You've got to know that a lot of left-leaning hackers must be targeting the RNC for this same sort of info in order to balance the scales. If the RNC is smart they'll have taken all of it off of internet-exposed computers and limited access to it for even trusted employees. Or, probably better, destroyed it completely.
I think this represents the full emergence of cyber warfare for retail political means. What a strange new world awaits.
I've already noticed on other forums a tendency to construct a cocoon where nothing disagreeable gets in, but the people try to do it by driving out or shutting up anyone with a contrary opinion. This tool will allow them to create their own little universe without having to eject or muzzle the meanies who insist on saying things they don't like. Everyone can now have their own customized online "safe room".
That article would be a lot more useful if they had broken down exactly which apps are responsible for the majority of the traffic. I suspect that just a handful dominate, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. In assessing the seriousness of the threat, or assessing if there is one, It would be helpful to know who has what market share.
You're not a taxi service but taxis are potential competitors. Are the like of Uber and Lyft starting to drop the veneer that they don't occupy the same service space as taxi companies? Or are they going to continue with the double speak?
It's not a difficult concept. If I'm a television broadcaster I'm not a movie theater, a video game, a chessboard, or the internet, but all of those are competitors for my customers' attention.
If there are criminal penalties, then they must be publishing which are the prohibited URLs. Sounds like a good way to find any that you may have overlooked.
This is a massive sector for unelected officials to rewrite.
It needs to be rewritten. It's past time to turn the internet (into a dumb pipe) and even cellular service into a public utility, just like the land line. If Congress won't do it, the courts must. And if they don't, we need to put the initiative on the ballot. We endure lousy service only because of public apathy.
I flew in the era when airlines were regulated. Fares, routes, it was all controlled by the federal government, and guess what? It cost a fortune to fly anywhere. Sure, it was great that my employer-paid seat was on a half-populated plane where I could stretch out on the seats, but if I were going somewhere on my own dime, I'd either be driving or Greyhounding it, because I couldn't afford the 'luxury' of flying. Those were also the days pre-Carterfone decision where it was illegal to attach your own devices to 'your' phone line, and long distance calls were expensive as hell. That's the kind of crap regulation was giving us: expensive, limited, and inflexible. And that's the kind of world you'll get if you attain your fantasy of internet and cell services treated as public utilities.
150 years ago nobody had ever flown, ever. So stfu and accept that past performance is not indicative of future performance. If everyone was like you we'd all still be living in straw huts because at some point in time nobody had ever lived in a wood framed house, ever.
Except, unlike communism/socialism, once those things were tried, they were found to work and to be superior. You're welcome to keep trying to perfect that which so many others have failed at, but do it where those who don't want to participate have to suffer the consequences along with you.
After the numerous services that Google has created and subsequently terminated, I don't use anything of theirs unless it's for the most noncritical, temporary, ephemeral, or throwaway purpose. They've screwed me too many times for me to get sucked in again.
What's passed along is the cost of supporting the thousands of unemployed.
The old company went belly up, so those jobs were gone anyway. This is a new company and new hires, so nobody is "passing along" anything.
Even if that weren't the case and this had been accomplished by restructuring the old company, that's still good. Productivity gains are achieved by getting the same or more output using fewer resources.
No need to kill the bad guys, In the event of boarding or link disruption just disable the engine and let the ship sit dead in the water until help arrives. If they can't run it, they can't steal it. The most they could do would be to start offloading the cargo, which would be pretty difficult and time-consuming at sea.
The feds do a lousy job of it themselves, in fact a much worse job. The Office of Personnel Management leak exposed millions of security-cleared personnel's records, including mine. I've already had somebody try to get credit in my name, probably from that breach (but could be from one that my former employer suffered as well). The OPM leak contained exponentially more revealing info than this one. I haven't heard of anyone getting fired for it, either, just the director getting to "step down". BFD.
I'm not a fan of regulation, but it might be required in order to break the stranglehold one company gets on a particular industry. The example I always think of is John D. Rockefeller and his company, Standard Oil, which was ultimately broken up into smaller companies due to its absolute domination of the industry which it used to destroy competitors. Google may be in line for at least an investigation into whether it's gotten too big for market competition. Facebook as well.
So what? Again a non-fucking story. He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law.
You're right, it's his site and he can do with it what he wants. However, if he's going to make public pronouncements regarding its neutrality and objectivity, he needs to live up to that. At a minimum the processes involved should be public and completely transparent so that users can decide how much they want to trust what FB is doing. By the way, your argument needs more "fuck"s to really sound intelligent.
A fun experiment might be to use just a dumb terminal and have all the processing out on an Amazon AWS server somewhere. I wonder if the FBI would have the guts to bust into one of their server farms and rip out some of the boxes/blades/hard drives.
Oh for fucks sakes, anytime anyone offers anything, there are strings attached. The difference between government and private concerns is that governments are at least hypothetically responsive to the voter.
When government gets involved, its impulse to meddle is irresistible. Look at how it coerced states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by threatening to withhold highway funds. Or getting states to knuckle under to Education Department mandates by threatening to withhold federal education dollars. Did voters revolt and the feds cave? No. Do you imagine that any government, be it federal or state, will not give in to the temptation to dictate people's behavior in return for the money it dispenses? Kid is truant, no money for you. DUI, no money for you. Fail to return your library books, no money for you. The mania exhibited by some to codify every aspect of human existence and administer it via the State is well established.
WHY do we keep sending "humanitarian" aid to a country devoting a huge portion of its GDP to building offensive weapons instead of food for its own people?
While we're on the subject of automation for pharmaceuticals, I've been wondering lately if druggists' jobs couldn't be a lot more automated. Instead of dispensing and counting out pills by hand, why couldn't it be done like surface mount devices: tape and reel? Have your pick and place dispensing machine automatically mount the correct pill reel, count out the right number of pills into a bottle, label it, and you're done.
You want lots of jobs? Fine: ban the use of all power equipment in construction. Presto, millions of jobs, everything from digging ditches to lifting and carrying materials by hand.
ID for everything but voting. Because even if you need it for everything from buying food to mass transit, we can't get in the way of voting!
Conservatives often mention the need for ID when buying booze or picking up prescriptions as their argument for why they think that requiring certain form of ID for voting doesn't violate voter rights. Well guess what, neither those nor any other need for ID is not only a Constitutionally protected right but a duty for all citizens that is essential for the functioning of our Democratic system
Then why do I need to present my papers to exercise my 2nd amendment rights?
And why do I need to present my ID to get into certain government buildings, such as the one where my City Councilman's office is?
Even if she could pardon herself (the prez can't pardon his/herself), it's curious that she would she have to. Barack Obama could pardon her today for any foul deeds of the past, the way Ford pardoned Nixon, and *poof* this mess goes away overnight. The fact that he's not doing that must mean he's not willing to take the political hit like Ford did, or he just doesn't like her much.
1) It could make a difficult-to-remove tracking device
2) It could make a difficult-to-defeat-or-even-know-about recording device
a) Handy if you want to record somebody else, like a cop who stopped you
b) Not so handy if it could record you without your consent and/or knowledge
3) It might be something whose records could be subpoenaed, both civilly and criminally
4) It could be used to control weapons without objects in the hands or movement of the body
a) You could launch an attack on cops remotely while seemingly standing passively
b) Cops might shoot you just for looking like you might be about to launch an attack at them remotely while seemingly standing passively
5) If it's capable of communicating with the outside world, it would presumably be two-way. That might make it possible for a hacker to do bad things to your brain, even it it's only cause the device to overheat or discharge electricity into your head
Slashdot Mirror
You've got to know that a lot of left-leaning hackers must be targeting the RNC for this same sort of info in order to balance the scales. If the RNC is smart they'll have taken all of it off of internet-exposed computers and limited access to it for even trusted employees. Or, probably better, destroyed it completely. I think this represents the full emergence of cyber warfare for retail political means. What a strange new world awaits.
I've already noticed on other forums a tendency to construct a cocoon where nothing disagreeable gets in, but the people try to do it by driving out or shutting up anyone with a contrary opinion. This tool will allow them to create their own little universe without having to eject or muzzle the meanies who insist on saying things they don't like. Everyone can now have their own customized online "safe room".
That article would be a lot more useful if they had broken down exactly which apps are responsible for the majority of the traffic. I suspect that just a handful dominate, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. In assessing the seriousness of the threat, or assessing if there is one, It would be helpful to know who has what market share.
You're not a taxi service but taxis are potential competitors. Are the like of Uber and Lyft starting to drop the veneer that they don't occupy the same service space as taxi companies? Or are they going to continue with the double speak?
It's not a difficult concept. If I'm a television broadcaster I'm not a movie theater, a video game, a chessboard, or the internet, but all of those are competitors for my customers' attention.
If there are criminal penalties, then they must be publishing which are the prohibited URLs. Sounds like a good way to find any that you may have overlooked.
This is a massive sector for unelected officials to rewrite.
It needs to be rewritten. It's past time to turn the internet (into a dumb pipe) and even cellular service into a public utility, just like the land line. If Congress won't do it, the courts must. And if they don't, we need to put the initiative on the ballot. We endure lousy service only because of public apathy.
I flew in the era when airlines were regulated. Fares, routes, it was all controlled by the federal government, and guess what? It cost a fortune to fly anywhere. Sure, it was great that my employer-paid seat was on a half-populated plane where I could stretch out on the seats, but if I were going somewhere on my own dime, I'd either be driving or Greyhounding it, because I couldn't afford the 'luxury' of flying. Those were also the days pre-Carterfone decision where it was illegal to attach your own devices to 'your' phone line, and long distance calls were expensive as hell. That's the kind of crap regulation was giving us: expensive, limited, and inflexible. And that's the kind of world you'll get if you attain your fantasy of internet and cell services treated as public utilities.
150 years ago nobody had ever flown, ever. So stfu and accept that past performance is not indicative of future performance. If everyone was like you we'd all still be living in straw huts because at some point in time nobody had ever lived in a wood framed house, ever.
Except, unlike communism/socialism, once those things were tried, they were found to work and to be superior. You're welcome to keep trying to perfect that which so many others have failed at, but do it where those who don't want to participate have to suffer the consequences along with you.
"Once we determine that our customers can access our free Wi-Fi in a way that also doesn't involuntarily block unintended content".
After the numerous services that Google has created and subsequently terminated, I don't use anything of theirs unless it's for the most noncritical, temporary, ephemeral, or throwaway purpose. They've screwed me too many times for me to get sucked in again.
What's passed along is the cost of supporting the thousands of unemployed.
The old company went belly up, so those jobs were gone anyway. This is a new company and new hires, so nobody is "passing along" anything.
Even if that weren't the case and this had been accomplished by restructuring the old company, that's still good. Productivity gains are achieved by getting the same or more output using fewer resources.
No need to kill the bad guys, In the event of boarding or link disruption just disable the engine and let the ship sit dead in the water until help arrives. If they can't run it, they can't steal it. The most they could do would be to start offloading the cargo, which would be pretty difficult and time-consuming at sea.
The feds do a lousy job of it themselves, in fact a much worse job. The Office of Personnel Management leak exposed millions of security-cleared personnel's records, including mine. I've already had somebody try to get credit in my name, probably from that breach (but could be from one that my former employer suffered as well). The OPM leak contained exponentially more revealing info than this one. I haven't heard of anyone getting fired for it, either, just the director getting to "step down". BFD.
I'm not a fan of regulation, but it might be required in order to break the stranglehold one company gets on a particular industry. The example I always think of is John D. Rockefeller and his company, Standard Oil, which was ultimately broken up into smaller companies due to its absolute domination of the industry which it used to destroy competitors. Google may be in line for at least an investigation into whether it's gotten too big for market competition. Facebook as well.
So what? Again a non-fucking story. He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law.
You're right, it's his site and he can do with it what he wants. However, if he's going to make public pronouncements regarding its neutrality and objectivity, he needs to live up to that. At a minimum the processes involved should be public and completely transparent so that users can decide how much they want to trust what FB is doing. By the way, your argument needs more "fuck"s to really sound intelligent.
A fun experiment might be to use just a dumb terminal and have all the processing out on an Amazon AWS server somewhere. I wonder if the FBI would have the guts to bust into one of their server farms and rip out some of the boxes/blades/hard drives.
Oh for fucks sakes, anytime anyone offers anything, there are strings attached. The difference between government and private concerns is that governments are at least hypothetically responsive to the voter.
When government gets involved, its impulse to meddle is irresistible. Look at how it coerced states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by threatening to withhold highway funds. Or getting states to knuckle under to Education Department mandates by threatening to withhold federal education dollars. Did voters revolt and the feds cave? No. Do you imagine that any government, be it federal or state, will not give in to the temptation to dictate people's behavior in return for the money it dispenses? Kid is truant, no money for you. DUI, no money for you. Fail to return your library books, no money for you. The mania exhibited by some to codify every aspect of human existence and administer it via the State is well established.
WHY do we keep sending "humanitarian" aid to a country devoting a huge portion of its GDP to building offensive weapons instead of food for its own people?
Didn't the Supreme Court discover a general right to privacy in the penumbra from the emanations of the Constitution? Whatever happened to that?
Depending on where the observer is located, aren't we always transiting the sun from somebody's point of view?
While we're on the subject of automation for pharmaceuticals, I've been wondering lately if druggists' jobs couldn't be a lot more automated. Instead of dispensing and counting out pills by hand, why couldn't it be done like surface mount devices: tape and reel? Have your pick and place dispensing machine automatically mount the correct pill reel, count out the right number of pills into a bottle, label it, and you're done.
Because giving people jobs is so 19th century.
You want lots of jobs? Fine: ban the use of all power equipment in construction. Presto, millions of jobs, everything from digging ditches to lifting and carrying materials by hand.
ID for everything but voting. Because even if you need it for everything from buying food to mass transit, we can't get in the way of voting!
Conservatives often mention the need for ID when buying booze or picking up prescriptions as their argument for why they think that requiring certain form of ID for voting doesn't violate voter rights. Well guess what, neither those nor any other need for ID is not only a Constitutionally protected right but a duty for all citizens that is essential for the functioning of our Democratic system
Then why do I need to present my papers to exercise my 2nd amendment rights?
And why do I need to present my ID to get into certain government buildings, such as the one where my City Councilman's office is?
Even if she could pardon herself (the prez can't pardon his/herself), it's curious that she would she have to. Barack Obama could pardon her today for any foul deeds of the past, the way Ford pardoned Nixon, and *poof* this mess goes away overnight. The fact that he's not doing that must mean he's not willing to take the political hit like Ford did, or he just doesn't like her much.
1) It could make a difficult-to-remove tracking device
2) It could make a difficult-to-defeat-or-even-know-about recording device
a) Handy if you want to record somebody else, like a cop who stopped you
b) Not so handy if it could record you without your consent and/or knowledge
3) It might be something whose records could be subpoenaed, both civilly and criminally
4) It could be used to control weapons without objects in the hands or movement of the body
a) You could launch an attack on cops remotely while seemingly standing passively
b) Cops might shoot you just for looking like you might be about to launch an attack at them remotely while seemingly standing passively
5) If it's capable of communicating with the outside world, it would presumably be two-way. That might make it possible for a hacker to do bad things to your brain, even it it's only cause the device to overheat or discharge electricity into your head
Yup.
My well meaning but non-tech savvy sister got me one for Christmas and I'm at a loss what to do with the thing.
Sell it on eBay, they're going for a premium. Win win: you unload a white elephant and somebody who really really wants one gets it.