As a test, I searched 'girls licking tits' on both Bing and Google. The results are indistinguishable. Porn, lots of porn. On both standard and image search. When I tried again with safesearch mode on, however.... google returns no images, and bing shows a warning that results were blocked due to safesearch.
There is one difference, however. Google has search filtering on or off. Bing has three levels, of which the 'moderate' is the default. On this default, bing blocked the image search, but did not filter text search.
It is worth noting that both engines, when in their strictest filtering mode, outright refused to process the query in any manner - returning either no results (google) or no results and a suggestion to turn filtering off (bing).
If you want to really test it, you really need a term which is explicit yet also obscure enough to get through the filter.
If I wanted to cause massive disruption to an electrical grid, I would use a combination of cyber and physical attacks. The key is in planning. I'd make sure I had a team who's job it was to constantly monitor the target - they would be probing for vulnerabilities, maintaining details of every utility employee from the chairman of the board to the meter readers for use in social engineering, watching satellite images for signs of cable laying. When it's time to launch the attack, I'd want my people to know that network better than the power operators own engineers - and then I'd have them decide which weak points to strike with hacking, which pylons need the unsubtle application of an angle grinder or small explosive charge from one of the few precious sleeper agents, and how best to flood the operator with plausible-looking fake emails directing people to conduct repairs that would only make the situation worse and have their engineers chasing non-existent faults out into the middle of Siberia.
You're right, the sorry state of the NHS is well documented. Yet life expectancy at birth is still higher in the UK. So is infant mortality. And maternal mortality, for that matter. And almost every other metric of public health, with the notable exception of cancer survival rates. Even the dismal, overwhelmed NHS is still beating the US.
Concerns about war crimes are for those who are confident they can win while still playing by the rules. He who has the advantage can afford morality. He who is about to see his country invaded will feel rather less concern about enemy civilian deaths.
The MH17 events are more disputable. There was no good reason for Russia to down it. Most likely it was a mistake caused by their need to maintain some level of deniability in the conflict.
There's no real dispute over the polonium poisoning, though. Russia may deny it, but the poison used was something so exotic and hard to manufacture that only a state actor with nuclear power or weapons capability could produce it. If they wanted real deniability, they could have just used a car 'accident.' Polonium was chosen to send a very clear message to anyone else who might consider switching sides: "Russia does not let traitors live, and there will be no sanctuary for any who try."
I wonder if perhaps the best possible defense against attacks on power infrastructure is to just turn it off for one day a month routinely. That way when the attack comes the people are already largely prepared - they know how to make dinner and keep warm without dangerous open fires in the kitchen, they've an awareness of exactly how long their phones last and a stock of powerbanks and bottled water, and the city has measures in place for traffic to move (if more slowly) without automatic signals. The inconvenience will still be severe, but people will survive for the week or two it takes to bring the grid fully back online and a month later it'll be back to normal.
Sometimes the point of a secret weapon is only to keep the exact workings secret. Having the capabilities known can be a valuable deterrent. If all your possible future adversaries know you have a 'nuke target country into faintly glowing dust' button, they are unlikely to openly attack you for fear of escalation. That is how the cold war played out: Both both major players and many of their allies nuclear-capable, open war was no longer an option, so they instead competed for power using campaigns of espionage, soft power projection and supporting rival sides in proxy wars. It wasn't a pleasant time for the countries caught in the middle, but it still averted nuclear annihilation. Though there were a few close calls.
The idea is the same: If the UK has the capability to launch effective cyber-attacks that would inconvenience Russia's civilian population and cause severe economic damage, hopefully Russia will refrain from carrying out similar attacks of their own first.
It really is. There's a reason that 'The [president]'s administration' is a common term. The president appoints a large number of officials that head important government agencies, and once a new president takes office one of the first things they do is set about expelling everyone who might be loyal to the last president or their policies and replace them with people who are loyal to the new president and their policies. These people in turn hurry to replace lower level administrators with people more sympathetic to the new regime. True, Trump does not head the EPA... but he personally selected the person who does. When the president changes, management of a large part of the federal government changes soon after.
While it may be true in this particular instance, simplistic thinking of that nature is a dangerous way too approach politics. Sometimes new agencies and government programs can be a good thing, even enough to justify the taxation to run them.
NTFS has one absolutely useful feature: It is one of the three filesystems which Windows will read out of the box. FAT, NTFS, and ExFAT. Microsoft will never support a filesystem that they do not hold control over.
Windows also supports ISO9660 and UDF, but only for optical media, and ReFS if you're feeling reckless.
Even striving to be without bias can itsself be a form of bias. It's the sort of bias that leads to, for example, giving equal air time and respect to the medical establishment and an anti-vaccination campaigner. The producer can be satisfied that they have given both sides equal treatment and as such are demonstrating no bias, but the picture the audience puts together is still inaccurate.
You're right: This is an issue which Congress should have addressed. Maybe they'd come down in favor of neutrality, maybe not, but either way the legal situation would be clear. But congress has not acted - first because this new interwebs thing was a novelty they did not understand, and when it grew too big to ignore they still did not act because they were paralysed by partisan bickering. So we have this rather ugly arrangement in which the FCC is doing the job with somewhat dubious legal authority, and a tendency to completely reverse positions overnight when someone new is appointed to run it. It's an ugly and impractical situation, but it's what we're stuck with right now.
It can get ugly at times - sometimes if A and B in the same state want to communicate, the shortest route might be via long-distance fiber across the border to another state or even another country and back. Usually this is not a problem, but sometimes it can be a headache for legal compliance if you have a law or contract saying data must not leave the country, even in transit.
A dirty political trick. "We can't legally do X, but we found a way to indirectly achieve X anyway." In this case it's a dirty trick used in support of a position that most here support, so we all cheer it on, but it's still an example of the sort of weasel-law that has come to plague the US. It's not that much different from the Republican practice of trying to ban abortion by imposing abortion-specific safety requirements that are designed to be prohibitively expensive or outright impossible to comply with.
Only under a Democratic administration. When Congress is passing laws protecting access to abortion, states rights are paramount. When Congress is passing laws prohibiting access to abortion, federal law prevails. The same way that back when Bush was in office, it was the role of the federal government to ban same-sex marriage - but once that was legalised at the federal level, it became a matter for state's rights to decide how to define marriage.
Because 'states rights' has always been an excuse, right back to the day someone first realized you could use the phrase as a polite way to argue against ending the slave trade. It's a noble-sounding principle that politicians can hold up high when it suits them, then easily discard when it becomes inconvenient.
Sure he does. Law. Either the FCC sues California, or a consortium of ISPs sue. Either way they wouldn't even have to win - they could get a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law pending the outcome of the case, then make it drag on for twenty years.
Easy to block a TLD, but all IPFS gateways are interchangeable. If that one is blocked you just use the gateway at ipfs.io, or birds-are-nice.me, or one of several others. Or you can run your own IPFS node, with your own local gateway. So blocking a TLD doesn't achieve anything.
It'd mean a lot of new hardware. You can't just put your charger in reverse. You need a transfer switch capable of meeting state electrical standards, which means professional installation and likely rerunning a lot of cable through the house, unless you are lucky enough for the power feed to be located in the garage. Then you need an inverter - a pretty big one too, and it has to be designed by the manufacturer of the car to speak the right charging protocol and signal that it wants to run the charging port backwards. Not a super-expensive part, but still, it's not free. In a way Tesla have worked this angle: They simply came up with the Powerwall instead.
Two of them, actually. We've got one blocklist of sites blocked by court order - mostly torrent and streaming sites blocked for copyright infringement. There's also the IWF's super-secret blocklist of child pornography sites. For obvious reasons, that one isn't made available - but it also has zero accountability, as not even the operators of the blocked sites are informed that the site has been blocked, and many ISPs will spoof a 404 page in order to conceal the act of filtering.
Here in the UK, our greatest economic movers are in the services sector. Costs here are too high for much manufacturing - there's some, but it's high-margin, low-volume goods only. We're a financial powerhouse though - most of it centered on London. And we've got a lot of technology companies which have their management and R&D in the UK, though any production is going to be elsewhere in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
As a test, I searched 'girls licking tits' on both Bing and Google. The results are indistinguishable. Porn, lots of porn. On both standard and image search. When I tried again with safesearch mode on, however.... google returns no images, and bing shows a warning that results were blocked due to safesearch.
There is one difference, however. Google has search filtering on or off. Bing has three levels, of which the 'moderate' is the default. On this default, bing blocked the image search, but did not filter text search.
It is worth noting that both engines, when in their strictest filtering mode, outright refused to process the query in any manner - returning either no results (google) or no results and a suggestion to turn filtering off (bing).
If you want to really test it, you really need a term which is explicit yet also obscure enough to get through the filter.
3,6,7.
If I wanted to cause massive disruption to an electrical grid, I would use a combination of cyber and physical attacks. The key is in planning. I'd make sure I had a team who's job it was to constantly monitor the target - they would be probing for vulnerabilities, maintaining details of every utility employee from the chairman of the board to the meter readers for use in social engineering, watching satellite images for signs of cable laying. When it's time to launch the attack, I'd want my people to know that network better than the power operators own engineers - and then I'd have them decide which weak points to strike with hacking, which pylons need the unsubtle application of an angle grinder or small explosive charge from one of the few precious sleeper agents, and how best to flood the operator with plausible-looking fake emails directing people to conduct repairs that would only make the situation worse and have their engineers chasing non-existent faults out into the middle of Siberia.
You're right, the sorry state of the NHS is well documented. Yet life expectancy at birth is still higher in the UK. So is infant mortality. And maternal mortality, for that matter. And almost every other metric of public health, with the notable exception of cancer survival rates. Even the dismal, overwhelmed NHS is still beating the US.
Concerns about war crimes are for those who are confident they can win while still playing by the rules. He who has the advantage can afford morality. He who is about to see his country invaded will feel rather less concern about enemy civilian deaths.
The MH17 events are more disputable. There was no good reason for Russia to down it. Most likely it was a mistake caused by their need to maintain some level of deniability in the conflict.
There's no real dispute over the polonium poisoning, though. Russia may deny it, but the poison used was something so exotic and hard to manufacture that only a state actor with nuclear power or weapons capability could produce it. If they wanted real deniability, they could have just used a car 'accident.' Polonium was chosen to send a very clear message to anyone else who might consider switching sides: "Russia does not let traitors live, and there will be no sanctuary for any who try."
I wonder if perhaps the best possible defense against attacks on power infrastructure is to just turn it off for one day a month routinely. That way when the attack comes the people are already largely prepared - they know how to make dinner and keep warm without dangerous open fires in the kitchen, they've an awareness of exactly how long their phones last and a stock of powerbanks and bottled water, and the city has measures in place for traffic to move (if more slowly) without automatic signals. The inconvenience will still be severe, but people will survive for the week or two it takes to bring the grid fully back online and a month later it'll be back to normal.
Sometimes the point of a secret weapon is only to keep the exact workings secret. Having the capabilities known can be a valuable deterrent. If all your possible future adversaries know you have a 'nuke target country into faintly glowing dust' button, they are unlikely to openly attack you for fear of escalation. That is how the cold war played out: Both both major players and many of their allies nuclear-capable, open war was no longer an option, so they instead competed for power using campaigns of espionage, soft power projection and supporting rival sides in proxy wars. It wasn't a pleasant time for the countries caught in the middle, but it still averted nuclear annihilation. Though there were a few close calls.
The idea is the same: If the UK has the capability to launch effective cyber-attacks that would inconvenience Russia's civilian population and cause severe economic damage, hopefully Russia will refrain from carrying out similar attacks of their own first.
Medicine is a history of doctors and scientists facing up to Death, raising their middle finger towards the reaper and declaring, "Not today!"
It really is. There's a reason that 'The [president]'s administration' is a common term. The president appoints a large number of officials that head important government agencies, and once a new president takes office one of the first things they do is set about expelling everyone who might be loyal to the last president or their policies and replace them with people who are loyal to the new president and their policies. These people in turn hurry to replace lower level administrators with people more sympathetic to the new regime. True, Trump does not head the EPA... but he personally selected the person who does. When the president changes, management of a large part of the federal government changes soon after.
While it may be true in this particular instance, simplistic thinking of that nature is a dangerous way too approach politics. Sometimes new agencies and government programs can be a good thing, even enough to justify the taxation to run them.
One of several places.
Not exactly. They were making the point that even an administration hostile to renewable energy still acknowledges the issue.
NTFS has one absolutely useful feature: It is one of the three filesystems which Windows will read out of the box. FAT, NTFS, and ExFAT. Microsoft will never support a filesystem that they do not hold control over.
Windows also supports ISO9660 and UDF, but only for optical media, and ReFS if you're feeling reckless.
Even striving to be without bias can itsself be a form of bias. It's the sort of bias that leads to, for example, giving equal air time and respect to the medical establishment and an anti-vaccination campaigner. The producer can be satisfied that they have given both sides equal treatment and as such are demonstrating no bias, but the picture the audience puts together is still inaccurate.
You're right: This is an issue which Congress should have addressed. Maybe they'd come down in favor of neutrality, maybe not, but either way the legal situation would be clear. But congress has not acted - first because this new interwebs thing was a novelty they did not understand, and when it grew too big to ignore they still did not act because they were paralysed by partisan bickering. So we have this rather ugly arrangement in which the FCC is doing the job with somewhat dubious legal authority, and a tendency to completely reverse positions overnight when someone new is appointed to run it. It's an ugly and impractical situation, but it's what we're stuck with right now.
He said "relatively non-corrupt." A more realistic goal.
It can get ugly at times - sometimes if A and B in the same state want to communicate, the shortest route might be via long-distance fiber across the border to another state or even another country and back. Usually this is not a problem, but sometimes it can be a headache for legal compliance if you have a law or contract saying data must not leave the country, even in transit.
A dirty political trick. "We can't legally do X, but we found a way to indirectly achieve X anyway." In this case it's a dirty trick used in support of a position that most here support, so we all cheer it on, but it's still an example of the sort of weasel-law that has come to plague the US. It's not that much different from the Republican practice of trying to ban abortion by imposing abortion-specific safety requirements that are designed to be prohibitively expensive or outright impossible to comply with.
Only under a Democratic administration. When Congress is passing laws protecting access to abortion, states rights are paramount. When Congress is passing laws prohibiting access to abortion, federal law prevails. The same way that back when Bush was in office, it was the role of the federal government to ban same-sex marriage - but once that was legalised at the federal level, it became a matter for state's rights to decide how to define marriage.
Because 'states rights' has always been an excuse, right back to the day someone first realized you could use the phrase as a polite way to argue against ending the slave trade. It's a noble-sounding principle that politicians can hold up high when it suits them, then easily discard when it becomes inconvenient.
Sure he does. Law. Either the FCC sues California, or a consortium of ISPs sue. Either way they wouldn't even have to win - they could get a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law pending the outcome of the case, then make it drag on for twenty years.
Easy to block a TLD, but all IPFS gateways are interchangeable. If that one is blocked you just use the gateway at ipfs.io, or birds-are-nice.me, or one of several others. Or you can run your own IPFS node, with your own local gateway. So blocking a TLD doesn't achieve anything.
It'd mean a lot of new hardware. You can't just put your charger in reverse. You need a transfer switch capable of meeting state electrical standards, which means professional installation and likely rerunning a lot of cable through the house, unless you are lucky enough for the power feed to be located in the garage. Then you need an inverter - a pretty big one too, and it has to be designed by the manufacturer of the car to speak the right charging protocol and signal that it wants to run the charging port backwards. Not a super-expensive part, but still, it's not free. In a way Tesla have worked this angle: They simply came up with the Powerwall instead.
Two of them, actually. We've got one blocklist of sites blocked by court order - mostly torrent and streaming sites blocked for copyright infringement. There's also the IWF's super-secret blocklist of child pornography sites. For obvious reasons, that one isn't made available - but it also has zero accountability, as not even the operators of the blocked sites are informed that the site has been blocked, and many ISPs will spoof a 404 page in order to conceal the act of filtering.
Here in the UK, our greatest economic movers are in the services sector. Costs here are too high for much manufacturing - there's some, but it's high-margin, low-volume goods only. We're a financial powerhouse though - most of it centered on London. And we've got a lot of technology companies which have their management and R&D in the UK, though any production is going to be elsewhere in the world.