Obviously it couldn't be done instantly, and it would probably have to be ramped up in stages, but I see no reason that it's impossible. A carbon tax would accomplish the same thing, of course, as long as it had a clear trajectory towards a level that would motivate research into alternatives, including carbon capture.
You may be telling the truth - but we just do NOT trust Google.
Fair enough. But it should be relatively easy (with the appropriate skills) to decompile Chrome mobile, or trace the pattern of messages made by Chrome desktop, to see exactly what's going on. For that matter, as far as I can tell Google Image search works perfectly fine with Chromium, so you can just look at the source code, no need for decompilation!. Finally, if Google were exploiting the popularity of its search engine to make Chrome work and FF not work, wouldn't Mozilla be pointing it out? Perhaps even in court?
You don't need to trust Google, you just need to notice that it wouldn't be particularly hard for someone to find evidence of the skullduggery you're alleging, and that publishing it would bring rewards. The fact that that hasn't happened is pretty strong evidence that Google is playing it straight.
And yet those laws are rarely, if ever, enforced and the bigger a corporation the less likely it is that the law will be enforced.
Got an example of a big corporation being able to make false claims about their products and getting away with it? I haven't seen this. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't seen it.
Do a google search on mobile Chrome and on mobile Firefox and you'll see that there is some useful functionality that is only available on Chrome. Specifically if you check the images search.
I don't think that's anything to do with Google. Android and Search are both very careful not to provide any favored Chrome-only APIs or services. I can't tell you why it doesn't work on mobile FF, but it's not because of anything Google has done.
To be clear, it's perfectly acceptable to put some restrictions on commercial speech... and we do, even though corporations have legally recognized free speech rights. False advertising is illegal. With that out of the way, care to take a stab at my actual questions?
Manufacturers have been trying to lock people into their platform since people began selling stuff.
Do you see something Google is doing to lock people into Chrome? Serious question. I don't but maybe I'm missing something.
For the record, I'm totally in favor of a diverse browser ecosystem. I'd like to see every browser below 30% market share. Though, honestly, the present situation isn't too bad... Chrome has the majority of the market, but it's a thin majority so web sites still need to test on several browsers and Chrome can't dictate browser standards. Still, it would be better if Firefox market share rose. And Opera. Aggressive competition based on open standards is where we want to be.
This is a clever bit of marketing. The intro makes it sound like it's a thinkpiece, about to explore some interesting hidden issue that you didn't know about, and which is forcing Chrome's dominance on the world. But then it segues into its real purpose, which is to market Firefox, to convince you that it's actually pretty cool these days and you should give it another try. Clearly, the author hopes the intro will make it go viral, including things, like, oh, making the front page of/. and hackernews (doesn't seem to be there yet).
I hope it's successful. Come to think of it, I haven't tried Firefox for a while, it's probably time I did again.
TL;DR: Either you believe in free speech or you don't, there's no "doesn't apply to Facebook" rule.
Moreover, such a rule would either be meaningless, or it would also deny free speech to the employees and shareholders of Facebook.
If you say Facebook has no free speech right, but the people who make up Facebook can speak in any way they like, through the actions and decisions of the company, then the rule would be meaningless. The employees of Facebook could take whatever action they wanted with the company's resources (subject to shareholder approval) to speak whatever message they want, subject only to the limitations on the speech of the people (e.g. no "Fire!" in a crowded theater, no libel, etc.).
On the other hand, if you say that Facebook doesn't have free speech, and that if the people in Facebook speak through company channels, using company resources, etc., their speech isn't protected, then you also have to conclude that a reporter's column in a newspaper (which is a corporation) also isn't protected speech, since it's being delivered through company resources -- and with the intention of generating profit!
Corporations are the primary way that large groups of people organize to accomplish things they cannot do on their own. I think it's all but impossible to disentangle the rights of those people with the rights of the corporation they make up.
>Corporations have humans and therefore should have rights.
Bullshit. The humans in them already HAVE the rights. At best your arguing for letting some people double-dip and get twice the rights everybody else does.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Let's make it more concrete by picking one important right: Speech.
Are you saying that corporations don't have free speech rights themselves, but when corporations speak it's actually the speech of the people who collectively make up the corporation, and those people have the right of free speech? If so, how is this not a distinction without a difference? In this view any time a corporation wishes to speak it may do so, with full protection of the constitutional right of free speech, because it is actually exercising the rights of the employees (or at least the leaders).
Or, are you saying that corporations don't have free speech rights at all, that the people in the corporation may speak as individuals, but do not have free speech rights when they speak through the company? If so, does this mean that employees of corporations may be silenced by the government when they're speaking in an official capacity? How official does it have to be? And wouldn't this mean that a newspaper article written by an employee of the newspaper corporation would not enjoy free speech rights, and could be silenced by the government?
These aren't idle questions, or sophistry. They're pretty deep issues and are exactly the sort of thing that prompted courts to decide that corporations do have rights, because it's too hard to disentangle the rights of the corporation from the rights of the people in the corporation. It seems impossible to grant the employees and shareholders their rights in full measure without effectively giving the corporation exactly the same rights.
He's the President. He's the highest level classification authority in the U.S.
That just means his leaks are legal. It doesn't mean they're good, or that Americans shouldn't be upset about them.
One of the deepest principles of intelligence handling is that however valuable the intelligence itself is, the sources and methods are even more important. Except in very, very rare circumstances, any intelligence shared with anyone not an extremely close ally (and even them, generally) should be very carefully edited to ensure that it does not disclose sources and methods. This is especially important when the sources and methods belong to an ally, because if those are burned, the ally may well decide to stop providing any intel.
Sharing information with the Russians about a common enemy is a perfectly good thing for the president to do. However, a president who is not a narcissistic, insecure idiot would do this by directing his staff to provide intelligence appreciations. Said staff contains professional intelligence officers who are very good at identifying and excising details that might expose sources and methods, and would be perfectly capable of delivering the information, including solid estimates of its reliability that Russian intelligence professionals would correctly understand, without endangering intelligence gathering operations or alliances.
So, yeah, Trump was perfectly within his legal rights to leak this information to the Russians. But it's still perfectly correct to call it a leak, because he screwed it up so badly and in the process revealed more information than he intended.
We have to hope that the intelligence agencies have schooled Trump on the issue and that it won't happen again.
Well, Obama promised more government transparency. These leaks delivered quite a bit of that, though I doubt it was what he had in mind...
On a more serious note, I think the leakers delivered it precisely because Obama didn't. I'm not pointing the finger solely at Obama, I mean the system as a whole, though he may have increased the likelihood of leaks by raising hopes of transparency and then failing to deliver. The system is too secretive, too closed, and too uncontrolled, and people like Manning and Snowden (not so much Petraeus) do what they do in order to fix that problem. It's not a very good fix, for obvious reasons, but since the system seems incapable of correcting itself, it seems the only option we have.
Google *used* Perforce. Past tense. Your own link details the custom system they built to replace it.
That's true now, and in 2015, but the commercial product was used until 2013 or so and when this paper was published in 2011, the Perforce metadata had exceeded 1TB. The paper doesn't give the total data size, but it certainly had to be in the region of tens of petabytes even then.
The reason I didn't mention Piper (the in-house Perforce replacement) was because it seemed like unnecessarily complication. Google managed a Perforce repository approximately four orders of magnitude large than Microsoft before replacing it, so Piper isn't really relevant to the point.
You're absolutely right, of course. The best way to manage this problem is to internalize the externalities; make energy producers pay the full cost of their operations. This would mean either a heavy carbon tax or -- even better -- strict regulation on carbon emissions that require fossil fuel burners to capture and sequester all of their emissions. Burning dirty coal for power is just fine if you don't put anything into the atmosphere.
In practice, subsidizing clean energy is more politically feasible, though. Giving money to build new businesses costs taxpayers, but the cost is spread widely so no one gets really upset... and the people involved in the new businesses are enthusiastically supportive. People in competing old businesses will grumble a bit, but if the subsidy doesn't instantly make them uncompetitive, opposition won't go much beyond grumbling.
In contrast, adding large new costs to existing businesses makes the people involved in those businesses really angry. They get very vocal and start throwing their influence and money around. If voters were purely rational and actually weighed all of the costs and benefits, that wouldn't matter, but that's not how it works.
If your codebase is somehow 300GB of code..... Imagine what kind of attack surface that represents. This kind of size is about insane.....
Heh. Google's source repository was 86 PB (yes, that's 86,000,000 GB), in 2015. It's bigger now. Google uses Perforce, BTW, the thing that MS migrated away from because it ostensibly couldn't handle their puny 300 GB repo.
It should be noted that Google's source repository contains more than just source code. In particular, it contains all of the build tools, compilers, libraries, etc. so when you check out a given revision of some project and build it, you build it with the tools used to build it originally. I'm sure there are lots of other sorts of non-code resources in there as well.
The work they've done to make Git scale to fit their needs sounds great, and I see they've open-sourced the key components. That's awesome. At the moment it looks like GVFS is Windows-only (not a big surprise -- and not a complaint; they built what they needed). I'd like to see someone port it to Linux and make this infrastructure more broadly available. It sounds like it would be much nicer to work on than the "repo" tool that Android layers on top of Git to enable managing a whole bunch of smaller repositories.
Why? The only reason to use their GVFS is to (a) work with VS and TFS - both of which are Windows-only (no, VS Code doesn't count, it doesn't have 95% of the features of VS), and (b) to use their broken development model of locking files when you're working on them. Neither of those is desirable to anyone using git or who understands proper VCS systems.
Huh? I see absolutely nothing related to locking in GVFS. The GVFS protocol has no mechanisms for acquiring or releasing locks, and locking isn't mentioned anywhere else in the documentation. From everything I can see in the code, issues, documentation and TFA, GVFS just provides lazy fetching of git objects, which makes it possible to "check out" a large repository without having to wait for everything to download, and also optimizes the stat'ing of files that git does so much of.
In fact, nuclear weapon security *does* rely on biometric authentication, but it's normally the old-fashioned face recognition kind, where one human attempts to match another human's face against a small photo on a plastic card. Fingerprint scanners are harder to fool than that, assuming the guard doesn't know the entrant personally.
One human attempts to match another human's face against a small photo on a computer screen that's been signed by a DOD crypto key. That's a little harder to fool than a fingerprint scanner. Fingerprint overlays are easier to fake and conceal than convincing masks.
The digital signature confirms that the face in the photo is authorized. It does nothing to improve the human's ability to match live face against photo. In the fingerprint case, something analogous to that digital signature is also required. It could be a digitally-signed fingerprint template, or it could be that the template is retrieved from a secure database.
This highlights one aspect of biometric matching systems that I haven't mentioned in these threads: It's crucial to be sure that the template you're matching against is the right one. This is also essential for password authentication; if the attacker can alter the password database and replace the real password with one of his choice, he can get in.
Back when I worked on nuclear security, BTW, we didn't have digitally-signed photos. Instead, we used a dual-badge system. Two copies of each authorized badge were issued, in different colors. One was given to the authorized person, the other was stored in a secure area at the entry checkpoint. When someone came to the checkpoint, the guard took the person's badge and retrieved the duplicate from the secure area, then compared them. If they were identical, and the photo matched the person, the person was given the badge from the secure storage and allowed to enter. Upon exiting, the badges were swapped back.
In that case, the stored duplicates provided the verification of authenticity, and also provided an easy way to see who was inside at any given time. The digital signature on the photo stored in the CAC card's chip provides verification of authenticity. Presumably a database is now used to track who is inside.
The work they've done to make Git scale to fit their needs sounds great, and I see they've open-sourced the key components. That's awesome. At the moment it looks like GVFS is Windows-only (not a big surprise -- and not a complaint; they built what they needed). I'd like to see someone port it to Linux and make this infrastructure more broadly available. It sounds like it would be much nicer to work on than the "repo" tool that Android layers on top of Git to enable managing a whole bunch of smaller repositories.
Trump wasn't the one claiming that kicking a reporter out of a press conference was an attempt at silencing him.
No, he was the one trying to silence publications (or at least convince them to stop attacking him so aggressively) by removing them from the White House press corps.
Trump has made many attempts to silence speech he doesn't like, like kicking major news organizations out of the White House press corps,
You do realize that kicking a reporter out of the White House does absolutely nothing to silence him, don't you? In fact, it gets more people to listen to him because now he's a victim. You can't buy results like that.
That just shows that Trump is dumb.
He undertstands that the system stops him from doing it,
A system that has been in place since at least 1934 and has nothing to do with Trump.
Online advertising doesn't work and Google now has hard data to prove it.
Google's financial success is directly attributable to the fact that Google has hard data to prove that online advertising does work, and exactly how well specific ad campaigns are working.
That is an article of faith, not a fact.
Advertisers seem convinced otherwise, and not just because Google says so, but because their own profits say so.
Yep. Obama also fails. Not quite as badly as Trump in terms of actions taken, but IMO it's worse in Obama's case because as a former constitutional law professor he really should know better. Trump has the excuses of ignorance and stupidty, Obama doesn't.
And you're wrong that the media as a whole hasn't said that Trump's actions were wrong. Also, there's a difference between one Treasury briefing and the daily White House press briefings.
Slashdot Mirror
We're trying to avoid sinking the economy here, and requirements for fossil fuel burners to catch all emissions would be a disaster,
Are you sure about that?
Obviously it couldn't be done instantly, and it would probably have to be ramped up in stages, but I see no reason that it's impossible. A carbon tax would accomplish the same thing, of course, as long as it had a clear trajectory towards a level that would motivate research into alternatives, including carbon capture.
You may be telling the truth - but we just do NOT trust Google.
Fair enough. But it should be relatively easy (with the appropriate skills) to decompile Chrome mobile, or trace the pattern of messages made by Chrome desktop, to see exactly what's going on. For that matter, as far as I can tell Google Image search works perfectly fine with Chromium, so you can just look at the source code, no need for decompilation!. Finally, if Google were exploiting the popularity of its search engine to make Chrome work and FF not work, wouldn't Mozilla be pointing it out? Perhaps even in court?
You don't need to trust Google, you just need to notice that it wouldn't be particularly hard for someone to find evidence of the skullduggery you're alleging, and that publishing it would bring rewards. The fact that that hasn't happened is pretty strong evidence that Google is playing it straight.
And yet those laws are rarely, if ever, enforced and the bigger a corporation the less likely it is that the law will be enforced.
Got an example of a big corporation being able to make false claims about their products and getting away with it? I haven't seen this. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't seen it.
Do a google search on mobile Chrome and on mobile Firefox and you'll see that there is some useful functionality that is only available on Chrome. Specifically if you check the images search.
I don't think that's anything to do with Google. Android and Search are both very careful not to provide any favored Chrome-only APIs or services. I can't tell you why it doesn't work on mobile FF, but it's not because of anything Google has done.
You mostly ignored the core issues.
To be clear, it's perfectly acceptable to put some restrictions on commercial speech... and we do, even though corporations have legally recognized free speech rights. False advertising is illegal. With that out of the way, care to take a stab at my actual questions?
Manufacturers have been trying to lock people into their platform since people began selling stuff.
Do you see something Google is doing to lock people into Chrome? Serious question. I don't but maybe I'm missing something.
For the record, I'm totally in favor of a diverse browser ecosystem. I'd like to see every browser below 30% market share. Though, honestly, the present situation isn't too bad... Chrome has the majority of the market, but it's a thin majority so web sites still need to test on several browsers and Chrome can't dictate browser standards. Still, it would be better if Firefox market share rose. And Opera. Aggressive competition based on open standards is where we want to be.
This is a clever bit of marketing. The intro makes it sound like it's a thinkpiece, about to explore some interesting hidden issue that you didn't know about, and which is forcing Chrome's dominance on the world. But then it segues into its real purpose, which is to market Firefox, to convince you that it's actually pretty cool these days and you should give it another try. Clearly, the author hopes the intro will make it go viral, including things, like, oh, making the front page of /. and hackernews (doesn't seem to be there yet).
I hope it's successful. Come to think of it, I haven't tried Firefox for a while, it's probably time I did again.
TL;DR: Either you believe in free speech or you don't, there's no "doesn't apply to Facebook" rule.
Moreover, such a rule would either be meaningless, or it would also deny free speech to the employees and shareholders of Facebook.
If you say Facebook has no free speech right, but the people who make up Facebook can speak in any way they like, through the actions and decisions of the company, then the rule would be meaningless. The employees of Facebook could take whatever action they wanted with the company's resources (subject to shareholder approval) to speak whatever message they want, subject only to the limitations on the speech of the people (e.g. no "Fire!" in a crowded theater, no libel, etc.).
On the other hand, if you say that Facebook doesn't have free speech, and that if the people in Facebook speak through company channels, using company resources, etc., their speech isn't protected, then you also have to conclude that a reporter's column in a newspaper (which is a corporation) also isn't protected speech, since it's being delivered through company resources -- and with the intention of generating profit!
Corporations are the primary way that large groups of people organize to accomplish things they cannot do on their own. I think it's all but impossible to disentangle the rights of those people with the rights of the corporation they make up.
>Corporations have humans and therefore should have rights. Bullshit. The humans in them already HAVE the rights. At best your arguing for letting some people double-dip and get twice the rights everybody else does.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Let's make it more concrete by picking one important right: Speech.
Are you saying that corporations don't have free speech rights themselves, but when corporations speak it's actually the speech of the people who collectively make up the corporation, and those people have the right of free speech? If so, how is this not a distinction without a difference? In this view any time a corporation wishes to speak it may do so, with full protection of the constitutional right of free speech, because it is actually exercising the rights of the employees (or at least the leaders).
Or, are you saying that corporations don't have free speech rights at all, that the people in the corporation may speak as individuals, but do not have free speech rights when they speak through the company? If so, does this mean that employees of corporations may be silenced by the government when they're speaking in an official capacity? How official does it have to be? And wouldn't this mean that a newspaper article written by an employee of the newspaper corporation would not enjoy free speech rights, and could be silenced by the government?
These aren't idle questions, or sophistry. They're pretty deep issues and are exactly the sort of thing that prompted courts to decide that corporations do have rights, because it's too hard to disentangle the rights of the corporation from the rights of the people in the corporation. It seems impossible to grant the employees and shareholders their rights in full measure without effectively giving the corporation exactly the same rights.
He's the President. He's the highest level classification authority in the U.S.
That just means his leaks are legal. It doesn't mean they're good, or that Americans shouldn't be upset about them.
One of the deepest principles of intelligence handling is that however valuable the intelligence itself is, the sources and methods are even more important. Except in very, very rare circumstances, any intelligence shared with anyone not an extremely close ally (and even them, generally) should be very carefully edited to ensure that it does not disclose sources and methods. This is especially important when the sources and methods belong to an ally, because if those are burned, the ally may well decide to stop providing any intel.
Sharing information with the Russians about a common enemy is a perfectly good thing for the president to do. However, a president who is not a narcissistic, insecure idiot would do this by directing his staff to provide intelligence appreciations. Said staff contains professional intelligence officers who are very good at identifying and excising details that might expose sources and methods, and would be perfectly capable of delivering the information, including solid estimates of its reliability that Russian intelligence professionals would correctly understand, without endangering intelligence gathering operations or alliances.
So, yeah, Trump was perfectly within his legal rights to leak this information to the Russians. But it's still perfectly correct to call it a leak, because he screwed it up so badly and in the process revealed more information than he intended.
We have to hope that the intelligence agencies have schooled Trump on the issue and that it won't happen again.
Oh, wait...
Well, Obama promised more government transparency. These leaks delivered quite a bit of that, though I doubt it was what he had in mind...
On a more serious note, I think the leakers delivered it precisely because Obama didn't. I'm not pointing the finger solely at Obama, I mean the system as a whole, though he may have increased the likelihood of leaks by raising hopes of transparency and then failing to deliver. The system is too secretive, too closed, and too uncontrolled, and people like Manning and Snowden (not so much Petraeus) do what they do in order to fix that problem. It's not a very good fix, for obvious reasons, but since the system seems incapable of correcting itself, it seems the only option we have.
Google *used* Perforce. Past tense. Your own link details the custom system they built to replace it.
That's true now, and in 2015, but the commercial product was used until 2013 or so and when this paper was published in 2011, the Perforce metadata had exceeded 1TB. The paper doesn't give the total data size, but it certainly had to be in the region of tens of petabytes even then.
The reason I didn't mention Piper (the in-house Perforce replacement) was because it seemed like unnecessarily complication. Google managed a Perforce repository approximately four orders of magnitude large than Microsoft before replacing it, so Piper isn't really relevant to the point.
You're absolutely right, of course. The best way to manage this problem is to internalize the externalities; make energy producers pay the full cost of their operations. This would mean either a heavy carbon tax or -- even better -- strict regulation on carbon emissions that require fossil fuel burners to capture and sequester all of their emissions. Burning dirty coal for power is just fine if you don't put anything into the atmosphere.
In practice, subsidizing clean energy is more politically feasible, though. Giving money to build new businesses costs taxpayers, but the cost is spread widely so no one gets really upset... and the people involved in the new businesses are enthusiastically supportive. People in competing old businesses will grumble a bit, but if the subsidy doesn't instantly make them uncompetitive, opposition won't go much beyond grumbling.
In contrast, adding large new costs to existing businesses makes the people involved in those businesses really angry. They get very vocal and start throwing their influence and money around. If voters were purely rational and actually weighed all of the costs and benefits, that wouldn't matter, but that's not how it works.
Go fix an Android security hole swillden. There are plenty. You should be busier than you are.
I'm quite productive, thank you.
If your codebase is somehow 300GB of code..... Imagine what kind of attack surface that represents. This kind of size is about insane.....
Heh. Google's source repository was 86 PB (yes, that's 86,000,000 GB), in 2015. It's bigger now. Google uses Perforce, BTW, the thing that MS migrated away from because it ostensibly couldn't handle their puny 300 GB repo.
It should be noted that Google's source repository contains more than just source code. In particular, it contains all of the build tools, compilers, libraries, etc. so when you check out a given revision of some project and build it, you build it with the tools used to build it originally. I'm sure there are lots of other sorts of non-code resources in there as well.
The work they've done to make Git scale to fit their needs sounds great, and I see they've open-sourced the key components. That's awesome. At the moment it looks like GVFS is Windows-only (not a big surprise -- and not a complaint; they built what they needed). I'd like to see someone port it to Linux and make this infrastructure more broadly available. It sounds like it would be much nicer to work on than the "repo" tool that Android layers on top of Git to enable managing a whole bunch of smaller repositories.
Why? The only reason to use their GVFS is to (a) work with VS and TFS - both of which are Windows-only (no, VS Code doesn't count, it doesn't have 95% of the features of VS), and (b) to use their broken development model of locking files when you're working on them. Neither of those is desirable to anyone using git or who understands proper VCS systems.
Huh? I see absolutely nothing related to locking in GVFS. The GVFS protocol has no mechanisms for acquiring or releasing locks, and locking isn't mentioned anywhere else in the documentation. From everything I can see in the code, issues, documentation and TFA, GVFS just provides lazy fetching of git objects, which makes it possible to "check out" a large repository without having to wait for everything to download, and also optimizes the stat'ing of files that git does so much of.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I see.
In fact, nuclear weapon security *does* rely on biometric authentication, but it's normally the old-fashioned face recognition kind, where one human attempts to match another human's face against a small photo on a plastic card. Fingerprint scanners are harder to fool than that, assuming the guard doesn't know the entrant personally.
One human attempts to match another human's face against a small photo on a computer screen that's been signed by a DOD crypto key. That's a little harder to fool than a fingerprint scanner. Fingerprint overlays are easier to fake and conceal than convincing masks.
The digital signature confirms that the face in the photo is authorized. It does nothing to improve the human's ability to match live face against photo. In the fingerprint case, something analogous to that digital signature is also required. It could be a digitally-signed fingerprint template, or it could be that the template is retrieved from a secure database.
This highlights one aspect of biometric matching systems that I haven't mentioned in these threads: It's crucial to be sure that the template you're matching against is the right one. This is also essential for password authentication; if the attacker can alter the password database and replace the real password with one of his choice, he can get in.
Back when I worked on nuclear security, BTW, we didn't have digitally-signed photos. Instead, we used a dual-badge system. Two copies of each authorized badge were issued, in different colors. One was given to the authorized person, the other was stored in a secure area at the entry checkpoint. When someone came to the checkpoint, the guard took the person's badge and retrieved the duplicate from the secure area, then compared them. If they were identical, and the photo matched the person, the person was given the badge from the secure storage and allowed to enter. Upon exiting, the badges were swapped back.
In that case, the stored duplicates provided the verification of authenticity, and also provided an easy way to see who was inside at any given time. The digital signature on the photo stored in the CAC card's chip provides verification of authenticity. Presumably a database is now used to track who is inside.
The work they've done to make Git scale to fit their needs sounds great, and I see they've open-sourced the key components. That's awesome. At the moment it looks like GVFS is Windows-only (not a big surprise -- and not a complaint; they built what they needed). I'd like to see someone port it to Linux and make this infrastructure more broadly available. It sounds like it would be much nicer to work on than the "repo" tool that Android layers on top of Git to enable managing a whole bunch of smaller repositories.
This whole thread, complete with the ambiguity of whether anyone was actually "whoooshed" or not, is a perfect example of an internet argument
Actually, it's mostly an allusion/homage to a great Monty Python sketch.
That just shows that Trump is dumb.
Trump wasn't the one claiming that kicking a reporter out of a press conference was an attempt at silencing him.
No, he was the one trying to silence publications (or at least convince them to stop attacking him so aggressively) by removing them from the White House press corps.
No they don't.
This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!
Trump has made many attempts to silence speech he doesn't like, like kicking major news organizations out of the White House press corps,
You do realize that kicking a reporter out of the White House does absolutely nothing to silence him, don't you? In fact, it gets more people to listen to him because now he's a victim. You can't buy results like that.
That just shows that Trump is dumb.
He undertstands that the system stops him from doing it,
A system that has been in place since at least 1934 and has nothing to do with Trump.
And?
Online advertising doesn't work and Google now has hard data to prove it.
Google's financial success is directly attributable to the fact that Google has hard data to prove that online advertising does work, and exactly how well specific ad campaigns are working.
That is an article of faith, not a fact.
Advertisers seem convinced otherwise, and not just because Google says so, but because their own profits say so.
Yep. Obama also fails. Not quite as badly as Trump in terms of actions taken, but IMO it's worse in Obama's case because as a former constitutional law professor he really should know better. Trump has the excuses of ignorance and stupidty, Obama doesn't.
And you're wrong that the media as a whole hasn't said that Trump's actions were wrong. Also, there's a difference between one Treasury briefing and the daily White House press briefings.