Probably because no one knows and/or cares about Chavez and/or his policies?
That's decidedly not true about Senator Sanders' followers. Whether he is a real Socialist or not, plenty of people, who fancy themselves as such follow him. And Chavez was the world's number one Socialist just a few years ago. Indeed, he was once a special guest of the World Social Forum.
So, no, you aren't going to succeed playing "Chavez who?". You yourself have now replied thrice in this thread, and yet can not point at a single thing, Sanders would do differently from Chavez... Figures...
Must we keep using the labels and stereotypes? I'm about to get triggered...
So asking him about Chavez is entirely irrelevant.
Several people responded in this sub-thread of mine, some of them — multiple times. And yet, not one was willing (or able?) to offer a single policy difference...
The panelists insisted that it is the duty of world leaders to safeguard their citizens' privacy, just as corporations are answerable to leaks and hacks.
With corporations already answerable, how about we simply keep the government away from the data — and make corporations provide all of the anonymity-threatening services? Then we will not need to establish yet another governmental Department (of Privacy) and live happy fulfilling lives?
I'm yet to hear about a politician, who is accepted by Socialists as a "real" one. Maybe, Che Guevara?..
But, in any case, I didn't ask, whether he is a "real Socialist" — nor whether Hugo Chavez was one. I'm inquiring, what, if anything, in the good Senator's opinion, has Chavez done wrong. Some policy initiative of his, that Sanders would never consider...
You can spend 5 minutes of your time and fucking read it.
So, in response to a polite question to outline the differences you've posted several curses-ridden and abusive responses, none of them outlining the differences.
Either the differences do not really exist (as I suspected) or you personally are unable to see any. I think, we are done here.
Only an uneducated and uninformed neocon shitbag would not be able to [...]
One would've thought, Hans Christian Andersen ultimately destroyed this rhetorical device two centuries ago. Are your parents so mean (or illiterate?), that you've never read the fable — nor had it read to you?
I heard, that Senator Sanders has fans, but never encountered one in person. A burning question I have for him — and his — is, what exactly would he do differently from Presidente Chavez, should he gain the same office in this country as the late paratrooper held in Venezuela?
That might be because the taxpayers do not have the collective-bargaining powers, when talking to the IRS.
The distinction between employees and contractors is artificial and should not exist.
For example, a Uber driver, injured in a wreck can not get Workman's comp
His injuries — and the "pain and suffering" are covered by the auto-insurance. The "workman's compensation" was a solution in search of a problem, became a breeding ground for fraud, and should be abolished ASAP — along with all other involuntary insurance schemes.
Self destructive actions of an individual negatively affect society
Examples?
your freedom ends when it negatively affects others.
False. My calling you names or otherwise being offensive (including, gasp, making racist and sexist statements), for example, however negatively it might affect you and millions of others, does not end my freedom of speech.
Absolutely. Maybe, LSD should not be prohibited to begin with. Maybe, nothing should be prohibited at all — citizens of a free country ought to have the right to kill themselves in any way they wish. But the rules must be the same for everyone.
On that note, I argue for automated law-enforcement wherever practical — such as with traffic-cameras, which would fine an upstanding resident of the same town just as much as passer-by from 2 states away.
He doesn't have to suggest an alternative - he was just making an observation.
His argument — or the "observation" — implied a need for some force to come in and fix the "problem". Because his "observation" applies equally to our entire political system, the same argument would advocate the overthrow of our representative government. Therefore, inquiring, what he would like to replace it with is perfectly legitimate.
But if he is not prepared to dispense with the democracy — same way you aren't — maybe, he ought to keep his hands off the free market as well.
the western world has a problem with obesity, but the #1 leader is the US.
Because the US is the wealthiest and has the most food to both overeat and waste...
If one doesn't understand the market they might assume all phones are built to the same standards
Yeah, and he may also not know, how to put shoes on. Ridiculous. Phone-makers advertise their models all the time — outlining, the differences between them and the competition.
Either way, if the manufacturers aren't seeing much of a backlash over the practices, then it is not a big deal. A self-solving problem — mind your own business.
you generate a new cert based on the content of the one you got and sign it with the private key
If that's, what it is, why would you permanently store the private key on the machine? You can generate a new one at will — because the browser is configured to trust your CA...
Neah, I tend to go with the Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
That's an argument against representative government too, you know. Which alternative do you prefer?
They can't even manage their own waistline.
No one can. The problem is the sudden abundance of food in the Western World — our bodies have evolved in a completely different environment. These days we can afford to eat everyday, what would've qualified as a feast only a few generations ago.
You think they can understand a market?
One does not need to understand the market to be annoyed with a particular manufacturer. And if not enough people get annoyed over unfixable electronics, then it must not be a big enough problem. Case closed.
Corporate Charter which is to be approved by the State Government
False. Registering a corporation is not a privilege — it is a right. I don't need your approval to create one. My registration merely informs you, that I intend to do business as a corporation.
everybody having their damn about what a corporation does and how from its very inception
False. The only legal mechanism, through which our nosy government pretending to serve the busybody you can justify its interest in the corporation's internal practices, is through non-discrimination and workplace safety regulations.
but others may expect corporations also to support their local societies and to promote their local values
And my point is, such expectations are stupid, misplaced, and counterproductive.
When choosing a new TV-set, are you going to say: sure, Foo's TVs suck and are more expensive than Bar's, but I'm going to buy one anyway, because Foo, Inc. is hiring more women than Bar, Inc.? Seriously?
It's a private key that the browser is configured to trust.
Yes, but the browser does not need to have access to the private key to establish that trust — that's the whole point of public/private key cryptography.
The question was — and remains — why does this private key need to be present on the user's computer, if the sole goal is to show the user ads as "trusted"?
So either an engineer acted in breech of professional ethics, or managers rode roughshod over the engineers' objections.
This suspicion would've made sense, if there was some profit opportunity there. But I can not see one...
Making their own CA recognizable as valid by users of their computers would've been understandable — and even acceptable. But what possible use is publishing your private key?
Perhaps, it is to be able to deny responsibility for bad software later, but that's a little too far-fetched...
FreeBSD's support of her cause in many discussion list entries is what caused my business to stop our annual donations and migrate >5k hosts over to Linux.
That seems so drastic, it is unbelievable...
Wow, didn't know about her. Well, I think, you can go back now — randi@ has not committed anything (to src/) since 2010... Which brings us back to my point — your concern with a software project ought to be first and foremost on the quality of the product.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably. And he may even be nicer to Israel than Chavez was and than his own core constituency are. But that's not something, that has much bearing on economic and other internal policies... And it is those policies — not the anti-Semitism and not the anti-Israel denunciations — that stalled Venezuela's economy (even while oil was still expensive), destroyed its infrastructure, and quintupled the murder rate and other violent crime.
That's decidedly not true about Senator Sanders' followers. Whether he is a real Socialist or not, plenty of people, who fancy themselves as such follow him. And Chavez was the world's number one Socialist just a few years ago. Indeed, he was once a special guest of the World Social Forum.
So, no, you aren't going to succeed playing "Chavez who?". You yourself have now replied thrice in this thread, and yet can not point at a single thing, Sanders would do differently from Chavez... Figures...
Must we keep using the labels and stereotypes? I'm about to get triggered...
Several people responded in this sub-thread of mine, some of them — multiple times. And yet, not one was willing (or able?) to offer a single policy difference...
With corporations already answerable, how about we simply keep the government away from the data — and make corporations provide all of the anonymity-threatening services? Then we will not need to establish yet another governmental Department (of Privacy) and live happy fulfilling lives?
I'm yet to hear about a politician, who is accepted by Socialists as a "real" one. Maybe, Che Guevara?..
But, in any case, I didn't ask, whether he is a "real Socialist" — nor whether Hugo Chavez was one. I'm inquiring, what, if anything, in the good Senator's opinion, has Chavez done wrong. Some policy initiative of his, that Sanders would never consider...
So, in response to a polite question to outline the differences you've posted several curses-ridden and abusive responses, none of them outlining the differences.
Either the differences do not really exist (as I suspected) or you personally are unable to see any. I think, we are done here.
One would've thought, Hans Christian Andersen ultimately destroyed this rhetorical device two centuries ago. Are your parents so mean (or illiterate?), that you've never read the fable — nor had it read to you?
Chavez was not particularly angi-gun. And he didn't abolish Venezuela's Constitution, he passed a new version (the 26th for the country).
Anything else?
Please, don't hate, you intolerant asshole.
Obviously, you've read it. Can you outline a few things, that he would not do — something, on which Chavez was, in his (and your) opinion, wrong?
I heard, that Senator Sanders has fans, but never encountered one in person. A burning question I have for him — and his — is, what exactly would he do differently from Presidente Chavez, should he gain the same office in this country as the late paratrooper held in Venezuela?
Off-topic? Hardly...
Even if this were true, that would've been a direct result of the driver's conscientious decision.
But it is not true.
That might be because the taxpayers do not have the collective-bargaining powers, when talking to the IRS.
The distinction between employees and contractors is artificial and should not exist.
His injuries — and the "pain and suffering" are covered by the auto-insurance. The "workman's compensation" was a solution in search of a problem, became a breeding ground for fraud, and should be abolished ASAP — along with all other involuntary insurance schemes.
I have — and do hope, some day it will reach the Supreme Court...
Examples?
False. My calling you names or otherwise being offensive (including, gasp, making racist and sexist statements), for example, however negatively it might affect you and millions of others, does not end my freedom of speech.
Absolutely. Maybe, LSD should not be prohibited to begin with. Maybe, nothing should be prohibited at all — citizens of a free country ought to have the right to kill themselves in any way they wish. But the rules must be the same for everyone.
On that note, I argue for automated law-enforcement wherever practical — such as with traffic-cameras, which would fine an upstanding resident of the same town just as much as passer-by from 2 states away.
It will not have an FSB-room — because all premises will be used by the Service...
His argument — or the "observation" — implied a need for some force to come in and fix the "problem". Because his "observation" applies equally to our entire political system, the same argument would advocate the overthrow of our representative government. Therefore, inquiring, what he would like to replace it with is perfectly legitimate.
But if he is not prepared to dispense with the democracy — same way you aren't — maybe, he ought to keep his hands off the free market as well.
Because the US is the wealthiest and has the most food to both overeat and waste...
Yeah, and he may also not know, how to put shoes on. Ridiculous. Phone-makers advertise their models all the time — outlining, the differences between them and the competition.
Either way, if the manufacturers aren't seeing much of a backlash over the practices, then it is not a big deal. A self-solving problem — mind your own business.
If that's, what it is, why would you permanently store the private key on the machine? You can generate a new one at will — because the browser is configured to trust your CA...
Neah, I tend to go with the Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
One's generalization is another's stereotyping. Fuck you and your White tears!
Lrnu, V'z gebyyvat.
That's an argument against representative government too, you know. Which alternative do you prefer?
No one can. The problem is the sudden abundance of food in the Western World — our bodies have evolved in a completely different environment. These days we can afford to eat everyday, what would've qualified as a feast only a few generations ago.
One does not need to understand the market to be annoyed with a particular manufacturer. And if not enough people get annoyed over unfixable electronics, then it must not be a big enough problem. Case closed.
False. Registering a corporation is not a privilege — it is a right. I don't need your approval to create one. My registration merely informs you, that I intend to do business as a corporation.
False. The only legal mechanism, through which our nosy government pretending to serve the busybody you can justify its interest in the corporation's internal practices, is through non-discrimination and workplace safety regulations.
And my point is, such expectations are stupid, misplaced, and counterproductive.
When choosing a new TV-set, are you going to say: sure, Foo's TVs suck and are more expensive than Bar's, but I'm going to buy one anyway, because Foo, Inc. is hiring more women than Bar, Inc.? Seriously?
I know, it is not mine, darn it. It is Dell's.
Yes, but the browser does not need to have access to the private key to establish that trust — that's the whole point of public/private key cryptography.
The question was — and remains — why does this private key need to be present on the user's computer, if the sole goal is to show the user ads as "trusted"?
This makes no sense. Why do you need your private key to be located on the users' computer for that?
This suspicion would've made sense, if there was some profit opportunity there. But I can not see one...
Making their own CA recognizable as valid by users of their computers would've been understandable — and even acceptable. But what possible use is publishing your private key?
Perhaps, it is to be able to deny responsibility for bad software later, but that's a little too far-fetched...
That seems so drastic, it is unbelievable...
Wow, didn't know about her. Well, I think, you can go back now — randi@ has not committed anything (to src/) since 2010... Which brings us back to my point — your concern with a software project ought to be first and foremost on the quality of the product.
But, maybe, she works for Microsoft now?