Without Senate passage the accord has no binding authority in the USA. The House has no constitutional role in treaty ratification.
Not true at all.
The House has no role in the constitutionally-defined form of treaty ratification, but that's not the only kind there is, and not even the kind that is used most often. The US engages in three different kinds of international agreements, all of which look like treaties to the rest of the world:
1. Sole-executive agreements. These are cases where the treaty commitments fall within the scope of the president's authority. The most common example is Status of Forces Agreements (SoFA), where the president's authority as commander-in-chief enables him to sign agreements about what the US military will and will not do in foreign nations.
2. Congressional-executive agreements. This is the most common way the US handles foreign treaties that can't be sole-executive. Basically, the executive negotiates and signs a treaty which is a promise to bind the US to the terms of the treaty. The executive then drafts legislation to enact the terms and gets them introduced to Congress. The House and the Senate then pass the enacting legislation with a majority vote in each chamber and the president signs it, just as with any purely domestic legislation, making it federal law.
3. Constitutional treaties. The executive negotiates a treaty and presents it to the Senate for ratification by a 2/3 majority. The ratification makes it federal law, without the involvement of the House. This process is rarely used because it's generally harder to get supermajority approval in the Senate than to get majority approval in both houses.
Arguably, there's also a fourth type, which the courts have called "self-executing treaties", which don't require any legislative action either because the relevant laws already exist, or because the treaties don't actually commit the country to anything, or for some other reason don't require any new law. Sole-executive treaties can also be considered self-executing, though there are self-executing treaties which are not sole-executive treaties.
Not just for extremely high speeds, unless you consider orbital velocities -- on the order of 0.0001c -- to be "extremely high".
Facepalm... the difference between a Newtean and Relativistc calculation for orbitals speeds will end up in the size of a diameter of an atom... go back to school.
To take the most famous example, the precession of Mercury's orbit is quite a bit larger than that.
I don't need to live in another country. I already know enough about them.
Learning from others' experience rather than having to go through it yourself is a very important skill to have. On the other hand, I think there are things that no one can learn that way. I highly recommend spending some time living in another country.
But YouTube is pulling all advertising, whether the advertisers ask for it or not. YouTube is making the decision, not the advertisers.
Did you notice that there hasn't been a change in YouTube's policy here? YouTube has long avoided showing ads on videos that don't comply with the guidelines (and even documented the guidelines), because advertisers have complained when YouTube wasn't careful enough about that. The only thing that has changed is that YouTube is now notifying YouTubers which videos don't get ads on them.
Advertisers absolutely have long asked not to have their ads on certain kinds of videos, and YouTube has complied.
None of them talk about rolling their own video service.
No one can compete against google. Multibillion dollar efforts have gone against google and failed. What makes you think any person can compete when multinationals that dominate the market cant?
Competing with the entrenched players is actually the least of their problems. The major challenge that would be face by video creators who want to monetize videos that don't comply with the new YouTube policy is funding. I don't mean startup funding, I mean ongoing revenue generation, to pay for operational costs and clear enough profit that they can eat. If they had a way to create the latter, they could find the former.
We have found basically two ways to generate revenue from content online: advertising and consumer subscriptions. The consumer subscription model is perfectly workable, but it requires large audiences willing to pay somewhat significant monthly fees. Netflix, HBO, et al have the resources to create the sort of high-quality content that convinces tens or hundreds of millions of people to shell out $10-15 per month to watch it. These people don't, not even collectively. Particularly since for a lot of them their primary demographic is fourteen year-old boys, who don't have any money.
That leaves advertising... but YouTube is not monetizing this content because advertisers don't want to be associated with it. So it seems unlikely that a competing service could attract enough advertising revenue to make a go of it. (Aside: It's worth noting that most of the Netflix and HBO original content is TV-MA... content that advertisers don't want to be associated with. People making TV-14 shows find it far more lucrative to aim for larger audiences and use the ad-supported model.)
The bottom line is that there's no revenue model for the content. If you're a content creator with no revenue model, you're an amateur making videos on weekends and working for The Man to fill your belly and pay for your broadband.
Westerners still labor under the delusion that their governments "aren't as bad" as those nasty foreigners.
That's not a delusion. Western, democratic governments with a free press aren't as bad as countries without the feedback loops provided by the aforementioned characteristics. This should not be taken to mean that they don't contain plenty of corruption, they do... but it is the exception, not the rule. If you've ever lived in a country where corruption is actually the norm then you will understand the difference, and it will be abundantly clear why people in such countries don't bother publishing information about corruption, or get upset about it when such information is published.
A common problem on slashdot, and elsewhere, is the sort of false equivalency implied by the parent. The world is not black and white, it is full of shades of gray, and it really is possible to have corruption, even serious corruption, while still having less corruption than someone else. It's also perfectly reasonable -- and appropriate -- to feel proud to be a citizen of a country with less corruption while still being angry and incensed about the corruption that does exist. Indeed, having citizens get angry about the corruption that exists and caring enough about their country to take action is the only way to fix the corruption. Attitudes like the parent's actually facilitate corruption because they encourage one to simply accept it (and other problems) as inevitable.
EMACS can deal quite nicely with both. With smart-tabs mode, it uses tabs for indentation and spaces for alignment which, as a couple of people above have pointed out, always keeps things properly aligned regardless of tab size.
That said, most EMACS users have been around long enough to know that regardless of how theoretically nice the approach is, it's a Bad Idea. It works great until it doesn't. In contrast, using spaces only works, even without editor support (though it's better with editor support), and the only real downside is that files are a tiny bit larger.
Personally, my approach to indentation these days is to construct a reasonable.clang-format file, bind "clang-format -style=file -i" to a key combination (I use <Ctrl><Alt><Tab>, struck as a chord with my left hand's thumb, pinky and ring finger, with the hand automatically bouncing back to home row), and hit it regularly. There are rare corner cases where the formatting it produces is sub-optimal, but weighed against being able to Just Ignore Formatting, I'll pay that price all damn day. I write code without bothering with spaces or line breaks except when my fingers happen to randomly insert them, then let clang-format fix it all up for me. I don't think about where to break lines, where to line things up, when to put spaces around expressions, etc. The tool does that, does it right 99% of the time and I can live with the 1% of the time it doesn't.
As I said above, PEP8 only applies to the Python project, not all projects written in Python. There is no recommendation for Python code other than consistency.
PEPs are also generally considered good style recommendations for other Python code.
Usually this results in a totally garbled python script.
This is why I avoid Python. Program logic should not be governed by invisible things.
It's only invisible if your editor sucks. Personally, my editor displays tabs as bright red when I'm looking at python files, because tabs in python files are bugs.
This was still owned and operated by Spacecom, they and a lot of customers just lost out because of this failure.
I suspect it was their insurance company who just lost out. Well, many people will have had their plans delayed by this, and it'll cost some money to respin the whole project, but the payload itself is likely covered.
Google is a great place to work. With regard to security, it's especially satisfying because (a) what you do matters, given the scope and scale of the company, and (b) the company really takes security seriously.
I'd be happy to discuss this more deeply. Feel free to e-mail me.
True, but even if they did ban encryption, there will always be some other way to achieve the same ends, especially if you are a criminal who doesn;t care about the law.
Just like trying to ban guns by law Its a stupid idea to begin with, since it only limits/restricts/unnecessarily punishes law-abiding people, so they weren't ever a threat anyway.
Most criminals don't plan very well. If they had to get illegal encryption software to secure their communications and papers, they'd screw it up. For that matter, even in the present where it's legal but not on by default in most cases, they won't do it. The problematic situation is when everything is strongly encrypted by default, all the time -- which I think is a good thing, and in fact a big part of my day job is to make that true on all Android devices. But even though it is a good thing in general, it will have a significant negative impact on law enforcement.
There's also that pesky 'secure in your own home' concept, whereby the planting of false evidence is meant to be at least slightly difficult.
Once they have access, there's nothing stopping escalation to curtail someone that is causing an issue.
Encryption or the lack thereof has no impact on that whatsoever.
But I think it's important to admit that there is a real subject of debate here.
No. There isn't.
Problem is that encryption is more than just sending messages to your co-conspirators. There's banking. Paying bills. All that other good stuff that we do without thinking about the encryption. Back door on encryption means that that's all gone. Can't afford to do online banking with broken encryption. Can't afford a lot of the conveniences of modern living (haven't had to actually write a check in years. And don't expect to have to again)....
Actually, banking, etc., are exactly the areas where escrowed encryption would work just fine. The bank could simply escrow its private keys with a federal agency and the cops could get stuff decrypted with a court order. Done, and done. But it's irrelevant, because a warrant served on the bank will get your transaction records.
No, the relevant sort of encryption here is local storage encryption.
Sorry, but the state at which all laws are fully enforced to their maximum extent is not the ideal our society was founded on. Rather, we accept that some lawbreakers will get away as the cost of our freedom. In essence, law abiding citizens have a vested interest n ensuring that law enforcement is NOT 100 percent successful.
Obviously. But we're likely moving the balance point, which bears discussion.
Um, its not a weakness at all. You can't prevent it. If someone types their credentials in a fake login page and submits it, well then that is how the web works.
Slashdot Mirror
Without Senate passage the accord has no binding authority in the USA. The House has no constitutional role in treaty ratification.
Not true at all.
The House has no role in the constitutionally-defined form of treaty ratification, but that's not the only kind there is, and not even the kind that is used most often. The US engages in three different kinds of international agreements, all of which look like treaties to the rest of the world:
1. Sole-executive agreements. These are cases where the treaty commitments fall within the scope of the president's authority. The most common example is Status of Forces Agreements (SoFA), where the president's authority as commander-in-chief enables him to sign agreements about what the US military will and will not do in foreign nations.
2. Congressional-executive agreements. This is the most common way the US handles foreign treaties that can't be sole-executive. Basically, the executive negotiates and signs a treaty which is a promise to bind the US to the terms of the treaty. The executive then drafts legislation to enact the terms and gets them introduced to Congress. The House and the Senate then pass the enacting legislation with a majority vote in each chamber and the president signs it, just as with any purely domestic legislation, making it federal law.
3. Constitutional treaties. The executive negotiates a treaty and presents it to the Senate for ratification by a 2/3 majority. The ratification makes it federal law, without the involvement of the House. This process is rarely used because it's generally harder to get supermajority approval in the Senate than to get majority approval in both houses.
Arguably, there's also a fourth type, which the courts have called "self-executing treaties", which don't require any legislative action either because the relevant laws already exist, or because the treaties don't actually commit the country to anything, or for some other reason don't require any new law. Sole-executive treaties can also be considered self-executing, though there are self-executing treaties which are not sole-executive treaties.
Not just for extremely high speeds, unless you consider orbital velocities -- on the order of 0.0001c -- to be "extremely high". Facepalm ... the difference between a Newtean and Relativistc calculation for orbitals speeds will end up in the size of a diameter of an atom ... go back to school.
To take the most famous example, the precession of Mercury's orbit is quite a bit larger than that.
I don't need to live in another country. I already know enough about them.
Learning from others' experience rather than having to go through it yourself is a very important skill to have. On the other hand, I think there are things that no one can learn that way. I highly recommend spending some time living in another country.
But YouTube is pulling all advertising, whether the advertisers ask for it or not. YouTube is making the decision, not the advertisers.
Did you notice that there hasn't been a change in YouTube's policy here? YouTube has long avoided showing ads on videos that don't comply with the guidelines (and even documented the guidelines), because advertisers have complained when YouTube wasn't careful enough about that. The only thing that has changed is that YouTube is now notifying YouTubers which videos don't get ads on them.
Advertisers absolutely have long asked not to have their ads on certain kinds of videos, and YouTube has complied.
For instance Einstein didn't show that Newton was wrong, he just found that Newton's laws didn't work well for extremely high speeds.
Not just for extremely high speeds, unless you consider orbital velocities -- on the order of 0.0001c -- to be "extremely high".
None of them talk about rolling their own video service.
No one can compete against google. Multibillion dollar efforts have gone against google and failed. What makes you think any person can compete when multinationals that dominate the market cant?
Competing with the entrenched players is actually the least of their problems. The major challenge that would be face by video creators who want to monetize videos that don't comply with the new YouTube policy is funding. I don't mean startup funding, I mean ongoing revenue generation, to pay for operational costs and clear enough profit that they can eat. If they had a way to create the latter, they could find the former.
We have found basically two ways to generate revenue from content online: advertising and consumer subscriptions. The consumer subscription model is perfectly workable, but it requires large audiences willing to pay somewhat significant monthly fees. Netflix, HBO, et al have the resources to create the sort of high-quality content that convinces tens or hundreds of millions of people to shell out $10-15 per month to watch it. These people don't, not even collectively. Particularly since for a lot of them their primary demographic is fourteen year-old boys, who don't have any money.
That leaves advertising... but YouTube is not monetizing this content because advertisers don't want to be associated with it. So it seems unlikely that a competing service could attract enough advertising revenue to make a go of it. (Aside: It's worth noting that most of the Netflix and HBO original content is TV-MA... content that advertisers don't want to be associated with. People making TV-14 shows find it far more lucrative to aim for larger audiences and use the ad-supported model.)
The bottom line is that there's no revenue model for the content. If you're a content creator with no revenue model, you're an amateur making videos on weekends and working for The Man to fill your belly and pay for your broadband.
Westerners still labor under the delusion that their governments "aren't as bad" as those nasty foreigners.
That's not a delusion. Western, democratic governments with a free press aren't as bad as countries without the feedback loops provided by the aforementioned characteristics. This should not be taken to mean that they don't contain plenty of corruption, they do... but it is the exception, not the rule. If you've ever lived in a country where corruption is actually the norm then you will understand the difference, and it will be abundantly clear why people in such countries don't bother publishing information about corruption, or get upset about it when such information is published.
A common problem on slashdot, and elsewhere, is the sort of false equivalency implied by the parent. The world is not black and white, it is full of shades of gray, and it really is possible to have corruption, even serious corruption, while still having less corruption than someone else. It's also perfectly reasonable -- and appropriate -- to feel proud to be a citizen of a country with less corruption while still being angry and incensed about the corruption that does exist. Indeed, having citizens get angry about the corruption that exists and caring enough about their country to take action is the only way to fix the corruption. Attitudes like the parent's actually facilitate corruption because they encourage one to simply accept it (and other problems) as inevitable.
You didn't read the post you replied to.
Don't worry about the astronaut rating. That's never going to happen.
You seem very certain. Maybe you should put some money on it.
This is why we put our space launch sites in places nobody cares about like Florida and Kazakhstan.
Hey, fuck you, I live in Florida! :-)
So you know why nobody cares about it :-)
https://www.emacswiki.org/emac...
EMACS can deal quite nicely with both. With smart-tabs mode, it uses tabs for indentation and spaces for alignment which, as a couple of people above have pointed out, always keeps things properly aligned regardless of tab size.
That said, most EMACS users have been around long enough to know that regardless of how theoretically nice the approach is, it's a Bad Idea. It works great until it doesn't. In contrast, using spaces only works, even without editor support (though it's better with editor support), and the only real downside is that files are a tiny bit larger.
Personally, my approach to indentation these days is to construct a reasonable .clang-format file, bind "clang-format -style=file -i" to a key combination (I use <Ctrl><Alt><Tab>, struck as a chord with my left hand's thumb, pinky and ring finger, with the hand automatically bouncing back to home row), and hit it regularly. There are rare corner cases where the formatting it produces is sub-optimal, but weighed against being able to Just Ignore Formatting, I'll pay that price all damn day. I write code without bothering with spaces or line breaks except when my fingers happen to randomly insert them, then let clang-format fix it all up for me. I don't think about where to break lines, where to line things up, when to put spaces around expressions, etc. The tool does that, does it right 99% of the time and I can live with the 1% of the time it doesn't.
As I said above, PEP8 only applies to the Python project, not all projects written in Python. There is no recommendation for Python code other than consistency.
PEPs are also generally considered good style recommendations for other Python code.
Usually this results in a totally garbled python script.
This is why I avoid Python. Program logic should not be governed by invisible things.
It's only invisible if your editor sucks. Personally, my editor displays tabs as bright red when I'm looking at python files, because tabs in python files are bugs.
This was still owned and operated by Spacecom, they and a lot of customers just lost out because of this failure.
I suspect it was their insurance company who just lost out. Well, many people will have had their plans delayed by this, and it'll cost some money to respin the whole project, but the payload itself is likely covered.
There must be more to this than the story indicates.
Or less. This is just a rumor.
Aha, features like no boot unloking, no rooting, no adblocking, no means to block tracking.
Google's devices have always had unlockable bootloaders, unlike the rest of the industry.
I don't understand the reason for going away from "vanilla" Android.
Keep in mind that these are rumors, not product announcements.
Google is a great place to work. With regard to security, it's especially satisfying because (a) what you do matters, given the scope and scale of the company, and (b) the company really takes security seriously.
I'd be happy to discuss this more deeply. Feel free to e-mail me.
On the contrary, they work just as well as in other cases. Just because a warrant is granted, this does not guarantee a search will be fruitful.
The difference is that encryption guarantees the search will not be fruitful.
Given that situation, I would tend to lean toward the side that favors the citizenry over their government masters.
Me too, not least because I think the pendulum has swung too far towards government. But I also recognize that proper law enforcement is a good thing.
True, but even if they did ban encryption, there will always be some other way to achieve the same ends, especially if you are a criminal who doesn;t care about the law.
Just like trying to ban guns by law Its a stupid idea to begin with, since it only limits/restricts/unnecessarily punishes law-abiding people, so they weren't ever a threat anyway.
Most criminals don't plan very well. If they had to get illegal encryption software to secure their communications and papers, they'd screw it up. For that matter, even in the present where it's legal but not on by default in most cases, they won't do it. The problematic situation is when everything is strongly encrypted by default, all the time -- which I think is a good thing, and in fact a big part of my day job is to make that true on all Android devices. But even though it is a good thing in general, it will have a significant negative impact on law enforcement.
There's also that pesky 'secure in your own home' concept, whereby the planting of false evidence is meant to be at least slightly difficult. Once they have access, there's nothing stopping escalation to curtail someone that is causing an issue.
Encryption or the lack thereof has no impact on that whatsoever.
No. There isn't.
Problem is that encryption is more than just sending messages to your co-conspirators. There's banking. Paying bills. All that other good stuff that we do without thinking about the encryption. Back door on encryption means that that's all gone. Can't afford to do online banking with broken encryption. Can't afford a lot of the conveniences of modern living (haven't had to actually write a check in years. And don't expect to have to again)....
Actually, banking, etc., are exactly the areas where escrowed encryption would work just fine. The bank could simply escrow its private keys with a federal agency and the cops could get stuff decrypted with a court order. Done, and done. But it's irrelevant, because a warrant served on the bank will get your transaction records.
No, the relevant sort of encryption here is local storage encryption.
Debate? LOL. Read the Constitution.
I have. Many times. And re-read it regularly. Which part are you referring to?
Sorry, but the state at which all laws are fully enforced to their maximum extent is not the ideal our society was founded on. Rather, we accept that some lawbreakers will get away as the cost of our freedom. In essence, law abiding citizens have a vested interest n ensuring that law enforcement is NOT 100 percent successful.
Obviously. But we're likely moving the balance point, which bears discussion.
Um, its not a weakness at all. You can't prevent it. If someone types their credentials in a fake login page and submits it, well then that is how the web works.
You didn't read the post you responded to.