Why would you rely on your VOIP provider for encryption? Any encryption is going to have to be end to end or you can expect the government to compromise the middleman.
I mean, I could go on... it's not hard to find examples of FBI agents engaging in activities that in any civilized country would be grounds for imprisonment...
And Obama supports every single one of those acts. Don't forget that.
Basically we have a bunch of suits who have no idea how stupid they sound...
You think they sound stupid, but you forget how stupid the law actually is. They're likely to prevail simply because they are the bigger bunch of suits. This is America after all.
A couple weeks ago I happened to plug my cable into my TV to see what would happen. Apparently with the cable internet and phone I have, they aren't able to filter out the TV signal.
I was extra tired last night so I spent essentially the entire evening watching cable, for the first time in almost a decade. I couldn't tell you one ad that was on last night. In fact, my GF would occasionally comment on an ad immediately after it aired, and I would have absolutely no idea what she was talking about. My internal adblock seems to be functioning pretty well.
No one's forcing anyone to make recorded music. If you don't want people listening to your music, don't record it. Try that, and then you'll see just how much you actually benefit from having people listen to your recorded music, even for free.
Bullshit. We know there is going to be "collateral damage" going in, and we go ahead and do it anyway. That's not "truly by accident".
No, when the US kills civilians it knows exactly what it is doing. The powers that be have made a calculation that the benefits outweigh the costs, that's all. The only real question is who actually benefits and who pays the costs.
Sorry, I do not trust the browser as a "sandbox". People get owned all the time by running strange scripts. The fact that package managers require authorization from root to use is a feature, not a bug.
Those types don't last long. In fact, they specifically reject those who perform well on intelligence tests because they don't want to invest in training someone who is smart enough to realize just how fucked law enforcement actually is and flee.
If spending extra time learning how to drive enabled me to drive a special vehicle that worked a lot better than regular vehicles, you might have a point. But it doesn't.
For instance, if driving a manual transmission meant that I'd get twice the gas milage and break down only 1/10th as often, then you'd have to be stupid not to drive a manual transmission. As it actually happens, manual tramsissions only provide a marginal benefit, so whatever you prefer works.
Basically, not everybody in this world actually cares about the same stuff you do, at the same level of intensity.
It's not about what I care about, it's about what you care about and the best way to accomplish that. If you don't care about computer security or speed, by all means use whatever you like best. If you actually want security or speed, then there is a right answer.
And most people do want computer security and speed. I'm always listening to people complain about viruses, or how bogged down their computer is with crapware. If you care about those things, there's an easy solution. Think about what you're doing, and don't do it unless you understand the implications. That holds for every field, computers, cars, brewry or anything else.
I choose to spend my time that way because it pays off. If you spend a little time up front learning, and it saves you more time than you spent, that's a wise investment. If you choose not to do that, maybe you deserve to be condescended to.
Oh well, OK. I guess I was wrong then. Thanks for setting me straight. It's not like I've worked in biology for a decade or anything. It's not like I've taken medical pharmacology classes where they explained exactly who is responsible for what part of the drug discovery process. Nah, your simple assertion without evidence is all I need to change my mind.
Oh hell, I have, and I know what I'm talking about. And it's easily verifiable if you go to the library and read a book or two about the pharmaceutical industry. The fact is the pharmaceutical industry contributes very little to the process, and pockets the vast majority of the profits. Deny this if you like, it only illustrates your ignorance.
About the only things that deserve patents are fundamental discoveries and drugs that are unique and cost hundreds of millions to develop and test. And even then, just provide some kind of "formula patent" that only lasts 5-6 years.
Abolish patents entirely and replace private research with publically funded research. The hard work (discovering new drug targets) is done by the NIH anyway. All pharma does are the clinical studies which are pretty much rote. They could easly be done by the public as well. And if we take the profit motive out of the situation, maybe we won't see 100,000 annual deaths due to adverse drug reactions.
Patents exit to encourage private investors to invest in research. But if we directly fund research, we need no patents. The best part is that when the public does all the work, we'll get to keep all the profits too.
If you reduce the amount of infrastructure, you change the definition of "heavy user" creating more heavy users. We can keep chucking heavy users, and keep scaling back infrastructure, but I don't think that's what anyone actually wants.
Heavy users encourage the creation of infrastructure that makes light use possible.
I don't follow. Are you in favor of the proposition that "You can be both morally against abortion and still believe to support the existing law to keep it legal." or not? How does your post relate to my post arguing against that proposition?
If every user of the ISP kept paying their current rates but didn't actually use the internet at all would the profits increase or decrease for the ISP?
Metered use is fine in a competitive enviroment (in fact arguably it is better because it stops low use customers subsidising heavu users) but that isn't true in a monopoly.
No, nobody subsidizes anyone with flat rate service. Consider what would happen if all the heavy users just left. Would the rates for the light users go up or down?
When you answer that, you will see who is subsidizing who.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing like sharing personal identifiable client data across someone else's network.
Have you ever used a VPN? Then you've done exactly that. It's just encrypted. Dropbox is similarly secure if you store an encrypted container.
Why would you rely on your VOIP provider for encryption? Any encryption is going to have to be end to end or you can expect the government to compromise the middleman.
I mean, I could go on... it's not hard to find examples of FBI agents engaging in activities that in any civilized country would be grounds for imprisonment...
And Obama supports every single one of those acts. Don't forget that.
Also, FTFY.
Basically we have a bunch of suits who have no idea how stupid they sound...
You think they sound stupid, but you forget how stupid the law actually is. They're likely to prevail simply because they are the bigger bunch of suits. This is America after all.
A couple weeks ago I happened to plug my cable into my TV to see what would happen. Apparently with the cable internet and phone I have, they aren't able to filter out the TV signal.
I was extra tired last night so I spent essentially the entire evening watching cable, for the first time in almost a decade. I couldn't tell you one ad that was on last night. In fact, my GF would occasionally comment on an ad immediately after it aired, and I would have absolutely no idea what she was talking about. My internal adblock seems to be functioning pretty well.
No one's forcing anyone to make recorded music. If you don't want people listening to your music, don't record it. Try that, and then you'll see just how much you actually benefit from having people listen to your recorded music, even for free.
When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident.
Bullshit. We know there is going to be "collateral damage" going in, and we go ahead and do it anyway. That's not "truly by accident".
No, when the US kills civilians it knows exactly what it is doing. The powers that be have made a calculation that the benefits outweigh the costs, that's all. The only real question is who actually benefits and who pays the costs.
No, we should go back to native client server apps. They simply work better than web apps.
It's a sailing joke.
has a sandbox so trust-worthy
Sorry, I do not trust the browser as a "sandbox". People get owned all the time by running strange scripts. The fact that package managers require authorization from root to use is a feature, not a bug.
Those types don't last long. In fact, they specifically reject those who perform well on intelligence tests because they don't want to invest in training someone who is smart enough to realize just how fucked law enforcement actually is and flee.
Now I can have a tube amp in my mp3 player.
That's an excellent solution, for as long as Apple doesn't try to push iOS style centralized control onto OS X.
I know Microsoft is not keen on WebGL or Websockets, so imagine a world where they simply did not exist
I am, and it's glorious. What's wrong with OpenGL and TCP sockets?
If spending extra time learning how to drive enabled me to drive a special vehicle that worked a lot better than regular vehicles, you might have a point. But it doesn't.
For instance, if driving a manual transmission meant that I'd get twice the gas milage and break down only 1/10th as often, then you'd have to be stupid not to drive a manual transmission. As it actually happens, manual tramsissions only provide a marginal benefit, so whatever you prefer works.
Basically, not everybody in this world actually cares about the same stuff you do, at the same level of intensity.
It's not about what I care about, it's about what you care about and the best way to accomplish that. If you don't care about computer security or speed, by all means use whatever you like best. If you actually want security or speed, then there is a right answer.
And most people do want computer security and speed. I'm always listening to people complain about viruses, or how bogged down their computer is with crapware. If you care about those things, there's an easy solution. Think about what you're doing, and don't do it unless you understand the implications. That holds for every field, computers, cars, brewry or anything else.
I choose to spend my time that way because it pays off. If you spend a little time up front learning, and it saves you more time than you spent, that's a wise investment. If you choose not to do that, maybe you deserve to be condescended to.
>>>False.
Oh well, OK. I guess I was wrong then. Thanks for setting me straight. It's not like I've worked in biology for a decade or anything. It's not like I've taken medical pharmacology classes where they explained exactly who is responsible for what part of the drug discovery process. Nah, your simple assertion without evidence is all I need to change my mind.
Oh hell, I have, and I know what I'm talking about. And it's easily verifiable if you go to the library and read a book or two about the pharmaceutical industry. The fact is the pharmaceutical industry contributes very little to the process, and pockets the vast majority of the profits. Deny this if you like, it only illustrates your ignorance.
Or a secure platform with lots of choice that requires a bit of savvy to use. It's amazing what people will put up with to avoid using their brains.
About the only things that deserve patents are fundamental discoveries and drugs that are unique and cost hundreds of millions to develop and test. And even then, just provide some kind of "formula patent" that only lasts 5-6 years.
Abolish patents entirely and replace private research with publically funded research. The hard work (discovering new drug targets) is done by the NIH anyway. All pharma does are the clinical studies which are pretty much rote. They could easly be done by the public as well. And if we take the profit motive out of the situation, maybe we won't see 100,000 annual deaths due to adverse drug reactions.
Patents exit to encourage private investors to invest in research. But if we directly fund research, we need no patents. The best part is that when the public does all the work, we'll get to keep all the profits too.
He got accustomed to being above the law as a VP, and forgot that outside his role as VP, he's not above the law anymore.
If you reduce the amount of infrastructure, you change the definition of "heavy user" creating more heavy users. We can keep chucking heavy users, and keep scaling back infrastructure, but I don't think that's what anyone actually wants.
Heavy users encourage the creation of infrastructure that makes light use possible.
Protections for resident citizens are pretty slim as well.
I don't follow. Are you in favor of the proposition that "You can be both morally against abortion and still believe to support the existing law to keep it legal." or not? How does your post relate to my post arguing against that proposition?
If every user of the ISP kept paying their current rates but didn't actually use the internet at all would the profits increase or decrease for the ISP?
This is what they intend to implement.
Metered use is fine in a competitive enviroment (in fact arguably it is better because it stops low use customers subsidising heavu users) but that isn't true in a monopoly.
No, nobody subsidizes anyone with flat rate service. Consider what would happen if all the heavy users just left. Would the rates for the light users go up or down?
When you answer that, you will see who is subsidizing who.