> You apparently don't realize that Byrd publicly denounced and apologized for his former ties to the KKK and went on to support the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
Support (verb): to aid or assist.
Byrd FILIBUSTERED the Civil Rights for 60 days. Many years later, after he had completely and utterly lost in his attempts to 'keep the n*ggers in their place", he may have realized it was politically expedient to say he *likes* the Civil Rights Act, but he most certainly did not support it, he did not aid and support in it's passage. To the contrary, he put more effort into blocking the Civil Rights Act than any other act in his entire career.
Cost is certainly a big consideration. As I said in my post, one reason that the smallest companies were my best customers was because I designed low-price offerings specific for their needs and budget - and I told them what to NOT buy from us, because it wasn't worth it for them.
One example of something that most any full-time business should have is backups. If the business is your sole source of income, you should probably spend a couple hundred bucks for serious offsite backups. Larger companies, with bigger budgets, will spend more to prevent the *need* to ever use backups, for those with a very small budget we can inexpensively make sure that backups are really solid, preventing many types of catastrophic loss.
> Save the appeals to emotion
It's interesting that you say that because I find my customers ARE often buying emotion. They are scared because their last hosting company went out of business overnight, leaving them high and dry, or hackers completely f*cked up their web site, which is their income. They want to rest easy knowing that their company won't be destroyed by the next event, but they have a very limited budget. Good offsite backups provide them the confidence that no matter what happens in terms of IT, things can be back to normal within a few hours. There is a big emotional component there - they are worried. My job is therefore threefold - a) provide solutions that *actually* protect them from disaster, b) provide visibility so they can see that they are protected and they don't need to worry c) do so at a low price point, so the cost of protection isn't causing them stress.
Agreed, it would be a great help if developers in general switched from thinking in terms of "how can this work" to "how can this be broken". That's the topic of the next OWASP meeting I plan to attend - how can we help developers become more security aware and develop more secure systems, given all the demands on them, deadlines, etc. Security is just one of many things developers need to think about. They need to learn security, but they also need to learn the Next Big Thing - another language, framework, whatever. How can we help them be secure in the limited time they have for training? More focused training? Knowing what they can do themselves and when to ask for help from a security professional?
On the other hand, your development team probably isn't a bunch of people with the exact same skills. You probably have someone who is good at databases, another who is good at GUI design, a software architect thinking about the big picture, maybe a scrum master or other lead person who is skilled at teamwork skills and facilitating work between people. Security is another specialty, like database design, GUI design, or leading a team.
Also, just as you may need a database *designed* very well once, then maintained by someone else, you can take advantage of security professional as-needed, they don't always have to be a full-time member of each team. At my last job, I was regularly called to join meetings of other teams, when security considerations were discussed. They might use me one or two hours per month, which was enough to prevwnt a lot of major mistakes and make their system more robust, both when under attack and when not under attack.
I wouldn't say it's "different than", I'd say it's another item on the check list:
a) Ensure security updates are installed in a systematic way b) Ensure up firewalls are set up and regularly reviewed c) Review configuration port forwarding, NAT, VPN, etc annually d) Annual security review by objective third-party security professional
We can also help you with A, AB, and C. Updates, for example, are important for confidentiality and integrity, but some upgrades can create problems for availability - they can break things. How can you ensure *all* systems are updated regularly and frequently, while at the same time ensuring that updates don't break important functionality, and if something does break, you can quickly identify the cause? A security professional can help answer that, or whatever other issues that come up as you security matures.
In terms of dollar amounts, larger companies obviously work on a larger scale.
On the other hand, "mom and pop" businesses often have their whole life invested in their business.The server being out of commission for two weeks while you both secure it and clean up the mess from the hackers means they can't make their personal mortgage payment. The smallest companies have been my best customers. Of course my business is designed for small companies - low-priced, high value per dollar offerings, simple web ordering rather than spending time (money) in meetings and writing proposals, etc. A couple hundred bucks for a professional grade offsite backup can largely secure their personal livelihood.
As mentioned in the interview, they took 13 minutes to find a major vulnerability in the Pentagon systems. Heck you can have someone run a Nessus scan for you at a cost of about $50, and probably find some significant vulnerability.
Of course it's also possible to go overboard, to spend more on pen testing and security consulting than it's worth, but some really smart security people can be had for under $200 / hour, and in a couple hours they can do a lot of good for a company.
Along the same lines, I think it's definitely worth it to involve a security expert in a about three meetings for any major software project - once when the overall architecture is first being discussed, once when specific plans are in place, and once to review before going live on production. using my self as an example, I've been doing security full time for 20 years, and I know what the common mistakes are. I know what the "smells" are - if you mention certain words, I can tell you those are areas you need to be careful. You don't have to spend a lot to teleconference me for three one-hour meetings, and I can potentially save you millions.
Besides what most people think of as security, "confidentiality", my view of security is "the system continues to operate correctly - even when an attacker is trying to make it fail". That implies that it operates correctly when it's NOT being attacked. My suggestions give you better up time and more reliable results. A simple example is a government system I looked at which was subject to SQL injection on a name field - it had SQL like "INSERT INTO tbl lastname='$lastname'; ". Sure, that's SQL injection, but it also failed on names like O'Reilly - perfectly legitimate customers couldn't use the system. Applying security concepts (it should work correctly even when it's being attacked) made it work much more reliably every day, and at a very low cost.
> The industry I'm in requires 7-10 years of future supply availability for things we design/validate... so, we tend to stay away from the EBay bargains
Which pretty much ends up being the same thing, as far as driver support goes - you need to have confidence that it will still be supported in the future, when it becomes an eBay bargain. What you're starting to use today, I'll start using in five years - and you'll still be using it.
It's not uncommon on the Linux Kernel mailing List to see a post "is anybody still using 1999-era Foo hardware from Bar Inc? If not, we may remove support." If somebody is still using it, the general policy is that the newest kernel should keep supporting it. Of course we have to *know* that somebody is still using it, so if you rely on hardware that's 15+ years old it would be good to monitor support.
My understanding is that the same is not true of Windows - you can't even email their engineer in charge of hardware X, much less will he continue support for you. You -can- email most any Linux maintainer, and they'll respond (but see ESR's Smart Questions document).
As you probably know, enterprise distributions like RHEL/CentOS support the entire distro for up to ten years. Red Hat / CentOS 7 EOL is 2024, so anything supported by CentOS 7 today will still be supported at least until 2024.
If it were me, if I wanted support for a brand new consumer device that just came out last week, I'd bet on Windows. If I wanted long-term support, to have the device supported when it's ten years old, I'd definitely bet on Linux.
It sure sounds to me like they are prohibited from talking about, so to get any information out they have to ask the FBI to do so.
ALSO this suggests they WANT information released. They could just say "we can't discuss that article". Instead, they are trying to get a copy of the order published. That strongly suggests that they believe once people see what's actually in the order, it'll be better than the speculation. Further, they calculate it'll be better *even though it'll renew interest, creating another round of news stories*.
You seem to have a rather strange obsession here. Let me try saying it one more time for you, in all capital letters maybe so you can see it:
REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT ANOTHER LIBERAL JUSTICE. DUH. NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
"Republicans won't admit it"you say - in the very article you linked to, it quoted the Senate majority leader saying they would wait until after the election, that they weren't going to confirm the kind of justice Obama would appoint.
You seem to have a strange obsession with this idea of yours that senators selected by the voters should abdicate their Constitutional duty to ensure a justice is fit for the job (based on what the majority of voters consider fit), and instead confirm whoever Obama chooses. I don't know where you get that idea. Oddly, it seems you'd also rather them play around and pretend to hold hearings about the guy, knowing they aren't going to confirm him if Trump wins. Why would you *want* them to waste time playing games? The people didn't vote control of the Senate to the Democrats, they voted the Republicans in, in many cases one reason they voted republican was to check Obama's appointments of liberal judges who re-write the Constitution to their preference.
I buy printers at Best Buy or wherever. I have no doubt that you had some problem with some printer, I haven't so much. I once noticed that HP's printer driver for Linux was more up to date than their Windows driver. Mostly I buy HP and Lexmark, maybe some other brands are different, or maybe you installed the wrong driver or something, I don't know. Most of the time, the latest version of Windows is supported by the the newest consumer-grade stuff at Best Buy, though, sure. It's the older and more professional stuff that's weak im recent Windows.
What I DO know is that because of the huge difference in support for older hardware, by the numbers Linux supports far more pieces of hardware. For me, I often buy hardware like RAID cards that cost $1,400 a few years ago; I find them for $85 on eBay. I have the equalivent of a $12,000 workstation or server cluster from few years ago, for about $1,000. A lot of that hardware isn't supported by Windows 10.
1998 called and wants their argument back. The driver thing WAS true in 1998.
Pick any version of Windows from the last 6 years and any enterprise Linux and you'll find the Linux supports more hardware, and more often does so out of the box, with no driver disk/download.
Did you forget to read that Politifact page before linking to it? It says all the same things I said about Merrick Garland. The very page you chose to link to says he's "known as a liberal", which isn't what Republicans want, and says liberals criticized the pick for EXACTLY the reasons I said they did, "Democracy for America expressed disappointment that Obama selected a white man rather than a woman of color".
You might as well have linked to my own post as your "refutation". Except of course Politifact is a more credible source, saying exactly the same things I saidb
> > In my opinion, the constant focus on race and gender is stupid and highly counter-productive. I think we should be talking about the QUALIFICATIONS of Supreme Court nominees, not going on and on about where their great-great-grandfather was born, nor the contents of their underwear.
> Let me introduce you to Merrick Garland.
Sure, let's talk about Merrick Garland. Judicial experts considered him to be one of the most qualified candidates in 2009. Clinton chose a less-qualified candidate with a vagina and darker skin.
In 2010, there was another vacancy. Commentators again pointed to Garland. Obama appointed a less-qualified person with a vagina and darker skin.
In 2016, with no more political elections ahead of him, Obama nominated Garland. Certain Republicans decided they'd rather a 50%-50% chance of getting a justice who follows the Constitution as written, appointed by the next president. They think Merrick Garland's type of judicial reasoning is fundamentally wrong. Liberals, on the other hand, criticized the pick why? Because of his lack of experience? No, he had experience. They complained that Obama should have picked someone with a darker complexion.
Romney reported that "women's groups" brought his administration "whole binders full of women". Who exactly created "binders full of women" and brought them to the state house?
That would be MassGAP, an organization created by and affiliated with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus. The front page of their web site lists the candidates they are endorsing this year. Guess which political party they all belong to? That's right, the binders full of women were created by a bunch of Democrats. Because that's what Democrats DO, that's how they see the world, men vs women, black vs white, us vs them.
On a separate but related note, although the liberals' implied, assumed racism in most of their policies is the most infuriating to me, there's another kind that also bugs me greatly, one that is easy to quantify objectively and see the difference.
In my opinion, the constant focus on race and gender is stupid and highly counter-productive. I think we should be talking about the QUALIFICATIONS of Supreme Court nominees, not going on and on about where their great-great-grandfather was born, nor the contents of their underwear. I raise my daughter to see individual people for who they are, not to start by categorizing them as black, latino, white, male and female. 99% of the time, those categories are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. So I think we should cut back about 99% on how much time we spend categorizing people like that; don't teach the next generation to be always looking at race and gender, all the time. On that note:
About 18 months ago I grabbed a random sampling of 8 Democrat speeches and about 8 Republican speeches. Democrats brought up race 26 times more often than Republicans.
In my opinion, Trump is a loudmouth not unlike Howard Stern, and definitely should not be president. When it comes to RACIST remarks, these are some of the comments I've come across: Calling employees "n*gger" (Hillary) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Hillary said publicly that her mentor is Robert Byrd, former KKK leader.
That idiot trump *has* talked about building a wall; Hillary actually voted to do so.
What bothers me much, much more, though, is the condescension of Hillary and friends towards my family. It *really* bothers me that they tell my daughter, in effect, "we'll give you an extra ten points on this test since you're black, and obviously black people like you are too stupid to actually learn the material like we white people can do". The hidden, implied racism and bigotry that runs deep in all of their policies is infuriating to me. When my daughter hears Hillary call someone a "n*gger" or a "f*cking Jew bastard", I explain to my daughter that Hillary is wrong, very wrong. Some people are stupid and say stupid things; that's simple enough to understand and accept. But when the entire school system, through college, is predicated on the assumption that my daughters complexion makes her less capable, it's harder to convincingly explain that EVERYONE setting school policy are ALL morons. I'm sure she will at times wonder if they are right; and that saddens and angers me tremendously.
> I thought my IP address was the property of my ISP.
It is explicitly NOT. The agreement an ISP signs to get numbers includes these terms: -- Legacy Holder acknowledges and agrees that: (a) the number resources are not property (real, personal, or intellectual) of Legacy Holder; (b) Legacy Holder does not and will not have or acquire any property rights in or to any number resources for any reason ---
The most important practical implication of that fact is that ARIN can, under the contract, revoke IP assignments from ISPs that aren't actively using them.
> my phone number is property of the phone company
What works best for me is to scan my emails once in the morning, and reply/handle non-emergencies once per day, typically in the afternoon. I'm not constantly distracted, and people don't wait a week for a reply.
I certainly don't always stick to that schedule, but it works well when I do.
100% uptime means the network wasn't down in time period you're talking about. My network has 100% uptime this week. Maybe last year I had crappy up time, but this year my network doesn't go down (hasn't gone down).
I enjoy the first few weeks of football season because my team is always undefeated, at least until the end of the first game.
Actually 100% uptime even over a long period isn't THAT difficult - heteregenous reduncancy pretty much does the trick. That's heterogenous, not homogenous. In other words, you have redundancy for everything, but not by having two of the exact same things. You have a pair of connections (or sets of connections) to the outside world - a metro ethernet connection from one provider, and a direct MPLS connection from another. A Cisco router in the metroE and a Juniper on the MPLS.
It's extremely unlikely that both providers will go down at the same time. It's extremely unlikely that both the Cisco (or pair of Ciscos) and the pair of Junipers will crap out simultaneously.
> Ghere are many fantastic and far more capable and proven African Americans who would have been FAR better as the first one in the White House.
> Trumpster's not the best male in the country either, but he's not trying to go down in history as the first male president (First oompaloompah, perhaps
I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative.
Exactly how does one use their genitals to perform the job of vice president? Whether or not a potential candidate has a penis is apparently the #1 most important consideration; does the SIZE of their penis matter?
I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:
Yes, they can predict pretty well. The phone companies can then spend $40 billion rolling out 5G nationwide.
Before spending $40 billion, do you think it might make sense to spend $1 million testing to make sure your prediction was right? A million dollar test is literally less than 1/100th of 1% of the cost of full deployment. Like spending $1 to test drive a car before buying it.
If you don't see that's obviously smart to do an extremely cheap test before spending tens of billions of dollars, I wonder, are you a California legistlator by chance?
Slashdot Mirror
> You apparently don't realize that Byrd publicly denounced and apologized for his former ties to the KKK and went on to support the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
Support (verb): to aid or assist.
Byrd FILIBUSTERED the Civil Rights for 60 days. Many years later, after he had completely and utterly lost in his attempts to 'keep the n*ggers in their place", he may have realized it was politically expedient to say he *likes* the Civil Rights Act, but he most certainly did not support it, he did not aid and support in it's passage. To the contrary, he put more effort into blocking the Civil Rights Act than any other act in his entire career.
Cost is certainly a big consideration. As I said in my post, one reason that the smallest companies were my best customers was because I designed low-price offerings specific for their needs and budget - and I told them what to NOT buy from us, because it wasn't worth it for them.
One example of something that most any full-time business should have is backups. If the business is your sole source of income, you should probably spend a couple hundred bucks for serious offsite backups. Larger companies, with bigger budgets, will spend more to prevent the *need* to ever use backups, for those with a very small budget we can inexpensively make sure that backups are really solid, preventing many types of catastrophic loss.
> Save the appeals to emotion
It's interesting that you say that because I find my customers ARE often buying emotion. They are scared because their last hosting company went out of business overnight, leaving them high and dry, or hackers completely f*cked up their web site, which is their income. They want to rest easy knowing that their company won't be destroyed by the next event, but they have a very limited budget. Good offsite backups provide them the confidence that no matter what happens in terms of IT, things can be back to normal within a few hours. There is a big emotional component there - they are worried. My job is therefore threefold - a) provide solutions that *actually* protect them from disaster, b) provide visibility so they can see that they are protected and they don't need to worry c) do so at a low price point, so the cost of protection isn't causing them stress.
Agreed, it would be a great help if developers in general switched from thinking in terms of "how can this work" to "how can this be broken". That's the topic of the next OWASP meeting I plan to attend - how can we help developers become more security aware and develop more secure systems, given all the demands on them, deadlines, etc. Security is just one of many things developers need to think about. They need to learn security, but they also need to learn the Next Big Thing - another language, framework, whatever. How can we help them be secure in the limited time they have for training? More focused training? Knowing what they can do themselves and when to ask for help from a security professional?
On the other hand, your development team probably isn't a bunch of people with the exact same skills. You probably have someone who is good at databases, another who is good at GUI design, a software architect thinking about the big picture, maybe a scrum master or other lead person who is skilled at teamwork skills and facilitating work between people. Security is another specialty, like database design, GUI design, or leading a team.
Also, just as you may need a database *designed* very well once, then maintained by someone else, you can take advantage of security professional as-needed, they don't always have to be a full-time member of each team. At my last job, I was regularly called to join meetings of other teams, when security considerations were discussed. They might use me one or two hours per month, which was enough to prevwnt a lot of major mistakes and make their system more robust, both when under attack and when not under attack.
I wouldn't say it's "different than", I'd say it's another item on the check list:
a) Ensure security updates are installed in a systematic way
b) Ensure up firewalls are set up and regularly reviewed
c) Review configuration port forwarding, NAT, VPN, etc annually
d) Annual security review by objective third-party security professional
We can also help you with A, AB, and C. Updates, for example, are important for confidentiality and integrity, but some upgrades can create problems for availability - they can break things. How can you ensure *all* systems are updated regularly and frequently, while at the same time ensuring that updates don't break important functionality, and if something does break, you can quickly identify the cause? A security professional can help answer that, or whatever other issues that come up as you security matures.
In terms of dollar amounts, larger companies obviously work on a larger scale.
On the other hand, "mom and pop" businesses often have their whole life invested in their business.The server being out of commission for two weeks while you both secure it and clean up the mess from the hackers means they can't make their personal mortgage payment. The smallest companies have been my best customers. Of course my business is designed for small companies - low-priced, high value per dollar offerings, simple web ordering rather than spending time (money) in meetings and writing proposals, etc. A couple hundred bucks for a professional grade offsite backup can largely secure their personal livelihood.
As mentioned in the interview, they took 13 minutes to find a major vulnerability in the Pentagon systems. Heck you can have someone run a Nessus scan for you at a cost of about $50, and probably find some significant vulnerability.
Of course it's also possible to go overboard, to spend more on pen testing and security consulting than it's worth, but some really smart security people can be had for under $200 / hour, and in a couple hours they can do a lot of good for a company.
Along the same lines, I think it's definitely worth it to involve a security expert in a about three meetings for any major software project - once when the overall architecture is first being discussed, once when specific plans are in place, and once to review before going live on production. using my self as an example, I've been doing security full time for 20 years, and I know what the common mistakes are. I know what the "smells" are - if you mention certain words, I can tell you those are areas you need to be careful. You don't have to spend a lot to teleconference me for three one-hour meetings, and I can potentially save you millions.
Besides what most people think of as security, "confidentiality", my view of security is "the system continues to operate correctly - even when an attacker is trying to make it fail". That implies that it operates correctly when it's NOT being attacked. My suggestions give you better up time and more reliable results. A simple example is a government system I looked at which was subject to SQL injection on a name field - it had SQL like "INSERT INTO tbl lastname='$lastname'; ". Sure, that's SQL injection, but it also failed on names like O'Reilly - perfectly legitimate customers couldn't use the system. Applying security concepts (it should work correctly even when it's being attacked) made it work much more reliably every day, and at a very low cost.
> The industry I'm in requires 7-10 years of future supply availability for things we design/validate... so, we tend to stay away from the EBay bargains
Which pretty much ends up being the same thing, as far as driver support goes - you need to have confidence that it will still be supported in the future, when it becomes an eBay bargain. What you're starting to use today, I'll start using in five years - and you'll still be using it.
It's not uncommon on the Linux Kernel mailing List to see a post "is anybody still using 1999-era Foo hardware from Bar Inc? If not, we may remove support." If somebody is still using it, the general policy is that the newest kernel should keep supporting it. Of course we have to *know* that somebody is still using it, so if you rely on hardware that's 15+ years old it would be good to monitor support.
My understanding is that the same is not true of Windows - you can't even email their engineer in charge of hardware X, much less will he continue support for you. You -can- email most any Linux maintainer, and they'll respond (but see ESR's Smart Questions document).
As you probably know, enterprise distributions like RHEL/CentOS support the entire distro for up to ten years. Red Hat / CentOS 7 EOL is 2024, so anything supported by CentOS 7 today will still be supported at least until 2024.
If it were me, if I wanted support for a brand new consumer device that just came out last week, I'd bet on Windows. If I wanted long-term support, to have the device supported when it's ten years old, I'd definitely bet on Linux.
It sure sounds to me like they are prohibited from talking about, so to get any information out they have to ask the FBI to do so.
ALSO this suggests they WANT information released. They could just say "we can't discuss that article". Instead, they are trying to get a copy of the order published. That strongly suggests that they believe once people see what's actually in the order, it'll be better than the speculation. Further, they calculate it'll be better *even though it'll renew interest, creating another round of news stories*.
You seem to have a rather strange obsession here. Let me try saying it one more time for you, in all capital letters maybe so you can see it:
REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT ANOTHER LIBERAL JUSTICE.
DUH. NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
"Republicans won't admit it"you say - in the very article you linked to, it quoted the Senate majority leader saying they would wait until after the election, that they weren't going to confirm the kind of justice Obama would appoint.
You seem to have a strange obsession with this idea of yours that senators selected by the voters should abdicate their Constitutional duty to ensure a justice is fit for the job (based on what the majority of voters consider fit), and instead confirm whoever Obama chooses. I don't know where you get that idea. Oddly, it seems you'd also rather them play around and pretend to hold hearings about the guy, knowing they aren't going to confirm him if Trump wins. Why would you *want* them to waste time playing games? The people didn't vote control of the Senate to the Democrats, they voted the Republicans in, in many cases one reason they voted republican was to check Obama's appointments of liberal judges who re-write the Constitution to their preference.
I buy printers at Best Buy or wherever. I have no doubt that you had some problem with some printer, I haven't so much. I once noticed that HP's printer driver for Linux was more up to date than their Windows driver. Mostly I buy HP and Lexmark, maybe some other brands are different, or maybe you installed the wrong driver or something, I don't know. Most of the time, the latest version of Windows is supported by the the newest consumer-grade stuff at Best Buy, though, sure. It's the older and more professional stuff that's weak im recent Windows.
What I DO know is that because of the huge difference in support for older hardware, by the numbers Linux supports far more pieces of hardware. For me, I often buy hardware like RAID cards that cost $1,400 a few years ago; I find them for $85 on eBay. I have the equalivent of a $12,000 workstation or server cluster from few years ago, for about $1,000. A lot of that hardware isn't supported by Windows 10.
1998 called and wants their argument back. The driver thing WAS true in 1998.
Pick any version of Windows from the last 6 years and any enterprise Linux and you'll find the Linux supports more hardware, and more often does so out of the box, with no driver disk/download.
Did you forget to read that Politifact page before linking to it? It says all the same things I said about Merrick Garland. The very page you chose to link to says he's "known as a liberal", which isn't what Republicans want, and says liberals criticized the pick for EXACTLY the reasons I said they did, "Democracy for America expressed disappointment that Obama selected a white man rather than a woman of color".
You might as well have linked to my own post as your "refutation". Except of course Politifact is a more credible source, saying exactly the same things I saidb
> > In my opinion, the constant focus on race and gender is stupid and highly counter-productive. I think we should be talking about the QUALIFICATIONS of Supreme Court nominees, not going on and on about where their great-great-grandfather was born, nor the contents of their underwear.
> Let me introduce you to Merrick Garland.
Sure, let's talk about Merrick Garland. Judicial experts considered him to be one of the most qualified candidates in 2009. Clinton chose a less-qualified candidate with a vagina and darker skin.
In 2010, there was another vacancy. Commentators again pointed to Garland. Obama appointed a less-qualified person with a vagina and darker skin.
In 2016, with no more political elections ahead of him, Obama nominated Garland. Certain Republicans decided they'd rather a 50%-50% chance of getting a justice who follows the Constitution as written, appointed by the next president. They think Merrick Garland's type of judicial reasoning is fundamentally wrong. Liberals, on the other hand, criticized the pick why? Because of his lack of experience? No, he had experience. They complained that Obama should have picked someone with a darker complexion.
Romney reported that "women's groups" brought his administration "whole binders full of women". Who exactly created "binders full of women" and brought them to the state house?
That would be MassGAP, an organization created by and affiliated with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus. The front page of their web site lists the candidates they are endorsing this year. Guess which political party they all belong to? That's right, the binders full of women were created by a bunch of Democrats. Because that's what Democrats DO, that's how they see the world, men vs women, black vs white, us vs them.
On a separate but related note, although the liberals' implied, assumed racism in most of their policies is the most infuriating to me, there's another kind that also bugs me greatly, one that is easy to quantify objectively and see the difference.
In my opinion, the constant focus on race and gender is stupid and highly counter-productive. I think we should be talking about the QUALIFICATIONS of Supreme Court nominees, not going on and on about where their great-great-grandfather was born, nor the contents of their underwear. I raise my daughter to see individual people for who they are, not to start by categorizing them as black, latino, white, male and female. 99% of the time, those categories are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. So I think we should cut back about 99% on how much time we spend categorizing people like that; don't teach the next generation to be always looking at race and gender, all the time. On that note:
About 18 months ago I grabbed a random sampling of 8 Democrat speeches and about 8 Republican speeches. Democrats brought up race 26 times more often than Republicans.
In my opinion, Trump is a loudmouth not unlike Howard Stern, and definitely should not be president. When it comes to RACIST remarks, these are some of the comments I've come across:
Calling employees "n*gger" (Hillary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Calling people "f*cking Jew bastard" (Hillary, confirmed by three witnesses)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Hillary said publicly that her mentor is Robert Byrd, former KKK leader.
That idiot trump *has* talked about building a wall; Hillary actually voted to do so.
What bothers me much, much more, though, is the condescension of Hillary and friends towards my family. It *really* bothers me that they tell my daughter, in effect, "we'll give you an extra ten points on this test since you're black, and obviously black people like you are too stupid to actually learn the material like we white people can do". The hidden, implied racism and bigotry that runs deep in all of their policies is infuriating to me. When my daughter hears Hillary call someone a "n*gger" or a "f*cking Jew bastard", I explain to my daughter that Hillary is wrong, very wrong. Some people are stupid and say stupid things; that's simple enough to understand and accept. But when the entire school system, through college, is predicated on the assumption that my daughters complexion makes her less capable, it's harder to convincingly explain that EVERYONE setting school policy are ALL morons. I'm sure she will at times wonder if they are right; and that saddens and angers me tremendously.
> I thought my IP address was the property of my ISP.
It is explicitly NOT. The agreement an ISP signs to get numbers includes these terms:
--
Legacy Holder acknowledges and agrees that: (a) the number resources are not property (real, personal, or intellectual) of Legacy Holder; (b) Legacy Holder does not and will not have or acquire any property rights in or to any number resources for any reason
---
See also:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nr...
The most important practical implication of that fact is that ARIN can, under the contract, revoke IP assignments from ISPs that aren't actively using them.
> my phone number is property of the phone company
Two words: Number Portability.
> Also, I highly doubt that Republicant part would differently strategize their plan.
We do not have to guess what Republicans *might* do, we *know* what they did.
On choosing Paul Ryan, Romney sought to balance what he thought was the important, difference, political positions on the issues of the day.
With Pence, Trump sought to balance on what he thought was the important difference - temperment and government experience.
Clinton sought to balance what she thinks is important - gentals.
> Romney chose Ryan because Ryan was respected by the Tea Party (which was very dubious of Romney).
Romney sought to balance what he thought was the important, difference, political positions on the issues of the day.
> Trump chose Pence to reassure the GOP that Trump would be under adult supervision.
Trump sought to balance on what he thought was the important difference - temperment and government experience.
Clinton sought to balance what she thinks is important - gentals.
What works best for me is to scan my emails once in the morning, and reply/handle non-emergencies once per day, typically in the afternoon. I'm not constantly distracted, and people don't wait a week for a reply.
I certainly don't always stick to that schedule, but it works well when I do.
100% uptime means the network wasn't down in time period you're talking about. My network has 100% uptime this week.
Maybe last year I had crappy up time, but this year my network doesn't go down (hasn't gone down).
I enjoy the first few weeks of football season because my team is always undefeated, at least until the end of the first game.
Actually 100% uptime even over a long period isn't THAT difficult - heteregenous reduncancy pretty much does the trick. That's heterogenous, not homogenous. In other words, you have redundancy for everything, but not by having two of the exact same things. You have a pair of connections (or sets of connections) to the outside world - a metro ethernet connection from one provider, and a direct MPLS connection from another. A Cisco router in the metroE and a Juniper on the MPLS.
It's extremely unlikely that both providers will go down at the same time. It's extremely unlikely that both the Cisco (or pair of Ciscos) and the pair of Junipers will crap out simultaneously.
> Ghere are many fantastic and far more capable and proven African Americans who would have been FAR better as the first one in the White House.
> Trumpster's not the best male in the country either, but he's not trying to go down in history as the first male president (First oompaloompah, perhaps
Orange IS the new black.
I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative.
Exactly how does one use their genitals to perform the job of vice president? Whether or not a potential candidate has a penis is apparently the #1 most important consideration; does the SIZE of their penis matter?
I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:
Legistlative Experience
Executive Experience (govt)
Executive Experience (private sector)
Foreign Policy Experience
For this reaction, you need BOTH CO2 (from burning fossil fuels) AND "free energy" (noon solar on cloudless days).
The otherwise wasted energy from the unreliable renewable sources is used to convert CO2 into fuel.
Yes, they can predict pretty well.
The phone companies can then spend $40 billion rolling out 5G nationwide.
Before spending $40 billion, do you think it might make sense to spend $1 million testing to make sure your prediction was right? A million dollar test is literally less than 1/100th of 1% of the cost of full deployment. Like spending $1 to test drive a car before buying it.
If you don't see that's obviously smart to do an extremely cheap test before spending tens of billions of dollars, I wonder, are you a California legistlator by chance?