There are supposedly systems where you can set multiple passcodes, and if the wrong one is entered, it will either present an alternate store of data or wipe the device/partition.
TrueCrypt had a kind of similar mode in that you could set up a secret internal volume, where if you mounted the external volume and not the internal one and wrote any data to it that happened to map over the internal one, it would corrupt it.
Next after that - making root access to a personal device illegal.
It isn't already? I had assumed that rooting e.g. an Android device was considered circumvention and unlawful under the DMCA because codecs exist somewhere on the device.
He didn't mean that "some" rapists are crossing the border. He meant that generically the Mexicans crossing the border are rapists, but "some" are good people. This is textbook hate speech
"Some" is a very fuzzy quantity--more than "several", less than "most." Some + some = all.
Or for example, "Some U.S. citizens are murderers." Completely true. But pointing that out isn't hate speech because they're in the majority, apparently.
What will *I* do personally? There's nothing I *can* do about it (short of indignantly moving to Canada, and no). So I won't bother to predict one way or the other what he'll do.
I have 16GB and when clamscan automatically kicked on (Linux anti-virus scan)
Why are you running a virus scanner on Linux?
it ran out of memory and was logging out of memory errors as fast as the hard drive could take it. The same message over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Took me four hours to track it down because all your programs start crashing when they can't write their little temp files and it wasn't using a lot of CPU. I didn't want to restart because I had something open I needed to save.
Ran out of memory, or ran out of storage?
Running out of actual memory is fun, too--the handful of times it's happened to me on Linux, nothing actually crashes; it just stops. I could still switch between different open windows, although the screen started painting. Could still run terminal commands but trying to tab-complete would just spit out a bash error:) Trying to recall from memory how to call up a list of processes and kill them via the terminal (because no memory to open task manager) without autocomplete was fun the first time.
Good thing nobody has ever complained about them legislating from the bench before, then. If we want our judges to just create the laws we could save a lot of money by firing all those redundant legislators.
Their rulings might be legally binding. They may also be wrong.
The Supreme Court gave its opinion on the matter. We still don't have anything written in our founding documents or laws on the book saying the same thing as far as I'm aware, i.e. there's no given procedure for seceding but there's also no explicit prohibition on doing so.
This is a distinction without a difference. If all the other states vote and the last one decides the election either way, they are in effect dictating the result of the election.
I could see the argument that since all the states vote (more or less) simultaneously, not in a serial manner, there isn't one Decider, but not the argument you're making.
If it could, nobody in any other state would bother voting.
A fair point, for the majority of the country that lives in "safe states." With the popular vote there would be no such thing as safe states.
Wisconsin was still considered a blue state after our Republican governor got elected, beat a recall election, and then got reelected for a second term? Seems a bit suspect.
You must live in one of the more populous states. We who live in smaller states would never have a say in who becomes President if it were based only on popular vote.
What? Everyone has a precisely equal say (one out of X voters) if it's a popular vote.
Unless you think that the only way people can find out about their candidates these days is going in-person to speeches they do in their state. Do some freaking research already.
For the record, I live in Wisconsin, which is swingey but only 10 votes, and I support the NPVIC.
I think this would undermine the remaining purpose of the electoral system. In this fashion you will essentially have a popular vote, quantized in a funny way.
The Electoral College already has the effect of basically being a national popular vote only less accurate since its granularity is the state level.
I don't like that potentially voters in the Electoral College could vote how they want instead of how their state laws say
This is dangerous and scary but doesn't happen much. The original purpose was that this group of intelligentsia would decide that the rubes didn't know what they were doing, that they very blatantly WOULD go against the popular vote. In this case, almost certainly they wouldn't have chosen Trump... he is almost the definition of what the EC was designed to prevent. It seems inconceivable in this day that they'd go against the grain, I would feel better if it were the actual law that they had to (in all states), but I suspect there will be no change until the day it happens.
And in none of the cases where it did happen, did they decide the election. I would cite the Wikipedia article but pretty much the entire thing is highlighted with [citation needed] now so yeah:P
Slashdot Mirror
There are supposedly systems where you can set multiple passcodes, and if the wrong one is entered, it will either present an alternate store of data or wipe the device/partition.
TrueCrypt had a kind of similar mode in that you could set up a secret internal volume, where if you mounted the external volume and not the internal one and wrote any data to it that happened to map over the internal one, it would corrupt it.
plausible deniability
Next after that - making root access to a personal device illegal.
It isn't already? I had assumed that rooting e.g. an Android device was considered circumvention and unlawful under the DMCA because codecs exist somewhere on the device.
If you mean "any personal device," okay not yet.
He didn't mean that "some" rapists are crossing the border. He meant that generically the Mexicans crossing the border are rapists, but "some" are good people. This is textbook hate speech
"Some" is a very fuzzy quantity--more than "several", less than "most." Some + some = all.
Or for example, "Some U.S. citizens are murderers." Completely true. But pointing that out isn't hate speech because they're in the majority, apparently.
What will *I* do personally? There's nothing I *can* do about it (short of indignantly moving to Canada, and no). So I won't bother to predict one way or the other what he'll do.
Why do you care about my opinion?
#hahaonlyserious
Actually I *am* an emacs user as well :)
IF he's going to dismantle the government THEN it will be after he's inaugurated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You seem to not quite understand how government works...
I was under the impression that Trump didn't like government. Shouldn't he be getting on with dismantling the government?
Probably after he's actually inaugurated? I can't tell how many levels of sarcasm and/or stupidity we're operating on here.
No, but why are you even asking? What's your point?
And Libya is such a wonderful place now
It is actually much better than when under Assad.
A) Assad is still in charge, at least nominally.
B) He's the president of Syria, not Libya.
A magnetized needle and a steady hand.
http://xkcd.com/378/
I have 16GB and when clamscan automatically kicked on (Linux anti-virus scan)
Why are you running a virus scanner on Linux?
it ran out of memory and was logging out of memory errors as fast as the hard drive could take it. The same message over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Took me four hours to track it down because all your programs start crashing when they can't write their little temp files and it wasn't using a lot of CPU. I didn't want to restart because I had something open I needed to save.
Ran out of memory, or ran out of storage?
Running out of actual memory is fun, too--the handful of times it's happened to me on Linux, nothing actually crashes; it just stops. I could still switch between different open windows, although the screen started painting. Could still run terminal commands but trying to tab-complete would just spit out a bash error :) Trying to recall from memory how to call up a list of processes and kill them via the terminal (because no memory to open task manager) without autocomplete was fun the first time.
And please note that the competition is on quality, not on prettyness, and not on delivery date either.
Cheap, Fast, Good: Pick any two.
Just like super restrictive gun laws. If someone wants to be evil, they will be evil laws! Do not stop them.
Because stealing a book you're already not allowed to possess is going to be that one step too far that stops people, sure.
Good thing nobody has ever complained about them legislating from the bench before, then. If we want our judges to just create the laws we could save a lot of money by firing all those redundant legislators.
Their rulings might be legally binding. They may also be wrong.
The Supreme Court gave its opinion on the matter. We still don't have anything written in our founding documents or laws on the book saying the same thing as far as I'm aware, i.e. there's no given procedure for seceding but there's also no explicit prohibition on doing so.
California has no more right to leave the US than Texas does
Every? I'm still waiting to hear where it's legally written that the U.S. is indissoluble, even after we fought a war about it.
If somebody pulls out patriotism as the first reason to do something, I assume it's because they can't come up with any actual reasons.
"Hispanic" being an ethnicity rather than a race makes for annoying conversations. You know what he meant.
which is tie breaking, not "dictating."
This is a distinction without a difference. If all the other states vote and the last one decides the election either way, they are in effect dictating the result of the election.
I could see the argument that since all the states vote (more or less) simultaneously, not in a serial manner, there isn't one Decider, but not the argument you're making.
If it could, nobody in any other state would bother voting.
A fair point, for the majority of the country that lives in "safe states." With the popular vote there would be no such thing as safe states.
Since the Constitution doesn't technically specify how each state selects its electors, the National Popular Vote Compact actually shouldn't.
Of course I'm sure if they ever hit 270 there will be an instant lawsuit to argue about it.
Wisconsin was still considered a blue state after our Republican governor got elected, beat a recall election, and then got reelected for a second term? Seems a bit suspect.
You must live in one of the more populous states. We who live in smaller states would never have a say in who becomes President if it were based only on popular vote.
What? Everyone has a precisely equal say (one out of X voters) if it's a popular vote.
Unless you think that the only way people can find out about their candidates these days is going in-person to speeches they do in their state. Do some freaking research already.
For the record, I live in Wisconsin, which is swingey but only 10 votes, and I support the NPVIC.
I think this would undermine the remaining purpose of the electoral system. In this fashion you will essentially have a popular vote, quantized in a funny way.
The Electoral College already has the effect of basically being a national popular vote only less accurate since its granularity is the state level.
I don't like that potentially voters in the Electoral College could vote how they want instead of how their state laws say
This is dangerous and scary but doesn't happen much. The original purpose was that this group of intelligentsia would decide that the rubes didn't know what they were doing, that they very blatantly WOULD go against the popular vote. In this case, almost certainly they wouldn't have chosen Trump... he is almost the definition of what the EC was designed to prevent. It seems inconceivable in this day that they'd go against the grain, I would feel better if it were the actual law that they had to (in all states), but I suspect there will be no change until the day it happens.
And in none of the cases where it did happen, did they decide the election. I would cite the Wikipedia article but pretty much the entire thing is highlighted with [citation needed] now so yeah :P
Okay, guess we're in agreement then :)
To be fair, that moderator question was phrased in a rather bullshit way IMO.