But I don't think it [Usenet] would ever scale to the quantity of data (basically, videos) that's posted to youtube or facebook or twitter.
Stipulating for the sake of argument, this would be a bad thing, why wouldn't it?
By Moore's Law, our computers have become 65534 times more powerful than they were 24 years ago (in 1994). Facebook et al themselves are demonstrating, the hardware and the network connectivity are there — as you say. Why wouldn't servers talking an open protocol with each be able to do it? SMTP-servers can — e-mailing videos is "totally a thing" today — why wouln't NTTP-servers not be?
Except the fact that IRC and Usenet was like getting an open firehose of information especially on popular boards
How is that a problem? You have — and always had — the tools necessary to filter this and, if a particular server's policy didn't suit you, you could switch without changing the interface(s) and losing the associations, contacts, and the audiences.
That's a giant "if", though. Involvement of any state-backed actor — especially FSB — raises (or ought to raise) the requirement for verifiability by orders of magnitude on any quantifiable characteristics...
it doesn't matter if the FSB itself presents it.
Mr. Mueller would now like to have a word with you. Be sure to wait for the "Walk" light before crossing a road...
your machine will be running a system that is custom, untested and therefore likely to be less reliable
Whoah, whoah... Had anyone alluded to such a thing — that built from source makes anything "less reliable" — back in my days, Linux fan-bois would've scorched the very soil he stood on to crisp with their flame-throwers... Are we still on Slashdot even?..
IRC for "instant" communications among individuals and groups, and Usenet for public forums is why there is no need for Facebook, Twitter and other centrally-controlled systems so prone to censorship and similar abuses both by the commercial interests controlling them, and the governments able to twist the former's arms.
Because you would have to put a Chromebook into developer mode to install an unofficial kernel.
Goodness gracious, "unofficial" kernel? Does not that imply, there is also an "official" kernel? What is that, and just how "open source" is that very concept?
So, as Equifax and Ashley Madison — to name just a few — before, DNC has learned to take data-security seriously the hard-way. A welcome change nonetheless, for sure.
Would it to be proper to mention, that the RNC has successfully foiled such an attack back in 2016? No? Too partisan? Ok...
Or, maybe, it is not too partisan to call out the same guys, who have once mocked an opponent for being computer illiterate?
They can as in "nothing prevents them from doing it
Your anecdote doesn't actually prove that.
The cited article describes, how it happened — thus proving, that it can happen.
Filling in a form isn't the same thing as getting it approved
Why would anyone reject a voter's registration? Based on what? There is nothing on the form, that indicates (in)eligibility to vote — if the applicant asserts eligibility, he is eligible.
are you trying to tell me that DMV clerks have the possibility to edit voting records?
WTF? No, they don't — they just pass the applicant's information to the vote-registration office. Which then dutifully registers the person to vote. Not only is no one asking any more questions, no one can ask any, even if someone wanted to.
Non-citizens are unable to register to vote and are unable to vote.
There is literally nothing preventing them. And that is the point KKKon$ervative media are making — correctly. The forms at the DMV are the same for all. Whether or not to register to vote is determined by the applicant himself — the DMV employees are neither expected nor even allowed to verify eligibility. Indeed, this is what caused that poor abuela from Kansas to do it, according to this article:
She applied for an Illinois driver's license in 2005, presenting her Peruvian passport and her green card. On one form, she declined to register to vote. But she said a clerk asked her if she wanted to register to vote. When she asked the clerk if she was "supposed to," she said the clerk responded: "It's up to you."
The only reason we know about her is that she disclosed this to the officials during her naturalization process. How many more people like her have done — and continue to do — the same is anybody's guess. Because not only is no one checking, active measures are taken to prevent the checking.
you are incorrect in suggesting that they can vote in more than just those school board elections. Details matter
They cannot as in "it is not legal". They can as in "nothing prevents them from doing it". This is, what matters. Are you going to claim, there are no thieves, because theft is illegal?
Anyone obtaining a driver's license in California (and in many other states) can check a checkbox to also register to vote. It is the person's own discretion, scruples, and fear of prosecution, that decides it.
Anyone registered to vote, can come and vote — no verification is done at the time of voting.
Indeed, various cities — including San Francisco — encourage non-citizens to vote now. Ostensibly, they are only supposed to vote for local issues only (such as school boards), which is legal. In practice, there are no checks preventing them from voting.
It is possible. It happens. Attempts to quantify, how wide-spread it is, are sabotaged.
As with other possible exploits, we must assume being compromised... Which is unfortunate...
“Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine.” But, hey, if it really was an emergency, FD could've overcome the heartless KKKapitali$st Verizon by simply paying a little more... They didn't — because there was no emergency.
Now, think for a second, why would firefighters needs 25GB worth of dataplan per month? It is not like Verizon has cut off their water supply...
They paid for an "unlimited" plan. Unlimited means without limit to normal people.
Then, maybe, Verizon may be blamed for false advertising.
But not for anything related to the fire. Because the FD had weeks and months to realize, what "unlimited" means in Verizon-speak and either switch to a different carrier or pay up.
Which sure looks to me that the AC has the definition of offline where the client continues to work when not connected to a network
Yes, that is the applicable definition of "offline". And, yes, Thunderbird has offline mode. Which makes it superior to any "webmail" interface for anyone with an intermittent network connectivity. And it offers a compelling set of features even for those with a steady connection.
Which makes it a solid competitor to even the best of webmail offerings, including GMail.
"Phasing it out" would help Google gain market share — just as I said. Whether they deliberately pursue that policy or not — I would not know.
A conspiracy-minded person may suspect that. And he might further suspect, that Brendan Eich's refusal to play along is the real reason he was suddenly outed as a "homophobe".
Slashdot Mirror
Stipulating for the sake of argument, this would be a bad thing, why wouldn't it?
By Moore's Law, our computers have become 65534 times more powerful than they were 24 years ago (in 1994). Facebook et al themselves are demonstrating, the hardware and the network connectivity are there — as you say. Why wouldn't servers talking an open protocol with each be able to do it? SMTP-servers can — e-mailing videos is "totally a thing" today — why wouln't NTTP-servers not be?
How is that a problem? You have — and always had — the tools necessary to filter this and, if a particular server's policy didn't suit you, you could switch without changing the interface(s) and losing the associations, contacts, and the audiences.
That's a giant "if", though. Involvement of any state-backed actor — especially FSB — raises (or ought to raise) the requirement for verifiability by orders of magnitude on any quantifiable characteristics...
Mr. Mueller would now like to have a word with you. Be sure to wait for the "Walk" light before crossing a road...
Whoah, whoah... Had anyone alluded to such a thing — that built from source makes anything "less reliable" — back in my days, Linux fan-bois would've scorched the very soil he stood on to crisp with their flame-throwers... Are we still on Slashdot even?..
IRC for "instant" communications among individuals and groups, and Usenet for public forums is why there is no need for Facebook, Twitter and other centrally-controlled systems so prone to censorship and similar abuses both by the commercial interests controlling them, and the governments able to twist the former's arms.
But we are still proud it is called "Linux", aren't we?
Why are we reading anything originating from a KGB-controlled source again?
Goodness gracious, "unofficial" kernel? Does not that imply, there is also an "official" kernel? What is that, and just how "open source" is that very concept?
What "memory lane"? I for one have switched to FreeBSD in 1993 — and never looked back...
So? Why would not you just download the source-code and compile it yourself?
Was not this ability the point of Linux — and the rallying cry for its fans — for 20+ years?
Lrf, V'z gebyyvat. Gunax lbh sbe znxvat na rssbeg gb ernq guvf.
The "opinion piece" cites an article with the actual declassified government documents...
Was it? No, it was not.
Such a fresh, beautiful conspiracy theory, nipped in its innocent pink bud...
Not "exclusive". But certainly run by the Democrats — as is normal for when the Executive branch is headed by a Democrat, of course.
Distinction without meaningful difference to the topic at hand.
Oh, it is quite true. It is no secret at all, that Obama's administration (ab)used its power to spy on Republicans and help the fellow Democrats. And not only was the NSA-collected data used that way, Comey's FBI was "doing its part" too.
"Patently false" my tail...
in 2016, DNC was the US government. And they failed anyway...
So, as Equifax and Ashley Madison — to name just a few — before, DNC has learned to take data-security seriously the hard-way. A welcome change nonetheless, for sure.
Would it to be proper to mention, that the RNC has successfully foiled such an attack back in 2016? No? Too partisan? Ok...
Or, maybe, it is not too partisan to call out the same guys, who have once mocked an opponent for being computer illiterate?
The article I linked to says, the attack on the RNC failed. The organization was not hacked. Why, I wonder, would you misrepresent the facts this way?
Funny, how you assume, internal documents must always be embarrassing. Kinda reveals your opinion of the organizations you know from the inside :-)
That you are either a moron unable to comprehend fairly basic English, or a liar hoping to influence this kind of morons, is now established.
Whichever option applies, both explain your hatred of the GOP far better, than there being anything wrong with the object of your hate.
This makes even less sense, than is usual for Left's ramblings...
The cited article describes, how it happened — thus proving, that it can happen.
Why would anyone reject a voter's registration? Based on what? There is nothing on the form, that indicates (in)eligibility to vote — if the applicant asserts eligibility, he is eligible.
WTF? No, they don't — they just pass the applicant's information to the vote-registration office. Which then dutifully registers the person to vote. Not only is no one asking any more questions, no one can ask any, even if someone wanted to.
There is literally nothing preventing them. And that is the point KKKon$ervative media are making — correctly. The forms at the DMV are the same for all. Whether or not to register to vote is determined by the applicant himself — the DMV employees are neither expected nor even allowed to verify eligibility. Indeed, this is what caused that poor abuela from Kansas to do it, according to this article:
The only reason we know about her is that she disclosed this to the officials during her naturalization process. How many more people like her have done — and continue to do — the same is anybody's guess. Because not only is no one checking, active measures are taken to prevent the checking.
They cannot as in "it is not legal". They can as in "nothing prevents them from doing it". This is, what matters. Are you going to claim, there are no thieves, because theft is illegal?
It is possible. It happens. Attempts to quantify, how wide-spread it is, are sabotaged.
As with other possible exploits, we must assume being compromised... Which is unfortunate...
Why does California worry about counting the votes, if they would not bother to verify the eligibility of the people casting it?
Yes. RNC just happened to survive it the first time .
Perhaps, because they run a tighter ship, so to speak...
“Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine.” But, hey, if it really was an emergency, FD could've overcome the heartless KKKapitali$st Verizon by simply paying a little more... They didn't — because there was no emergency.
Now, think for a second, why would firefighters needs 25GB worth of dataplan per month? It is not like Verizon has cut off their water supply...
Then, maybe, Verizon may be blamed for false advertising.
But not for anything related to the fire. Because the FD had weeks and months to realize, what "unlimited" means in Verizon-speak and either switch to a different carrier or pay up.
Yes, that is the applicable definition of "offline". And, yes, Thunderbird has offline mode. Which makes it superior to any "webmail" interface for anyone with an intermittent network connectivity. And it offers a compelling set of features even for those with a steady connection.
Which makes it a solid competitor to even the best of webmail offerings, including GMail.
"Phasing it out" would help Google gain market share — just as I said. Whether they deliberately pursue that policy or not — I would not know.
A conspiracy-minded person may suspect that. And he might further suspect, that Brendan Eich's refusal to play along is the real reason he was suddenly outed as a "homophobe".