Language is useful to quickly determine the class of the person doing the speaking / writing which I never fully realized until I moved to France and sew how much care is put by educated French people into making sure that there are no mistakes in what they write - and how quickly they make note of mistakes that others make when writing or speaking.
Cyber-Vandal, you need to watch a movie called Idiocracy, it's the world we'd end up with if people didn't have any real purpose in life. Maybe a single-digit percentage would do as you suggest; the rest would fritter away their lives doing nothing of value to anyone, getting fat, weak, sickly, dumb in the head, and/or getting into one kind of trouble or another. Humans need something to fight for, and when there's nothing to fight for, we wither away and die.
Kheldan, I suggest rather that you read Ian M Banks culture series which shows the exact opposite. People work if they want to work and develop themselves in whatever ways interest them if they don't feel like working 'normal' jobs. Strip out the science fiction in the books and the ideas remain the same.
There are many purposes in life that involve personal or group challenges. We don't need to fight in order to have something to work for - and work can be learning to play piano instead of writing software code. We can 'fight' to explore space. We can 'fight' to colonize other planets.
I am by nature a very pessimistic person but in this I actually think that humans can move in the right direction should we choose to.
Sounds good in theory, but look around any retirement home for a strong counterexample. You'll see a lot more people watching TV than painting, writing books, studying, etc. Yes, they're old, but that's not why they're vegging out. It's because they're people. It's often been said that most people start dying the minute they retire.
I think it's more a matter of who you have around you. When you're old, your family has gone off to live their lives, your friends have mostly died or moved away and you don't have the physical capacity to go off adventuring or the desire to do so alone as younger people do. I think most people in retirement homes are there because they have nowhere else to be - and that is why they mostly veg out and basically give up on life.
Living across from me are a wonderful elderly couple who have been together for more than fifty years. They have a huge house with a lovely garden and they're both very active physically and mentally. Unfortunately, after having seen this happen with other elderly couples, I suspect that as soon as one or the other of them dies the other will not long survive.
In a future society where no one needs to work, will some people sit in front of the telly and eat until they explode? Yes, of course - but I believe that most people would rather, given the physical capacity to do so, adventure alone and or spend their time with their friends and families doing things together and will not veg out but will, rather learn, travel and explore, enjoy competition sports and develop themselves culturally and spiritually.
I know that if I had the choice between sitting at my desk here at work or going on a trip around the world (free as nothing costs anymore in this dream reality) or even just staying home with my family to be able to go running in the mornings with my wife, have lunch with them at noon, go swimming in the evenings with my son and work on my own projects during the day...I wouldn't hesitate even a moment to walk out this door.
Here in Ontario, Canada, we raised the minimum wage from $10.25 to $11.00
That's about a 7% increase. We're talking a 50% increase here. The company I work for relies heavily on minimum wage-ish laborers for the manufacturing jobs, which are basically screwing caps on bottles, putting them in boxes. Real unskilled stuff, diploma and English not required. We're in Los Angeles, and when they announced the minimum wage hike, eyes immediately pointed just over the border to Ventura County, where no such increase was proposed. Now that this is looking to be a state-wide thing, a 50% increase in labor costs for the bulk of our production workers is going to make the automated fillers and cappers pretty much sell themselves. Either way it goes, it's going to drive the price per unit up. Labor isn't the main cost for producing products here, but when we price out to the tenth of a cent per unit, and we roll off hundreds of thousands of units per run, it begins to add up. This cost will either be passed on to the customer, or more likely, will lose us business as clients take their filling operations to states with lower labor costs and less distance to their distribution houses. Most of our min-wage laborers are day workers, so if there's no work, they don't show up or get paid. If work starts disappearing, the $15/hr doesn't mean a damn thing to them, and ultimately the whole scheme will hurt the very people it's supposedly helping.
Would I be wrong in guessing that a percentage of your no diploma, no English day workers are working under the table for cash?
If so, legislation about minimum wage won't change much.
Okay, so why does it remove entry-level jobs for minorities but apparently not for white teenagers?
Because white kids have a lot more opportunities. Many of them don't want a job, because they are too busy studying for college. Or they work part-time at their daddy's business. Black and Hispanic kids are at the bottom, so when that last rung is taken away, they get hurt the most.
For a clear illustration of what happens when you push "white" solutions onto communities where they don't apply, look what happened in Puerto Rico. The economy was doing well, and it was a hub for low end manufacturing, mostly paying about $3 an hour. Then the courts ruled that federal minimum wage laws had to apply to PR. So overnight the wages went up to $7.25, and the jobs disappeared. So instead of making $3 an hour, the workers were making $0 an hour, debts piled up as people stopped paying taxes, and now PR is bankrupt, and seeking a federal bailout.
What happened to PR will likely not happen in California, because the change will happen more slowly, and California has a far more diverse economy. But the same principles apply, and the worst effects will be on the people that can least afford it.
No. I'm white and I grew up in a home for children that had kids from all ethnic backgrounds and none of us had any money. Those of us who made good decisions have done well and those of us who made bad decisions have not done well. This had nothing to do with race at all. Same situation. Same opportunities. Same chances. Different decisions, different results.
What happened in PR had nothing to do with ethnicity. If they were white the exact same thing would have played out.
If you go in a McDonalds in California, you don't see teenagers working there. You see adults, since the pay is enough to attract them. Adults are more productive than teenagers, so you need fewer of them. So California has removed an important rung on the economic ladder, by turning entry level jobs into permanent no-skill "careers" flipping burgers. This effect is worst in minority neighborhoods which already have extremely high teenage unemployment.
And if you have a low enough minimum wage that adults can't make a living doing such jobs then yes you have less youth unemployment but at the same time more adults / families who would otherwise be working instead have to rely on welfare / social assistance.
So at what objective point does one set this wage without creating a self-feeding loop that pushes it upwards?
It's going to go up whether people are working or if they get their money from 'basic income' (including welfare) so I'd rather ask the question, does the source of that income to the lower class make any difference in the rate of inflation?
And my guess would be that it does not as the overall money supply does not need to change - only the distribution of what already exists that is currently being distributed mostly upwards.
"But I see no change coming in that model. Not even a hint of it. Whatever chance we ever had at reaching the goal of becoming a constitutional republic, I see no sign of such a thing any longer. That ship has sailed.
Back to basic income; the ideal, as I see it, is that it is instantiated at a low but reasonable level; then as technology increases our leverage, and as the idea becomes embedded in the national mindset, the basic income is increased, raising everyone's standard of living, while the available ceiling for what is presently unlimited acquisition of wealth drops. For example, the ceiling might be that you can have up to 500 times the basic income yourself, but above that, everything goes in the pot. A little further along, that ceiling drops to 400, then 300, and so on, all the time the basic income is rising."
And herein lies the real problem - you/we are never going to get those who control the country to buy in (pun intended) to any such plan that limits their own power and wealth. It just isn't going to happen.
Apple has been letting all of their computer products go stale (they're almost all red and 'Don't Buy' on the buyer's guide http://buyersguide.macrumors.c...). I've been waiting for a substantial macbook pro or even air upgrade for awhile now and even at the March announcements when I hoped for Skylake CPU upgrade announcements...nothing.
It seems to me that Apple's priorities are phones and tablets and that anything that isn't a phone or a tablet just doesn't have their focus at the moment. Maybe because we can get by on the very stale but still very usable hardware that we bought years ago without actually NEEDING a hardware refresh, or maybe phones and tablets just generate relatively more profit for them. I don't know.
a. After a 60 hour work week plus dealing with the kids you didn't want to have (but couldn't stop yourself from having because a substantial portion of our electorate is trying to keep you from affordable birth control options because little hussies like you should have to have kids in exchange for sex) you're in no shape to clean. You live in a cheap, shitty apartment. That means bugs, and lots of them. I'm not the first one to make this observation. It was made in a rather famous essay kicking around google from a single mom with bad teeth who lived homeless for sometime because the bad teeth kept her from getting a job.
b. Cheap junk food and TV are the only pleasures the 1% let the working poor have. They don't get vacations or even time off. They're kids are miserable because so are they. They're poor education means enjoying literature is beyond them and the lack of birth control and a social safety net means they have to be careful with sex.
We here in America like punishing people. We just do. Well, not all of us, but the ones that do vote. And the ones that vote make the rules. So there you go.
You overstate things. I was born to a pair of mentally ill parents and grew up in a home for children funded by the state. A lot of the other kids there made worse choices than I did, and the consequences for them were worse than for the bad decisions I made. As it turns out, I have a good life and most of them do not.
Choices and decisions when we are young have a huge effect on us the rest of our lives - something that American children just do not seem to be taught; perhaps because their parents aren't teaching them this, as they themselves didn't learn it until much too late (if ever).
There is still chance and opportunity in the US and how people end up is a question of the decisions they make more than just what the 1% 'allows'. That this decision making process seems to be broken in much of the US is a societal problem but cannot be blamed on the 1% but on our own parents (or caregivers, whatever).
Birth control is freely available in most parts of the US, if not all (walk into a planned parenthood if nothing else - walk out with free condoms). Getting it and using it are choices that people make.
Spending your time watching garbage on TV vs. that same time at a (shitty probably) part time job to build up some cash to pay your way through school (or to pay for dental work) is a decision. I, with no parents and no family to support me, managed to make this happen - so can others, if they chose.
I do think that there are things that need to be fixed - tax dodges for the very rich who throw everything into 'family directed charity organizations', tax dodges for corporations who shift their profits offshore to avoid paying tax in the place where they make their real profits, usurious interest rates on credit cards and other debt that traps the unwary and this ridiculous system of student loans being a few of them. But even so, success in America is still possible and at the end it depends on the decisions that we as young people make, one way or the other.
Although obesity may seem like a problem in developed countries, the fact that there are more obese people than underweight people in the world means that starvation is much less of a problem than it used to be. We now have enough food to feed the world. This is a good thing. Better to be a bit chubby than die of starvation which in some parts of the world, people used to do.
You're assuming equal distribution of food which is not accurate. There's still plenty of starvation in the world. https://www.wfp.org/hunger/sta...
So yes, there is enough food to feed the world - but most of it is consumed and wasted by the (relative) wealthy.
Problem with that is just about every other government around the world is turning fascist and demanding these sorts of backdoors and ramping up the spying on their own citizens too
Not at all. There are tons of poor/small countries who are perfectly willing to ask nothing at all in exchange for some amount of money that for the poor/small country is huge but is nothing compared to the taxes that the company 'saves' on.
I'm trying to figure out why this got downvoted. It's an extremely valid point. It seems like the "coalition" did little but target ISIS pickup trucks *until* the Russians came in and started bombing the oil facilities, raising the bar and doing some real damage to ISIS's economic infrastructure. Now the coalition is finally taking out some oil refineries but it's very little very late.
We agree - and I don't know why my comment would be downvoted either but there it is...
Not always. For instance, the server sitting in my floor at home -- looking at the vhosts logs I'll often see the same IP try the same skiddy exploit against several (or even every) domain's website hosted on the box before fail2ban drops them in the firewall rules. Since I don't have reverse DNS set up for any of these domains and some (but not all) of them are just third-level subs from domains I have hosted elsewhere it seems a bit more focused than a random scan at times.
But those are your domains, not domains related to the source of the scans - no?
...the makers of devices and encryption software will fight the US with every fiber of their beings...
At least until they decide that life is just easier offshore somewhere in which case they'll sell compromised phones into the US market leaving the rest of the world (relatively) secure.
I mean, on top of the tax benefits they already get from being outside the US.
"But hey, shoot up a private party, and as long as you have a funny-sounding name and vaguely brownish skin color, then the government wants to protect you, at any cost."
Bullshit.
"Of course, double standard -- if you're a white christian male and you shoot up a school full of kids, the response is "hey, shit happens", and the government does nothing."
Again Bullshit.
But don't let reality get in the way of your rant.
If you download the Detailed Tables 2 file from the article it has the start of the question:
" A part of the Internet known as the "Dark Net" is only accessible via special web browsers that allow you to surf the web anonymously. Journalists, human rights activists, dissidents and whistleblowers can use these services to rally against repression, exercise their fundamental rights to free expression and shed light upon corruption. At the same time, hackers, illegal marketplaces (eg. selling weap"
But it's cut off there. However I do wish they would post the full questions right with their results in order to be transparent.
Also necessary to assume that those being polled took the time to actually read and understand the question(s).
As well, were the people being polled truly a random statistically relevant sample of the global population or, for example, only police officers?
Contributions from wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia (as well as Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates) does comprise a major part of the revenues ISIS collects. However, it's not the greatest part. Most of it comes from theft (particularly of oil resources), kidnapping, extortion and taxation.
You'd think that by now all the oil resource sources and distribution facilities would have been blown to hell and back to keep ISIS from having that money.
I have already theorized that if online surveillance were really as all-powerful as paranoids think it is, the NSA would have no trouble pinpointing ransomware operators and having them picturesquely snuffed out.
Reason two: wouldn't a cyberspy agency with real power be able to use the Internet to scramble ISIS communications with fake chatter, misdirected operational orders, and sites filled with doctrinal errors designed to turn wealthy Muslims against ISIS?
Reason 3: Our governments find it useful to have a perpetual war (sell more and more weapons!) in the middle east (away from home) with an aspect of terrorism that is scary enough (be afraid we will protect you if you give us your civil rights!) without it being any significant threat to us or our society and thus do nothing of significance to end the war.
Street crime in Florida dropped precipitously immediately following that state's concealed carry law allowing non-criminals to be armed. It wasn't because all the criminals suddenly went back to school and got really caught up in their French Literature studies.
Is an African American who develops a bizarre hatred of African Americans suddenly no longer black? Is a white man who believes that whites are responsible for all the evil in the world suddenly Native American?
He can disavow Judaism - plenty of Jews do it. They're called "secular Jews." They're still Jews, and he is, too.
No. Religion is a choice one makes and has nothing to do with genetics. If he decided not to be Jewish, then he is no longer Jewish.
The only way this will ever work is if all payment is withheld until the work is completed, and satisfactorily at that. Unless there's a risk of AT&T having to foot the bill, they'll just continue to rob us blind and shit directly into our mouths, as usual. They just paid almost $50 billion acquiring DirecTV, so I'm sure they still have a few hundred million in petty cash laying around to float this until they're finished.
You underestimate AT&Ts legal department.
If they've made this 'offer' then they're no doubt certain to be able to get out of it / increase charges at whim.
Slashdot Mirror
Language is useful to quickly determine the class of the person doing the speaking / writing which I never fully realized until I moved to France and sew how much care is put by educated French people into making sure that there are no mistakes in what they write - and how quickly they make note of mistakes that others make when writing or speaking.
When the spelling mistake changes the meaning of the sentence it's more worth to point it out. Sometimes a subtle error can get weird or hilarious.
So am I being nice when I don't point out the error(s) in your sentence?
Cyber-Vandal, you need to watch a movie called Idiocracy, it's the world we'd end up with if people didn't have any real purpose in life. Maybe a single-digit percentage would do as you suggest; the rest would fritter away their lives doing nothing of value to anyone, getting fat, weak, sickly, dumb in the head, and/or getting into one kind of trouble or another. Humans need something to fight for, and when there's nothing to fight for, we wither away and die.
Kheldan, I suggest rather that you read Ian M Banks culture series which shows the exact opposite. People work if they want to work and develop themselves in whatever ways interest them if they don't feel like working 'normal' jobs. Strip out the science fiction in the books and the ideas remain the same.
There are many purposes in life that involve personal or group challenges. We don't need to fight in order to have something to work for - and work can be learning to play piano instead of writing software code. We can 'fight' to explore space. We can 'fight' to colonize other planets.
I am by nature a very pessimistic person but in this I actually think that humans can move in the right direction should we choose to.
Sounds good in theory, but look around any retirement home for a strong counterexample. You'll see a lot more people watching TV than painting, writing books, studying, etc. Yes, they're old, but that's not why they're vegging out. It's because they're people. It's often been said that most people start dying the minute they retire.
I think it's more a matter of who you have around you. When you're old, your family has gone off to live their lives, your friends have mostly died or moved away and you don't have the physical capacity to go off adventuring or the desire to do so alone as younger people do. I think most people in retirement homes are there because they have nowhere else to be - and that is why they mostly veg out and basically give up on life.
Living across from me are a wonderful elderly couple who have been together for more than fifty years. They have a huge house with a lovely garden and they're both very active physically and mentally. Unfortunately, after having seen this happen with other elderly couples, I suspect that as soon as one or the other of them dies the other will not long survive.
In a future society where no one needs to work, will some people sit in front of the telly and eat until they explode? Yes, of course - but I believe that most people would rather, given the physical capacity to do so, adventure alone and or spend their time with their friends and families doing things together and will not veg out but will, rather learn, travel and explore, enjoy competition sports and develop themselves culturally and spiritually.
I know that if I had the choice between sitting at my desk here at work or going on a trip around the world (free as nothing costs anymore in this dream reality) or even just staying home with my family to be able to go running in the mornings with my wife, have lunch with them at noon, go swimming in the evenings with my son and work on my own projects during the day...I wouldn't hesitate even a moment to walk out this door.
Here in Ontario, Canada, we raised the minimum wage from $10.25 to $11.00
That's about a 7% increase. We're talking a 50% increase here. The company I work for relies heavily on minimum wage-ish laborers for the manufacturing jobs, which are basically screwing caps on bottles, putting them in boxes. Real unskilled stuff, diploma and English not required. We're in Los Angeles, and when they announced the minimum wage hike, eyes immediately pointed just over the border to Ventura County, where no such increase was proposed. Now that this is looking to be a state-wide thing, a 50% increase in labor costs for the bulk of our production workers is going to make the automated fillers and cappers pretty much sell themselves. Either way it goes, it's going to drive the price per unit up. Labor isn't the main cost for producing products here, but when we price out to the tenth of a cent per unit, and we roll off hundreds of thousands of units per run, it begins to add up. This cost will either be passed on to the customer, or more likely, will lose us business as clients take their filling operations to states with lower labor costs and less distance to their distribution houses. Most of our min-wage laborers are day workers, so if there's no work, they don't show up or get paid. If work starts disappearing, the $15/hr doesn't mean a damn thing to them, and ultimately the whole scheme will hurt the very people it's supposedly helping.
Would I be wrong in guessing that a percentage of your no diploma, no English day workers are working under the table for cash?
If so, legislation about minimum wage won't change much.
Okay, so why does it remove entry-level jobs for minorities but apparently not for white teenagers?
Because white kids have a lot more opportunities. Many of them don't want a job, because they are too busy studying for college. Or they work part-time at their daddy's business. Black and Hispanic kids are at the bottom, so when that last rung is taken away, they get hurt the most.
For a clear illustration of what happens when you push "white" solutions onto communities where they don't apply, look what happened in Puerto Rico. The economy was doing well, and it was a hub for low end manufacturing, mostly paying about $3 an hour. Then the courts ruled that federal minimum wage laws had to apply to PR. So overnight the wages went up to $7.25, and the jobs disappeared. So instead of making $3 an hour, the workers were making $0 an hour, debts piled up as people stopped paying taxes, and now PR is bankrupt, and seeking a federal bailout.
What happened to PR will likely not happen in California, because the change will happen more slowly, and California has a far more diverse economy. But the same principles apply, and the worst effects will be on the people that can least afford it.
No. I'm white and I grew up in a home for children that had kids from all ethnic backgrounds and none of us had any money. Those of us who made good decisions have done well and those of us who made bad decisions have not done well. This had nothing to do with race at all. Same situation. Same opportunities. Same chances. Different decisions, different results.
What happened in PR had nothing to do with ethnicity. If they were white the exact same thing would have played out.
If you go in a McDonalds in California, you don't see teenagers working there. You see adults, since the pay is enough to attract them. Adults are more productive than teenagers, so you need fewer of them. So California has removed an important rung on the economic ladder, by turning entry level jobs into permanent no-skill "careers" flipping burgers. This effect is worst in minority neighborhoods which already have extremely high teenage unemployment.
And if you have a low enough minimum wage that adults can't make a living doing such jobs then yes you have less youth unemployment but at the same time more adults / families who would otherwise be working instead have to rely on welfare / social assistance.
How is that a win?
So at what objective point does one set this wage without creating a self-feeding loop that pushes it upwards?
It's going to go up whether people are working or if they get their money from 'basic income' (including welfare) so I'd rather ask the question, does the source of that income to the lower class make any difference in the rate of inflation?
And my guess would be that it does not as the overall money supply does not need to change - only the distribution of what already exists that is currently being distributed mostly upwards.
"But I see no change coming in that model. Not even a hint of it. Whatever chance we ever had at reaching the goal of becoming a constitutional republic, I see no sign of such a thing any longer. That ship has sailed.
Back to basic income; the ideal, as I see it, is that it is instantiated at a low but reasonable level; then as technology increases our leverage, and as the idea becomes embedded in the national mindset, the basic income is increased, raising everyone's standard of living, while the available ceiling for what is presently unlimited acquisition of wealth drops. For example, the ceiling might be that you can have up to 500 times the basic income yourself, but above that, everything goes in the pot. A little further along, that ceiling drops to 400, then 300, and so on, all the time the basic income is rising."
And herein lies the real problem - you/we are never going to get those who control the country to buy in (pun intended) to any such plan that limits their own power and wealth. It just isn't going to happen.
The Mac Pro is now ridiculously stale. ("Days since last release: 833")
Apple has been letting all of their computer products go stale (they're almost all red and 'Don't Buy' on the buyer's guide http://buyersguide.macrumors.c...). I've been waiting for a substantial macbook pro or even air upgrade for awhile now and even at the March announcements when I hoped for Skylake CPU upgrade announcements...nothing.
It seems to me that Apple's priorities are phones and tablets and that anything that isn't a phone or a tablet just doesn't have their focus at the moment. Maybe because we can get by on the very stale but still very usable hardware that we bought years ago without actually NEEDING a hardware refresh, or maybe phones and tablets just generate relatively more profit for them. I don't know.
a. After a 60 hour work week plus dealing with the kids you didn't want to have (but couldn't stop yourself from having because a substantial portion of our electorate is trying to keep you from affordable birth control options because little hussies like you should have to have kids in exchange for sex) you're in no shape to clean. You live in a cheap, shitty apartment. That means bugs, and lots of them. I'm not the first one to make this observation. It was made in a rather famous essay kicking around google from a single mom with bad teeth who lived homeless for sometime because the bad teeth kept her from getting a job.
b. Cheap junk food and TV are the only pleasures the 1% let the working poor have. They don't get vacations or even time off. They're kids are miserable because so are they. They're poor education means enjoying literature is beyond them and the lack of birth control and a social safety net means they have to be careful with sex.
We here in America like punishing people. We just do. Well, not all of us, but the ones that do vote. And the ones that vote make the rules. So there you go.
You overstate things. I was born to a pair of mentally ill parents and grew up in a home for children funded by the state. A lot of the other kids there made worse choices than I did, and the consequences for them were worse than for the bad decisions I made. As it turns out, I have a good life and most of them do not.
Choices and decisions when we are young have a huge effect on us the rest of our lives - something that American children just do not seem to be taught; perhaps because their parents aren't teaching them this, as they themselves didn't learn it until much too late (if ever).
There is still chance and opportunity in the US and how people end up is a question of the decisions they make more than just what the 1% 'allows'. That this decision making process seems to be broken in much of the US is a societal problem but cannot be blamed on the 1% but on our own parents (or caregivers, whatever).
Birth control is freely available in most parts of the US, if not all (walk into a planned parenthood if nothing else - walk out with free condoms). Getting it and using it are choices that people make.
Spending your time watching garbage on TV vs. that same time at a (shitty probably) part time job to build up some cash to pay your way through school (or to pay for dental work) is a decision. I, with no parents and no family to support me, managed to make this happen - so can others, if they chose.
I do think that there are things that need to be fixed - tax dodges for the very rich who throw everything into 'family directed charity organizations', tax dodges for corporations who shift their profits offshore to avoid paying tax in the place where they make their real profits, usurious interest rates on credit cards and other debt that traps the unwary and this ridiculous system of student loans being a few of them. But even so, success in America is still possible and at the end it depends on the decisions that we as young people make, one way or the other.
Although obesity may seem like a problem in developed countries, the fact that there are more obese people than underweight people in the world means that starvation is much less of a problem than it used to be. We now have enough food to feed the world. This is a good thing. Better to be a bit chubby than die of starvation which in some parts of the world, people used to do.
You're assuming equal distribution of food which is not accurate. There's still plenty of starvation in the world.
https://www.wfp.org/hunger/sta...
So yes, there is enough food to feed the world - but most of it is consumed and wasted by the (relative) wealthy.
Problem with that is just about every other government around the world is turning fascist and demanding these sorts of backdoors and ramping up the spying on their own citizens too
Not at all. There are tons of poor/small countries who are perfectly willing to ask nothing at all in exchange for some amount of money that for the poor/small country is huge but is nothing compared to the taxes that the company 'saves' on.
I'm trying to figure out why this got downvoted. It's an extremely valid point. It seems like the "coalition" did little but target ISIS pickup trucks *until* the Russians came in and started bombing the oil facilities, raising the bar and doing some real damage to ISIS's economic infrastructure. Now the coalition is finally taking out some oil refineries but it's very little very late.
We agree - and I don't know why my comment would be downvoted either but there it is...
Not always. For instance, the server sitting in my floor at home -- looking at the vhosts logs I'll often see the same IP try the same skiddy exploit against several (or even every) domain's website hosted on the box before fail2ban drops them in the firewall rules. Since I don't have reverse DNS set up for any of these domains and some (but not all) of them are just third-level subs from domains I have hosted elsewhere it seems a bit more focused than a random scan at times.
But those are your domains, not domains related to the source of the scans - no?
"censor any domain names not registered within China"
So what, only 99% of the internet then?
To censor, not necessarily to block.
Personally I'm sure that my domain chinagovtsucksballs.cn will be fine because it's registered in China.
I was about to say, it might help fend off at least a few of the random scans I get from China...
Domain names have nothing to do with scans.
...the makers of devices and encryption software will fight the US with every fiber of their beings...
At least until they decide that life is just easier offshore somewhere in which case they'll sell compromised phones into the US market leaving the rest of the world (relatively) secure.
I mean, on top of the tax benefits they already get from being outside the US.
"But hey, shoot up a private party, and as long as you have a funny-sounding name and vaguely brownish skin color, then the government wants to protect you, at any cost."
Bullshit.
"Of course, double standard -- if you're a white christian male and you shoot up a school full of kids, the response is "hey, shit happens", and the government does nothing."
Again Bullshit.
But don't let reality get in the way of your rant.
If you download the Detailed Tables 2 file from the article it has the start of the question:
" A part of the Internet known as the "Dark Net" is only accessible via special web browsers that allow you to surf the web anonymously. Journalists, human rights activists, dissidents and whistleblowers can use these services to rally against repression, exercise their fundamental rights to free expression and shed light upon corruption. At the same time, hackers, illegal marketplaces (eg. selling weap"
But it's cut off there. However I do wish they would post the full questions right with their results in order to be transparent.
Also necessary to assume that those being polled took the time to actually read and understand the question(s).
As well, were the people being polled truly a random statistically relevant sample of the global population or, for example, only police officers?
Contributions from wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia (as well as Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates) does comprise a major part of the revenues ISIS collects. However, it's not the greatest part. Most of it comes from theft (particularly of oil resources), kidnapping, extortion and taxation.
You'd think that by now all the oil resource sources and distribution facilities would have been blown to hell and back to keep ISIS from having that money.
There's obviously a deeper game being played.
I have already theorized that if online surveillance were really as all-powerful as paranoids think it is, the NSA would have no trouble pinpointing ransomware operators and having them picturesquely snuffed out.
Reason two: wouldn't a cyberspy agency with real power be able to use the Internet to scramble ISIS communications with fake chatter, misdirected operational orders, and sites filled with doctrinal errors designed to turn wealthy Muslims against ISIS?
Reason 3: Our governments find it useful to have a perpetual war (sell more and more weapons!) in the middle east (away from home) with an aspect of terrorism that is scary enough (be afraid we will protect you if you give us your civil rights!) without it being any significant threat to us or our society and thus do nothing of significance to end the war.
Street crime in Florida dropped precipitously immediately following that state's concealed carry law allowing non-criminals to be armed. It wasn't because all the criminals suddenly went back to school and got really caught up in their French Literature studies.
References?
"Ironically, the hacker is a former Jew"
Is an African American who develops a bizarre hatred of African Americans suddenly no longer black?
Is a white man who believes that whites are responsible for all the evil in the world suddenly Native American?
He can disavow Judaism - plenty of Jews do it. They're called "secular Jews." They're still Jews, and he is, too.
No. Religion is a choice one makes and has nothing to do with genetics. If he decided not to be Jewish, then he is no longer Jewish.
The only way this will ever work is if all payment is withheld until the work is completed, and satisfactorily at that. Unless there's a risk of AT&T having to foot the bill, they'll just continue to rob us blind and shit directly into our mouths, as usual. They just paid almost $50 billion acquiring DirecTV, so I'm sure they still have a few hundred million in petty cash laying around to float this until they're finished.
You underestimate AT&Ts legal department.
If they've made this 'offer' then they're no doubt certain to be able to get out of it / increase charges at whim.