As warren buffet has pointed out repeatedly, it's what you say and do when you don't think anyone's looking that determines your character. Not the persona you put forward when the cameras are rolling.
I don't think russia attempted to deny. Instead they had Wikileaks dump the Podesta emails, only to the see the Trump Tapes surface.
We all know there's tons of dirt waiting on Hillary, Julians said as much. Apparently we assumed at all meaningful dirt originates at Wikileaks, though, and forgot that there are probably treasure troves of stuff on Don that people have been holding back on for the closing weeks....
What if you exit the holodeck, but in reality you only think you exited, and you're still stuck in the holodeck the whole time, its just simulating your exit?
>Slashdotters with absolutely zero knowledge of how business actually works
You say that after mentioning that Warren Buffets one-day paper loss on an investment that has provided a return many times greater than the amount he invested, held as part of a diverse portfolio that provides liquidity, only when needed, for his insurance operations, and in any case only represents a small fraction of Berkshire's net worth, compared against Trumps complete blow out?
Except Clinton has a card up her sleeve that Trump doesn't. Namely, the willingness to increase taxes to address the situations you point out. Where as Trump, king of debt, has already declared he intends to borrow even more since interest rates are so low.
So no, disagree absolutely. Trump's only "plan" is to whip out the good ol' credit card. Not a sound economic policy by any stretch.
If we're indeed just part of a simulation and we're hoping to break out of it, what are the chances an Age of Empires Titan could break out of that simulation and enter our own simulation?
So, they're factoring in their potential liability from Yahoo's failure to secure its systems and/or notify its customers of a security breach in a timely fashion at $2 per user? I wonder if they hired the same folks as Bank Of America used when deciding whether or not buying Country Wide Mortgage was a good idea?
I can't figure out why retailers would refuse new terminals, unless they were being asked/demanded to pay for them.
If these new terminals are trully going to save the credit card companies so much money, it ought to have been a no brainer to provide them to retails on their own dime and see the return on investment come over time, rather than, essentially, demand the retails make investments solely for the credit card companies benefit (with the exception that if the cc co's are going to turn liability over to the retailers, then, yes, they would stand to save their own money, but only because of a change in business dynamics)
Again, I could just be shooting in the dark as I didn't read the article, just chiming in with an opinion and nothing to back it up, which is what slashdots all about, right?:)
(Not sure if both of you posting as A/C are the same person, or if you'll even make it back here. Guess it wasn't the 1990's, but the 2000's, just seemed so long ago, I lost track of time).
Why does your phone need to be strapped into this device that then gets wrapped around your face? Cant the two communicate via Wifi or even Bluetooth? Or must it have USB connectivity? Seems silly. Googles got smart folks, so I figure its for a good reason, I just can't imagine what that reason is.
I think it was in Bruce Schneiers most recent newsletter, that there is always the risk of something artificial and damaging being added to otherwise original, authentic material, on the basis that if 99% of it it's true, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to say that other 1% isn't true either. Maybe it wasn't him, but I definitely read it somewhere and it really was interesting food for thought.
>Hillary is the candidate proposing to launch physical wars against cyber-attackers, the biggest two of which are big nuclear powers.
Should cyber warfare be governed by different rules? Do you imagine Russia's response would be to hackers in Uzbekistan releasing internal Kremlin emails to the world would be anything less than forceful? Or, if it were taken a step further, if the attack was leveled against their voting apparatus itself, to produce an outcome that the Uzbeks preferred? Do you think that Russia would say "well, it's only a cyber attack, we'll keep the gloves on"?
> Trump is the candidate who wants the US to stop being Team America: World Police.
It's hardly clear that this is the fact. Yes, he speaks of stepping back from NATO, but then, not really. But he certainly advocates a foreign policy that is based on "we're strongest, you do what we want", which will mean we'll need force projection just as much, if not more, than we do currently. He's spoken of waging all out war on Islamic Extremists, how exactly will he do that with the military brought back within our national boundaries?
> The candidate with then 20 years of bad political experience is the one who wants to perpetuate the current failed policies that have brought the US to the brink of bankruptcy and an internal race war.
That is Trumps true "advantage" over clinton, having had a career where his decisions were never open to outside scrutiny. That doesn't mean he has any more insight, or would not have embarked on the same failed policies, it just means that his vote is not a part of the public record.
But then... you go on to bring out two specific examples. Brink of bankruptcy and racial tensions.
First, we're hardly at the "brink of bankruptcy" - yes we have amassed a huge debt, but that's a debt that could be addressed in time if we had the willingness to do so. Instead, the Right specifically complains about debt for decades now, and as a "solution" rolls out unfunded tax cuts as their proposed solution. That's like you household complaining about its debt and your parents saying "you know, the solution to this is we should our bosses to reduce our pay". Meanwhile, your newest candidate has shown his economic prowess by repeatedly driving his companies into bankruptcy. Wow. If, as you think, we're already at the brink, how can you think putting someone in charge who has a repeated history of making huge gambles that blow up in his face? A self proclaimed "king of debt", who has said his intention would be to boost our countries borrowings while interest rates are so low?
As for racial tensions - again a laughable accusation. Trump has been the one stoking racial tensions, for decades now. From housing discrimination, to advocating for the death penalty for the Central Park Five (who turned out to be innocent), to questioning the Presidents birth place, religion, etc, to launching his campaign claiming that Mexicans are rapists, and espousing an ideology that has reawakened racial sentiment to the point that the Grand Wizard of the KKK has decided to relaunch his political career. So, again, WOW.
> She's also accused of murdering 50 people, committing treason with state secrets, attacking several women her husband is accused of raping, and covering up health problems that may kill her during her first term, and money laundering and pay-for-play through the Clinton Foundation.
The thing is, anyone can level an accusation. In fact Trump is due in court shortly over a rather heinous accusation, himself. I'll leave you to look it up yourself.
And Treason requires intent, which there is none. Or rather her intend wasn't in betraying country, but in trying to keep political opponents at bay. It was certainly boneheaded and wrong, but not an attempt to overthrow the government. Meanwhile, while the GOP hounds her for 30,000 missing emails, they remain silent on the literally millions of emails that went missing from the Bush administration, many mem
Epinephrine is generic, their little dohickey gadget isn't though. Not trying to defend, but i don' think anyones trying to say epinephrine (adrenaline) is a proprietary medication. Otherwise we'd all be on the hook for licensing fees every time fight or flight kicks in.
Didn't get a penny to post that. I've been reading how people get paid to post on Slashdot ever since it was Bill Gates who was supposedly paying Windows people to bash Linux, and have yet to receive even a single offer for my time. Pity me.
I only read up until it said "Read the rest of this comment", and even then, I mostly just skimmed.
Either way, the amount of land area that needs to be utilized to by solar to provide enough energy for everyone, everywhere was tiny. I mean, TINY. Like, here is a link (disclaimer, I'm not a scientist, just a believer and fan):
So... Do we think that much solar is going to have a tremendous effect on our ecosystems? Especially considering that it could be much more spread out than even that? Especially in comparison to the alternative of continuing to burn coal 24 hours a day until, what, we run out and have to go with solar anyways? Or should we dam the worlds rivers in order to generate hydro?
I'll agree that in a sense, everything is about trade-offs, there's no panaceas. But if you're going to argue that the long term negative effects of solar are anywhere even close to comparable to the mining, transportation and burning of coal, well, would you please provide something peer-reviewed that lays out the case for that?
The data center uses power from whatever generation facility is closest to it. Off-site renewable source serve to offset that power usage.
Electricity is a commodity - there's no difference to the end user what source generated the exact electricity they're using at any given moment. It's about offsetting usage.
Same thing happens to a different extent to homes with solar panels on their rooftops. At least in states that allow for net metering, homes have oversized installations, which generate far more power at peak than the house will actually use. That power is pumped back out into the grid and goes to the nearest neighbors, with the solar owner getting credit for that power, allowing their daytime production to be used to offset their evening usage.
So, Amazon when creates a wind farm in Texas - even if that power isn't used directly by their facilities, it does still have the same exact effect on reducing CO2 generation, by effectively offsetting their CO2 production by supplying clean energy elsewhere.
There should be a single blog, yes. But there should also be the ability to choose which patches you want, if necessary. Say a particular graphics driver is known to kill a certain game, or a certain network update conflicts with a utility, there should be a way for advanced users do opt-out of them.
But then, Microsoft is trying to create an environment as closed as Mac, with user tracking beyond the pale of Google, accompanied a fee stream to rival any subscription service. It's not about what users want anymore, just about extracting maximal dollars.
I was going to ask if, by bunding updates together like this, is it going to make the lives of security researchers more difficult, as they can't simply diff the changed files of a particular security update? Seems I'm not the only one wondering this...
Who'd he sell that Palm Beach estate to for a vastly over inflated price?
Who'd he claim he met and got to know while Ms. Universe was in Moscow, only to now deny saying that of?
Who'd his former campaign manager work for previously, prior to joining the Trump campaign (and who was later dismissed after even closer dealings were revealed by the media than had previously been awarded?)
Who was the one country the Trump campaign was allegedly focused on when discussing policy in the backrooms at the RNC?
Which party at the hackers supplying DC Leaks and Wikipedia overwhelmingly targeting, therefore smearing?
And now, which campaign has as its foreign policy advisor a man who's allegedly meeting with people very close to Putin?
Seriously. Mainstream media is reporting this, but they're hardly doing their jobs properly - run a story, then let Trump shift the discussion to a new topic rather than staying focused on the topic at hand (which they've done so splendidly with Hillary's own email woes).
Slashdot Mirror
As warren buffet has pointed out repeatedly, it's what you say and do when you don't think anyone's looking that determines your character. Not the persona you put forward when the cameras are rolling.
I don't think russia attempted to deny. Instead they had Wikileaks dump the Podesta emails, only to the see the Trump Tapes surface.
We all know there's tons of dirt waiting on Hillary, Julians said as much. Apparently we assumed at all meaningful dirt originates at Wikileaks, though, and forgot that there are probably treasure troves of stuff on Don that people have been holding back on for the closing weeks....
It's gonna be brutal for both sides.
What if you exit the holodeck, but in reality you only think you exited, and you're still stuck in the holodeck the whole time, its just simulating your exit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>Slashdotters with absolutely zero knowledge of how business actually works
You say that after mentioning that Warren Buffets one-day paper loss on an investment that has provided a return many times greater than the amount he invested, held as part of a diverse portfolio that provides liquidity, only when needed, for his insurance operations, and in any case only represents a small fraction of Berkshire's net worth, compared against Trumps complete blow out?
Except Clinton has a card up her sleeve that Trump doesn't. Namely, the willingness to increase taxes to address the situations you point out. Where as Trump, king of debt, has already declared he intends to borrow even more since interest rates are so low.
So no, disagree absolutely. Trump's only "plan" is to whip out the good ol' credit card. Not a sound economic policy by any stretch.
>worthy candidates
Like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, you mean?
If we're indeed just part of a simulation and we're hoping to break out of it, what are the chances an Age of Empires Titan could break out of that simulation and enter our own simulation?
So, they're factoring in their potential liability from Yahoo's failure to secure its systems and/or notify its customers of a security breach in a timely fashion at $2 per user? I wonder if they hired the same folks as Bank Of America used when deciding whether or not buying Country Wide Mortgage was a good idea?
I can't figure out why retailers would refuse new terminals, unless they were being asked/demanded to pay for them.
If these new terminals are trully going to save the credit card companies so much money, it ought to have been a no brainer to provide them to retails on their own dime and see the return on investment come over time, rather than, essentially, demand the retails make investments solely for the credit card companies benefit (with the exception that if the cc co's are going to turn liability over to the retailers, then, yes, they would stand to save their own money, but only because of a change in business dynamics)
Again, I could just be shooting in the dark as I didn't read the article, just chiming in with an opinion and nothing to back it up, which is what slashdots all about, right? :)
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(Not sure if both of you posting as A/C are the same person, or if you'll even make it back here. Guess it wasn't the 1990's, but the 2000's, just seemed so long ago, I lost track of time).
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At least Wikileaks has a reputation to defend. Guccifer?
Why does your phone need to be strapped into this device that then gets wrapped around your face? Cant the two communicate via Wifi or even Bluetooth? Or must it have USB connectivity? Seems silly. Googles got smart folks, so I figure its for a good reason, I just can't imagine what that reason is.
>but its highly probable that every single transcontinental link is 'managed' and tappable.
I think that was already disclosed in the 1990's, with AT&T's secret room for the NSA at their facilities, wasn't it?
I think it was in Bruce Schneiers most recent newsletter, that there is always the risk of something artificial and damaging being added to otherwise original, authentic material, on the basis that if 99% of it it's true, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to say that other 1% isn't true either. Maybe it wasn't him, but I definitely read it somewhere and it really was interesting food for thought.
Looks like I'm getting 2nd post... Must have knocked a lot of slash dotters off line!
I'll play:
>Hillary is the candidate proposing to launch physical wars against cyber-attackers, the biggest two of which are big nuclear powers.
Should cyber warfare be governed by different rules? Do you imagine Russia's response would be to hackers in Uzbekistan releasing internal Kremlin emails to the world would be anything less than forceful? Or, if it were taken a step further, if the attack was leveled against their voting apparatus itself, to produce an outcome that the Uzbeks preferred? Do you think that Russia would say "well, it's only a cyber attack, we'll keep the gloves on"?
> Trump is the candidate who wants the US to stop being Team America: World Police.
It's hardly clear that this is the fact. Yes, he speaks of stepping back from NATO, but then, not really. But he certainly advocates a foreign policy that is based on "we're strongest, you do what we want", which will mean we'll need force projection just as much, if not more, than we do currently. He's spoken of waging all out war on Islamic Extremists, how exactly will he do that with the military brought back within our national boundaries?
> The candidate with then 20 years of bad political experience is the one who wants to perpetuate the current failed policies that have brought the US to the brink of bankruptcy and an internal race war.
That is Trumps true "advantage" over clinton, having had a career where his decisions were never open to outside scrutiny. That doesn't mean he has any more insight, or would not have embarked on the same failed policies, it just means that his vote is not a part of the public record.
But then... you go on to bring out two specific examples. Brink of bankruptcy and racial tensions.
First, we're hardly at the "brink of bankruptcy" - yes we have amassed a huge debt, but that's a debt that could be addressed in time if we had the willingness to do so. Instead, the Right specifically complains about debt for decades now, and as a "solution" rolls out unfunded tax cuts as their proposed solution. That's like you household complaining about its debt and your parents saying "you know, the solution to this is we should our bosses to reduce our pay". Meanwhile, your newest candidate has shown his economic prowess by repeatedly driving his companies into bankruptcy. Wow. If, as you think, we're already at the brink, how can you think putting someone in charge who has a repeated history of making huge gambles that blow up in his face? A self proclaimed "king of debt", who has said his intention would be to boost our countries borrowings while interest rates are so low?
As for racial tensions - again a laughable accusation. Trump has been the one stoking racial tensions, for decades now. From housing discrimination, to advocating for the death penalty for the Central Park Five (who turned out to be innocent), to questioning the Presidents birth place, religion, etc, to launching his campaign claiming that Mexicans are rapists, and espousing an ideology that has reawakened racial sentiment to the point that the Grand Wizard of the KKK has decided to relaunch his political career. So, again, WOW.
> She's also accused of murdering 50 people, committing treason with state secrets, attacking several women her husband is accused of raping, and covering up health problems that may kill her during her first term, and money laundering and pay-for-play through the Clinton Foundation.
The thing is, anyone can level an accusation. In fact Trump is due in court shortly over a rather heinous accusation, himself. I'll leave you to look it up yourself.
And Treason requires intent, which there is none. Or rather her intend wasn't in betraying country, but in trying to keep political opponents at bay. It was certainly boneheaded and wrong, but not an attempt to overthrow the government. Meanwhile, while the GOP hounds her for 30,000 missing emails, they remain silent on the literally millions of emails that went missing from the Bush administration, many mem
Epinephrine is generic, their little dohickey gadget isn't though. Not trying to defend, but i don' think anyones trying to say epinephrine (adrenaline) is a proprietary medication. Otherwise we'd all be on the hook for licensing fees every time fight or flight kicks in.
If i could download Oreo's, that would mean I could download pretty much anything else I wanted, too? Hello Replicator!
Didn't get a penny to post that. I've been reading how people get paid to post on Slashdot ever since it was Bill Gates who was supposedly paying Windows people to bash Linux, and have yet to receive even a single offer for my time. Pity me.
I only read up until it said "Read the rest of this comment", and even then, I mostly just skimmed.
Either way, the amount of land area that needs to be utilized to by solar to provide enough energy for everyone, everywhere was tiny. I mean, TINY. Like, here is a link (disclaimer, I'm not a scientist, just a believer and fan):
http://www.techinsider.io/map-...
So... Do we think that much solar is going to have a tremendous effect on our ecosystems? Especially considering that it could be much more spread out than even that? Especially in comparison to the alternative of continuing to burn coal 24 hours a day until, what, we run out and have to go with solar anyways? Or should we dam the worlds rivers in order to generate hydro?
I'll agree that in a sense, everything is about trade-offs, there's no panaceas. But if you're going to argue that the long term negative effects of solar are anywhere even close to comparable to the mining, transportation and burning of coal, well, would you please provide something peer-reviewed that lays out the case for that?
The data center uses power from whatever generation facility is closest to it. Off-site renewable source serve to offset that power usage.
Electricity is a commodity - there's no difference to the end user what source generated the exact electricity they're using at any given moment. It's about offsetting usage.
Same thing happens to a different extent to homes with solar panels on their rooftops. At least in states that allow for net metering, homes have oversized installations, which generate far more power at peak than the house will actually use. That power is pumped back out into the grid and goes to the nearest neighbors, with the solar owner getting credit for that power, allowing their daytime production to be used to offset their evening usage.
So, Amazon when creates a wind farm in Texas - even if that power isn't used directly by their facilities, it does still have the same exact effect on reducing CO2 generation, by effectively offsetting their CO2 production by supplying clean energy elsewhere.
There should be a single blog, yes. But there should also be the ability to choose which patches you want, if necessary. Say a particular graphics driver is known to kill a certain game, or a certain network update conflicts with a utility, there should be a way for advanced users do opt-out of them.
But then, Microsoft is trying to create an environment as closed as Mac, with user tracking beyond the pale of Google, accompanied a fee stream to rival any subscription service. It's not about what users want anymore, just about extracting maximal dollars.
I was going to ask if, by bunding updates together like this, is it going to make the lives of security researchers more difficult, as they can't simply diff the changed files of a particular security update? Seems I'm not the only one wondering this...
Look at Trump and his people.
Who'd he sell that Palm Beach estate to for a vastly over inflated price?
Who'd he claim he met and got to know while Ms. Universe was in Moscow, only to now deny saying that of?
Who'd his former campaign manager work for previously, prior to joining the Trump campaign (and who was later dismissed after even closer dealings were revealed by the media than had previously been awarded?)
Who was the one country the Trump campaign was allegedly focused on when discussing policy in the backrooms at the RNC?
Which party at the hackers supplying DC Leaks and Wikipedia overwhelmingly targeting, therefore smearing?
And now, which campaign has as its foreign policy advisor a man who's allegedly meeting with people very close to Putin?
Seriously. Mainstream media is reporting this, but they're hardly doing their jobs properly - run a story, then let Trump shift the discussion to a new topic rather than staying focused on the topic at hand (which they've done so splendidly with Hillary's own email woes).