Were Democrats in senate forced to confirm him? Anyone that wasn't living in a bomb shelter for the previous 6 years knows that the senate was in nominal republican control. If a the democratic party members objected to his appointment, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.
The thing about spam is that for as long as I can remember (at least back to 1997) people have insisted upon a technical solution for spam. The issue is that spam is not a technical problem. It's a human problem. Like any other problem/response cycle, if you are solving for the wrong issue, don't be shocked if the solution isn't as bad or worse than the problem.
Another issue, not directly on point, is Google Email and anti-spam. I know of several organizations that have completely shut down their email infrastructure in favor of Google email services. An unaddressed problem is that these organizations have also laid off their email folks since "Google takes care of it all" so subtle and not so subtle issues often go not simply unaddressed, but unknown to the organization. The result has been a high rate of false positives, including senders without DKIM. I once got into a argument with John Lavine about DKIM, in which he got pretty passionate. I argue that DKIM is:
1. Needlessly opaque
2. Prone to abuse from over zealous admins
3. Google does it wrong (Checking the header chain all the way back instead of the last system the recipient does not run)
4. Breaks email standards
5. Doesn't solve any issue that SPF does not solve more directly, without possible abuse, and much more simply, requires far fewer CPU resources and skill, and does not break email standards in the process.
I'm told that "I'm too stupid" to know how it works and "I should get out of computers since you obviously are too stupid to know your f'ing job!" (both quotes from right here on slash dot). I won't try to prove otherwise, but one question I've asked over and over again is how DKIM, checked back further than the last untrusted relay, does not break email standards for list or forwarded mail.
SPF won't break those, DKIM will, every time.
So getting back to our muttons, I'm not surprised that Google's spam engine (or anyone's, for that matter) has a high false positive rate, or a lower than desired true positive rate. That issue is simple - they are attempting to solve a problem with technology that isn't technical in nature. Stop using a hammer to try to screw in a light bulb. Doesn't work well.
But maybe the public nature of the attorney-general's assault -- charging Spectrum for illegal misconduct -- will lead to a call for alternatives. Maybe it will generate momentum for better, faster, wholesale fiber networks controlled by cities and localities themselves.
With over 73 million dollars spent by cable lobbyists, not counting telephone monopolies, in 2016 alone, I think we'll be waiting a long time for that bus. Nothing like choking things in the crib before they get out and become...bothersome.
About the only viable alternative to cable is terrestrial microwave,
and that's not too hot for most of the providers. Their head ends are oversubscribed 5,000 to 1 in some, and others use a bridge rather than route scheme, so if some customer turns off the equipment, down goes your internet.
Some may, but the many white conservatives are quick to assume and project, denigrating the subject of the beating by sneering "you need a safe place snowflake?" and shouting "DEPORT THEM!".
Oddly enough, white conservatives are the ones that squeal the loudest if they are unfortunate enough to experience a rights violation. I do not think any rights violation should evoke schadenfreude no matter the subject, but I do sometimes have to remind myself of that. I am bitterly disappointed that as a society, we can't agree that skin color shouldn't make a difference in your rights, or that being "illegal" somehow strips the protections of law such as a lawyer, speedy trial, and other rights. The reasons these should apply to anyone citizen or not?
Because there are more than 10,000 citizens illegally deported. The next one could be you.
One my have the "right", but to any annoyed cop, that won't stay the baton to the face, the chrome bracelets, and the ride to jail. As the saying goes, "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
Until immunity is limited, and some type of consequences attain to violation of the law, bad actors in LEO will continue to behave badly. When a cop violates the law, and the taxpayers fund their defense even in the most egregious of circumstance, there is little motivation for departments or individuals to root out and stop abuse from bad cops. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We are fortunate that there are few bad actors, but we are unfortunate that their brothers and sister officers are usually very reluctant to report those that are.
The funniest bot-on-bot edit occurs when someone on Amazon is reselling from Ebay, and the ebay seller is tagging their price to Amazon. Not unusual to see the prices go into the millions of dollars for something idiotic.
Er, how is that news? Look at what happened November 8th, 2016 for insanity index. Forecast; High.
Chance of dunderheads: 100% Protectionism, Xenophobia, and nut job anti-consumerism regulations to be expected for the next two years. Sticking busybody noses into random vaginas guaranteed. Skyhigh medical bills and health insurance: Paid for by lobbyists that stand to gain. Hilarity, hypocrisy and hysteria: delivered. Global shunning: On the way.
There have been many people that argued the preamble implies citizen only
This goes to something I say here frequently; Who is a citizen of this land is in the eyes of the beholder. Because unless one has some native American blood in them, they are an illegal immigrant. You could ask Chief Ten Bears what he thinks, but we violated those treaties (three or four of 'em) and it eventually killed him.
To come back to the point, unless one wishes to bend over backward and read into it things that were not put in, the rights granted were not the exclusive to citizens. They apply to anyone within the jurisprudence of the US, and I would include areas were it is de facto, rather than de jure.
* will get a STFU pinko commie Muslim , love it or leave it....* I like to point out to those that say "America, love it or leave it!" is like saying "My mother; drunk or sober!".
When someone you love commits an error, one generally, out of love, points out the error. It is not a statement of hate to say "Hey, that's wrong", it can be the greatest expression of love. This is what confuses some, as they use the attempt to discuss a possible error or injustice not to correct that error or injustice, but as a club to stifle and shut down discussion. Because if one thinks something is wrong and says so, obviously they do it out of hate and a desire to destroy. That's a pretty sicko attitude I think.
This issue is very simple to solve with a few changes to tax policy.
1. Remove deductions for Intellectual Property payments. This is the chief way corporations avoid tax. Example, Burger King / Tim Horton merger.
2. Profit, no matter where situated, is taxable in the country of origin. Example: If Apple sells 100 billion in the US, then the gross profit of that 100 billion is due in the US. Self dealing exchange of expenses by off shoring 99.9% of the price of the phone (or other product/service) would no longer be allowed.
These steps will never be taken because they would be incredibly disruptive in the first place, and in the second place, there is no will in Washington to make corporations or billionaires actually pay taxes as the average person does.
Doesn't much matter if folks come in to work, or if they work in their underwear at home while skipping a shower for a week. Their productivity is about the same from all I can see. I do feel it's a lot easier for a slacker to goof off at home than in the office. I worked with one person for over a year that was remote, and they told me after they left that basically they surfed the internet and did personal projects most of the time. About the only time they did actual work was when metrics with deadlines were imposed or there was a major outage.
spewing rhetorical nonsense like Larson is doing is unnecessary and counterproductive to a thoughtful, rational discussion about the subject.
I apologize if I seem to have ignored that point. I will say that there might - possibly - be a slippery slope there. As an example, every totalitarian feels that a free and responsible press is desirable - as long as they get to define what is "responsible", and can remove the "free" from those that are "irresponsible".
But your point is well taken: Hyperbole, hysteria, and factually free discussion is antithetical to reaching conclusions and solutions that are acceptable to the majority while being consistent with freedom. Which brings me to the next of my worries, the tyranny of the majority. I know that it is impossible, but my desire is a system of government where, if one wished, one could simply turn their back on the government and everyone else and just not be bothered. Impossible, I know, but I wish it were not.
As a US citizen I believe I pointed out that one need not be a citizen to have civil rights. A point you seem to be ignoring? I will presume it is unintentional.
you have not lost one single of your rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. Not a single one.
Incorrect. I have lost many rights. The right to be secure in my person and effects is routinely violated whenever a law enforcement officer searches my car (happens about 5 times a year - I live near a prison and they sometimes search after an escape when they have absolutely no probable cause to suspect that I am transporting an escapee). I have my right to remain silent violated when a court orders that I unlock my phone, or to decrypt my files. I have my right to representation violated by voter ID laws that are unconstitutional but not struck down to "avoid voter confusion." I have my right to free speech violated every time I keep my mouth shut for fear of angering government and "drawing notice" - and that happens, I've seen it from both sides.. You have your rights violated every single time you are stopped and the police demand "license, registration, and proof of insurance" because now you are being forced to prove you did not commit a crime, rather than the government having to prove you did.
These may seem like small potatoes to you, and if so, I will remind you that there is no such thing as "being a little bit pregnant." Either you have rights, or you don't.
giving airtime to over-the-top nonsense like this isn't the way to do it.
Yes, and no.
The US military (which includes everything from SEAL Team 6 down to your local police officer it seems now) has a concept of "developed capacity is intent to use it." Yes, using this thought process means that since every woman has a vagina, then she has the intent to become a prostitute, which is absurd on it's face.
That's kind of the point here.
If TSA/ICE/some random cop on the beat has the capacity to slurp your phone, then obviously, while the intent might not be there, they certinaly could if they had the slightest reason do to so. Such actions as looking at them. Not looking at them. Appearing nervous. Appearing calm. Being dressed too well. Being dressed poorly. Being dressed differently. Not being dressed differently. Speeding. Not speeding. Going slower than the speed limit. Using a highway. Using back roads. These are all excuses used in court to preform a "reasonable suspicion" search, including one officer in Georgia that used all of these excuses in a single month. (I'll add there wasn't a single conviction in the bunch, only complaints of rights violations where were dismissed.)
The point is that "over the top" applies not to just viewing with alarm the possibility of police abuse, it's been proven to happen. Frequently. Most often with absolutely no consequence to the officer, department, or state actor involved.
I forget where, but it's been said "If you don't give weight to your principals, then the first wind will carry them off." And I absolutely disagree that constitutional protections "don't apply" to the boarder. Yes, I'm aware that's how courts have ruled, but I am not saying it isn't treated like that, I'm saying it is a break with the honor of our laws to do so. Further, nothing in the constitution or the bill of rights denies civil rights other than voting or holding certain public offices to non-citizens, and it doesn't say "while in the territory of the US". These rights should apply in downtown USA the same as they apply where ever the United States holds defacto jurisprudence, even if it's not our country. In other words, no more "black sites" and "rendition" allowed.
We have been told over and over again that "They hate us for our freedoms", but I don't see that we have many freedoms we can be proud of any more, let alone ones others would envy. Indeed, I think we've done much more damage to ourselves with our "security" stance than the terrorists have done.
I am an ardent opponent of AT&T. My opinion for them could not, absolutely not, be any lower than it is. If I were elected King, the second thing I would do is to convict AT&T management from mid-level up of terminal idiocy, sentencing them to sweeping floors for the rest of their natural lives, since they have proven they are too stupid, greedy, and careless to be trusted to wash dirty dishes.
One way to look at it is the pure reading of the 4th amendment. There's no "there" there about "third party rules" and "All writs act" in it. So at least those "exceptions" should require a warrant, but they don't get one in many cases. (Think NSA letters)
There's also nothing about allowing LEO to follow your every move without a warrant. Yet in many cases they don't bother. (Think cell phone tracking, power meter watching, thermal imaging in addition to plain old gum shoe detective work.)
I can't see how passing more laws will do anything other than get ignored even more often. I think the only thing that will work is changing the perception of a badge from one of "Oh, badge, they have more privileges" to "Oh, Badge, they have more responsibility to, you know, actually obey the law."
But changing that would entail folks realizing they are the power, not those entrusted to protect us.
Sometime in the past I posted notes I made when I was calibrating gas chromatography units. Over a decade O2 went down, CO2 and CO went up. The units varied in location from urban city centers (showed the most) to islands out to sea (showed the least). All declined at about the same proportional rates, though the absolute rates differed.
When I get time, I'd like to use satellite photos of the arctic into a time lapse video, play it, then ask "Now, what was it you were saying about climate change being a scam?"
Folks, extremism is extremism and is not a virtue; and moderation and considered judgement is. It is a rare thing to find anything "always" or "never".
I think the larger issue is that by resigning, will he short circuit prosecution for a crime. Since the Attorney General would have to prosecute, or Congress hold hearings, I think it likely he is going to skate away from this because the AG is a President Trump appointee and the majority Republican congress has no interest in prosecuting anyone whose name isn't Clinton, Warren, or Pelosi.
Slashdot Mirror
Was Obama forced to appoint Pai?
Yes.
Were Democrats in senate forced to confirm him?
Anyone that wasn't living in a bomb shelter for the previous 6 years knows that the senate was in nominal republican control. If a the democratic party members objected to his appointment, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.
1. Needlessly opaque
2. Prone to abuse from over zealous admins
3. Google does it wrong (Checking the header chain all the way back instead of the last system the recipient does not run)
4. Breaks email standards
5. Doesn't solve any issue that SPF does not solve more directly, without possible abuse, and much more simply, requires far fewer CPU resources and skill, and does not break email standards in the process.
I'm told that "I'm too stupid" to know how it works and "I should get out of computers since you obviously are too stupid to know your f'ing job!" (both quotes from right here on slash dot). I won't try to prove otherwise, but one question I've asked over and over again is how DKIM, checked back further than the last untrusted relay, does not break email standards for list or forwarded mail. SPF won't break those, DKIM will, every time.
So getting back to our muttons, I'm not surprised that Google's spam engine (or anyone's, for that matter) has a high false positive rate, or a lower than desired true positive rate. That issue is simple - they are attempting to solve a problem with technology that isn't technical in nature. Stop using a hammer to try to screw in a light bulb. Doesn't work well.
With over 73 million dollars spent by cable lobbyists, not counting telephone monopolies, in 2016 alone, I think we'll be waiting a long time for that bus. Nothing like choking things in the crib before they get out and become...bothersome.
About the only viable alternative to cable is terrestrial microwave, and that's not too hot for most of the providers. Their head ends are oversubscribed 5,000 to 1 in some, and others use a bridge rather than route scheme, so if some customer turns off the equipment, down goes your internet.
Some may, but the many white conservatives are quick to assume and project, denigrating the subject of the beating by sneering "you need a safe place snowflake?" and shouting "DEPORT THEM!".
Oddly enough, white conservatives are the ones that squeal the loudest if they are unfortunate enough to experience a rights violation. I do not think any rights violation should evoke schadenfreude no matter the subject, but I do sometimes have to remind myself of that. I am bitterly disappointed that as a society, we can't agree that skin color shouldn't make a difference in your rights, or that being "illegal" somehow strips the protections of law such as a lawyer, speedy trial, and other rights. The reasons these should apply to anyone citizen or not?
Because there are more than 10,000 citizens illegally deported. The next one could be you.
.
Available evidence suggests not quite 'too dumb to reproduce' and dumber than 'Dayam!.
We are fortunate that there are few bad actors, but we are unfortunate that their brothers and sister officers are usually very reluctant to report those that are.
The funniest bot-on-bot edit occurs when someone on Amazon is reselling from Ebay, and the ebay seller is tagging their price to Amazon. Not unusual to see the prices go into the millions of dollars for something idiotic.
Er, how is that news? Look at what happened November 8th, 2016 for insanity index. Forecast; High.
Chance of dunderheads: 100%
Protectionism, Xenophobia, and nut job anti-consumerism regulations to be expected for the next two years.
Sticking busybody noses into random vaginas guaranteed.
Skyhigh medical bills and health insurance: Paid for by lobbyists that stand to gain.
Hilarity, hypocrisy and hysteria: delivered.
Global shunning: On the way.
I'm aware of the wording. I stand by my statement "granted".
Witness the many unconstitutional actions not simply permitted, but praised and rewarded.
This goes to something I say here frequently; Who is a citizen of this land is in the eyes of the beholder. Because unless one has some native American blood in them, they are an illegal immigrant. You could ask Chief Ten Bears what he thinks, but we violated those treaties (three or four of 'em) and it eventually killed him. To come back to the point, unless one wishes to bend over backward and read into it things that were not put in, the rights granted were not the exclusive to citizens. They apply to anyone within the jurisprudence of the US, and I would include areas were it is de facto, rather than de jure.
* will get a STFU pinko commie Muslim , love it or leave it....*
I like to point out to those that say "America, love it or leave it!" is like saying "My mother; drunk or sober!".
When someone you love commits an error, one generally, out of love, points out the error. It is not a statement of hate to say "Hey, that's wrong", it can be the greatest expression of love. This is what confuses some, as they use the attempt to discuss a possible error or injustice not to correct that error or injustice, but as a club to stifle and shut down discussion. Because if one thinks something is wrong and says so, obviously they do it out of hate and a desire to destroy. That's a pretty sicko attitude I think.
This issue is very simple to solve with a few changes to tax policy.
1. Remove deductions for Intellectual Property payments. This is the chief way corporations avoid tax. Example, Burger King / Tim Horton merger.
2. Profit, no matter where situated, is taxable in the country of origin. Example: If Apple sells 100 billion in the US, then the gross profit of that 100 billion is due in the US. Self dealing exchange of expenses by off shoring 99.9% of the price of the phone (or other product/service) would no longer be allowed.
These steps will never be taken because they would be incredibly disruptive in the first place, and in the second place, there is no will in Washington to make corporations or billionaires actually pay taxes as the average person does.
extra votes to one candidate.
Great. Next time a neo-nazi calls me a "special snowflake" or "cupcake", I'll drop "neutrino" on him.
I really don't care much of what a Donald John Trump supporter thinks of me. I mean, they think so seldom anyway.
Doesn't much matter if folks come in to work, or if they work in their underwear at home while skipping a shower for a week. Their productivity is about the same from all I can see. I do feel it's a lot easier for a slacker to goof off at home than in the office. I worked with one person for over a year that was remote, and they told me after they left that basically they surfed the internet and did personal projects most of the time. About the only time they did actual work was when metrics with deadlines were imposed or there was a major outage.
I apologize if I seem to have ignored that point. I will say that there might - possibly - be a slippery slope there. As an example, every totalitarian feels that a free and responsible press is desirable - as long as they get to define what is "responsible", and can remove the "free" from those that are "irresponsible".
But your point is well taken: Hyperbole, hysteria, and factually free discussion is antithetical to reaching conclusions and solutions that are acceptable to the majority while being consistent with freedom.
Which brings me to the next of my worries, the tyranny of the majority. I know that it is impossible, but my desire is a system of government where, if one wished, one could simply turn their back on the government and everyone else and just not be bothered. Impossible, I know, but I wish it were not.
I believe I pointed out that one need not be a citizen to have civil rights. A point you seem to be ignoring? I will presume it is unintentional.
you have not lost one single of your rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. Not a single one.
Incorrect. I have lost many rights. The right to be secure in my person and effects is routinely violated whenever a law enforcement officer searches my car (happens about 5 times a year - I live near a prison and they sometimes search after an escape when they have absolutely no probable cause to suspect that I am transporting an escapee). I have my right to remain silent violated when a court orders that I unlock my phone, or to decrypt my files. I have my right to representation violated by voter ID laws that are unconstitutional but not struck down to "avoid voter confusion." I have my right to free speech violated every time I keep my mouth shut for fear of angering government and "drawing notice" - and that happens, I've seen it from both sides.. You have your rights violated every single time you are stopped and the police demand "license, registration, and proof of insurance" because now you are being forced to prove you did not commit a crime, rather than the government having to prove you did.
These may seem like small potatoes to you, and if so, I will remind you that there is no such thing as "being a little bit pregnant." Either you have rights, or you don't.
Yes, and no.
The US military (which includes everything from SEAL Team 6 down to your local police officer it seems now) has a concept of "developed capacity is intent to use it." Yes, using this thought process means that since every woman has a vagina, then she has the intent to become a prostitute, which is absurd on it's face.
That's kind of the point here.
If TSA/ICE/some random cop on the beat has the capacity to slurp your phone, then obviously, while the intent might not be there, they certinaly could if they had the slightest reason do to so. Such actions as looking at them. Not looking at them. Appearing nervous. Appearing calm. Being dressed too well. Being dressed poorly. Being dressed differently. Not being dressed differently. Speeding. Not speeding. Going slower than the speed limit. Using a highway. Using back roads.
These are all excuses used in court to preform a "reasonable suspicion" search, including one officer in Georgia that used all of these excuses in a single month. (I'll add there wasn't a single conviction in the bunch, only complaints of rights violations where were dismissed.)
The point is that "over the top" applies not to just viewing with alarm the possibility of police abuse, it's been proven to happen. Frequently. Most often with absolutely no consequence to the officer, department, or state actor involved.
I forget where, but it's been said "If you don't give weight to your principals, then the first wind will carry them off." And I absolutely disagree that constitutional protections "don't apply" to the boarder. Yes, I'm aware that's how courts have ruled, but I am not saying it isn't treated like that, I'm saying it is a break with the honor of our laws to do so. Further, nothing in the constitution or the bill of rights denies civil rights other than voting or holding certain public offices to non-citizens, and it doesn't say "while in the territory of the US". These rights should apply in downtown USA the same as they apply where ever the United States holds defacto jurisprudence, even if it's not our country. In other words, no more "black sites" and "rendition" allowed.
We have been told over and over again that "They hate us for our freedoms", but I don't see that we have many freedoms we can be proud of any more, let alone ones others would envy. Indeed, I think we've done much more damage to ourselves with our "security" stance than the terrorists have done.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive for a monarch to be elected, but, yeah, it's a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Spammer nads? Meet hammer.
Hammer, Spammer.
BANG
They had the chance
I am an ardent opponent of AT&T. My opinion for them could not, absolutely not, be any lower than it is. If I were elected King, the second thing I would do is to convict AT&T management from mid-level up of terminal idiocy, sentencing them to sweeping floors for the rest of their natural lives, since they have proven they are too stupid, greedy, and careless to be trusted to wash dirty dishes.
My opinion of ComCast is even worse.
One way to look at it is the pure reading of the 4th amendment. There's no "there" there about "third party rules" and "All writs act" in it. So at least those "exceptions" should require a warrant, but they don't get one in many cases. (Think NSA letters)
There's also nothing about allowing LEO to follow your every move without a warrant. Yet in many cases they don't bother. (Think cell phone tracking, power meter watching, thermal imaging in addition to plain old gum shoe detective work.)
I can't see how passing more laws will do anything other than get ignored even more often. I think the only thing that will work is changing the perception of a badge from one of "Oh, badge, they have more privileges" to "Oh, Badge, they have more responsibility to, you know, actually obey the law."
But changing that would entail folks realizing they are the power, not those entrusted to protect us.
Sometime in the past I posted notes I made when I was calibrating gas chromatography units. Over a decade O2 went down, CO2 and CO went up.
The units varied in location from urban city centers (showed the most) to islands out to sea (showed the least). All declined at about the same proportional rates, though the absolute rates differed.
When I get time, I'd like to use satellite photos of the arctic into a time lapse video, play it, then ask "Now, what was it you were saying about climate change being a scam?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Oh, yeah.
Folks, extremism is extremism and is not a virtue; and moderation and considered judgement is. It is a rare thing to find anything "always" or "never".
I think the larger issue is that by resigning, will he short circuit prosecution for a crime. Since the Attorney General would have to prosecute, or Congress hold hearings, I think it likely he is going to skate away from this because the AG is a President Trump appointee and the majority Republican congress has no interest in prosecuting anyone whose name isn't Clinton, Warren, or Pelosi.