Your hypothetical well baby programs might be possible under the Constitution. Or not, there's a good argument that that's a State level issue. Note that using the General Welfare clause to justify it essentially means that General Welfare can be used for ANYTHING. Which is really a bad idea, in the long run.
This is handwaving bullshit. There is one currency in the US, not 51. Dollars spent on unnecessary expansions of our "defensive" capabilities are dollars not being spent on healthcare, or education. You claim implies that if the Federal government cannot spent it on healthcare, the money has to be spent on the military. The Feds can reduce their taxes, and the states can raise taxes in response.
However, a part of me feels like if voting was mandatory there would be a lot of people voting for the first name on the ballot, or the name that sounds the most familiar- or more just straight-party voting without knowing anything about the candidates involved.
The time for worrying about that passed a long time ago. Right now the most incentivized voters are the most tribal. And politicians themselves have little incentive other than to rile up their tribal base. We need to get away from that.
FWIW I would also get rid of primaries. I can see people being horrified by the idea that local parties would pick their own candidates, but I suspect that having professionally run parties run by people who actually want to get elected would mean candidates that are somewhat more in touch with their bases. Britain doesn't have primaries, and their candidates are a hell of a lot better than you get over here.
So, what evidence exists that might show probable intent to cause harm that couldn't also be far more easily explained as the actions of someone who was simply overstressed, and starting to make bad decisions?
I'm curious, why do you think these are mutually exclusive options? Both are likely to be true, in fact the latter explains the former, it doesn't contradict it.
Many an illegal act has been performed by a stressed person making bad decisions.
The headline here said "President Trump Signs" but who among you would claim it would be any different had Hillary been elected?
Probably no-one, it's been an embarrassing feature of lefty politics that the mainstream left-of-the-loony-right party in the US has a habit of signing any copyright extension laws that come its way.
But this at least confirms that the right are no different. Any Internet Libertarian who hangs their hat on the "At least the Republicans aren't in the pocket of the Mouse" argument has a clear and compelling example in front of them that, actually, yes they are. The DMCA was bi-partisan. This extension goes beyond that, being confirmed by a 100% Republican controlled Congress (that is, both House and Senate), signed by a Republican President, and highly unlikely to be toppled by a Republican SCOTUS that just moved from "Leans Republican" to "What comes around goes around" anti-Democrat.
If you want to reign in the copyright extensions, you're going to have to find a different route than changing which party you vote for.
Prince Charming: You! You can't lie! So tell me puppet... where... is... Shrek?
Pinocchio: Uh. Hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not
Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
Pinocchio: It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect.
Prince Charming: So you do know where he is!
Pinocchio: On the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably
Prince Charming: Stop it!
Pinocchio:...do or do not know where he shouldn't probably be, if that indeed wasn't where he isn't. Even if he wasn't at where I knew he was
Here's the odd thing about this: I would bet that most manufacturers are more interested in the Play Store than they are Android. If they made their own operating system (why bother? But I digress) or decided to put ChromeOS on one, they'd still be going to Google asking them to put the Play Store on it, doing any work necessary (in the case of the former) to ensure Android apps will run.
The EU has it wrong because they can't see the wood for the trees. Yes, Google is trying to reduce fragmentation in the Android world, but the thing it's selling isn't Android.
It's not that hard. There are enough patents in the OIN pot that Microsoft reasons they'll save more money being a member and not having to pay royalties than they'd ever hope to get by licensing their own patents to the OIN members.
Also consider the potential for interference via MITM attack on HTTP. You could be getting served malware.
TLS is NOT going to stop that
Yes, it is. SSL is as much about authenticating a site as it is about preventing the conversation from being listened to. That's why you get warnings for invalid certificates - the entire point of the warning is that the browser can no longer be confident that there isn't a MITM. It's also why Google is deprecating this CA, because Google can not be confident there's no MITM for certificates the CA in question has signed.
The only ways to perform a MITM trick with an SSL site are:
1. Steal the target website's certificate.
2. Somehow hack the victim's computer and install a fake CA on it.
3. Use a dubious CA to sign a fake cert.
And this article is an example of web browser makers preventing (3) from happening.
And as far as a MITM? I have my browser locked down with Ublock AND Privacy Badger, the DNS automatically blacklists malware addresses (thx Comodo DNS, you work great) and I can literally push one button and have it restored to a previous state, oh and now everything but my gaming box is running Zorin OS and the only thing the gaming box has is Steam so...yeah GLWT.
That's great, but none of that will stop a MITM attack.
but it is likely difficult to prove the tracking caused any kind of harm
Indeed. The problem here is that Google uses that tracking information to sell ads. It doesn't share it with third parties. It doesn't blackmail people using the data. It doesn't provide the information publicly so that serial killers can use it to profile potential victims. It. Just. Uses. It. To. Determine. What. Ads. To. Show. You.
Nor does it accidentally harm people with the data. Thus far we've never heard of a leak in Google's entire existence, or DoubleClick's before that, of the tracking data it uses to sell advertising. And that's not really surprising, as it's "Big Data" that's relatively difficult to link to individuals. Google+'s breach mentioned yesterday is a big deal because it's actual complex information about individual identifiable people, whereas Google's tracking data at best links Google accounts to a limited subset of "events" that could mean anything, that might suggest things, but not anything you'd want to base actions more than "This guy might want to buy socks, show him a sock ad" type decisions.
And that's something that's hard for many here to get their heads around, it's entirely possible to do something that could be abused but not actually, you know, abuse it.
What you're describing as a problem isn't. Google has almost certainly not harmed those it tracked. That's why it can't be proved that Google harmed them, not because it's getting off on a technicality, but because it didn't do anything.
There is a world of difference between a cluster of computers storing vague snippets of information and using that to determine ads to show you, and violating privacy, the latter of which requires, at minimum sharing that information, on a level that can identify you, with human beings other than the victim.
No computers should come with 32Gb of storage, but low end laptops frequently have SSD drives with that amount of storage. And yes, updating Windows is extremely painful on such systems.
The term "Radio Pirate" was used in the 1960s, it had nothing to do with copyright violations. Oddly enough the usage may actually have been the impetus for it being used for the latter.
The term was initially used to describe radio stations that were literally run from ships in order to make it harder for UK authorities to prevent them from broadcasting an unlicensed service. Boats. Illegal activity. Boats. Illegal stuff. You can rather easily figure out why the word "pirate" was used.
Over time the term was used for any unlicensed radio station, and ultimately I suspect this is why it translated so easily over to other kinds of unlicensed activity, including copyright infringement.
This. Of course, Google believing that it's better to give you 100,000,00 irrelevant results than "No results found" might mean they don't want to make it that easy for you.
The last comments here tend to suggest you still see Chromebooks as "A OS running a web browser", but that hasn't been the case for a while.
While Chromebooks have always had a native API, very few applications have been written for it so it kinda got ignored by most people and there was always an assumption that Chromebooks can't run local apps; but in the last two years most Chromebooks now have the capability to run Android apps.
OK, but what about LaTeK, to name something you specifically identify above?
Well, that bit is being rolled out. It's still effectively a beta but Crostini, a way to run arbitrary GNU/Linux apps in a sandbox, is being rolled out right now. Within the next couple of years, it'll be a standard part of ChromeOS, and the current quirks (it doesn't support hardware accelerated graphics and a few other features it needs) will be resolved.
The only issue Chromebooks have ever had with local apps is the lack of developer interest, but Google is addressing that.
I use one. I don't use Crostini because it's not stable and not in any way finished, but it's clearly coming along nicely and people are using it to run IDEs and other tools. The Android feature makes it a "better Android tablet than an Android tablet" oddly enough, and it's kinda funny running Outlook and various video conferencing systems on it that happen to run better on ChromeOS than they do on Windows. Once Crostini is stable, and I can run Atom on this thing, I can see it becoming my main work machine.
As for universities, it's way more complex than "Students need a way to run X". Most courses aren't going to require anything other than a web browser, perhaps with a subscription to Office 365. For them, a Chromebook will do right now. For others it's not, and never will be, going to be that simple.
The regular jquery.min.js file is currently 85k, it's not megabytes by a long shot. Yes, you might also use add-ons, but the thing by itself is usually enough for most web developers, and even includes a lot of non-DOM stuff like AJAX.
The reason jQuery causes websites that use it to bloat has nothing to do with the size of the library, and it doesn't cause megabytes of data to be loaded. jQuery's main flaw is that it relies heavily on closures, which are extremely hard to garbage collect (in Javascript a closure can refer to the scope of the code that created it, which means all or most of that data has to left in memory until the closure itself is destroyed.) Add in the possibility of a closure using eval() (making it impossible for a JS interpreter/compiler to determine what data might get referenced) and you realize JS closures are horribly flawed.
Not that I'm knocking jQuery for using closures, as a heavy jQuery user I can understand why, and it makes AJAX calls so much cleaner. This is a JS problem, and one that's probably too late to do anything about.
It's not syndication, Ars Technica was able to track down who submitted it to various newspapers, and instead of finding the papers themselves or a syndication outfit, found instead both the original author (for one or two), and a lobbying company.
It's interesting, but this is the way things work these days. As someone who's provided so much ammunition to anti-train groups who lobby using his bullshit arguments behind the scenes, it's nice to see Musk on the other end for once.
That's not what the article says. The articles says nothing on whether Hagar wrote the op-ed, it says he didn't submit all of them to the numerous newspapers that published it. Essentially he submitted it to one or two newspapers, and then this PR outfit appears to have pushed it out to other newspapers, with or without his consent.
Here's what the article says (my bolding):
To try to understand his viewpoint, Ars attempted to reach Hagar by phone and email in September. In the course of this process, we learned that he did not actually submitmany of these op-eds.
He didn't submit many of the op eds - his authorship is not in question, just whether he submitted the op eds to the papers that published them. He didn't submit many of the op eds - the fact he submitted some is not in question either.
A leader belonging to a political party who opposes government rules and Regulations on businesses.
Is trying to stop a Business from making and selling a product.
No he's not, he's asking them not to do it. "Trying to stop" would imply he's pushing legislation.
The current admin doesn't usually get things right. This time the VP's right. Trying to find a way in which it shows hypocrisy by torturing what it is he's doing is showing bad faith and distracts from important issues.
Yes I did, and it doesn't really answer my question, like I said it would have to be sitting on an externally accessible bus, like the Ethernet bus, in order to receive the instructions on what to do. Being able to monitor the operating system loading is next to useless, unless the OS itself is compromised, in which case you have far bigger problems than a 6502 sitting somewhere it shouldn't.
Which is why I asked where exactly it was. Saying it's on the "BMC lines" is... not an answer.
Slashdot Mirror
This is handwaving bullshit. There is one currency in the US, not 51. Dollars spent on unnecessary expansions of our "defensive" capabilities are dollars not being spent on healthcare, or education. You claim implies that if the Federal government cannot spent it on healthcare, the money has to be spent on the military. The Feds can reduce their taxes, and the states can raise taxes in response.
The time for worrying about that passed a long time ago. Right now the most incentivized voters are the most tribal. And politicians themselves have little incentive other than to rile up their tribal base. We need to get away from that.
FWIW I would also get rid of primaries. I can see people being horrified by the idea that local parties would pick their own candidates, but I suspect that having professionally run parties run by people who actually want to get elected would mean candidates that are somewhat more in touch with their bases. Britain doesn't have primaries, and their candidates are a hell of a lot better than you get over here.
As long as it's a secret ballot, you can spoil it.
I'm curious, why do you think these are mutually exclusive options? Both are likely to be true, in fact the latter explains the former, it doesn't contradict it.
Many an illegal act has been performed by a stressed person making bad decisions.
I'm guessing yes given they have nightly builds.
Probably no-one, it's been an embarrassing feature of lefty politics that the mainstream left-of-the-loony-right party in the US has a habit of signing any copyright extension laws that come its way.
But this at least confirms that the right are no different. Any Internet Libertarian who hangs their hat on the "At least the Republicans aren't in the pocket of the Mouse" argument has a clear and compelling example in front of them that, actually, yes they are. The DMCA was bi-partisan. This extension goes beyond that, being confirmed by a 100% Republican controlled Congress (that is, both House and Senate), signed by a Republican President, and highly unlikely to be toppled by a Republican SCOTUS that just moved from "Leans Republican" to "What comes around goes around" anti-Democrat.
If you want to reign in the copyright extensions, you're going to have to find a different route than changing which party you vote for.
Prince Charming: You! You can't lie! So tell me puppet... where... is... Shrek?
...do or do not know where he shouldn't probably be, if that indeed wasn't where he isn't. Even if he wasn't at where I knew he was
Pinocchio: Uh. Hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not
Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
Pinocchio: It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect.
Prince Charming: So you do know where he is!
Pinocchio: On the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably
Prince Charming: Stop it!
Pinocchio:
[Pigs and Gingerbread Man begin singing]
Here's the odd thing about this: I would bet that most manufacturers are more interested in the Play Store than they are Android. If they made their own operating system (why bother? But I digress) or decided to put ChromeOS on one, they'd still be going to Google asking them to put the Play Store on it, doing any work necessary (in the case of the former) to ensure Android apps will run.
The EU has it wrong because they can't see the wood for the trees. Yes, Google is trying to reduce fragmentation in the Android world, but the thing it's selling isn't Android.
It's not that hard. There are enough patents in the OIN pot that Microsoft reasons they'll save more money being a member and not having to pay royalties than they'd ever hope to get by licensing their own patents to the OIN members.
And that's the entire point of the OIN.
This is such a terrible idea that even Mike Pence is telling you not to do it. MIKE FUCKING PENCE thinks it's likely to undermine human rights.
Maybe rethink?
Yes, it is. SSL is as much about authenticating a site as it is about preventing the conversation from being listened to. That's why you get warnings for invalid certificates - the entire point of the warning is that the browser can no longer be confident that there isn't a MITM. It's also why Google is deprecating this CA, because Google can not be confident there's no MITM for certificates the CA in question has signed.
The only ways to perform a MITM trick with an SSL site are:
1. Steal the target website's certificate.
2. Somehow hack the victim's computer and install a fake CA on it.
3. Use a dubious CA to sign a fake cert.
And this article is an example of web browser makers preventing (3) from happening.
That's great, but none of that will stop a MITM attack.
Indeed. The problem here is that Google uses that tracking information to sell ads. It doesn't share it with third parties. It doesn't blackmail people using the data. It doesn't provide the information publicly so that serial killers can use it to profile potential victims. It. Just. Uses. It. To. Determine. What. Ads. To. Show. You.
Nor does it accidentally harm people with the data. Thus far we've never heard of a leak in Google's entire existence, or DoubleClick's before that, of the tracking data it uses to sell advertising. And that's not really surprising, as it's "Big Data" that's relatively difficult to link to individuals. Google+'s breach mentioned yesterday is a big deal because it's actual complex information about individual identifiable people, whereas Google's tracking data at best links Google accounts to a limited subset of "events" that could mean anything, that might suggest things, but not anything you'd want to base actions more than "This guy might want to buy socks, show him a sock ad" type decisions.
And that's something that's hard for many here to get their heads around, it's entirely possible to do something that could be abused but not actually, you know, abuse it.
What you're describing as a problem isn't. Google has almost certainly not harmed those it tracked. That's why it can't be proved that Google harmed them, not because it's getting off on a technicality, but because it didn't do anything.
There is a world of difference between a cluster of computers storing vague snippets of information and using that to determine ads to show you, and violating privacy, the latter of which requires, at minimum sharing that information, on a level that can identify you, with human beings other than the victim.
No computers should come with 32Gb of storage, but low end laptops frequently have SSD drives with that amount of storage. And yes, updating Windows is extremely painful on such systems.
The term "Radio Pirate" was used in the 1960s, it had nothing to do with copyright violations. Oddly enough the usage may actually have been the impetus for it being used for the latter.
The term was initially used to describe radio stations that were literally run from ships in order to make it harder for UK authorities to prevent them from broadcasting an unlicensed service. Boats. Illegal activity. Boats. Illegal stuff. You can rather easily figure out why the word "pirate" was used.
Over time the term was used for any unlicensed radio station, and ultimately I suspect this is why it translated so easily over to other kinds of unlicensed activity, including copyright infringement.
This. Of course, Google believing that it's better to give you 100,000,00 irrelevant results than "No results found" might mean they don't want to make it that easy for you.
The electron microscope you'll need to determine a "capacitor" is actually a CPU probably requires more than a hundred bucks.
The last comments here tend to suggest you still see Chromebooks as "A OS running a web browser", but that hasn't been the case for a while.
While Chromebooks have always had a native API, very few applications have been written for it so it kinda got ignored by most people and there was always an assumption that Chromebooks can't run local apps; but in the last two years most Chromebooks now have the capability to run Android apps.
OK, but what about LaTeK, to name something you specifically identify above?
Well, that bit is being rolled out. It's still effectively a beta but Crostini, a way to run arbitrary GNU/Linux apps in a sandbox, is being rolled out right now. Within the next couple of years, it'll be a standard part of ChromeOS, and the current quirks (it doesn't support hardware accelerated graphics and a few other features it needs) will be resolved.
The only issue Chromebooks have ever had with local apps is the lack of developer interest, but Google is addressing that.
I use one. I don't use Crostini because it's not stable and not in any way finished, but it's clearly coming along nicely and people are using it to run IDEs and other tools. The Android feature makes it a "better Android tablet than an Android tablet" oddly enough, and it's kinda funny running Outlook and various video conferencing systems on it that happen to run better on ChromeOS than they do on Windows. Once Crostini is stable, and I can run Atom on this thing, I can see it becoming my main work machine.
As for universities, it's way more complex than "Students need a way to run X". Most courses aren't going to require anything other than a web browser, perhaps with a subscription to Office 365. For them, a Chromebook will do right now. For others it's not, and never will be, going to be that simple.
Neither does Amazon. The articles have been very clear that theyr'e talking about Supermicro servers.
This is about cloud services. Apple doesn't run its cloud on Macs, if that's what you think.
The regular jquery.min.js file is currently 85k, it's not megabytes by a long shot. Yes, you might also use add-ons, but the thing by itself is usually enough for most web developers, and even includes a lot of non-DOM stuff like AJAX.
The reason jQuery causes websites that use it to bloat has nothing to do with the size of the library, and it doesn't cause megabytes of data to be loaded. jQuery's main flaw is that it relies heavily on closures, which are extremely hard to garbage collect (in Javascript a closure can refer to the scope of the code that created it, which means all or most of that data has to left in memory until the closure itself is destroyed.) Add in the possibility of a closure using eval() (making it impossible for a JS interpreter/compiler to determine what data might get referenced) and you realize JS closures are horribly flawed.
Not that I'm knocking jQuery for using closures, as a heavy jQuery user I can understand why, and it makes AJAX calls so much cleaner. This is a JS problem, and one that's probably too late to do anything about.
It's not syndication, Ars Technica was able to track down who submitted it to various newspapers, and instead of finding the papers themselves or a syndication outfit, found instead both the original author (for one or two), and a lobbying company.
It's interesting, but this is the way things work these days. As someone who's provided so much ammunition to anti-train groups who lobby using his bullshit arguments behind the scenes, it's nice to see Musk on the other end for once.
That's not what the article says. The articles says nothing on whether Hagar wrote the op-ed, it says he didn't submit all of them to the numerous newspapers that published it. Essentially he submitted it to one or two newspapers, and then this PR outfit appears to have pushed it out to other newspapers, with or without his consent.
Here's what the article says (my bolding):
He didn't submit many of the op eds - his authorship is not in question, just whether he submitted the op eds to the papers that published them. He didn't submit many of the op eds - the fact he submitted some is not in question either.
and let us know what happens.
No he's not, he's asking them not to do it. "Trying to stop" would imply he's pushing legislation.
The current admin doesn't usually get things right. This time the VP's right. Trying to find a way in which it shows hypocrisy by torturing what it is he's doing is showing bad faith and distracts from important issues.
Yes I did, and it doesn't really answer my question, like I said it would have to be sitting on an externally accessible bus, like the Ethernet bus, in order to receive the instructions on what to do. Being able to monitor the operating system loading is next to useless, unless the OS itself is compromised, in which case you have far bigger problems than a 6502 sitting somewhere it shouldn't.
Which is why I asked where exactly it was. Saying it's on the "BMC lines" is... not an answer.