More likely, there will be a few more billionaires, and all you'll get, is a few more names + logos to pick from, for almost the same mediocre service.
What makes you think, this is the likelier outcome?
Yes, because the only thing protecting the consumer is the Government. (Pay no attention to NSA, FBI, and the Border Guards.) There is a Million Regulators March on Washington being planned for — you guessed it — April 15th. Be there to show your support!
(Npghnyyl, ab, gung jnf fnepnfz.)
Your guy Trump sure is sticking it to the corporations
By making it less likely that an ISP will be (frivolously) sued for violating the nebulously unclear standard to take "reasonable" measure measures, Trump's government lowers the cost of the legal insurance, which lowers the total cost of doing business. And that's a good thing for both producers and the customers alike.
You do realise that the An-225 is an appallingly low tech aircraft, all it has going for it is its size.
What else do you need for a cargo plane other than the size — and the lift, which it also has aplenty? The long distance, maybe, and the ability to operate in various weather conditions? It has got all that too...
And the Ukraine
There is no "the" in front of the country name. The Germany? The France?
as its prime buyer was Russia
Yes, and that's why they are now reorienting towards the Saudis as I already mentioned. And the Chinese. In other words, both of the markets mentioned in the write-up.
notice that the free and used hard drive space doesn't match the total on the drive sticker
Logging-in with a duress code to your laptop should trigger removal of whatever it is you want to protect (whether it is encrypted/hidden or not).
It is a reasonably fast operation and, after it is over, the diskspace will match... The only way to prevent it would be for the compelling party to confiscate the laptop and attempt to unlock it themselves. That method is way too tedious to be used in a dragnet, however...
The safety and security of the homeland trumps your so called privacy every time
Maybe, it would have if it actually helped. But it is so trivial for anyone to bypass the entire problem — such as by resetting their phone when the plane is landing and restoring from the cloud after checking-in to their hotel — that no terrorist will be thwarted by this.
If any, the safety gain will be temporarily while the lost liberty — substantial. Do the words I just used remind you of a quote by one of the Founding Fathers? They better...
Far better to have a cutsie account in your real name with only polite BS and a 2nd account in a different name where you can be honest
That would violate the "real name" policies of services like Facebook and Quora — you can lose that "important" account if you do that...
Of course, you can another account with your real name — for example, there are over a dozen Facebook accounts with my own fairly rare Firstname Lastname combination already. None of them mine...
But that has its own difficulties — most client-applications remember your username-string, even if you tell them to not record the password. So, you will be seen overwriting your username with the fake one... And, even if you aren't, whoever forces you will see, you last logged-in a year ago — and become suspicious. No, what you want is a "Duress Password", which unlocks the same account but hides the things you want hidden.
A "mode" will be detectable — looking at your screen whoever compels you to show it (a criminal or an officer or both-in-one) will be able to tell, you are in "travel mode" and demand to see the real deal.
The concept you want is Duress Password — which ostensibly unlocks "everything", but hides the things you previously marked for hiding whenever the "duress" password is entered instead of real one.
And you may wish to use it not only to fool overzealous border-guards, but, for example, to hide certain materials from bystanders at Internet-cafes.
But, to reiterate, it is of utmost importance, that your usage of such functionality can not be not only proven, but even suspected. Whoever is in a position to compel you to login, is also in a position to punish you for fooling him...
Owning a Cat Does Not Lead To Mental Illness among humans [added by me]
I denounce the speciism displayed by Slashdot. What about the cats? Don't they need years of therapy after having been, gasp, owned by fugly, smelly, bizarre bipeds without feathers but with ample delusions of grandeur?
If you are prosperous, the government won't tax you down to the level of a welfare recipient
Yes, thankfully, it will not — not in the US today. But that's what the communists/socialists would like to be happening. And to farther this goal, they'll claim, that in the current situation we do not have "equality" — without specifying, which of the two very different equalities they mean.
TFA, clearly, talks about Equality of Results — catastrophes wipe everything out, making everyone equally poor. When ArmoredDragon questioned, whether this is at all desirable, s.petry replied, that "equality is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence" — and therefore must be desirable. The most delicious part was him, who just substituted one term for another, accusing others of "false equivalence"!..
Your explanation is so black and white
The equalities of Opportunity and Results are completely different — like black and white. Worse, while black and white are merely colors, the two equalities aren't a matter of taste — one is a must for a just egalitarian society, the other is highly oppressive.
And yet, various demagogues routinely use the trick of equivocation to confuse the audience by referring to the two interchangeably. It is this dishonest demagoguery, that my post was aimed to counter — the aim, which gives it value.
At least on paper, there was a difference in between cooperatively owned one and government owned ones (kolkhoz).
I am not sure, what your background is, but you are confusing things. "Kolhoz" was ostensibly collectively-owned ("kol" for "Kolletive"), although in reality the government exercised full control. The bona-fide government farming enterprises were named "sovhoz" ("sov" for "Soviet"). There was nothing else...
"Cooperative" was a way to obtain an apartment — for lots of money and additional labor — it had nothing to do with means of production.
False equivalency. The push for equality is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence
What the Declaration enshrines is the Equality of Opportunity: we all have the same rights and obligations, our results depend on what we do with them.
What Altantic and other crypto-commies are talking about is Equality of Results — whatever you do in life, your results will be roughly the same as those of everybody else. If you prosper, the government will tax you. If you suck, the government will subsidize you.
Luxury goods firms were in private hands up until the death of Stalin.
Maybe, I grew up in a different USSR. What "luxury goods"? Name one private label, that existed in USSR in 1952...
Cooperative farms were de-facto private, up until 72-76 when they were all finally nationalised
They were called "collective farms" and weren't "private" at all. Though ostensibly the farm's chairman was elected, in reality the sole candidate was introduced by the Communist Party's representative for the members of the collective to rubber-stamp. Whatever they collectively farmed could only be sold to the government as well.
better known were Cocacola
Neither Coca-Cola nor Pepsi owned anything — USSR-owned factories were producing the drinks under license.
and Fiat
Nope. Some Soviet models tried to emulate foreign cars, but Fiat didn't own any stake in the factories.
The company is looking to design a "rolling warehouse" system in which a drone is "deployed from the roof of a UPS truck and flies at an altitude of 200 feet to the destination." It returns after dropping off the package while the truck is already on its way to the next stop.
The only thing that would be legal is the copying for personal use (hence: no reselling)
Reselling or not, if I can download it for free watching at home, I am unlikely to pay to watch anywhere else.
Besides, what argument is there to make it freely available to individuals, that would not also apply verbatim to owners of venues like bars, for example?
Movies are already increasingly sponsored by product-placement — as people continue to steal content in larger numbers, the practice is going to increase.
Now, maybe, most of the entertainment is overpriced crap, but to consume it anyway — without paying the creators whatever they want — is hypocrisy.
if you *don't* "kill off the degenerates", then they will continually breed with your so-called "improved stock"
Not if the genomes of the new embryos are edited with the same vigor and propaganda cover as vaccinations are done today...
Even more conservatively, instead of editing, Heinlein's book describes the method, whereby the child conceived by two parents will not be a hitherto impossible "superhuman" — he'll just be the best possible child these two parents can conceive. Human stock then improves from the most optimal variant always winning what was until then a chance-game...
It still provides a lot more details — and answers a lot more questions — than a Slashdot post can be expected to. If it is Ok to outline one's vision of solution in the latter, it is certainly Ok to refer people to the former. As I did...
Sure, it is "just a story", but until such things are implemented for real, all discussions will have to deal with the hypotheticals.
Why? It's a waste of money and resources that could be focused on actually contributing to society.
The technique they are using — CRISPR — is what we just discussed as applicable to humans. If splicing mammoth into elephant yields a viable organism, some day it may be possible to splice useful features of Neanderthals and other extinct human species, or even apes into humans — yielding strength, resistance to diseases, or adaptability to uncomfortable conditions (think Antarctica or even Mars).
Eugenics became a dirty word because of Nazis, who would improve humanity by killing off the "degenerates". But there is nothing wrong with improving the human stock per se... For example, Heinlein in "Beyond This Horizon" describes a society, where this was done successfully — while also explaining, how it can be done (very) wrong as well.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think, this is the likelier outcome?
With fewer useless regulations, maybe, it will become more robust.
Yes, because the only thing protecting the consumer is the Government. (Pay no attention to NSA, FBI, and the Border Guards.) There is a Million Regulators March on Washington being planned for — you guessed it — April 15th. Be there to show your support!
(Npghnyyl, ab, gung jnf fnepnfz.)
By making it less likely that an ISP will be (frivolously) sued for violating the nebulously unclear standard to take "reasonable" measure measures, Trump's government lowers the cost of the legal insurance, which lowers the total cost of doing business. And that's a good thing for both producers and the customers alike.
What else do you need for a cargo plane other than the size — and the lift, which it also has aplenty? The long distance, maybe, and the ability to operate in various weather conditions? It has got all that too...
There is no "the" in front of the country name. The Germany? The France?
Yes, and that's why they are now reorienting towards the Saudis as I already mentioned. And the Chinese. In other words, both of the markets mentioned in the write-up.
Unbeknown to many, Ukraine has some very advanced aircraft technology. Its "Mria" aircraft remains the largest cargo airplane in the world. And it is not just the size — recently it was used to bring a replacement engine to a Boeing...
They are partnering with Saudis now to develop their know-how into mass-production...
What about the part being "obvious to anyone skilled in the art"?
Don't attack the messenger — as I suggested above, I don't have a Facebook account at all.
By "important" I meant the account, that a user would consider worth protecting by hiding under a different name as you suggested.
Since you have nothing to say but argue about terminology (semantics), I believe, we are done here.
AFAIK, they don't ask for password. They ask you to "please, enter your password"...
Logging-in with a duress code to your laptop should trigger removal of whatever it is you want to protect (whether it is encrypted/hidden or not).
It is a reasonably fast operation and, after it is over, the diskspace will match... The only way to prevent it would be for the compelling party to confiscate the laptop and attempt to unlock it themselves. That method is way too tedious to be used in a dragnet, however...
Maybe, it would have if it actually helped. But it is so trivial for anyone to bypass the entire problem — such as by resetting their phone when the plane is landing and restoring from the cloud after checking-in to their hotel — that no terrorist will be thwarted by this.
If any, the safety gain will be temporarily while the lost liberty — substantial. Do the words I just used remind you of a quote by one of the Founding Fathers? They better...
During Obama's last fiscal year, the practice quintupled — and is targeting not only foreigners, but US citizens as well. Surrendering your privacy to a random guard's unfounded suspicions or hunches shall not be a condition for returning home.
No, they would not — the concept is in wide usage by security and alarm-monitoring companies for example.
Without access to the remote server, it can be made impossible to detect, whether or not the user used the special password or the real one.
That would violate the "real name" policies of services like Facebook and Quora — you can lose that "important" account if you do that...
Of course, you can another account with your real name — for example, there are over a dozen Facebook accounts with my own fairly rare Firstname Lastname combination already. None of them mine...
But that has its own difficulties — most client-applications remember your username-string, even if you tell them to not record the password. So, you will be seen overwriting your username with the fake one... And, even if you aren't, whoever forces you will see, you last logged-in a year ago — and become suspicious. No, what you want is a "Duress Password", which unlocks the same account but hides the things you want hidden.
A "mode" will be detectable — looking at your screen whoever compels you to show it (a criminal or an officer or both-in-one) will be able to tell, you are in "travel mode" and demand to see the real deal.
The concept you want is Duress Password — which ostensibly unlocks "everything", but hides the things you previously marked for hiding whenever the "duress" password is entered instead of real one.
And you may wish to use it not only to fool overzealous border-guards, but, for example, to hide certain materials from bystanders at Internet-cafes.
There is a "duress" PAM-module in the works for folks compelled to login to their Unix-laptop and a move to add the feature to Cyrus IMAP-server.
But, to reiterate, it is of utmost importance, that your usage of such functionality can not be not only proven, but even suspected. Whoever is in a position to compel you to login, is also in a position to punish you for fooling him...
I denounce the speciism displayed by Slashdot. What about the cats? Don't they need years of therapy after having been, gasp, owned by fugly, smelly, bizarre bipeds without feathers but with ample delusions of grandeur?
Yes, thankfully, it will not — not in the US today. But that's what the communists/socialists would like to be happening. And to farther this goal, they'll claim, that in the current situation we do not have "equality" — without specifying, which of the two very different equalities they mean.
TFA, clearly, talks about Equality of Results — catastrophes wipe everything out, making everyone equally poor. When ArmoredDragon questioned, whether this is at all desirable, s.petry replied, that "equality is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence" — and therefore must be desirable. The most delicious part was him, who just substituted one term for another, accusing others of "false equivalence"!..
The equalities of Opportunity and Results are completely different — like black and white. Worse, while black and white are merely colors, the two equalities aren't a matter of taste — one is a must for a just egalitarian society, the other is highly oppressive.
And yet, various demagogues routinely use the trick of equivocation to confuse the audience by referring to the two interchangeably. It is this dishonest demagoguery, that my post was aimed to counter — the aim, which gives it value.
I am not sure, what your background is, but you are confusing things. "Kolhoz" was ostensibly collectively-owned ("kol" for "Kolletive"), although in reality the government exercised full control. The bona-fide government farming enterprises were named "sovhoz" ("sov" for "Soviet"). There was nothing else...
"Cooperative" was a way to obtain an apartment — for lots of money and additional labor — it had nothing to do with means of production.
What the Declaration enshrines is the Equality of Opportunity : we all have the same rights and obligations, our results depend on what we do with them.
What Altantic and other crypto-commies are talking about is Equality of Results — whatever you do in life, your results will be roughly the same as those of everybody else. If you prosper, the government will tax you. If you suck, the government will subsidize you.
False equivalency indeed!
Maybe, I grew up in a different USSR. What "luxury goods"? Name one private label, that existed in USSR in 1952...
They were called "collective farms" and weren't "private" at all. Though ostensibly the farm's chairman was elected, in reality the sole candidate was introduced by the Communist Party's representative for the members of the collective to rubber-stamp. Whatever they collectively farmed could only be sold to the government as well.
Neither Coca-Cola nor Pepsi owned anything — USSR-owned factories were producing the drinks under license.
Nope. Some Soviet models tried to emulate foreign cars, but Fiat didn't own any stake in the factories.
I'll settle for a lifetime of free shipping.
We discussed just such a system here on Slashdot about 4 years ago... If anything, that discussion should allow other players to implement their own without fear of stepping on UPS' patent(s).
Reselling or not, if I can download it for free watching at home, I am unlikely to pay to watch anywhere else.
Besides, what argument is there to make it freely available to individuals, that would not also apply verbatim to owners of venues like bars, for example?
Some people still do, but there many fewer of them.
Sorting through plastic disks is a nuisance — hard-drives are much more convenient. Indeed, the survival of disc-based media is very much in doubt.
Movies are already increasingly sponsored by product-placement — as people continue to steal content in larger numbers, the practice is going to increase.
Now, maybe, most of the entertainment is overpriced crap, but to consume it anyway — without paying the creators whatever they want — is hypocrisy.
And then what? Who'll pay millions of dollars to produce the movies/shows, that viewers can watch for free?
Are you sure, you want it all sponsored by advertising entirely?
Not if the genomes of the new embryos are edited with the same vigor and propaganda cover as vaccinations are done today...
Even more conservatively, instead of editing, Heinlein's book describes the method, whereby the child conceived by two parents will not be a hitherto impossible "superhuman" — he'll just be the best possible child these two parents can conceive. Human stock then improves from the most optimal variant always winning what was until then a chance-game...
It still provides a lot more details — and answers a lot more questions — than a Slashdot post can be expected to. If it is Ok to outline one's vision of solution in the latter, it is certainly Ok to refer people to the former. As I did...
Sure, it is "just a story", but until such things are implemented for real, all discussions will have to deal with the hypotheticals.
The technique they are using — CRISPR — is what we just discussed as applicable to humans. If splicing mammoth into elephant yields a viable organism, some day it may be possible to splice useful features of Neanderthals and other extinct human species, or even apes into humans — yielding strength, resistance to diseases, or adaptability to uncomfortable conditions (think Antarctica or even Mars).
Eugenics became a dirty word because of Nazis, who would improve humanity by killing off the "degenerates". But there is nothing wrong with improving the human stock per se... For example, Heinlein in "Beyond This Horizon" describes a society, where this was done successfully — while also explaining, how it can be done (very) wrong as well.