reason why the deploy https everywhere and break anything that tries to present a cert we don't like (even if created in-house and the in-house root is marked as trusted) can be problematic. I don't care if I get warned, but if I've identified the cert I should be able to mark it as trusted. That is getting harder and harder to do.
Should HP fix it? Of course. There should be a method where you can just install your own existing cert instead of going through a CSR process just for these situations. How many people are left at HP who could fix it is an exercise left to the people in charge at HP.
Guess I'm missing something in your answer. I mean install a wildcard certificate on an HP switch so it identifies itself correctly via https when directly addressed.
So, how do you configure HP switches to accept a wildcard certificate? I haven't been able to figure it out. Wireless routers - yes. HP switches no.
Cat's also control the rodent and bird populations. Without feral or outdoor domestic cats, cities would be far less inviting to live in.
I've never seen a cat skeleton in a tree either.
It is also worth noting the population density differences between the few large Canadian cities and most major cities in the US. Someone said Vancouver was one of the most dense with something like 800 or so people per sq. km. Looks like many of the areas of NYC are are over 10,000. People density and the friction that causes also plays a large part in violence ends to disputes.
What I'm saying is that if you live up to the tenets of your religion - and you can insert a great many religions as an example - you aren't supposed to kill, you aren't supposed to hate people. Christianity espouses love to all. We may not do it right all the time, but the ideals of many religions are designed to have a society that lives and behaves well toward one another as one of the primary goals. The fact that the nation has gotten so far away from God and respect for His creation is the problem. Guns won't solve it, but trying to solve the gun issue without solving the human issue is pointless. There are too many other ways to cause mayhem.
It's not the drugs that are the problem. It isn't the drug culture either. It's the "war on drugs", criminalization, and incarceration that is the problem in the US. It's been just as effective as the prohibition and had all the same baggage that came along with it. I can't say about Canada, but there seem to be some areas in the EU at least that have laxer attitudes about drugs than here. If it isn't criminal and is cheaper and easier to obtain, there would be less criminal involvement, less fights for territory control, fewer gang related deaths. There would undoubtedly be more drug related deaths, but that is another problem that again needs to be addressed at the people level rather than the gun/drug/alcohol level.
I'm not currently a gun owner or shooter.
And wave a magic wand and prevent all smuggling of guns and ammo into the US.
There's a toxic drug culture in the United States as well. Get people off the illegal drugs, dry up that trade, eliminate the gangs associated with it along with the need to commit other crimes to fund people's habits, and the gun / murder statistics would be much saner in the United States of America.
Again, fix the people and the problem is drastically reduced. The problem isn't the weapons.
The good guy with a gun angle is pretty silly to think about only when you are considering the people being shot at from a height advantage in an unprotected open area with a big high rise nearby. Don't forget about the people in the room next door or across the hall from where the shots were fired from. An armed person who was proficient with their weapon may well have made a difference from close at hand. Most would not have tried, but someone ex-military or ex-cop might have been brave enough to try if they saw what was happening below. Like the parent says - you just never know.
What the framers of the Constitution had in mind was that the people should be permitted to have military grade fully functional weapons at their immediate disposal to keep the government from getting out of hand. Even then, not everyone could afford their own cannon or warship, but the framers had in mind that anyone who could, should be permitted to do so.
A news story says that some neighbors are getting bent out of shape down south by a man with a fully operational WWII tank parked in front of his house. The framers would have been OK with this, although they would have considered it a relic and would have preferred a modern variant.
The problem isn't the weapons. The problem is the people's morals. When everyone has a proper fear and reverence for God again, you won't have to worry about who has a fully automatic pistol on their hip. And even the crazy people who don't have any business with a fully automatic pistol on their hip would be far less likely to actually use one if there were no gun free zones and the probability was 100% that at least a few people where they were intending to cause mayhem were armed and knew how to use their weapons - it's why gun free zones are so popular as a target environment today.
You can argue we have an Department of Defense today, with all that entails along with a National Guard. The debate on which model would be better - the one the framers of the Constitution championed or the one we have now actually makes us safer (when including the debt and animosity caused by all of our wars) could go on for pages. I hope it doesn't. But have no doubt about what the framers intended.