An interesting conjecture, and not unreasonable given the inconclusive evidence. Were I to believe it a Democrat inspired political murder, I still wouldn't believe that Hillary would know anything about it, or even have approved of it after the fact. There are lots of people who are committed Democrats who are more likely to have done this...including various mobsters. (You don't think that just because someone's a mobster he doesn't have strong political commitments do you? You can find both Democrats and Republicans among them. I rather doubt that you can find any Greens, but that's only because the US Green party doesn't wield political power.)
OK. Now I've read the Snopes claim. They basically say that "conspiracy nuts" believe that the DNC is involved and the Police believe robbery. That's probably true, at least if you modify it to "the Police claim to believe it was robbery". It's not anything to base an opinion on. It certainly doesn't show that it wasn't a political murder...a quite difficult thing to prove, unless you do it by proving that it was something else.
When I've looked things up on Snopes I haven't been very convinced by their analysis. I didn't check this one, since I don't know enough to decide whether their evaluation is flawed, biased, accurate, or what. The times that I did check, though, have made me reluctant to trust them as more than twice as accurate as "some random guy posting on the web", and considerably less accurate than WikiPedia...which I hardly trust at all on anything controversial.
Probably not more than 4 degrees for most of them. Claiming 6 degrees is excessive.
That said, as politics gets more corrupt, being associated with a politician gets more dangerous. And the danger comes both from the supporters and the detractors of the politician in question. And politics seems to have been getting continuously more corrupt since Nixon's presidency. Possibly before then, but I wasn't paying much attention.
The problem, though, is that Britain is pretty far North, so you get diminished intensity insolation. It also has a lot of cloudy and rainy days, which at least around were I live drastically reduces solar output. That's why they're so interested in wind. (Is off-shore wind practical yet?)
Britain should also be able to get a lot of power out of wave and tide generators, but those seem to be more expensive to develop, and possibly only work where there's appropriate terrain...and that could mean large scale underwater construction. IIRC when it was tried in Scotland the flows were so fierce that it tore up the generators, so the power is there. I'd expect both the Irish Sea and the English Channel to be a good place for tidal generators...but the propellers might need to be larger than they would around Scotland, with the flow being both smoother and weaker. OTOH, that kind of thing hasn't yet been done successfully, at least on a large scale, so figuring expenses (especially maintenance) would be a ballpark guess.
I've got some Linux programs (from Loki Software) that only run on an installation in a virtual machine. The problem isn't all in the OS, some times it's in the programs that don't like the newer systems.
Well, I've got one MSWind95 system running, but it's about to go away, and a Mac 10.4 system that is turned off, and has been for over a year.
In both cases the machines have been retained because of proprietary software that held data in proprietary file formats written by companies that have died. This has created in me a very strong bias in favor of FOSS software, and especially GPL, though if the code is open other FOSS licenses can also be accepted.
From most of the reports I've encountered, MSWind10 should be avoided no matter what the circumstances. I've encountered one report that (with certain options I don't remember) they've fixed many of the GUI problems. Everyone else has been dubious, speculative, or downright abusive about things like it's privacy policy, it updating requirements, etc.
I hope the outrage makes you feel better, because it serves no other purpose. People tend to discount future rewards and threats. What would make people less likely to do this is more the certainty of getting caught than a severe punishment.
So how are you willing to improve their "certainty of getting caught"? Are you willing to make all internet communication traceable? Even that wouldn't work, as those who do this will often be in other countries. So even just making all methods of payment traceable wouldn't suffice, but you'll notice that these people usually want to be paid in bitcoins. Son if you eliminated untraceable currency, you'd reduce it a lot. Is the game worth the candle to you?
In London one of the favorite places for pickpockets to work used to be the place where they hanged people for, among other things, being a pickpocket. Threat of punishment doesn't deter people well unless there's a high likelihood of being caught. And if there's a high likelihood you don't need severe punishment. Restitution + damages + a small fine should suffice. Restitution and damages should be generously calculated to benefit the person injured. Fines should be moderate, say twice the court cost + the bill for police services needed. And the perpetrator (i.e., the person/persons found guilty of committing the act) should have the right to challenge the bill for any of the costs involved, though then they would need to pay for the independent auditor unless the bill was found to be in error.
It *could* be done in a reasonably safe manner. It just isn't being done that way. Ideally the devices would only communicate over 192.0.0.n, and any communication relaying would be done over your computer...and if you turned off your computer, it would only be local. And any messages going out should be encrypted, as should the responses, with a key that is shared between your device (by serial number) and the company that it needs to communicate with (which adds another chunk of numbers). You don't need strong security, just one that is unique to each device, and only allows two failed attempts before it starts requiring increased delays between logon attempts.
All that is purely standard security. That it isn't being should make the manufacturers liable for negligence. And, unfortunately, it should make anyone knowledgeable refuse to use them. Of course, they don't reveal the information before you buy the device, and probably not afterwards, either. Certainly I haven't gotten any warnings about my monitor (which might not be IoT) or my printer (which, unfortunately, is...I didn't find out until after I'd purchased it that it required access to more than my local net).
If anyone has recommendations for multi-function networkable printers that work with Linux and don't require access to anything beyond 198.0.0.n I'd like to hear them.
Unfortunately, knowing that doesn't really solve the problem. Different control systems take different voltages. (In the discussion above I've seen explicit mention of 9 V and 24 V. Presumably both were DC, but that's not guaranteed.) And different devices have different control signals.
If your thermostat was retrofitted onto an old system, you've got a simple job. If you're using some system a manufacturer put together to work as a system, he's got a positive incentive to make it unable to take a simple replacement. So expect that it won't. And there's no requirement that he should make the internal communications documentation available to you, so you can't count on being able to hack together a replacement.
Now if you're knowledgeable, you might be able to figure it out (they aren't really obfuscating things yet), but if you're knowledgeable, why in the world would you buy into such a thing in the first place? Were I doing it (I'm not going to. I see no real benefit in IOT thermostats.) I'd probably use a raspberry pi or some such and hack together a system attached to a real computer (i.e., one with a keyboard and monitor) and allow THAT access to the internet over a protocol that I wrote. But I don't like fiddling around with hardware, and I see no real benefit in the IoT devices. I intend to avoid them as long as I can. (But I do already have a printer that I can't block off from internet access without disabling an automatic ink purchase program. I think this was a bad idea, but my wife like not needing to go out to buy ink.)
I have noticed. Lyndon Johnson got lots of bills out of committee. When a bill he wanted got stuck, he would start agitating, and he was in a position to exert a lot of pressure (and controlled several carrots). Most presidents have been less effective at that, I will admit, but promising to get a bill introduced also involves a promise of indirect action, so it's no different from promising to get the bill out of committee.
Not all action is direct action. Some people describe things more directly than others. E.g., Nixon used to promise to (I can't remember the exact words) harangue people into doing what he wanted. That's a more exact description, but is still incorrect if interpreted literally. FDR used to make public addresses to get people to exert pressure on their congress folk. Eisenhower was personally laid back, and let his staff do the arguing. Kennedy again used public speaking to push his goals (and used Johnson to help him). Carter had lots of trouble. Bush ignored the parts of laws he didn't like ("Signing statements"). Etc.
My implication was that Hillary was promising an action which was only symbolically significant, and that not very. But that she was probably honest about promising it. And that she knew it would be reported as being much more significant that it really was.
IIUC it's even weaker than that. If you are acting as an agent you are allowed to have a "good faith belief" that the person who hired you to ask that the material be taken down had a copyright interest in it, and the original person is not under oath, and bears no responsibility for lying.
I hope I'm misunderstanding this, but so far nobody has pointed out a case that demonstrates that.
If you keep using MS, expect it to get worse. The only way I'd use MS is inside a VM.
(Actually, because I can't accept the EULA that statement is chest-beating. I *won't* install MSWind. MSWind98 was the last version I know of with an acceptable EULA, though admittedly I haven't read most of the EULAs since then.)
There are so many possible reasons for your post. Truth isn't one of them. I've run multiple Linux installs for decades now. Systemd is the second time I've had any problem. The earlier one was with Red Hat's security lock-down. Both were easily worked around without a re-install (though I did need to hand-specify the partition locations.)
Well, if you could use a password 22 letters long, you could just change the capitalization of each letter in turn (22 because I'm assuming that the shift of a special character requires a number, so you'd also need to shift the number into a special character..and I don't want a fence-post error.)
Or you could just use the same scheme with a password 6 letters + 1 special character long, always end it with the year, and only shift the letters. E.g.: "DeaRAbby2016" (I'm assuming it started off as "DearAbby2016" and has been through 4 shift changes.)
When I've checked, she hasn't seemed to be as much actually dishonest, as misleading. Consider one of her recent promises: "I promise to see that a bill against (that) is introduced...". This gets reported as "Hillary comes out aginst...", but that's not what she actually said. She didn't actually promise to even see that the bill was reported out of committee.
That's a part of why I'm planning to vote Green, but you might want to think a bit more about accusing her of dishonesty. SHE wasn't the reporter who misquoted her. She just knew it would happen. Disingenuous is more accurate than dishonest. Or deceptive.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting conjecture, and not unreasonable given the inconclusive evidence. Were I to believe it a Democrat inspired political murder, I still wouldn't believe that Hillary would know anything about it, or even have approved of it after the fact. There are lots of people who are committed Democrats who are more likely to have done this...including various mobsters. (You don't think that just because someone's a mobster he doesn't have strong political commitments do you? You can find both Democrats and Republicans among them. I rather doubt that you can find any Greens, but that's only because the US Green party doesn't wield political power.)
OK. Now I've read the Snopes claim. They basically say that "conspiracy nuts" believe that the DNC is involved and the Police believe robbery. That's probably true, at least if you modify it to "the Police claim to believe it was robbery". It's not anything to base an opinion on. It certainly doesn't show that it wasn't a political murder...a quite difficult thing to prove, unless you do it by proving that it was something else.
When I've looked things up on Snopes I haven't been very convinced by their analysis. I didn't check this one, since I don't know enough to decide whether their evaluation is flawed, biased, accurate, or what. The times that I did check, though, have made me reluctant to trust them as more than twice as accurate as "some random guy posting on the web", and considerably less accurate than WikiPedia...which I hardly trust at all on anything controversial.
Probably not more than 4 degrees for most of them. Claiming 6 degrees is excessive.
That said, as politics gets more corrupt, being associated with a politician gets more dangerous. And the danger comes both from the supporters and the detractors of the politician in question. And politics seems to have been getting continuously more corrupt since Nixon's presidency. Possibly before then, but I wasn't paying much attention.
OK...but the radius should include Alaska and Hawaii...and possibly Guam and the Bikini Atoll.
The problem, though, is that Britain is pretty far North, so you get diminished intensity insolation. It also has a lot of cloudy and rainy days, which at least around were I live drastically reduces solar output. That's why they're so interested in wind. (Is off-shore wind practical yet?)
Britain should also be able to get a lot of power out of wave and tide generators, but those seem to be more expensive to develop, and possibly only work where there's appropriate terrain...and that could mean large scale underwater construction. IIRC when it was tried in Scotland the flows were so fierce that it tore up the generators, so the power is there. I'd expect both the Irish Sea and the English Channel to be a good place for tidal generators...but the propellers might need to be larger than they would around Scotland, with the flow being both smoother and weaker. OTOH, that kind of thing hasn't yet been done successfully, at least on a large scale, so figuring expenses (especially maintenance) would be a ballpark guess.
Well, I avoid MS Windows for other reasons having to do with the EULA, so that's ok.
I've got some Linux programs (from Loki Software) that only run on an installation in a virtual machine. The problem isn't all in the OS, some times it's in the programs that don't like the newer systems.
Well, I've got one MSWind95 system running, but it's about to go away, and a Mac 10.4 system that is turned off, and has been for over a year.
In both cases the machines have been retained because of proprietary software that held data in proprietary file formats written by companies that have died. This has created in me a very strong bias in favor of FOSS software, and especially GPL, though if the code is open other FOSS licenses can also be accepted.
From most of the reports I've encountered, MSWind10 should be avoided no matter what the circumstances. I've encountered one report that (with certain options I don't remember) they've fixed many of the GUI problems. Everyone else has been dubious, speculative, or downright abusive about things like it's privacy policy, it updating requirements, etc.
It the London Metropolitan Police the same as the police for the "City of London"? If so the problems couldn't happen to a "nicer" bunch of guys.
I hope the outrage makes you feel better, because it serves no other purpose. People tend to discount future rewards and threats. What would make people less likely to do this is more the certainty of getting caught than a severe punishment.
So how are you willing to improve their "certainty of getting caught"? Are you willing to make all internet communication traceable? Even that wouldn't work, as those who do this will often be in other countries. So even just making all methods of payment traceable wouldn't suffice, but you'll notice that these people usually want to be paid in bitcoins. Son if you eliminated untraceable currency, you'd reduce it a lot. Is the game worth the candle to you?
In London one of the favorite places for pickpockets to work used to be the place where they hanged people for, among other things, being a pickpocket. Threat of punishment doesn't deter people well unless there's a high likelihood of being caught. And if there's a high likelihood you don't need severe punishment. Restitution + damages + a small fine should suffice. Restitution and damages should be generously calculated to benefit the person injured. Fines should be moderate, say twice the court cost + the bill for police services needed. And the perpetrator (i.e., the person/persons found guilty of committing the act) should have the right to challenge the bill for any of the costs involved, though then they would need to pay for the independent auditor unless the bill was found to be in error.
It *could* be done in a reasonably safe manner. It just isn't being done that way. Ideally the devices would only communicate over 192.0.0.n, and any communication relaying would be done over your computer...and if you turned off your computer, it would only be local. And any messages going out should be encrypted, as should the responses, with a key that is shared between your device (by serial number) and the company that it needs to communicate with (which adds another chunk of numbers). You don't need strong security, just one that is unique to each device, and only allows two failed attempts before it starts requiring increased delays between logon attempts.
All that is purely standard security. That it isn't being should make the manufacturers liable for negligence. And, unfortunately, it should make anyone knowledgeable refuse to use them. Of course, they don't reveal the information before you buy the device, and probably not afterwards, either. Certainly I haven't gotten any warnings about my monitor (which might not be IoT) or my printer (which, unfortunately, is...I didn't find out until after I'd purchased it that it required access to more than my local net).
If anyone has recommendations for multi-function networkable printers that work with Linux and don't require access to anything beyond 198.0.0.n I'd like to hear them.
Yes, that should be taught in schools.
Unfortunately, knowing that doesn't really solve the problem. Different control systems take different voltages. (In the discussion above I've seen explicit mention of 9 V and 24 V. Presumably both were DC, but that's not guaranteed.) And different devices have different control signals.
If your thermostat was retrofitted onto an old system, you've got a simple job. If you're using some system a manufacturer put together to work as a system, he's got a positive incentive to make it unable to take a simple replacement. So expect that it won't. And there's no requirement that he should make the internal communications documentation available to you, so you can't count on being able to hack together a replacement.
Now if you're knowledgeable, you might be able to figure it out (they aren't really obfuscating things yet), but if you're knowledgeable, why in the world would you buy into such a thing in the first place? Were I doing it (I'm not going to. I see no real benefit in IOT thermostats.) I'd probably use a raspberry pi or some such and hack together a system attached to a real computer (i.e., one with a keyboard and monitor) and allow THAT access to the internet over a protocol that I wrote. But I don't like fiddling around with hardware, and I see no real benefit in the IoT devices. I intend to avoid them as long as I can. (But I do already have a printer that I can't block off from internet access without disabling an automatic ink purchase program. I think this was a bad idea, but my wife like not needing to go out to buy ink.)
With most VMs you can set the VM to not see the network...you shouldn't need to pull the physical plug.
I have noticed. Lyndon Johnson got lots of bills out of committee. When a bill he wanted got stuck, he would start agitating, and he was in a position to exert a lot of pressure (and controlled several carrots). Most presidents have been less effective at that, I will admit, but promising to get a bill introduced also involves a promise of indirect action, so it's no different from promising to get the bill out of committee.
Not all action is direct action. Some people describe things more directly than others. E.g., Nixon used to promise to (I can't remember the exact words) harangue people into doing what he wanted. That's a more exact description, but is still incorrect if interpreted literally. FDR used to make public addresses to get people to exert pressure on their congress folk. Eisenhower was personally laid back, and let his staff do the arguing. Kennedy again used public speaking to push his goals (and used Johnson to help him). Carter had lots of trouble. Bush ignored the parts of laws he didn't like ("Signing statements"). Etc.
My implication was that Hillary was promising an action which was only symbolically significant, and that not very. But that she was probably honest about promising it. And that she knew it would be reported as being much more significant that it really was.
IIUC it's even weaker than that. If you are acting as an agent you are allowed to have a "good faith belief" that the person who hired you to ask that the material be taken down had a copyright interest in it, and the original person is not under oath, and bears no responsibility for lying.
I hope I'm misunderstanding this, but so far nobody has pointed out a case that demonstrates that.
If you keep using MS, expect it to get worse. The only way I'd use MS is inside a VM.
(Actually, because I can't accept the EULA that statement is chest-beating. I *won't* install MSWind. MSWind98 was the last version I know of with an acceptable EULA, though admittedly I haven't read most of the EULAs since then.)
Why would I run Linux in a VM rather than MSWind?
Seriously, *is* there a reason? I don't know of any.
Further suggesting that this problem is intentional
Troll? Misinformed? Astroturfer?
There are so many possible reasons for your post. Truth isn't one of them. I've run multiple Linux installs for decades now. Systemd is the second time I've had any problem. The earlier one was with Red Hat's security lock-down. Both were easily worked around without a re-install (though I did need to hand-specify the partition locations.)
Well, if you could use a password 22 letters long, you could just change the capitalization of each letter in turn (22 because I'm assuming that the shift of a special character requires a number, so you'd also need to shift the number into a special character..and I don't want a fence-post error.)
Or you could just use the same scheme with a password 6 letters + 1 special character long, always end it with the year, and only shift the letters. E.g.: "DeaRAbby2016" (I'm assuming it started off as "DearAbby2016" and has been through 4 shift changes.)
FWIW, MSWind95 would crash after being up for 42 days. I think there was a millisecond counter overflow.
When I've checked, she hasn't seemed to be as much actually dishonest, as misleading. Consider one of her recent promises: "I promise to see that a bill against (that) is introduced...". This gets reported as "Hillary comes out aginst...", but that's not what she actually said. She didn't actually promise to even see that the bill was reported out of committee.
That's a part of why I'm planning to vote Green, but you might want to think a bit more about accusing her of dishonesty. SHE wasn't the reporter who misquoted her. She just knew it would happen. Disingenuous is more accurate than dishonest. Or deceptive.
Term Limits isn't a good answer. It ensures that if someone is good and competent at their current job, they can't keep it.
There's got to be a way to clean out the chaff without tossing the grain.