you mean like thinking HTTPS stops anyone from seeing the URL you just visited so they can view it for themselves?
... it does,
How interesting. How does my browser hide the initial certificate request, um, from the ISP and every other nosy hop? (obviously the prior DNS request is done using anonymous encrypted pigeons). Is there a show on Discovery Channel that could explain it in terms I could understand? Thanks.
Oh - one other thing... this will make DNSSEC redundant right - 'cause the HTTPS certificate will guarantee the site is not being spoofed(??). Brilliant stuff. I'll sleep better knowing the internets are safe at last/again.
Anyone here can comment on using a cellphone booster to nullify stingrays?
No. Because most Stingrays (IMSI catchers) work on 2G - those that work on 3G and 4G play man-in-the-middle (use encryption to "beat" those). If you mean can I get a better antennae so that when I've set my phone to only use 3G I can still get a signal most of the time - then yes (I just did). If you mean you want to boost the 2G reception then you'd need to find a way to only connect to your own boosted 2G connection - which is problematic to say the least. How do you ensure it is not boosting a Stingray? How do you legally run a booster? (I don't know the relevant law on amplifiers in the U.K. - in Oz we have to buy them from carriers, which is expensive as well as an act of faith). i.e. the way to "nullify" Stingrays is only use 3G and use encryption (if you use encryption then you can use any mobile protocol, which makes your "booster" redundant). Better to get a stronger signal with a better antenna than boost a weak one using an active repeater/amplifier (most mobiles have crap reception). Were you planning on lugging the repeater everywhere?
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
I'm confused. 20 Stringrays in the U.K. And no one should worry because the Chief of Metropolitan Police says they don't have the resources to do as much intrusion as "they" worry about. If that's right - how much less intrusion? Is that because of the 20% budget cuts - or because his area of command is not the entire U.K. (London only, excluding The City of London)? Or maybe because the Metropolitian Police don't have primary access to the Stingray traffic? Is that because the story is wrong - or is one of those Stingrays in The City of London? Is this just bullshit or maybe a ploy to increase funding so that the level of intrusion is something to worry about e.g. if it weren't for the budget cuts he could implement his plan for "total war on crime" and "total policing".
Given the past accuracy of some of the statements from his office I'm still cynical.
But how is that any different from moving the goalposts? If they predicted something that didn't come to pass they're still wrong. Now it might be that they caused more work to be done than would have been, but it's still an incorrect model.
I predict if a brick falls on your head it will hurt. If you move your head out of the way I'm still correct. You seem to have some comprehension problems. In another model I predict if you move your head the brick won't fall on it and you won't get hurt. Pick a model.
"This is a lie." No, it isn't a lie. It is the posters opinion. Stop imputing motives from your imagination.
Huh? Are you serious? How do you breath or do you have a machine that does it for you?
Regardless of whether it's an "opinion" or not - it's either the whole truth or it's not. What isn't the truth is an untruth. When you don't tell the truth you lie.
"Companies open source code only when they feel that they cannot make money from the code itself."
Not true. I've Open Sourced code we were certain we could make money from. On which basis I can say with certainty that the claim Is. A. Lie
How do you know "it's the poster's opinion"? Perhaps what they expressed they know to be untrue and wrote it with the intention to deceive?
please point me to the source code of their *core product*.
You're trying too hard. (or maybe in addition to reading difficulties you have cognitive issues? I try and allow for those things).
The claim the Apple is "trying to make money from Open Sourcing Swift" is as bullshit and meaningless as saying that they can't (because when you give things away you either plan on making no money from the process, or enhancing revenue from the by-products). And focusing on that is bullshit too. Apple is saving money by Open Sourcing code, just as all those companies and many others do. Trying to argue that Open Sourcing has to make money when no one ever claimed that giving away code makes money is, um, retarded. Lots of companies (like mine) and individuals make very good money as a consequence of Open Sourcing code, contributing to it, and/or using it.
Would any of those companies make as much money if they weren't using and contributing to Open Source? No - mainly because they'd either have to let their fortunes be controlled by a single vendor or produce the code in-house at a cost many factors higher.
And before you hurt your back lugging those goal posts - Open Source is not better, or worse. Like most things in life, it's a matter of context.
Since Chinese manufacturing requires a pretty high volume of sales to pay off, m$ gains good pr by keeping it on this side of the Pacific. Not impressed
The key word is manufacture. Call me a cynic but I seriously doubt M$ is going to manufacture much in the US.
To the best of my knowledge only Japan, China and Korea have the plants to make most of the components and I can't find any evidence that there are plans to set up the facilities in the US.
It does seem that the screen itself (multiple 8x3' acrylic sheets with LED inserts around the edges) will be US made - so I guess that justifies the proposed "made in" label (and government funding?). From the referenced news (fluff) article (emphasis mine):-
The product is so unusual — representing one of the largest touch screens of its kind — that Microsoft could not find existing assembly lines in Asia to build it on, the company said.
One reason Microsoft’s factory is in Wilsonville, a city of about 21,000 about 20 minutes south of Portland, is that the Surface Hub originated at a start-up called Perceptive Pixel, which Microsoft acquired in 2012. The start-up had an assembly plant in Wilsonville for its giant touch-screen device
Although many components in the product will come from overseas, the Surface Hub will be stamped with the phrase “Manufactured in Portland, OR, USA.
And yeah - the "can't find existing Asian assembly lines big enough" is a bit of a deliberate furphy as assembly lines are built to suit the order - in this case they're just using the existing Perceptive Pixel assembly lines (which makes sense, as they bought the company which includes it's assets). Guess we'll wait and see. If it stays in the US it'll be interesting - especially seeing how they deal with the tax on the income.
Oh fucking horse shit. Equating a job at Costco with slavery is just retarded. You can always walk off and get another job.
Slaves got fed. Costco workers don't - instead they get a wage you could not live on. Sure they can get another job - at the fucking Waffle House, just like slaves could get another job - at the Colleseum. No need to guess your nationality - or your politics when you push the "poverty is a choice" bullshit. Semantic pedantics aside the reality is people live in their cars and work at Costco because they don't have a choice.
Roman slaves had a choice too. Just the same as those chopping cotton and digging ditches in chain gangs.
You have a tiny point with bum fights, but those are illegal, not sanctioned.
And the people who make those Apple products? The people making high priced sports shoes in factories in US territory? Next time you're at a restaurant wander out into the back lane and tell those "illegals" who made the perilous journey across at least one border to support your lifestyle they aren't slaves. Or better still - hang around the right taco stand in LA and take a day job with them. Then you can tell yourself you know for a fact those people clipping hedges and mowing lawns aren't slaves either. They get paid - and illegal wage, so I guess they're not slaves. That'll be why Australia never had slavery (the Kanacks, the Koories, the Murrays, the convicts, and all those "indentured" Scottish laborers weren't slaves either (they had "choices"). No more than the Afghan collecting trolleys at the Costco down the road for $8 an hour is a slave (the minimum wage is twice that - but when the practice is illegal, regardless of the scale or importance to the established economy we'll just pretend it doesn't count. At least the Romans (and many other cultures) were honest about slavery.
Feel free to point at well publicized examples of when Costco workers "make good" - don't bother to think about whether it'd be newsworthy if it wasn't so rare. I won't be surprised when you shift those goal posts and claim that their lack of choice is the result of being ignorant and uneducated (and pretend they had a choice about that).
Current times are far below previous history in terms of violence.
I suspect you are correct - but I'd like to see some facts to support it. e.g. it seems that world wide there are now more people fleeing their countries than ever before. Then you have the number of people incarcerated... add in all those being killed in war. Or are you suggesting that the Romans killed more people in their conquest of Britain than have died in Iraq?
I look forward to seeing relevant figures. Hint: police statistics from the USA aren't particularly relevant.
If you believe otherwise, you're making the mistake of raw numbers as opposed to percentages.
Was that meant to be gibberish - or do you believe that making those sort of empty statements is the equivalent of supplying actual data? Percentages of deaths during childbirth have likely gone down considerably - but what of percentages of live births that are terminated (left on a hillside)?
My point, which you've possibly overlooked in nationalistic fervor is that the unsupported claim that football results in less violence without any supporting data is a meaningless and stupid claim. Feel free to continue pushing a belief unencumbered by facts - in the meantime I'll continue to maintain a cynically open mind.
Has anyone given a thought to the possibility that the Roman civilisation could get "so advanced" BECAUSE they had such violent entertainment, providing both an 'escape valve' / release mechanism for violent tendencies, as well as a demonstration of how bad things can get when violence is let loose rampant in society in general?
Think of American Football in comparison - fake / controlled violence of two teams head-butting a ball across a field for the sake of sport... then extrapolate.
Um, so dicks in padding running at each other made the USA great? Nah - if they'd had the Colleseum instead of playing pat-arse we'd all have flying cars by now. In fact if it wasn't for water-boarding we wouldn't have the internets.
Oh wait - you mean entertainment relieved stress and exposure to violence brought peace. That'll be why we are all so laid back and peaceful. 24/7 entertainment and graphic violence - the basis of any advanced civilisation(?).
Of course it's possible that the average Roman could see plenty of violence outside the Colleseum - unless they just glared at slaves. And didn't they have plays and drugs for entertainment? Maybe acrobats, jugglers, dancers, musicians and magicians too. And why do I seem to vaguely recall the Colleseum was about displaying wealth, power, and distraction? Kind of like the Edinburgh Tattoo but with cage fighting and man vs. bear. Mas Oyama had no shortage of venues to fight bulls in (he killed 52), and the last US man vs. bear fight was probably 1949 (the bear won, which is probably why it was the last one).
The difference being that we don't kill people (intentionally, anyway) to make movies.
True - but we still cater to blood lust with executions. The English (and others) always drew a crowd for public executions and torture until relatively recently, and the USA had their "witch trials". It's not hard to conclude the demand for blood-lust even under the thinnest of moral justifications still exist - you don't have to go to youtube, the football, or a boxing match, to see that as you'll find plenty that wish graphic violence visited on others right here on this site.
How many best seller fiction books are about serial killers?
The CTO of Fight for the Future — the non-profit activism group
A registered non-profit?? Not that it (transparency) matters - a good cause is sufficient, and the more groups targeting that cause the easier the battle.
behind Battle for the Net, Blackout Congress, and Stop Fast Track — Jeff Lyon
The site been blacklisted by Twitter, Facebook, and major email providers as malicious/spam.
BullshitNot blacklisted. A dig through the history shows that some of the email accounts have been blacklisted in the past - for spamming. No conspiracy, just piss poor security, hunger for publicity, bad manners, and general IT ignorance. (e.g. complain about Ffffacebook and Google but overlook what Yahoo does with non-SPF signed email)
Over the last week, nobody has been able to post the website on social networks, or send any emails with their URL.
Thanks Jeff. For nothing. Failure to check your facts doesn't help the campaign - the proponents of TPP don't have to block you - your incompetence and dishonesty does the job for them. Not that I'm accusing you of diluting the EFF campaign, or cashing in on it...
You're probably looking at the wrong page.....there are a lot of them in the summary. I believe this is the relevant page: https://www.stopfasttrack.com/.
Note they've already added an SPF record.
Except any old SPF record isn't the same as a correct one.
for i in fightforthefuture.org blackoutcongress.org stopfasttrack.com;do dig -t ANY $i|grep '$i\|spf';done
fightforthefuture.org. 299 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:mailgun.org include:spf.dynect.net ~all"
fightforthefuture.org. 299 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:sendgrid.net include:spf.dynect.net include:_spf.google.com include:salsalabs.net ~all"
stopfasttrack.com does not have an SPF record.
The SPF record for fightforthefuture is wrong
No DKIM, no DMARC, no fucking idea what they are doing - 'cause email administration is not counter-intuitive. Right? (sigh)
And it's not like the top response to his Reddit whine didn't point out why Google dumps his email - or how to check the SPF record.
But WTF, you don't need to be competent to lead a revolution (good intentions is all that counts when you're paving the road to a better world, right?)
Note also that in some (enlightened?) parts of the world unsolicited commercial (you want money?) that is not opt-in IS spam.
I'm saying that you have no guarantee ahead of time that your model won't turn out to be useless and harmful.
There are no guarantees. It's about risk assessment. Waiting for better models may be more harmful than using whatever we have now. Besides, fossil fuels are going to run out anyway, and we'll have to deal with the harmful consequences of finding replacements anyway. All we need to do is start a bit earlier.
What? But didn't Oliphant say "the greatest human failing is ability to extrapolate"? (sarcasm off)
A core principle of good risk assessment is "how much will it hurt if the worst happens" - "deniers" seem to believe that if the worst happens (they're wrong and should have stopped fiddling, washed their hands and rung the fire brigade) - they all die - in which (unlikely case) they can invent a time machine, go back, and fix things (coz there's an industrial solution - right?).
(2) there is a United Nations drive to create a grass roots political counter culture which will operate via NGOs as an alternative to national governments,...
There's a term for the form of sophism that tacks a bundle of bullshit onto something that appears honest. I can't think of it at the moment - but I'm certain whatever it is will be available at all good chemists.
Apropos of nothing - if I see smoke I suspect fire and evacuate and test with my eyes and nose rather than with my flesh. To each their own.
Watch out for those Black helicopters - those shape-shifting lizard things are what makes all the C02.
Denier: "I don't believe anything and will do nothing about it."
True Believer: "You're all going to hell but I will also do nothing but insist that you're going to hell!"
Moron: "paints with a bloody big brush, and only in monochromatic colours" (that'd be you)
A "denier" doesn't necessary deny everything any more than a "believer" doesn't necessarily do the shit you claim. The chance of you correctly describing any given "denier" or "believer" are about the same as you shitting in a bucket if it was nailed to your bum - very unlikely given your propensity for getting things wrong.
Don't take that the wrong way - I value your enlightened insights.
Personally though, I hate both your attitudes because your emotions and politics get in the way of rational, logical evolution of the science behind the issue.
Is that what you call "catchups" and "after-the-facts"? (sigh, flicks another ash in the fish tank, and mutters I'll clean it next week the fish are fine.
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
You probably have a really small car.
Climate change is normal - it's happened throughout history.
Warm weather will be nice - I'll save money on heating. Are you a shill for power companies?
The "ice" has melted before - it was good (comeonin). Dinosaurs aren't going to come back... and there won't be any volcanoes where I live.
I've got a multi-billion dollar plan to stop global warming if it really bothers you - it does require a hell of a lot of energy and toxic by-products (but we've proved overheating the kitchen doesn't warm the house or it's surrounds - so don't worry your little head about that. Oooh look - Snoop Dogge studies history, and, um, shiny things.)
Not sure how things work in Australia, but in Canada, you don't have to charge GST (same name, who would have guessed) if you make less than $30,000 in revenue. It's possible they could get around it by making the drivers individual businesses.
Although, I think that Uber rides really should be charging tax. They are already semi-illegal in many places. Trying to dodge the tax man is sure to give the authorities even more reason to shut them down.
Here in Australia you don't have to collect GST if you gross less than $80kpa. You still have to pay it on all goods and services regardless of your income - except those goods and services that are exempt. Transport is not exempt (not considered essential - like tampons).
I guess the question is whether Uber is "collecting" the money - or the driver. (sorry not lunching with the ATO crowd today - so consider that unauthoritative).
Probably something to do with average winnings/hand, playing more hands with the total winnings not increasing much makes the significance weaker.
Is there a difference between what a gambler calls a "useful advantage" and what statistician calls one?
I know a couple of professional poker players - they reckon the "house" has as 5.5% advantage, and are pretty pleased with any system that gives them a 2% advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
How interesting. How does my browser hide the initial certificate request, um, from the ISP and every other nosy hop? (obviously the prior DNS request is done using anonymous encrypted pigeons). Is there a show on Discovery Channel that could explain it in terms I could understand? Thanks.
Oh - one other thing... this will make DNSSEC redundant right - 'cause the HTTPS certificate will guarantee the site is not being spoofed(??). Brilliant stuff. I'll sleep better knowing the internets are safe at last/again.
Anyone here can comment on using a cellphone booster to nullify stingrays?
No. Because most Stingrays (IMSI catchers) work on 2G - those that work on 3G and 4G play man-in-the-middle (use encryption to "beat" those). If you mean can I get a better antennae so that when I've set my phone to only use 3G I can still get a signal most of the time - then yes (I just did). If you mean you want to boost the 2G reception then you'd need to find a way to only connect to your own boosted 2G connection - which is problematic to say the least. How do you ensure it is not boosting a Stingray? How do you legally run a booster? (I don't know the relevant law on amplifiers in the U.K. - in Oz we have to buy them from carriers, which is expensive as well as an act of faith). i.e. the way to "nullify" Stingrays is only use 3G and use encryption (if you use encryption then you can use any mobile protocol, which makes your "booster" redundant). Better to get a stronger signal with a better antenna than boost a weak one using an active repeater/amplifier (most mobiles have crap reception). Were you planning on lugging the repeater everywhere?
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
I'm confused. 20 Stringrays in the U.K. And no one should worry because the Chief of Metropolitan Police says they don't have the resources to do as much intrusion as "they" worry about. If that's right - how much less intrusion? Is that because of the 20% budget cuts - or because his area of command is not the entire U.K. (London only, excluding The City of London)? Or maybe because the Metropolitian Police don't have primary access to the Stingray traffic? Is that because the story is wrong - or is one of those Stingrays in The City of London? Is this just bullshit or maybe a ploy to increase funding so that the level of intrusion is something to worry about e.g. if it weren't for the budget cuts he could implement his plan for "total war on crime" and "total policing".
Given the past accuracy of some of the statements from his office I'm still cynical.
But how is that any different from moving the goalposts? If they predicted something that didn't come to pass they're still wrong. Now it might be that they caused more work to be done than would have been, but it's still an incorrect model.
I predict if a brick falls on your head it will hurt. If you move your head out of the way I'm still correct. You seem to have some comprehension problems. In another model I predict if you move your head the brick won't fall on it and you won't get hurt. Pick a model.
"This is a lie." No, it isn't a lie. It is the posters opinion. Stop imputing motives from your imagination.
Huh? Are you serious? How do you breath or do you have a machine that does it for you?
Regardless of whether it's an "opinion" or not - it's either the whole truth or it's not. What isn't the truth is an untruth. When you don't tell the truth you lie.
"Companies open source code only when they feel that they cannot make money from the code itself."
Not true. I've Open Sourced code we were certain we could make money from. On which basis I can say with certainty that the claim Is. A. Lie
How do you know "it's the poster's opinion"? Perhaps what they expressed they know to be untrue and wrote it with the intention to deceive?
Stop imputing motives from your imagination.
please point me to the source code of their *core product*.
You're trying too hard. (or maybe in addition to reading difficulties you have cognitive issues? I try and allow for those things).
The claim the Apple is "trying to make money from Open Sourcing Swift" is as bullshit and meaningless as saying that they can't (because when you give things away you either plan on making no money from the process, or enhancing revenue from the by-products). And focusing on that is bullshit too. Apple is saving money by Open Sourcing code, just as all those companies and many others do. Trying to argue that Open Sourcing has to make money when no one ever claimed that giving away code makes money is, um, retarded. Lots of companies (like mine) and individuals make very good money as a consequence of Open Sourcing code, contributing to it, and/or using it.
Would any of those companies make as much money if they weren't using and contributing to Open Source? No - mainly because they'd either have to let their fortunes be controlled by a single vendor or produce the code in-house at a cost many factors higher.
And before you hurt your back lugging those goal posts - Open Source is not better, or worse. Like most things in life, it's a matter of context.
Since Chinese manufacturing requires a pretty high volume of sales to pay off, m$ gains good pr by keeping it on this side of the Pacific. Not impressed
The key word is manufacture. Call me a cynic but I seriously doubt M$ is going to manufacture much in the US.
To the best of my knowledge only Japan, China and Korea have the plants to make most of the components and I can't find any evidence that there are plans to set up the facilities in the US.
It does seem that the screen itself (multiple 8x3' acrylic sheets with LED inserts around the edges) will be US made - so I guess that justifies the proposed "made in" label (and government funding?). From the referenced news (fluff) article (emphasis mine):-
The product is so unusual — representing one of the largest touch screens of its kind — that Microsoft could not find existing assembly lines in Asia to build it on, the company said.
One reason Microsoft’s factory is in Wilsonville, a city of about 21,000 about 20 minutes south of Portland, is that the Surface Hub originated at a start-up called Perceptive Pixel, which Microsoft acquired in 2012. The start-up had an assembly plant in Wilsonville for its giant touch-screen device
Although many components in the product will come from overseas, the Surface Hub will be stamped with the phrase “Manufactured in Portland, OR, USA.
And yeah - the "can't find existing Asian assembly lines big enough" is a bit of a deliberate furphy as assembly lines are built to suit the order - in this case they're just using the existing Perceptive Pixel assembly lines (which makes sense, as they bought the company which includes it's assets). Guess we'll wait and see. If it stays in the US it'll be interesting - especially seeing how they deal with the tax on the income.
Oh fucking horse shit. Equating a job at Costco with slavery is just retarded. You can always walk off and get another job.
Slaves got fed. Costco workers don't - instead they get a wage you could not live on. Sure they can get another job - at the fucking Waffle House, just like slaves could get another job - at the Colleseum. No need to guess your nationality - or your politics when you push the "poverty is a choice" bullshit. Semantic pedantics aside the reality is people live in their cars and work at Costco because they don't have a choice.
Roman slaves had a choice too. Just the same as those chopping cotton and digging ditches in chain gangs.
You have a tiny point with bum fights, but those are illegal, not sanctioned.
And the people who make those Apple products? The people making high priced sports shoes in factories in US territory? Next time you're at a restaurant wander out into the back lane and tell those "illegals" who made the perilous journey across at least one border to support your lifestyle they aren't slaves. Or better still - hang around the right taco stand in LA and take a day job with them. Then you can tell yourself you know for a fact those people clipping hedges and mowing lawns aren't slaves either. They get paid - and illegal wage, so I guess they're not slaves. That'll be why Australia never had slavery (the Kanacks, the Koories, the Murrays, the convicts, and all those "indentured" Scottish laborers weren't slaves either (they had "choices"). No more than the Afghan collecting trolleys at the Costco down the road for $8 an hour is a slave (the minimum wage is twice that - but when the practice is illegal, regardless of the scale or importance to the established economy we'll just pretend it doesn't count. At least the Romans (and many other cultures) were honest about slavery.
Feel free to point at well publicized examples of when Costco workers "make good" - don't bother to think about whether it'd be newsworthy if it wasn't so rare. I won't be surprised when you shift those goal posts and claim that their lack of choice is the result of being ignorant and uneducated (and pretend they had a choice about that).
Current times are far below previous history in terms of violence.
I suspect you are correct - but I'd like to see some facts to support it. e.g. it seems that world wide there are now more people fleeing their countries than ever before. Then you have the number of people incarcerated... add in all those being killed in war. Or are you suggesting that the Romans killed more people in their conquest of Britain than have died in Iraq?
I look forward to seeing relevant figures. Hint: police statistics from the USA aren't particularly relevant.
If you believe otherwise, you're making the mistake of raw numbers as opposed to percentages.
Was that meant to be gibberish - or do you believe that making those sort of empty statements is the equivalent of supplying actual data? Percentages of deaths during childbirth have likely gone down considerably - but what of percentages of live births that are terminated (left on a hillside)?
My point, which you've possibly overlooked in nationalistic fervor is that the unsupported claim that football results in less violence without any supporting data is a meaningless and stupid claim. Feel free to continue pushing a belief unencumbered by facts - in the meantime I'll continue to maintain a cynically open mind.
Has anyone given a thought to the possibility that the Roman civilisation could get "so advanced" BECAUSE they had such violent entertainment, providing both an 'escape valve' / release mechanism for violent tendencies, as well as a demonstration of how bad things can get when violence is let loose rampant in society in general? Think of American Football in comparison - fake / controlled violence of two teams head-butting a ball across a field for the sake of sport ... then extrapolate.
Um, so dicks in padding running at each other made the USA great? Nah - if they'd had the Colleseum instead of playing pat-arse we'd all have flying cars by now. In fact if it wasn't for water-boarding we wouldn't have the internets.
Oh wait - you mean entertainment relieved stress and exposure to violence brought peace. That'll be why we are all so laid back and peaceful. 24/7 entertainment and graphic violence - the basis of any advanced civilisation(?).
Of course it's possible that the average Roman could see plenty of violence outside the Colleseum - unless they just glared at slaves. And didn't they have plays and drugs for entertainment? Maybe acrobats, jugglers, dancers, musicians and magicians too. And why do I seem to vaguely recall the Colleseum was about displaying wealth, power, and distraction? Kind of like the Edinburgh Tattoo but with cage fighting and man vs. bear. Mas Oyama had no shortage of venues to fight bulls in (he killed 52), and the last US man vs. bear fight was probably 1949 (the bear won, which is probably why it was the last one).
You're forgetting the key ingredient: SLAVES.
Luckily we don't have slaves anymore. Except at Costco. And Wallmart. And picking fruit and vegetables.
Which is why we don't have blood sports. Except at cage fights. And sports events. And bum fights.
Of course the scale is different, and so are the shoes. Smaller dog, same leg action.
The difference being that we don't kill people (intentionally, anyway) to make movies.
True - but we still cater to blood lust with executions. The English (and others) always drew a crowd for public executions and torture until relatively recently, and the USA had their "witch trials". It's not hard to conclude the demand for blood-lust even under the thinnest of moral justifications still exist - you don't have to go to youtube, the football, or a boxing match, to see that as you'll find plenty that wish graphic violence visited on others right here on this site.
How many best seller fiction books are about serial killers?
"How could such an advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles?"
Nowadays we do it with drones and remote cameras.
And MMA.
The CTO of Fight for the Future — the non-profit activism group
A registered non-profit?? Not that it (transparency) matters - a good cause is sufficient, and the more groups targeting that cause the easier the battle.
behind Battle for the Net, Blackout Congress, and Stop Fast Track — Jeff Lyon
That'd be the Chief Technologist - FIGJAM self-certified Jeffery S. Lyon
The site been blacklisted by Twitter, Facebook, and major email providers as malicious/spam.
Bullshit Not blacklisted . A dig through the history shows that some of the email accounts have been blacklisted in the past - for spamming. No conspiracy, just piss poor security, hunger for publicity, bad manners, and general IT ignorance. (e.g. complain about Ffffacebook and Google but overlook what Yahoo does with non-SPF signed email)
Over the last week, nobody has been able to post the website on social networks, or send any emails with their URL.
Bullshit All posts of links to the site published in the past week
Thanks Jeff. For nothing. Failure to check your facts doesn't help the campaign - the proponents of TPP don't have to block you - your incompetence and dishonesty does the job for them. Not that I'm accusing you of diluting the EFF campaign, or cashing in on it...
You're probably looking at the wrong page.....there are a lot of them in the summary. I believe this is the relevant page: https://www.stopfasttrack.com/. Note they've already added an SPF record.
Except any old SPF record isn't the same as a correct one.
for i in fightforthefuture.org blackoutcongress.org stopfasttrack.com;do dig -t ANY $i|grep '$i\|spf';done fightforthefuture.org. 299 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:mailgun.org include:spf.dynect.net ~all" fightforthefuture.org. 299 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:sendgrid.net include:spf.dynect.net include:_spf.google.com include:salsalabs.net ~all"
stopfasttrack.com does not have an SPF record.
The SPF record for fightforthefuture is wrong
No DKIM, no DMARC, no fucking idea what they are doing - 'cause email administration is not counter-intuitive. Right? (sigh)
And it's not like the top response to his Reddit whine didn't point out why Google dumps his email - or how to check the SPF record.
But WTF, you don't need to be competent to lead a revolution (good intentions is all that counts when you're paving the road to a better world, right?)
Note also that in some (enlightened?) parts of the world unsolicited commercial (you want money?) that is not opt-in IS spam.
Wake me when we're in the golden age of quantum computing...
Wake me when we're in the Golden Age of anything.
I'm saying that you have no guarantee ahead of time that your model won't turn out to be useless and harmful.
There are no guarantees. It's about risk assessment. Waiting for better models may be more harmful than using whatever we have now. Besides, fossil fuels are going to run out anyway, and we'll have to deal with the harmful consequences of finding replacements anyway. All we need to do is start a bit earlier.
What? But didn't Oliphant say "the greatest human failing is ability to extrapolate"? (sarcasm off)
A core principle of good risk assessment is "how much will it hurt if the worst happens" - "deniers" seem to believe that if the worst happens (they're wrong and should have stopped fiddling, washed their hands and rung the fire brigade) - they all die - in which (unlikely case) they can invent a time machine, go back, and fix things (coz there's an industrial solution - right?).
(2) there is a United Nations drive to create a grass roots political counter culture which will operate via NGOs as an alternative to national governments,...
There's a term for the form of sophism that tacks a bundle of bullshit onto something that appears honest. I can't think of it at the moment - but I'm certain whatever it is will be available at all good chemists.
Apropos of nothing - if I see smoke I suspect fire and evacuate and test with my eyes and nose rather than with my flesh. To each their own.
Watch out for those Black helicopters - those shape-shifting lizard things are what makes all the C02.
Denier: "I don't believe anything and will do nothing about it." True Believer: "You're all going to hell but I will also do nothing but insist that you're going to hell!"
Moron: "paints with a bloody big brush, and only in monochromatic colours" (that'd be you)
A "denier" doesn't necessary deny everything any more than a "believer" doesn't necessarily do the shit you claim. The chance of you correctly describing any given "denier" or "believer" are about the same as you shitting in a bucket if it was nailed to your bum - very unlikely given your propensity for getting things wrong.
Don't take that the wrong way - I value your enlightened insights.
Personally though, I hate both your attitudes because your emotions and politics get in the way of rational, logical evolution of the science behind the issue.
Is that what you call "catchups" and "after-the-facts"? (sigh, flicks another ash in the fish tank, and mutters I'll clean it next week the fish are fine.
of climate change deniers.
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
You probably have a really small car.
Climate change is normal - it's happened throughout history.
Warm weather will be nice - I'll save money on heating. Are you a shill for power companies?
The "ice" has melted before - it was good (comeonin). Dinosaurs aren't going to come back... and there won't be any volcanoes where I live.
I've got a multi-billion dollar plan to stop global warming if it really bothers you - it does require a hell of a lot of energy and toxic by-products (but we've proved overheating the kitchen doesn't warm the house or it's surrounds - so don't worry your little head about that. Oooh look - Snoop Dogge studies history, and, um, shiny things.)
I don't see any point in looking at the estimated cost of a project that hasn't even begun yet.
What if it comes in on budget?
...as every past partner to a project with M$ has not been very happy (except Darryl from SCO).
I expect that IBM will be taking bets.
Not sure how things work in Australia, but in Canada, you don't have to charge GST (same name, who would have guessed) if you make less than $30,000 in revenue. It's possible they could get around it by making the drivers individual businesses.
Although, I think that Uber rides really should be charging tax. They are already semi-illegal in many places. Trying to dodge the tax man is sure to give the authorities even more reason to shut them down.
Here in Australia you don't have to collect GST if you gross less than $80kpa. You still have to pay it on all goods and services regardless of your income - except those goods and services that are exempt. Transport is not exempt (not considered essential - like tampons).
I guess the question is whether Uber is "collecting" the money - or the driver. (sorry not lunching with the ATO crowd today - so consider that unauthoritative).
Probably something to do with average winnings/hand, playing more hands with the total winnings not increasing much makes the significance weaker.
Is there a difference between what a gambler calls a "useful advantage" and what statistician calls one?
I know a couple of professional poker players - they reckon the "house" has as 5.5% advantage, and are pretty pleased with any system that gives them a 2% advantage.