If the URL is still for the article, rather than being redirected to a paywall, sometimes I'll just right-click to inspect the element and start deleting stuff from the DOM until I see the content.
and Apple is fine with content-blocking, since it just wants to sell hardware.
Haha! Calling advertisements "content". That's funny. The content I am interested in consuming has never been, and never will be, an ad. The ads are the noise, not the signal. I block the ads to get to the content quicker and easier.
This is disturbing because it can be used to damage an unsuspecting Noob's machine and he wont know what cause it.. Not good.
When the Noob puts a random USB stick into his computer and immediately hears a buzz and a pop, and the screen goes blank, I think that the Noob should know exactly what caused it.
If you have local access to the PC you could just use a sledgehammer.
Yeah, I suppose you could carry a 10 pound sledgehammer around and spend time beating a computer and making plenty of noise doing it. Or, you could carry a USB stick a few grams in your pocket and take a second to fry the electronics while making hardly any noise (depending on what you're frying, of course).
You can also carry a gun and just shoot the computer. Or throw it out a window, or into water. All of those "use cases" for computer destruction are different than the use case for the USB stick.
The fact that someone with physical access can damage your PC shouldn't be a big surprise.
That's not what this story is about. The headline doesn't say "man figures out how to damage computer".
and the people who you actually are targeting will be more likely to keep the stick plugged in long enough for it to do its damage.
Watch the video, it looks like it takes less than a second, the OS doesn't even have time to try and mount it. There's a nice ominous buzzing sound and pop that accompanies it as well.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to carry one of these around with me.
How about a more sane and more plausible... larger brown dwarf twin?
You're suggesting that it's "plausible" that Kepler would observe this star over a 4 year span for 30 minutes per day and notice irregular dimming up to 22% while somehow not noticing that there is a large brown dwarf sitting next to it?
At least once a week someone would browse around on Buzzfeed until they found a graphic that showed how many infections the computer had, and then they would click on that and start the cleanup process. At least once a week.
Her and her administration should be tried for that first.
So then why hasn't she? If there is clear evidence that she flagrantly broke a law, then what exactly is holding up that prosecution? It is all of the Republican love for Hillary that is holding it up? Too many resources involved in the Benghazi hearings and not enough available for a criminal case? The Democrats would rather nominate her for president first, then face a criminal trial? What exactly is the reason?
Just pretend that Hillary is a Republican and that Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren have already been coronated president!
What, like, both of them? How did that happen? Was the constitution amended to allow for 2 presidents at the same time? Are you saying that one of them served a term, and then was replaced with the other? 2 terms? Were they biologically joined into one legal person that could serve as president? Was the country fractured into 2 countries and they were each elected as the president of one country? Was democracy suspended completely and a new oligarch came to power who decided that the country needed 2 presidents? Like, maybe a domestic affairs president, and a foreign affairs president. Did one of them just run for president in another country? What about Canada, maybe Canada was made a protectorate of the US, converted to a federal republic, and maybe Bernie was all like "I got this" and went to run Canada while Warren decided to jump over Joe Biden and get elected in the US? Is one of them the president of Puerto Rico? Is the non-US head of state of Puerto Rico even called a president?
I'm trying to get into your hypothetical, I just need more details.
I think that any claims that there was no server were disproved when she turned over the emails, which was several months ago. When did she claim that there was no server, the first week the news hit?
Let's see, looks like they got the server some time around 2008 for her presidential campaign, and the domains clintonemail.com, wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com pointed to it. The server was scanned by third parties for open ports in 2012, and they discovered that the Remote Desktop Connection ports were open and accepting connections. In 2013 she moved the server into a data center from her home (apparently). Emails with her clintonemail.com address were publicly disclosed at least as early as March 2013. In March of 2015 the New York Times reported that she exclusively used her private address and not her government address while secretary of state. Clinton's initial response on March 10 of 2015 defended her use of the personal account out of convenience and asserted that it was all legal.
So anyway, when did she deny the existence of the server? I'm all for bashing Hillary, but let's at least try to stick to the realm of factual information.
So I guess their adblocker-detection is based on JavaScript.
It has to be, it's not possible to detect server-side if the client is going to send a request to download the third-party resources that you're telling it to.
The quality of their content isn't the point, they're doing the right thing (as far as I'm concerned, anyway). There are several outcomes to them doing this which should show the value of their content. People will either be willing to disable ad-blockers to view that content, or people will pay to not see ads, or their traffic will drop and people will go elsewhere (or, people will circumvent the Javascript ad-blocker detection, or Bild will come up with an alternative revenue stream). It's exactly what any "content provider" complaining about ad-blocking should do. If people decide that their content is worth the ads or the expense, then they will continue to survive. If not, then they won't. I think that a major reason why so many "content providers" oppose ad-blockers is because they secretly think that their content is not worth paying for. Bild is willing to put it to the test, and I like that.
Candidates can decide to debate each other, but if the networks don't show up then few people hear about them.
That's right. And the rules for the COPD say that any network that participates in a debate that is not sanctioned by the COPD does not get to show or moderate any sanctioned debates. If the networks want the lucrative advertising and exposure that go along with a debate then they cannot show any third-party debates at all, and COPD candidates do not participate in debates with smaller parties.
If a party decides not to use the networks then few people will hear the debates.
Right. So how should a third party get coverage if they can't use the networks that want the COPD debates? How can they compete?
So there's cooperation and negotiation between the two
There sure is, "the two" being the COPD and the networks. There is no cooperation nor negotiation with any smaller parties. There is also significant cooperation between the 2 major parties, since they alone form the COPD. The 2 major parties cooperate with each other to create the rules that effectively shut out smaller parties from the debate process.
Note that the COPD decides where the debate is held, what the format is, who the moderator is, and who has broadcast rights. There have also been allegations that the candidates agree on the questions beforehand. In 2012 the first presidential debate was aired on ABC and the moderator was from PBS, and it had 67.2 million viewers. The VP debate aired on CNN and the moderator was from ABC and it pulled in 51.4 million viewers. The second presidential debate was aired on Fox and the moderator was from CNN, and it brought in 65.6 million viewers. The last debate was aired by ABC and the moderator was from CBS, and had 59.2 million viewers. Each of those debates had 1 participant from each of the 2 major parties.
It is ridiculous to believe that an independent candidate will be allowed into a Democrat or Republican candidate debate.
That's not what I'm talking about. After the primaries we have the presidential debates, where the D candidate debates the R candidate. Those debates should have more parties represented, but the COPD refuses to allow that. Perot was the recent exception. When I referred to Sanders and Trump running as independents I was referring to the general election, not a primary.
When it comes time for the general debates between all the candidates, that is when you should be calling for an all-inclusive process.
I have for years, I even wrote an essay about it. Control of the presidential debate process should revert back to the League Of Women Voters or another non-aligned organization, rather than being controlled by the 2 major parties. It's always appropriate to talk about this, we don't have to wait until the debates are already scheduled.
Now, if the question is "should the Rs be mandated to seat all R candidates in every R debate (and Ds likewise)" then I'd still answer "no". There needs to be a line somewhere.
Obviously, there are no less than 150 Republican candidates right now. It's not logistically possible nor even remotely feasible to feature everyone in a debate.
There is an easy fix the to Two Party system. Parties are only allowed one nomination for Primary, and primaries are completely (non-partisan) open.
Who is supposed to create and enforce those rules? Because that is the organization that the D and R won't support or be involved with. Instead they'll just air their own debate on TV. It's going to require a major third party candidate. Frankly, I hope that Sanders drops out of the Democratic race and goes third party, for that matter I hope Trump does the same. That way a lot of people will start to wonder why their favorite candidate doesn't get to debate the D and R nominees on TV.
No, it's the system that is the problem. The Democrat and Republican parties created the system, and they extort networks by threatening to not allow them to host or air the debate unless the networks follow the rules of the system, as set forth by the 2 parties through the commission.
In case anyone still thinks that debates are all about choice and fairness instead of being manufactured by the 2-party system, Lessig is an actual candidate that is not allowed to debate while there is an extra lectern in case Biden (who is not a candidate) decides to stop by.
And, in case anyone is willing to blame CNN for that instead of the 2 parties, if the networks do not follow the rules set out by the 2 parties then they don't get to host the debate at all. The rules are not written by the debate host, they are written by the Commission On Presidential Debates, a corporation composed of the Democrat and Republican parties. They are the ones setting the rules. If there's a candidate that you've heard of or support that isn't in the debate, the COPD is the reason why.
When I refer to "COPD" I mean the commission, not the disease, even though the result of both is trouble breathing and they both may lead to death.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, a story about a USB stick that fries electronics and you don't immediately watch the video? That's awful.
If the URL is still for the article, rather than being redirected to a paywall, sometimes I'll just right-click to inspect the element and start deleting stuff from the DOM until I see the content.
and Apple is fine with content-blocking, since it just wants to sell hardware.
Haha! Calling advertisements "content". That's funny. The content I am interested in consuming has never been, and never will be, an ad. The ads are the noise, not the signal. I block the ads to get to the content quicker and easier.
This is disturbing because it can be used to damage an unsuspecting Noob's machine and he wont know what cause it .. Not good.
When the Noob puts a random USB stick into his computer and immediately hears a buzz and a pop, and the screen goes blank, I think that the Noob should know exactly what caused it.
If you have local access to the PC you could just use a sledgehammer.
Yeah, I suppose you could carry a 10 pound sledgehammer around and spend time beating a computer and making plenty of noise doing it. Or, you could carry a USB stick a few grams in your pocket and take a second to fry the electronics while making hardly any noise (depending on what you're frying, of course).
You can also carry a gun and just shoot the computer. Or throw it out a window, or into water. All of those "use cases" for computer destruction are different than the use case for the USB stick.
The fact that someone with physical access can damage your PC shouldn't be a big surprise.
That's not what this story is about. The headline doesn't say "man figures out how to damage computer".
It could definitely use a cord a few feet long that you can yank to retrieve it from whatever you just destroyed.
and the people who you actually are targeting will be more likely to keep the stick plugged in long enough for it to do its damage.
Watch the video, it looks like it takes less than a second, the OS doesn't even have time to try and mount it. There's a nice ominous buzzing sound and pop that accompanies it as well.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to carry one of these around with me.
They're both much older than I ... My current lady friend, sort of - long story, is around 1/3 my age
Wait, Hillary (age 67) is "much older" than you, and your girlfriend is 1/3 your age? Are you 36 and dating a 12 year old?
I'm horrified at the thought
So am I.
Whatever the explanation is, something that is big enough to block over 20% of a star's light isn't going to be boring.
How about a more sane and more plausible... larger brown dwarf twin?
You're suggesting that it's "plausible" that Kepler would observe this star over a 4 year span for 30 minutes per day and notice irregular dimming up to 22% while somehow not noticing that there is a large brown dwarf sitting next to it?
At least once a week someone would browse around on Buzzfeed until they found a graphic that showed how many infections the computer had, and then they would click on that and start the cleanup process. At least once a week.
Her and her administration should be tried for that first.
So then why hasn't she? If there is clear evidence that she flagrantly broke a law, then what exactly is holding up that prosecution? It is all of the Republican love for Hillary that is holding it up? Too many resources involved in the Benghazi hearings and not enough available for a criminal case? The Democrats would rather nominate her for president first, then face a criminal trial? What exactly is the reason?
All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.
Right, it would fit right in with the fine tradition we have of jailing politicians who misbehave, right?
I hope you're just being hyperbolic and don't actually believe that crap, it wouldn't help your credibility any.
You really think that JEB! has any real chance of getting the nomination?
Just pretend that Hillary is a Republican and that Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren have already been coronated president!
What, like, both of them? How did that happen? Was the constitution amended to allow for 2 presidents at the same time? Are you saying that one of them served a term, and then was replaced with the other? 2 terms? Were they biologically joined into one legal person that could serve as president? Was the country fractured into 2 countries and they were each elected as the president of one country? Was democracy suspended completely and a new oligarch came to power who decided that the country needed 2 presidents? Like, maybe a domestic affairs president, and a foreign affairs president. Did one of them just run for president in another country? What about Canada, maybe Canada was made a protectorate of the US, converted to a federal republic, and maybe Bernie was all like "I got this" and went to run Canada while Warren decided to jump over Joe Biden and get elected in the US? Is one of them the president of Puerto Rico? Is the non-US head of state of Puerto Rico even called a president?
I'm trying to get into your hypothetical, I just need more details.
I think that any claims that there was no server were disproved when she turned over the emails, which was several months ago. When did she claim that there was no server, the first week the news hit?
Let's see, looks like they got the server some time around 2008 for her presidential campaign, and the domains clintonemail.com, wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com pointed to it. The server was scanned by third parties for open ports in 2012, and they discovered that the Remote Desktop Connection ports were open and accepting connections. In 2013 she moved the server into a data center from her home (apparently). Emails with her clintonemail.com address were publicly disclosed at least as early as March 2013. In March of 2015 the New York Times reported that she exclusively used her private address and not her government address while secretary of state. Clinton's initial response on March 10 of 2015 defended her use of the personal account out of convenience and asserted that it was all legal.
So anyway, when did she deny the existence of the server? I'm all for bashing Hillary, but let's at least try to stick to the realm of factual information.
Right, they're going after the lucrative 13-year-old-male-magazine-purchaser demographic.
They redirect.
So I guess their adblocker-detection is based on JavaScript.
It has to be, it's not possible to detect server-side if the client is going to send a request to download the third-party resources that you're telling it to.
The quality of their content isn't the point, they're doing the right thing (as far as I'm concerned, anyway). There are several outcomes to them doing this which should show the value of their content. People will either be willing to disable ad-blockers to view that content, or people will pay to not see ads, or their traffic will drop and people will go elsewhere (or, people will circumvent the Javascript ad-blocker detection, or Bild will come up with an alternative revenue stream). It's exactly what any "content provider" complaining about ad-blocking should do. If people decide that their content is worth the ads or the expense, then they will continue to survive. If not, then they won't. I think that a major reason why so many "content providers" oppose ad-blockers is because they secretly think that their content is not worth paying for. Bild is willing to put it to the test, and I like that.
Candidates can decide to debate each other, but if the networks don't show up then few people hear about them.
That's right. And the rules for the COPD say that any network that participates in a debate that is not sanctioned by the COPD does not get to show or moderate any sanctioned debates. If the networks want the lucrative advertising and exposure that go along with a debate then they cannot show any third-party debates at all, and COPD candidates do not participate in debates with smaller parties.
If a party decides not to use the networks then few people will hear the debates.
Right. So how should a third party get coverage if they can't use the networks that want the COPD debates? How can they compete?
So there's cooperation and negotiation between the two
There sure is, "the two" being the COPD and the networks. There is no cooperation nor negotiation with any smaller parties. There is also significant cooperation between the 2 major parties, since they alone form the COPD. The 2 major parties cooperate with each other to create the rules that effectively shut out smaller parties from the debate process.
Note that the COPD decides where the debate is held, what the format is, who the moderator is, and who has broadcast rights. There have also been allegations that the candidates agree on the questions beforehand. In 2012 the first presidential debate was aired on ABC and the moderator was from PBS, and it had 67.2 million viewers. The VP debate aired on CNN and the moderator was from ABC and it pulled in 51.4 million viewers. The second presidential debate was aired on Fox and the moderator was from CNN, and it brought in 65.6 million viewers. The last debate was aired by ABC and the moderator was from CBS, and had 59.2 million viewers. Each of those debates had 1 participant from each of the 2 major parties.
It is ridiculous to believe that an independent candidate will be allowed into a Democrat or Republican candidate debate.
That's not what I'm talking about. After the primaries we have the presidential debates, where the D candidate debates the R candidate. Those debates should have more parties represented, but the COPD refuses to allow that. Perot was the recent exception. When I referred to Sanders and Trump running as independents I was referring to the general election, not a primary.
When it comes time for the general debates between all the candidates, that is when you should be calling for an all-inclusive process.
I have for years, I even wrote an essay about it. Control of the presidential debate process should revert back to the League Of Women Voters or another non-aligned organization, rather than being controlled by the 2 major parties. It's always appropriate to talk about this, we don't have to wait until the debates are already scheduled.
Now, if the question is "should the Rs be mandated to seat all R candidates in every R debate (and Ds likewise)" then I'd still answer "no". There needs to be a line somewhere.
Obviously, there are no less than 150 Republican candidates right now. It's not logistically possible nor even remotely feasible to feature everyone in a debate.
There is an easy fix the to Two Party system. Parties are only allowed one nomination for Primary, and primaries are completely (non-partisan) open.
Who is supposed to create and enforce those rules? Because that is the organization that the D and R won't support or be involved with. Instead they'll just air their own debate on TV. It's going to require a major third party candidate. Frankly, I hope that Sanders drops out of the Democratic race and goes third party, for that matter I hope Trump does the same. That way a lot of people will start to wonder why their favorite candidate doesn't get to debate the D and R nominees on TV.
No, it's the system that is the problem. The Democrat and Republican parties created the system, and they extort networks by threatening to not allow them to host or air the debate unless the networks follow the rules of the system, as set forth by the 2 parties through the commission.
In case anyone still thinks that debates are all about choice and fairness instead of being manufactured by the 2-party system, Lessig is an actual candidate that is not allowed to debate while there is an extra lectern in case Biden (who is not a candidate) decides to stop by.
And, in case anyone is willing to blame CNN for that instead of the 2 parties, if the networks do not follow the rules set out by the 2 parties then they don't get to host the debate at all. The rules are not written by the debate host, they are written by the Commission On Presidential Debates, a corporation composed of the Democrat and Republican parties. They are the ones setting the rules. If there's a candidate that you've heard of or support that isn't in the debate, the COPD is the reason why.
When I refer to "COPD" I mean the commission, not the disease, even though the result of both is trouble breathing and they both may lead to death.
I'll choose option 3: you can take whatever I typed out of context and say whatever you'd like about it. Go nuts. Have a good one.