That's my concern. The problem isn't that the requirements aren't there, it's that they aren't rigorously enforced enough to prevent the exploitation of loopholes. Increasing the requirements without actually enforcing them in the first place isn't going to do us much good.
Given the nature of Ad Networks, it doesn't really matter what sites you're looking at. You could surf only perfectly reputable sites, and you'd still get pwned if you weren't blocking the ads. It's because they're using third-party distribution networks, and while certainly there are some networks that are shadier than others, I've yet to see anything that convinces me that the crooks can't get malware up on them long enough to do damage.
That's great, so long as those who do wrong get punished accordingly, so that there is a disincentive to continue doing wrong. But what happens if someone's getting rewarded for it? Do you think that they're going to do anything but continue acting that way? And what message does it send to others?
Consider if I had two sons, Bobby and Johnny, and Bobby hit Johnny and took Johnny's lollipop. And then when Johnny went to hit Bobby back I stopped him and said, "two wrongs don't make a right", but I let Bobby keep the lollipop? What if I then gave Bobby another lollipop? Do you think he's not just going to steal the next lollipop Johnny gets, too?
The Republican party has placed gaining and staying in power over the good of the country, and unfortunately, they've been rewarded for it. It's up to us, the voters, to punish them for it, but we've thus far refused to do so, whether because of general agreement with Republican morals/issues, fear, tribalism, economic pain, or otherwise. The US political system is not designed to be so blindly tolerant of such gross self-interest by a political party, and we're all going to suffer for the destruction of political norms that it engenders, because doing so incentivizes retaliation in kind, not cooperation or compromise.
It means that when and if the Democrats come back into power, they will have zero fucks to give about taking Republican wishes into consideration. This is a bad thing for the country, because we need input from all sides, even the minority - and the refusal of that minority to participate in governing has set precedents that will be very difficult to overcome.
You're assuming that his day job was a better alternative and that he was foolish to give it up. That's a pretty big assumption.
And no, Basic Income won't stop people from making bad decisions about their work, but that was never the point. With a Basic Income, he could be a complete idiot who vastly undervalues his own labor and works for $1 an hour, and still not have to worry that he'll starve. It's not about protecting you from yourself, it's about ensuring that you can survive even if you are unable to negotiate sufficient payment for your time/labor to do so.
You could argue that someone might still be an idiot and blow their Basic Income on strippers and drugs/booze, and then starve because they didn't have any money left for food, but there is NOTHING short of 100% state control that completely protect someone from their own idiocy.
And what do you propose should happen to those who don't have the skills, and can't acquire them? What about those who try, but just aren't good enough? There are presently some 3 million or so drivers in the U.S., between taxis, Uber, delivery trucks, and long haul trucks. What should happen to them as demand for their previously valuable skill dwindles to the point they can't support themselves anymore, or wind up unemployed en masse when the vehicles can drive themselves? There are some 3.6 million fast food employees in the U.S. - what about them?
Perhaps you think they should learn to program, or become auto mechanics, or HVAC technicians, or some other job that remains in demand. Some of them may well be able to, but is there really immediate demand for several million more of them? Did it ever occur to you that some of them might like to learn those skills, but lack the time and money it takes to do so? Education isn't cheap, and it's getting significantly more expensive by the year. And worse, you might find after you complete it that you can't get a job in that field, because the competition is high, and others are simply better at it than you are.
So what then? Because I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not suggesting that we fund a robust social safety net with programs to make sure those people don't starve, or some form of universal basic income.
To be precise, they weren't opposed to any law that the Democrats liked at the time, since Clinton was President then. It was only after Obama's election that they adopted a policy of complete refusal of any cooperation short of total capitulation.* So, in all fairness, DMCA -was- a bipartisan law, in that the opposition from the left was not sufficient to persuade the president to veto it (there really wasn't any opposition to it from the right, to my knowledge, save perhaps complaints that it didn't go far enough).
*And we could debate why that is, but it's somewhat getting away from the topic at hand.
There are certainly reasons to dislike, and not favor, Hillary Clinton - but I find that far more often the caricature that people think of her as is nothing remotely like the reality, in part because she's had 24 years of being turned into a target, primarily by the right, but also by the far left.
Take the perception that she's a warmonger, for instance. I mean, sure, she's not a pacifist or a dove by any stretch of the imagination, but there's a large amount of difference between someone that's willing to entertain military solutions to international crises, and someone who actively goes looking to pick a fight. People blame her for supporting the Iraq War, which is fair - but she wasn't one of the ones pushing it, nor can anyone believably argue that she'd have chosen to invade Iraq had she been President instead of Bush-43.
More importantly though, she is first and foremost a -rational- actor in terms of international policy. She is calm, calculated, and deliberate. She's not likely to fly off the handle, overreact, or wind up in over her head in a dispute with her prestige on the line. Consider 2008 - do you think Trump would have conceded gracefully the way she did to Obama, never-mind agreeing to work for him in a role that wasn't even the number 2 spot? I think it far more likely he would have flown off the handle, and threatened to retaliate however he could.
I realize that some people seem to think that Trump will be different now than he has been in the past, but I have yet to see anything in his track record to give me any indication he can be someone other than who he continues to show us that he is - thin-skinned, proud, incapable of taking a slight or backing down from a confrontation. Explain to me again why this is more reassuring than someone who is an old hand at foreign policy and a known commodity?
Yes, just think about what terrible things the Clinton Foundation did, like:
Raised $313 million for R&D into new vaccines and medicines;
Helped provide better maternal and child survival care to more than 110 million people, and;
Provided treatment for more than 36 million people with tropical diseases.
Even worse, it spent 88% of its 2014 outlays directly on programs (rather than overhead) and that it only has to spend $2 to raise $100. A performance that poor gives it a solid "A" rating from charity watchdogs. We're all clearly better off without groups like this funneling money from rich donors to help poor people in underdeveloped countries around the world.
Source: http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/...
For one, this is about Seattle. Seattle is in Washington (State), not Oregon.
Second, Unions, like most organized groups of humans, can be good or bad, depending on who is running them, and how accountable the membership holds them. There are many unions whose members are quite pleased with them, because they believe they gain more in terms of improved wages and benefits than they pay in terms of union dues.
And more importantly, this does not impose a union on these drivers - it merely grants them the choice of whether or not they want one.
Whether it is or isn't, it's easy to see that this is not what the program tends to wind up being used for in the majority of cases. Most of the H1Bs are being used by contract outsourcers like Tata and Infosys, where they help other companies skirt around the provisions of not replacing US workers with H1Bs (because it's not a direct replacement, it's deciding to outsource an entire division, that those companies wind up being the lowest bidder on, etc).
That said, it doesn't mean there aren't companies using the law for what it was intended for - just that there's rampant abuse, and it needs fixing.
Just because someone is good at getting city bureaucrats in line doesn't mean they know jack squat about information security. I've dealt with lots of very successful people who run large businesses in various industries, and are very good at that. They're good in their field, but they don't know infosec. The ones who realize that (and that it's important) hire people who do know it... something Giuliani clearly hasn't done.
I certainly don't expect Giuliani himself to go code up a solution or configure his servers himself. I do expect that he ought to know the importance of hiring good people, and of showing people that you know what you're talking about. Would you hire a plumber who has a broken toilet he can't/won't fix in his own shop's bathroom?
First, this isn't a law yet. The Republicans have a majority in the statehouse, but the governor is a Democrat (though I haven't seen any word on how he intends to respond). That said, there's already a law on the books restricting Municipal broadband. Most of the built-up suburbs have at least two options between FiOS and Cable (mostly Comcast, but Cox has a few counties including Fairfax, the biggest DC suburban one). Currently the only part that has municipal broadband is Bristol, in the southwestern part of the state on the Tennessee border, where they have full FTTP. Unfortunately, it's not exactly a large city (population ~17k).
Overall the state isn't a bad place to live, though it has its crazy quirks, and some parts of it are very different from others. Most of the tech jobs are up near or in DC, and relate to the Federal Government in some way. The DC suburbs are pricy and traffic sucks (though not as bad as the Bay Area still). The weather usually isn't too bad, though people have no clue how to drive in snow. The food is pretty good, and you're well positioned between both the Northern and Southern regions of the country.
I've actually been pretty pleased with Crunchyroll's simulcasting of new series. While they don't always have all the ones I want, there's always lots of new stuff with the episodes posted with full subtitles at the same time it goes on the air in Japan (because Crunchyroll gets the episode ahead of time, in order to subtitle it).
Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in the list that says to me "Here is something you can't get with existing services." I don't mind coughing up $5 a month,-if- it's something I'm going to use. Amazon needs to make that use case to me, because I'm just not convinced that I should either a) replace my Crunchyroll sub with this service, or b) augment my Crunchyroll sub with this.
So you would be in favor of allowing people to do things like incite riots, or urge others to commit terrorist acts, or to call for the violent overthrow of the US Government? Sending information on troop movements to an enemy country in time of war? I'm merely playing devil's advocate here, but it seems to me that while freedom of speech/expression is very important, and should be given the benefit of the doubt in almost every case, there do exist exceptions that can be implemented in a reasonable and just society without immediately resulting in a slippery slope to tyranny. The key, I think, is that there has to be a reasonable and recognizable standard for when something else supercedes that.
Incidentally, there's also something of a legal difference between "Freedom of Speech" as we have in the USA, and "Freedom of Expression" as they have in Canada and some other western democracies. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that there's a bit of nuance there between what is and isn't allowed.
According to a number of reports, Yahoo's core business is valued at less than nothing, so I'm hard pressed to imagine how Verizon can prove they're even more worthless than that:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/21...
Twitter seems to be a pretty effective place to take your complaints about a product/company in order to get satisfaction. It's far more likely to get a response, it seems, than other methods like contacting them directly. I suppose the lesson is that companies are eager to quickly (or more quickly) react to potential bad publicity than they are about the complaints of one specific customer.
Their oath isn't to the president - it's to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The vast majority of the defense and intelligence community (because there's a huge overlap, and several of the 17 agencies are part of the military, plus many of those who aren't are chock full of veterans) also tend to be highly professional about doing their jobs regardless of who's in charge, particularly the rank and file analysts who do the actual work on this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my concern. The problem isn't that the requirements aren't there, it's that they aren't rigorously enforced enough to prevent the exploitation of loopholes. Increasing the requirements without actually enforcing them in the first place isn't going to do us much good.
Given the nature of Ad Networks, it doesn't really matter what sites you're looking at. You could surf only perfectly reputable sites, and you'd still get pwned if you weren't blocking the ads. It's because they're using third-party distribution networks, and while certainly there are some networks that are shadier than others, I've yet to see anything that convinces me that the crooks can't get malware up on them long enough to do damage.
It's a province of the Netherlands, though it's more commonly written as Zeeland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Two wrongs != right
That's great, so long as those who do wrong get punished accordingly, so that there is a disincentive to continue doing wrong. But what happens if someone's getting rewarded for it? Do you think that they're going to do anything but continue acting that way? And what message does it send to others?
Consider if I had two sons, Bobby and Johnny, and Bobby hit Johnny and took Johnny's lollipop. And then when Johnny went to hit Bobby back I stopped him and said, "two wrongs don't make a right", but I let Bobby keep the lollipop? What if I then gave Bobby another lollipop? Do you think he's not just going to steal the next lollipop Johnny gets, too?
The Republican party has placed gaining and staying in power over the good of the country, and unfortunately, they've been rewarded for it. It's up to us, the voters, to punish them for it, but we've thus far refused to do so, whether because of general agreement with Republican morals/issues, fear, tribalism, economic pain, or otherwise. The US political system is not designed to be so blindly tolerant of such gross self-interest by a political party, and we're all going to suffer for the destruction of political norms that it engenders, because doing so incentivizes retaliation in kind, not cooperation or compromise.
It means that when and if the Democrats come back into power, they will have zero fucks to give about taking Republican wishes into consideration. This is a bad thing for the country, because we need input from all sides, even the minority - and the refusal of that minority to participate in governing has set precedents that will be very difficult to overcome.
You're assuming that his day job was a better alternative and that he was foolish to give it up. That's a pretty big assumption.
And no, Basic Income won't stop people from making bad decisions about their work, but that was never the point. With a Basic Income, he could be a complete idiot who vastly undervalues his own labor and works for $1 an hour, and still not have to worry that he'll starve. It's not about protecting you from yourself, it's about ensuring that you can survive even if you are unable to negotiate sufficient payment for your time/labor to do so.
You could argue that someone might still be an idiot and blow their Basic Income on strippers and drugs/booze, and then starve because they didn't have any money left for food, but there is NOTHING short of 100% state control that completely protect someone from their own idiocy.
And what do you propose should happen to those who don't have the skills, and can't acquire them? What about those who try, but just aren't good enough? There are presently some 3 million or so drivers in the U.S., between taxis, Uber, delivery trucks, and long haul trucks. What should happen to them as demand for their previously valuable skill dwindles to the point they can't support themselves anymore, or wind up unemployed en masse when the vehicles can drive themselves? There are some 3.6 million fast food employees in the U.S. - what about them?
Perhaps you think they should learn to program, or become auto mechanics, or HVAC technicians, or some other job that remains in demand. Some of them may well be able to, but is there really immediate demand for several million more of them? Did it ever occur to you that some of them might like to learn those skills, but lack the time and money it takes to do so? Education isn't cheap, and it's getting significantly more expensive by the year. And worse, you might find after you complete it that you can't get a job in that field, because the competition is high, and others are simply better at it than you are.
So what then? Because I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not suggesting that we fund a robust social safety net with programs to make sure those people don't starve, or some form of universal basic income.
To be precise, they weren't opposed to any law that the Democrats liked at the time, since Clinton was President then. It was only after Obama's election that they adopted a policy of complete refusal of any cooperation short of total capitulation.* So, in all fairness, DMCA -was- a bipartisan law, in that the opposition from the left was not sufficient to persuade the president to veto it (there really wasn't any opposition to it from the right, to my knowledge, save perhaps complaints that it didn't go far enough).
*And we could debate why that is, but it's somewhat getting away from the topic at hand.
We'll get right on it and whip up a GUI using Visual Basic to trace him back through lots of pretty 3-D digital artwork style cityscapes.
There are certainly reasons to dislike, and not favor, Hillary Clinton - but I find that far more often the caricature that people think of her as is nothing remotely like the reality, in part because she's had 24 years of being turned into a target, primarily by the right, but also by the far left.
Take the perception that she's a warmonger, for instance. I mean, sure, she's not a pacifist or a dove by any stretch of the imagination, but there's a large amount of difference between someone that's willing to entertain military solutions to international crises, and someone who actively goes looking to pick a fight. People blame her for supporting the Iraq War, which is fair - but she wasn't one of the ones pushing it, nor can anyone believably argue that she'd have chosen to invade Iraq had she been President instead of Bush-43.
More importantly though, she is first and foremost a -rational- actor in terms of international policy. She is calm, calculated, and deliberate. She's not likely to fly off the handle, overreact, or wind up in over her head in a dispute with her prestige on the line. Consider 2008 - do you think Trump would have conceded gracefully the way she did to Obama, never-mind agreeing to work for him in a role that wasn't even the number 2 spot? I think it far more likely he would have flown off the handle, and threatened to retaliate however he could.
I realize that some people seem to think that Trump will be different now than he has been in the past, but I have yet to see anything in his track record to give me any indication he can be someone other than who he continues to show us that he is - thin-skinned, proud, incapable of taking a slight or backing down from a confrontation. Explain to me again why this is more reassuring than someone who is an old hand at foreign policy and a known commodity?
Yes, just think about what terrible things the Clinton Foundation did, like:
Raised $313 million for R&D into new vaccines and medicines;
Helped provide better maternal and child survival care to more than 110 million people, and;
Provided treatment for more than 36 million people with tropical diseases.
Even worse, it spent 88% of its 2014 outlays directly on programs (rather than overhead) and that it only has to spend $2 to raise $100. A performance that poor gives it a solid "A" rating from charity watchdogs. We're all clearly better off without groups like this funneling money from rich donors to help poor people in underdeveloped countries around the world.
Source: http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/...
For one, this is about Seattle. Seattle is in Washington (State), not Oregon.
Second, Unions, like most organized groups of humans, can be good or bad, depending on who is running them, and how accountable the membership holds them. There are many unions whose members are quite pleased with them, because they believe they gain more in terms of improved wages and benefits than they pay in terms of union dues.
And more importantly, this does not impose a union on these drivers - it merely grants them the choice of whether or not they want one.
Whether it is or isn't, it's easy to see that this is not what the program tends to wind up being used for in the majority of cases. Most of the H1Bs are being used by contract outsourcers like Tata and Infosys, where they help other companies skirt around the provisions of not replacing US workers with H1Bs (because it's not a direct replacement, it's deciding to outsource an entire division, that those companies wind up being the lowest bidder on, etc).
That said, it doesn't mean there aren't companies using the law for what it was intended for - just that there's rampant abuse, and it needs fixing.
Just because someone is good at getting city bureaucrats in line doesn't mean they know jack squat about information security. I've dealt with lots of very successful people who run large businesses in various industries, and are very good at that. They're good in their field, but they don't know infosec. The ones who realize that (and that it's important) hire people who do know it... something Giuliani clearly hasn't done.
I certainly don't expect Giuliani himself to go code up a solution or configure his servers himself. I do expect that he ought to know the importance of hiring good people, and of showing people that you know what you're talking about. Would you hire a plumber who has a broken toilet he can't/won't fix in his own shop's bathroom?
First, this isn't a law yet. The Republicans have a majority in the statehouse, but the governor is a Democrat (though I haven't seen any word on how he intends to respond). That said, there's already a law on the books restricting Municipal broadband. Most of the built-up suburbs have at least two options between FiOS and Cable (mostly Comcast, but Cox has a few counties including Fairfax, the biggest DC suburban one). Currently the only part that has municipal broadband is Bristol, in the southwestern part of the state on the Tennessee border, where they have full FTTP. Unfortunately, it's not exactly a large city (population ~17k).
Overall the state isn't a bad place to live, though it has its crazy quirks, and some parts of it are very different from others. Most of the tech jobs are up near or in DC, and relate to the Federal Government in some way. The DC suburbs are pricy and traffic sucks (though not as bad as the Bay Area still). The weather usually isn't too bad, though people have no clue how to drive in snow. The food is pretty good, and you're well positioned between both the Northern and Southern regions of the country.
I've actually been pretty pleased with Crunchyroll's simulcasting of new series. While they don't always have all the ones I want, there's always lots of new stuff with the episodes posted with full subtitles at the same time it goes on the air in Japan (because Crunchyroll gets the episode ahead of time, in order to subtitle it).
Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in the list that says to me "Here is something you can't get with existing services." I don't mind coughing up $5 a month,-if- it's something I'm going to use. Amazon needs to make that use case to me, because I'm just not convinced that I should either a) replace my Crunchyroll sub with this service, or b) augment my Crunchyroll sub with this.
So you would be in favor of allowing people to do things like incite riots, or urge others to commit terrorist acts, or to call for the violent overthrow of the US Government? Sending information on troop movements to an enemy country in time of war? I'm merely playing devil's advocate here, but it seems to me that while freedom of speech/expression is very important, and should be given the benefit of the doubt in almost every case, there do exist exceptions that can be implemented in a reasonable and just society without immediately resulting in a slippery slope to tyranny. The key, I think, is that there has to be a reasonable and recognizable standard for when something else supercedes that.
Incidentally, there's also something of a legal difference between "Freedom of Speech" as we have in the USA, and "Freedom of Expression" as they have in Canada and some other western democracies. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that there's a bit of nuance there between what is and isn't allowed.
Now I can get malware loaded onto every appliance in my home!
"Thank you for downloading me, Mario, but your Princess is in another download at malware.cybercrime.su."
Of course it's easy. You just reformat the hard drive, and then install Windows 7 (or your other preferred flavor). Easy as two simple steps!
According to a number of reports, Yahoo's core business is valued at less than nothing, so I'm hard pressed to imagine how Verizon can prove they're even more worthless than that: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/21...
Of course you vote for a lizard. You wouldn't want the wrong lizard to get in, would you?
On the other hand, Piracy warnings seem to have been correlated with a notable increase in interest in Downloadable Cars.
Twitter seems to be a pretty effective place to take your complaints about a product/company in order to get satisfaction. It's far more likely to get a response, it seems, than other methods like contacting them directly. I suppose the lesson is that companies are eager to quickly (or more quickly) react to potential bad publicity than they are about the complaints of one specific customer.
Their oath isn't to the president - it's to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The vast majority of the defense and intelligence community (because there's a huge overlap, and several of the 17 agencies are part of the military, plus many of those who aren't are chock full of veterans) also tend to be highly professional about doing their jobs regardless of who's in charge, particularly the rank and file analysts who do the actual work on this stuff.