It's the Grammy's for fuck's sake. You shouldn't expect anything of value to come out of it, and the fact that you spent the time to watch it live says as much about your musical taste as anything in your post ever could.
So they butchered Bowie. Would you really expect anything less? They butcher every great artist, given enough time. The show is there to monetize the music industry and nothing monetizes the music industry more than a death of a beloved musician. They'd have been fools not to do something like this and you don't successfully monetize anything by getting an "unknown" to do a tribute. Would it have been better? Possibly, but it wouldn't have sold anything.
I don't know who to root for. Cox, like most cable companies, is evil incarnate but here they are doing good against an arguably "more evil" megacorp. I'm in a quandary.
Is this supposed to be surprising? Hell, I don't even work IT and I've had to deal with this before at work. People who don't know computers do stupid things with them. Or they do things they don't realize will still be on the computer next week when they're back at the office on the corporate network. Shocking!
As for "potentially embarrassing" that means so little as to be useless. Nothing embarrasses me but I have coworkers that would be embarrassed if you heard them sneeze. There's such a spectrum to that it's completely irrelevant.
The problem is they couldn't actually do either action. This is a bunch of hype trying to claim greater "hacking" capability than they actually have. Hell, even the article says they gained access by purchasing it from someone else.
Having worked on those aircraft for the better part of 10 years, these guys didn't do a damn thing. The mission plans would have been noticed immediately as using the wrong waypoints and been corrected, manually or from known-good files. These guys didn't have a chance of actually crashing anything except maybe a couple of servers at NASA, which would have done nothing.
NASA clearly needs to update some of their Network security protocols and probably fire a couple of people, but this is a non-story with respect to the drones. It's FUD trying to drive site clicks.
The other thing that people seem to miss regarding these YeeHawdis is that they are idiots.
This is the problem with most conservatives. They're conservative because they're stupid.
And this is the problem with people who spout "left" or "right" instead of thinking for themselves. they over-simplify issues, generalize the "other" as "stupid" or "thoughtless" or just as a whole, rather than as thinking individuals, and they make themselves look like assholes.
The "left" and "right" are both wrong. Thinking about a subject on its merits (rather than because it's your side's point of view) is the only way to rationally and intelligent consider anything.
"These guys" are not the people with the actual weapons and they don't actually know anything about modifying lowers or kits or anything else. Just like the wannabe soldiers, the people reporting this are wannabes trying to make themselves sound more important than they actually are.
Generally speaking the people, as a general term, survive just fine. It's the governments that usually fall. Unfortunately it often takes several generations.
This is nonsense. If they have the parts to create new cars, it's trivial to make new molds for those parts. Even if the original molds were scrapped it doesn't take much to create a mold from an existing thing to make a replica of that thing. It's not even extraordinarily expensive from a corporate perspective.
For the record there are a lot of reasons to abstain that have nothing to do with "it will hurt me if I smoke this". Some people don't like feeling altered. Some people think the smell is distasteful. Some people just can't smoke (and didn't consider eating it). Some people, yes even teens, have jobs that require drug testing and feel it's more important to keep the job than to get stoned once in a while, etc etc.
Is it bad for you? Who cares? Will it make you "stupid"? Not likely. That doesn't make the abstainer or the partaker any more intelligent or less intelligent, to begin with.
It's always amazing how such nonsense enters these types of arguments.
There are units in the US piloting drones overseas. Full combat missions. What you think you know about lag times (with respect to what they are and what is realistically achievable) is inaccurate.
You are aware that military pay is public right? Your claim is utter bullshit. As an O-4 (the highest rank someone is likely to be sitting in the seat as their primary duty) with >10 years in service, with BAH for Las Vegas (near one of the AF main drone bases) & BAS you're only going to be making ~ $106K.
Most military people who work with drones don't do so by choice. They are assigned to a unit and they have very little, if any (generally none but sometimes they have some) say over what that unit does. If it's a ground unit in place in a combat zone, they get shot at. If it's a drone unit they don't. It doesn't make their work any less valuable to the military and any less worthy of recognition. Would you want to be overlooked for promotions because of an assignment you had no control over? Medals do have impact on your promotability in the military, especially as an officer.
This answers a big problem within the military of how "combat" roles are defined for these kinds of things and will give a lot of people recognition for a job well done that they weren't receiving before because of internal politics and similar bullshit.
The government does many things better than the free markets.
Such as dropping bombs on women and children, oppressing racial minorities, excluding competition from the market, bailing out losers...
Pretty much in every area where the objective isnt to abuse and wring money out of people.
You must live in a world without taxes and monetary inflation.
is because the free market doesnt work when there are extreme startup costs.
What's your evidence for this? There is a growing number of private local ISP startups bringing broadband to underserved areas. There's Google, choosing to get into the ISP business, bringing gbps broadband to an increasing number of cities. There are companies that have IPOs that bring in billions in capitalization. Startup costs are not anywhere close to being an insurmountable obstacle.
You do realize Google is one of the top 80 richest corporations in the world, and top 5 in the USA, right? "extreme startup costs" doesn't generally apply to the richest companies in the world. It applies to the small businesses that will actually provide competition.
There is no such thing as a "natural monopoly" on internet access. In some places it's a mandated monopoly because politicians were bought. In other places it's dirty business keeping the market effectively closed. Still other places it's just ridiculously high cost of entry barriers. None of those are "natural".
The article implies that this was already law and Germany is just extending it to the internet/social media. You can't incite violence against a group of people, simple as that. And no, it's not the same as "Islam is coming and your daughters will wear the Hijab" unless that is followed by "or die". That might be considered inciting violence but maybe not, depending upon who's judging.
Something has going seriously wrong when a well respected professor of law begins saying that there are dangerous ideas, and that ideas can be the direct cause of terrorism.
Huh?
There are dangerous ideas.
Ideas are precisely the cause of terrorism.
Conversely his idea (having thought police) is also deeply dangerous.
Finally your idea of pretending something you don't like doesn't exist is also dangerous, because if can lead to quite amazing blindness.
That's the thing though, just because ideas are dangerous, doesn't mean they should be illegal.
Huh? Ideas aren't dangerous. Actions are. Please name one idea that actually caused a problem without someone acting on it. Having ideas, and even talking about them isn't dangerous. Acting on certain ideas may be dangerous, but the idea itself holds no intrinsic danger.
I thought this was common knowledge amongst engineers. Hell, I'm an electrical that only took one mechanical class and I heard this in college. My wife (she's a structural engineer) and I even recently had a conversation about it with some other friends.\
More importantly, to a layperson, it's the same thing. Technically not correct to call it "resonance" but they don't care about the differences. Most engineers don't even care.
This isn't going to last long. To pay for itself the premiums will have to be insane. With all the people claiming they've been hurt by "cyber bullying" these days, Chubb's going to go broke unless they discontinue this option very soon or charge so much that no one will buy it. Which will, of course, cause them to discontinue the option.
Actually it says "Many of these are just normal teenage behavior...showing several of these signs, try and have a conversation with them about their online activities."
It doesn't say report them. To paraphrase, it says 'pay attention to what your children are doing. Be involved in their lives.' You know, normal decent parenting behavior.
"All fine" and "acceptable risk to preserve 'inalienable rights' " are not the same thing. There is a middle ground somewhere but neither side is willing to concede this for some stupid reason. More political grand-standing to take away from the fact that our economy is only a hair's breadth away from being in a shambles on any given day and our government won't actually do anything to fix that. Or god forbid we actually address our health care epidemic.
You're comparing gun crimes violence related to other crimes versus "terrorist" activities where the gun violence is the only crime of note. Saying gun control wouldn't have stopped incidents like Sandy Hook, or VTech, or even the San Bernadino attacks because illegal guns used by drug cartels "are smuggled in from Mexico" is completely asinine.
More sensible gun control laws that do more background investigation would have potentially stopped all three of the incidents I listed from happening. No one (with any sense at all) is saying gun related violence associated with other crimes is going to be stopped by changing gun laws but they are saying that legally purchased guns used in "mass shootings" would be reduced.
That said, most people don't have a clue what actually happens when a gun is legally purchased and they should do some research. It's not just walk in and buy a gun without any information changing hands. (At least not from legal dealers.) Hell, to even buy a shotgun for hunting I had to prove I am over 18, provide 2 forms of legal identification with the same address, fill out questionnaires, attest to being a US citizen, swear (upon penalty of perjury) that I was giving accurate information and I wasn't buying the gun for someone else, and a bunch of other stuff. That's for a "short range" weapon.
If we want to have a meaningful discussion about this that keeps our rights intact but also reduces unnecessary gun accidents and violence, both sides of the argument need to stop using hyperbole and start using some real logic.
Unless you count service members killed in action, I doubt it. Most gun-related violence in the US happens in large urban areas and tends to be gang related. I live in a small city of 300,000 people and I can count the number of firearm-related deaths this year on one hand. In all cases it was gang/drug related from out of town. Each time it made the local news for a week or so.
You're both confusing gun related crimes and gun related deaths, which are most commonly accidents where people shoot themselves with a gun they thought was unloaded. The accidental deaths far outnumber the crime-related gun deaths but both sides want you to believe otherwise. Pro-gun folks want you to believe everyone should carry a gun because all the "bad guys" are invading homes and assaulting them (statistically incredibly rare---less than 0.1% --http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt ), or walking down every street. Anti-gun folks say no one should have guns because "think of the children".
This is the problem with these gun death statistics... most anti-gun folks use the whole number of deaths and the pro-gun folks use the actual "crime related" numbers. The two sides of this argument will never see eye to eye and each side is using the same data to support its argument. They're both wrong.
Or have I been reading too many Irwin Wallace, Len Deighton, Frederick Forsyth, Jack Higgins and am giving too much credit to the bureaucrats working on Government pay-scale GS-11 counting days till retirement?
Or am I so showing my age with this list of authors which makes the slashdot reading whippersnappers go "Irwin who? What Forsyth?"
Slashdot Mirror
It's the Grammy's for fuck's sake. You shouldn't expect anything of value to come out of it, and the fact that you spent the time to watch it live says as much about your musical taste as anything in your post ever could.
So they butchered Bowie. Would you really expect anything less? They butcher every great artist, given enough time. The show is there to monetize the music industry and nothing monetizes the music industry more than a death of a beloved musician. They'd have been fools not to do something like this and you don't successfully monetize anything by getting an "unknown" to do a tribute. Would it have been better? Possibly, but it wouldn't have sold anything.
I don't know who to root for. Cox, like most cable companies, is evil incarnate but here they are doing good against an arguably "more evil" megacorp. I'm in a quandary.
Is this supposed to be surprising? Hell, I don't even work IT and I've had to deal with this before at work. People who don't know computers do stupid things with them. Or they do things they don't realize will still be on the computer next week when they're back at the office on the corporate network. Shocking!
As for "potentially embarrassing" that means so little as to be useless. Nothing embarrasses me but I have coworkers that would be embarrassed if you heard them sneeze. There's such a spectrum to that it's completely irrelevant.
The problem is they couldn't actually do either action. This is a bunch of hype trying to claim greater "hacking" capability than they actually have. Hell, even the article says they gained access by purchasing it from someone else.
Having worked on those aircraft for the better part of 10 years, these guys didn't do a damn thing. The mission plans would have been noticed immediately as using the wrong waypoints and been corrected, manually or from known-good files. These guys didn't have a chance of actually crashing anything except maybe a couple of servers at NASA, which would have done nothing.
NASA clearly needs to update some of their Network security protocols and probably fire a couple of people, but this is a non-story with respect to the drones. It's FUD trying to drive site clicks.
The other thing that people seem to miss regarding these YeeHawdis is that they are idiots.
This is the problem with most conservatives. They're conservative because they're stupid.
And this is the problem with people who spout "left" or "right" instead of thinking for themselves. they over-simplify issues, generalize the "other" as "stupid" or "thoughtless" or just as a whole, rather than as thinking individuals, and they make themselves look like assholes.
The "left" and "right" are both wrong. Thinking about a subject on its merits (rather than because it's your side's point of view) is the only way to rationally and intelligent consider anything.
"These guys" are not the people with the actual weapons and they don't actually know anything about modifying lowers or kits or anything else. Just like the wannabe soldiers, the people reporting this are wannabes trying to make themselves sound more important than they actually are.
And absolutely none of that gets done without a vision of the future. This is just another piece of his vision.
Generally speaking the people, as a general term, survive just fine. It's the governments that usually fall. Unfortunately it often takes several generations.
This is nonsense. If they have the parts to create new cars, it's trivial to make new molds for those parts. Even if the original molds were scrapped it doesn't take much to create a mold from an existing thing to make a replica of that thing. It's not even extraordinarily expensive from a corporate perspective.
So they all post to slashdot?
For the record there are a lot of reasons to abstain that have nothing to do with "it will hurt me if I smoke this". Some people don't like feeling altered. Some people think the smell is distasteful. Some people just can't smoke (and didn't consider eating it). Some people, yes even teens, have jobs that require drug testing and feel it's more important to keep the job than to get stoned once in a while, etc etc.
Is it bad for you? Who cares? Will it make you "stupid"? Not likely. That doesn't make the abstainer or the partaker any more intelligent or less intelligent, to begin with.
It's always amazing how such nonsense enters these types of arguments.
There are units in the US piloting drones overseas. Full combat missions. What you think you know about lag times (with respect to what they are and what is realistically achievable) is inaccurate.
You are aware that military pay is public right? Your claim is utter bullshit. As an O-4 (the highest rank someone is likely to be sitting in the seat as their primary duty) with >10 years in service, with BAH for Las Vegas (near one of the AF main drone bases) & BAS you're only going to be making ~ $106K.
Most military people who work with drones don't do so by choice. They are assigned to a unit and they have very little, if any (generally none but sometimes they have some) say over what that unit does. If it's a ground unit in place in a combat zone, they get shot at. If it's a drone unit they don't. It doesn't make their work any less valuable to the military and any less worthy of recognition. Would you want to be overlooked for promotions because of an assignment you had no control over? Medals do have impact on your promotability in the military, especially as an officer.
This answers a big problem within the military of how "combat" roles are defined for these kinds of things and will give a lot of people recognition for a job well done that they weren't receiving before because of internal politics and similar bullshit.
The government does many things better than the free markets.
Such as dropping bombs on women and children, oppressing racial minorities, excluding competition from the market, bailing out losers...
Pretty much in every area where the objective isnt to abuse and wring money out of people.
You must live in a world without taxes and monetary inflation.
is because the free market doesnt work when there are extreme startup costs.
What's your evidence for this? There is a growing number of private local ISP startups bringing broadband to underserved areas. There's Google, choosing to get into the ISP business, bringing gbps broadband to an increasing number of cities. There are companies that have IPOs that bring in billions in capitalization. Startup costs are not anywhere close to being an insurmountable obstacle.
You do realize Google is one of the top 80 richest corporations in the world, and top 5 in the USA, right? "extreme startup costs" doesn't generally apply to the richest companies in the world. It applies to the small businesses that will actually provide competition.
There is no such thing as a "natural monopoly" on internet access. In some places it's a mandated monopoly because politicians were bought. In other places it's dirty business keeping the market effectively closed. Still other places it's just ridiculously high cost of entry barriers. None of those are "natural".
The article implies that this was already law and Germany is just extending it to the internet/social media. You can't incite violence against a group of people, simple as that. And no, it's not the same as "Islam is coming and your daughters will wear the Hijab" unless that is followed by "or die". That might be considered inciting violence but maybe not, depending upon who's judging.
Something has going seriously wrong when a well respected professor of law begins saying that there are dangerous ideas, and that ideas can be the direct cause of terrorism.
Huh?
There are dangerous ideas.
Ideas are precisely the cause of terrorism.
Conversely his idea (having thought police) is also deeply dangerous.
Finally your idea of pretending something you don't like doesn't exist is also dangerous, because if can lead to quite amazing blindness.
That's the thing though, just because ideas are dangerous, doesn't mean they should be illegal.
Huh? Ideas aren't dangerous. Actions are. Please name one idea that actually caused a problem without someone acting on it. Having ideas, and even talking about them isn't dangerous. Acting on certain ideas may be dangerous, but the idea itself holds no intrinsic danger.
I thought this was common knowledge amongst engineers. Hell, I'm an electrical that only took one mechanical class and I heard this in college. My wife (she's a structural engineer) and I even recently had a conversation about it with some other friends.\
More importantly, to a layperson, it's the same thing. Technically not correct to call it "resonance" but they don't care about the differences. Most engineers don't even care.
This isn't going to last long. To pay for itself the premiums will have to be insane. With all the people claiming they've been hurt by "cyber bullying" these days, Chubb's going to go broke unless they discontinue this option very soon or charge so much that no one will buy it. Which will, of course, cause them to discontinue the option.
Actually it says "Many of these are just normal teenage behavior...showing several of these signs, try and have a conversation with them about their online activities."
It doesn't say report them. To paraphrase, it says 'pay attention to what your children are doing. Be involved in their lives.' You know, normal decent parenting behavior.
"All fine" and "acceptable risk to preserve 'inalienable rights' " are not the same thing. There is a middle ground somewhere but neither side is willing to concede this for some stupid reason. More political grand-standing to take away from the fact that our economy is only a hair's breadth away from being in a shambles on any given day and our government won't actually do anything to fix that. Or god forbid we actually address our health care epidemic.
You're comparing gun crimes violence related to other crimes versus "terrorist" activities where the gun violence is the only crime of note. Saying gun control wouldn't have stopped incidents like Sandy Hook, or VTech, or even the San Bernadino attacks because illegal guns used by drug cartels "are smuggled in from Mexico" is completely asinine.
More sensible gun control laws that do more background investigation would have potentially stopped all three of the incidents I listed from happening. No one (with any sense at all) is saying gun related violence associated with other crimes is going to be stopped by changing gun laws but they are saying that legally purchased guns used in "mass shootings" would be reduced.
That said, most people don't have a clue what actually happens when a gun is legally purchased and they should do some research. It's not just walk in and buy a gun without any information changing hands. (At least not from legal dealers.) Hell, to even buy a shotgun for hunting I had to prove I am over 18, provide 2 forms of legal identification with the same address, fill out questionnaires, attest to being a US citizen, swear (upon penalty of perjury) that I was giving accurate information and I wasn't buying the gun for someone else, and a bunch of other stuff. That's for a "short range" weapon.
If we want to have a meaningful discussion about this that keeps our rights intact but also reduces unnecessary gun accidents and violence, both sides of the argument need to stop using hyperbole and start using some real logic.
Unless you count service members killed in action, I doubt it. Most gun-related violence in the US happens in large urban areas and tends to be gang related. I live in a small city of 300,000 people and I can count the number of firearm-related deaths this year on one hand. In all cases it was gang/drug related from out of town. Each time it made the local news for a week or so.
You're both confusing gun related crimes and gun related deaths, which are most commonly accidents where people shoot themselves with a gun they thought was unloaded. The accidental deaths far outnumber the crime-related gun deaths but both sides want you to believe otherwise. Pro-gun folks want you to believe everyone should carry a gun because all the "bad guys" are invading homes and assaulting them (statistically incredibly rare---less than 0.1% --http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt ), or walking down every street. Anti-gun folks say no one should have guns because "think of the children".
This is the problem with these gun death statistics... most anti-gun folks use the whole number of deaths and the pro-gun folks use the actual "crime related" numbers. The two sides of this argument will never see eye to eye and each side is using the same data to support its argument. They're both wrong.
Or have I been reading too many Irwin Wallace, Len Deighton, Frederick Forsyth, Jack Higgins and am giving too much credit to the bureaucrats working on Government pay-scale GS-11 counting days till retirement?
Or am I so showing my age with this list of authors which makes the slashdot reading whippersnappers go "Irwin who? What Forsyth?"
Yes and yes.