Of the roughly 1% of American voters who have ever said the words "net neutrality", most want it. Most Americans have never uttered the phrase. As far as politics, most Americans have one focus. They either like Trump or dislike him - and they don't really know why. Network neutrality is hyped on Slashdot, not on CNN and Comedy Central, where most Americans get their "news".
Of those 1% who have even thought about net neutrality, so far none can define it in any meaningful, actionable way. It's a set of general, foggy concepts. Unfortunately the technical details of how carrier networks are configured is very, very complex, so it would take 500 pages (probably more) to write net neutrality rules that a) aren't full of loopholes and b) don't effectively shut down the internet if they are actually followed.
The most basic premise of NN, according to most advocates, is "carriers can't require payment before carrying a site's traffic".
One specific problem - just like you are a customer of an ISP, just as you get your internet connection from someone, so do web sites. Web sites pay carriers to take their traffic. That's often called "hosting". Down time kills their business, so sites pay multiple carriers, in order to have multiple redundant connections to the internet.
Remember the basic premise of NN, according to most advocates, is "carriers can't require payment before carrying a site's traffic". But if the site isn't paying at least one carrier, they aren't online at all. So while their heart is in the right place, actually implementing the simple rule most NN advocates ask for would simply take down every web site. It's way more complicated than that to actually implement.
On the other hand, 40% or so of Americans dislike Trump. The Democrat politicians hate him. Compared to 1% who care about net neutrality. The Democrats will focus on pretending to impeach Trump. 40% of Americans will love watching that show.
Another 40% of Americans like Trump and will be angry about the impeachment show. Another 6% will see that snce there is 0% chance that the Senate will convict Trump for paying off a lady had an affair with, before he was President, the whole impeachment show is a waste of time. They'll wish the politicians we're doing something useful instead.
So the Democrats will spend all their time putting on this circus that 40% of Americans like and 46% of Americans don't like.
The incoming Democrats COULD do a lot of things. They won't. They'll spend 90% of their time, energy, and press on a futile, symbolic push to impeach Trump for paying off a woman he had an affair with. A perfectly legal action (though distasteful) that he did before he was President. Symbolic because there is 0% chance the Senate will convict. They may well not even manage to keep their own party in line to get an impeachment - impeachment of the President has only happened twice in US history, most recently Clinton was impeached.
They'll get nothing useful done because all of their focus will be on hating Trump.
If you don't get some US dollars and then give them to the IRS, IRS agents will eventually show up at your door and remind you that you better get some soon, or they'll be back to take you to prison. Ask Wesley Snipes - even action movie heroes need to have dollars. It might take a while, but eventually they show up.
That means dollars will always have value, as long as the IRS exists. Dollars keep you out of prison.
Additionally, as a bonus anyone who has debt of any kind needs dollars to get rid of that debt, so that the bank doesn't come take their house, car, etc. "Get some dollars or lose your house" is pretty powerful.
Trying sending the IRS some Bitcoins. Not gonna happen. Check your mortgage statemwnt. It's 100,000 DOLLARS you have to eventually pay the bank to keep your house. Sending them a sha-256 hash isn't going to let you keep your house.
How do we know the bank won't switch to denominating mortgages in Bitcoins or Buttcoins or Anonymous Coward Coin? Because the bank needs fifteen million DOLLARS to pay their taxes. So they are always going to want dollars from their customers.
> It's easier to hack stuff out in Go because when it comes to threading it doesn't do much to stop you shooting yourself in the foot.... > The reason it looks harder in Rust is because writing correct multithreaded code is in fact hard. Annoyingly so.
Well put. I'm not a Rust fan, not even know much about it other than that Rust fans have done some over-the-top hype about features most other languages have too. I'm dealing with a codebase that has a lot of concurrency problems though. The languages make it easy to do concurrency. You don't have to understand concurrency issues to write multithreaded code in these languages. You can easily spin off threads that cause all kinds of subtle bugs that pop up rarely - infrequently enough that you're unlikely to catch them in tests, but often enough to cause problems for customers or even lock up the entire occasionally.
Concurrency and multithreading IS hard to do right. Languages that make multithreading easy only make it easy to create very complex bugs.
Gfy has lots of posts saying "great product, sometimes support is slow". Some of those posts are from *me*. You'll never find me saying "fast support", because they wouldn't have been true.
Phatservers had fast support, and knew our products, so that's why we discussed teaming up with them to have them do the support for those products. Because yeah, sometimes we weren't quick with support. The first step to fixing that would be honestly acknowledging the problem. I also asked them about about flying out to watch how they do support, see their process first hand. In the end, we arranged to give four different companies the tools and training to do the support - two companies supported their own customers who uses our products along with products and services from that company, tier 1 support went to a dedicated support company lead by a former employee of mine, and we were tier 2 support.
With our hosting, we explicitly told people that if you need a lot of support, you don't want to host with us; there were other companies we'd suggest. Customers who would want to host with us would be those who valued expertise and security more than they valued quick support.
I never said we were perfect in every way. We were *honest* about our strengths and weaknesses.
That worked pretty well for us and for customers. Unhappy customers take up too mich time and can ruin your day, so I didn't *want* "more customers" if they were going to be unhappy customers. 99.9% of our customers were happy because they chose us knowing our weaknesses. We had already told them, if immediate 24/7 support is the most important thing to you, go pay 10 times as much for Phantom Frog. Phantom Frog has better support, and probably needs more support, we'd tell them. If you don't want to call us all the time, and you don't want to NEED to call, because the product "just works", then you might like us.
> are still in use even after such a long period with no manufacturer updates.... > there aren't many technical reasons a seven year old phone would not still function
People tend carry their phones with them everywhere they go. With more than seven years of *use* I'd expect an unfortunate drop onto concrete, tile, or water is pretty likely.
Sitting in a drawer as opposed to in use, sure, other than the battery. A working battery for a seven-year-old phone may be difficult.
Redhat provides security updates directly from them for at least 10 years. https://access.redhat.com/arti... After 10 years, updates would be from upstream. One could back port Linux security patches for 20 years if you needed to. Ten years from Red Hat is probably enough.
We do not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do. (Borrowed from Texas A&M)
One time a new employee didn't know better and told the customer there was "a hard drive problem" when actually we screwed up. I let him know that if he lied again, he'd be be immediately fired. Then I called the customer and explained that we had in fact messed up.
So no, not "all companies" are the same, because all people are not the same. Companies do what the leaders establish as the company way.
If the leaders of an organization use funds from the organization's charity arm primarily to fund their own travel and pay themselves a large salary for running the charity, that type of thing establishes a culture and the organization will be crooked from top to bottom. If the leaders make a habit of lying to the press, everyone in the organization will lie to each other - especially to the leaders. On the other hand, if the leader writes a personal check to buy an old computer that the company is throwing away (buying it at the appropriate garage sale price), then makes sure that $25 is properly reported for tax purposes, that sets a tone of honesty and absolute integrity for the company.
Some people may not like to work in my companies, or work with me, because I'm strict about telling the truth, even when the truth is ugly. That's okay, they can go work for a car dealer or politician. We don't want them working in my companies.
Gas taxes are a pretty good proxy for that, and more efficient. Heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on the roads and use more fuel, so it works. The US has been doing this since 1932.
> Can a restaurant comp an appetizer if you never ordered an appetizer?
Yes. Hopefully they bring me free mozzarella sticks.
> if they haven't actually been given a sentence to pardon?
A *sentence* is commuted. A *person* is pardoned. Two tially different things.
So basically you said "how kiss a person if they haven't been given a toilet to flush?"
In 1866, the question came up of whether a President can pardon someone who hasn't been charged. The answer was yes. SCOTUS ruled then, and a couple times since then. If you were paying attention in history class, you might recall most Americans were unhappy when President Ford pardoned Nixon, who hadn't been charged with anything.
Here's a question SCOTUS has NOT yet ruled on. Can a President pardon *himself*?
Most legal scholars say "yes, but Burdick v. United States would almost guarantee impeachment".
Under Burdick, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. If a President were to pardon himself, he would be admitting guilt. Based on this admission (and the ugliness of pardoning oneself), impeachment would follow.
How many times, over how many centuries, does the Supreme Court have to keep ruling on this before you recognize the stare decisis?
You say "arguably" - that was argued in 1865, and SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution means what it says. Most famously in the last fifty years, Ford pardoned Nixon, so the country could move forward from that mess - without an indictment or arrest.
> when an actual arrest has been made, it becomes increasingly difficult for a President... > acting before would likely create a Constitutional crisis of some sort.
So your argument is that "power to pardon any..." means not before it goes to court, and not after?
The question *could* have caused a Constitutional crisis - in the 1800s, but it didn't. SCOTUS decided the question, as is their role, and that was that. A hundred years later most people thought the President SHOULDN'T pardon Nixon, but nobody made a serious claim that he COULDN'T.
US Constitution Article II, Section 2 states plainly that the President has pardon power for any offense with the sole exception being cases of impeachment.
Since at least Andrew Jackson in 1865, Presidents have use pardon prior to indictment to spare the country the turmoil of a controversial indictment and trial (in the case of a Confederate officer, for Jackson). The Supreme Court has upheld this repeatedly.
Imagine you seen a sign saying "no parking on Sundays 9AM-11AM". By law that implies that parking is allowed any other time. (exceptio probat regulam, in casibus non exceptis).
The Constitution is even more clear. It specifically says "all cases except impeachment". If it meant "all cases except impeachment and when AC doesn't like it", it would say that. It explicitly states the sole case in which the President does not have pardon power.
The defendant isn't being impeached, so clearly the President absolutely has an unquestionable Constitutional right to pardon her. Whether or not he SHOULD is an entirely different question. His legal power to do so is very clearly stated in the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.
-- roughly 30 million active accounts were consuming adult content, either re-sharing it or following the accounts of those producers --
Do YOU "share" the porn YOU watch, or just watch it? I'd definitely bet less than half the people checking out porn shared it or "followed" the pornster. Just browse the porn, do your thing, and move on. (But please wash your hands).
So about half of their users or more are there for porn.
That statement is incorrect for the proximity fobs too. That would kill the battery in the fob. Anyone such a fob can easily test it.
Go stand next to your car. You probably won't hear it unlock. Touch the door handle. You'll hear it unlock.
What's going on is: The handle has a capacitive sensor to detect your hand. When your hand is on the handle, the car sends an *inductive pulse. The fob has a coil in it, which works like a transformer to catch the pulse from the car. Note this pulse is more like a transformer than a radio. When the fob is triggered by the inductive pulse, it sends a radio packet to the car.
Regulation exists, but regulations around this topic are changed every two years.
Everything I've ever seen had Amazon talking about using quadcopters. I've never seen anything at all ever suggesting they were even thinking about using helicopters. Have you?
The hype is about using quads. The physics say that's not likely to work all that well. Not that very light packages (envelopes) would be impossible, as long as there isn't a breeze, but it doesn't scale.
The primary reason their plan won't work is physics. Amazon hasn't laid off all their Senators, so they could have the next round of regulation work for them if the physics made it practical.
"But on the 'World's Most Outrageous' TV show I saw..." Yeah yesterday I saw a Dum Dum's lollipop that was ten pounds. Not everything that is possible to do as as a ridiculous publicity stunt is practical to do for commercial deployment.
The *main* problem with quadcopters larger than about 300-500m across isn't regulation, it's math.
I have some and I enjoy flying them. I'm not anti-quad, I'm just pro-reality. To put simply, as the size of a quadcopter increases, the lift from the props is squared as the weight of the craft is cubed.
In other words, as the copter gets bigger, it's gets heavier a lot faster than the props gain lift. It very quickly can't lift itself, much less a package. Tiny quadcopters for flying around indoors are easy to build. A quadcopter 100 meters across is physically impossible, can't be done. In between are varying degrees of difficult to impossible.
Helicopters are a different story. Helicopters can and do have blades much longer than the width of the fuselage. You could do delivery with helicopters.
I just checked pricing for HBO. For just a one channel it's $15/month, plus you have to buy a service that offers HBO as an optional add-on. No thanks. Not for me.
I'd rather have a picture of Tide show up when I pause the video, rather than pay $15/month per channel.
> considering that it exists, and even seems to be a good idea. I suppose there's some downside I am unaware of? What is it?
It may be a good idea, or not. I'm reserving judgement on that and just saying it hasn't caught on. There are two issues I see immediately, obvious downsides. There may be more.
The first step for a targeted attack is surveillance, checking out the target environment and finding which systems one wants to compromise, what software they are running, which version, etc. Then the same for systems between the attacker and the valuable target - I might first compromise a firewall and a workstation in order to get to my real target, a database server.
At the security company I owned, we had one machine that existed solely to store credit card numbers and submit charges to the payment processor. That machine didn't run a public web server, which could be compromised. It didn't run our DNS or anything else, it *only* stored and submitted credit card numbers. Since the credit cards weren't being housed on the same server as any publicly accessible service, bad guys would have no way of knowing that machine even existed. Unless our CA published a publicly accessible log saying they issued a cert for cards.mycompany.com!
The CT log is an open list of sensitive systems, servers that people have decided need some security. A target list. That's certainly a downside.
Perhaps more importantly, it adds complexity. Complexity is the enemy of security. Bad guys love complex security protocols, because there is almost always a loophole, either in the spec or an implementation. An example is one of the worst TLS vulnerabilities ever, Apple's "goto fail". The code was effectively this:
if (hash-is-correct)
accept;
Seems simple, right? Only accept the cert if the hash is valid. The problem is that check was added before the check to see if the cert was valid for the name in use. The programmer accidentally accepted the cert if it had a valid hash - even if rhr cert was issued for cracker.com and then user is connecting to bank.com.
Every line of code you have is another opportunity for a vulnerability. I have over 100,000 vulnerabilities in my database. If you ask me to audit your program and give my stamp of approval saying it's not vulnerable, this will be my answer: The only code that is known safe is code that doesn't exist.
We know you won't have any vulnerabilities in a feature if and only if you do not have that feature. If CT is widely adopted, that might be good or bad. If it's not widely adopted, support for it should be removed from all systems, because it's currently just one more place to have a bug.
I just pulled a tissue from my box of generic tissues and found it was made up of three layers. Carefully peeling off one layer and trying to breathe through it, I was surprised it didn't restrict airflow as much as I expected. Paper tissues were originally made to be filters in chemical weapons masks, so that just might work. I wonder if it would break down over time and become particles that get sucked into the case.
Manufacturers typically use a thin sheet of open cell foam. I don't have any specific brand. I'm sure Amazon sells them cheap.
Another thought about filtration - it depends on the particle size you're trying to filter out. A piece of window screen will block pet hair. To filter out cigarette smoke requires a filter with far smaller holes, because smoke has very small particles.
Slashdot Mirror
My thesis was that Democrats will spend all their time on "we hate Trump", rather than doing anything useful for the country.
Your rebuttal is:
We hate Trump.
I'm not 100% sure if you're an actual Democrat, or a parody of one.
Of the roughly 1% of American voters who have ever said the words "net neutrality", most want it. Most Americans have never uttered the phrase. As far as politics, most Americans have one focus. They either like Trump or dislike him - and they don't really know why. Network neutrality is hyped on Slashdot, not on CNN and Comedy Central, where most Americans get their "news".
Of those 1% who have even thought about net neutrality, so far none can define it in any meaningful, actionable way. It's a set of general, foggy concepts. Unfortunately the technical details of how carrier networks are configured is very, very complex, so it would take 500 pages (probably more) to write net neutrality rules that a) aren't full of loopholes and b) don't effectively shut down the internet if they are actually followed.
The most basic premise of NN, according to most advocates, is "carriers can't require payment before carrying a site's traffic".
One specific problem - just like you are a customer of an ISP, just as you get your internet connection from someone, so do web sites. Web sites pay carriers to take their traffic. That's often called "hosting". Down time kills their business, so sites pay multiple carriers, in order to have multiple redundant connections to the internet.
Remember the basic premise of NN, according to most advocates, is "carriers can't require payment before carrying a site's traffic". But if the site isn't paying at least one carrier, they aren't online at all. So while their heart is in the right place, actually implementing the simple rule most NN advocates ask for would simply take down every web site. It's way more complicated than that to actually implement.
On the other hand, 40% or so of Americans dislike Trump. The Democrat politicians hate him. Compared to 1% who care about net neutrality. The Democrats will focus on pretending to impeach Trump. 40% of Americans will love watching that show.
Another 40% of Americans like Trump and will be angry about the impeachment show. Another 6% will see that snce there is 0% chance that the Senate will convict Trump for paying off a lady had an affair with, before he was President, the whole impeachment show is a waste of time. They'll wish the politicians we're doing something useful instead.
So the Democrats will spend all their time putting on this circus that 40% of Americans like and 46% of Americans don't like.
The incoming Democrats COULD do a lot of things. They won't. They'll spend 90% of their time, energy, and press on a futile, symbolic push to impeach Trump for paying off a woman he had an affair with. A perfectly legal action (though distasteful) that he did before he was President. Symbolic because there is 0% chance the Senate will convict. They may well not even manage to keep their own party in line to get an impeachment - impeachment of the President has only happened twice in US history, most recently Clinton was impeached.
They'll get nothing useful done because all of their focus will be on hating Trump.
If you don't get some US dollars and then give them to the IRS, IRS agents will eventually show up at your door and remind you that you better get some soon, or they'll be back to take you to prison. Ask Wesley Snipes - even action movie heroes need to have dollars. It might take a while, but eventually they show up.
That means dollars will always have value, as long as the IRS exists. Dollars keep you out of prison.
Additionally, as a bonus anyone who has debt of any kind needs dollars to get rid of that debt, so that the bank doesn't come take their house, car, etc. "Get some dollars or lose your house" is pretty powerful.
Trying sending the IRS some Bitcoins. Not gonna happen. Check your mortgage statemwnt. It's 100,000 DOLLARS you have to eventually pay the bank to keep your house. Sending them a sha-256 hash isn't going to let you keep your house.
How do we know the bank won't switch to denominating mortgages in Bitcoins or Buttcoins or Anonymous Coward Coin? Because the bank needs fifteen million DOLLARS to pay their taxes. So they are always going to want dollars from their customers.
> It's easier to hack stuff out in Go because when it comes to threading it doesn't do much to stop you shooting yourself in the foot. ...
> The reason it looks harder in Rust is because writing correct multithreaded code is in fact hard. Annoyingly so.
Well put. I'm not a Rust fan, not even know much about it other than that Rust fans have done some over-the-top hype about features most other languages have too. I'm dealing with a codebase that has a lot of concurrency problems though. The languages make it easy to do concurrency. You don't have to understand concurrency issues to write multithreaded code in these languages. You can easily spin off threads that cause all kinds of subtle bugs that pop up rarely - infrequently enough that you're unlikely to catch them in tests, but often enough to cause problems for customers or even lock up the entire occasionally.
Concurrency and multithreading IS hard to do right. Languages that make multithreading easy only make it easy to create very complex bugs.
Gfy has lots of posts saying "great product, sometimes support is slow". Some of those posts are from *me*. You'll never find me saying "fast support", because they wouldn't have been true.
Phatservers had fast support, and knew our products, so that's why we discussed teaming up with them to have them do the support for those products. Because yeah, sometimes we weren't quick with support. The first step to fixing that would be honestly acknowledging the problem. I also asked them about about flying out to watch how they do support, see their process first hand. In the end, we arranged to give four different companies the tools and training to do the support - two companies supported their own customers who uses our products along with products and services from that company, tier 1 support went to a dedicated support company lead by a former employee of mine, and we were tier 2 support.
With our hosting, we explicitly told people that if you need a lot of support, you don't want to host with us; there were other companies we'd suggest. Customers who would want to host with us would be those who valued expertise and security more than they valued quick support.
I never said we were perfect in every way. We were *honest* about our strengths and weaknesses.
That worked pretty well for us and for customers. Unhappy customers take up too mich time and can ruin your day, so I didn't *want* "more customers" if they were going to be unhappy customers. 99.9% of our customers were happy because they chose us knowing our weaknesses. We had already told them, if immediate 24/7 support is the most important thing to you, go pay 10 times as much for Phantom Frog. Phantom Frog has better support, and probably needs more support, we'd tell them. If you don't want to call us all the time, and you don't want to NEED to call, because the product "just works", then you might like us.
> are still in use even after such a long period with no manufacturer updates. ...
> there aren't many technical reasons a seven year old phone would not still function
People tend carry their phones with them everywhere they go. With more than seven years of *use* I'd expect an unfortunate drop onto concrete, tile, or water is pretty likely.
Sitting in a drawer as opposed to in use, sure, other than the battery. A working battery for a seven-year-old phone may be difficult.
Indeed Microsoft *was* forced to provide security updates for Windows 7 when nobody wanted to downgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8 or 10.
If you do go to Windows 10, MMicrosoft says your new OS will be supported for 18 months.
https://support.microsoft.com/...
Redhat provides security updates directly from them for at least 10 years.
https://access.redhat.com/arti...
After 10 years, updates would be from upstream.
One could back port Linux security patches for 20 years if you needed to. Ten years from Red Hat is probably enough.
My companies had a very simple rule about lying:
We do not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.
(Borrowed from Texas A&M)
One time a new employee didn't know better and told the customer there was "a hard drive problem" when actually we screwed up. I let him know that if he lied again, he'd be be immediately fired. Then I called the customer and explained that we had in fact messed up.
So no, not "all companies" are the same, because all people are not the same. Companies do what the leaders establish as the company way.
If the leaders of an organization use funds from the organization's charity arm primarily to fund their own travel and pay themselves a large salary for running the charity, that type of thing establishes a culture and the organization will be crooked from top to bottom. If the leaders make a habit of lying to the press, everyone in the organization will lie to each other - especially to the leaders. On the other hand, if the leader writes a personal check to buy an old computer that the company is throwing away (buying it at the appropriate garage sale price), then makes sure that $25 is properly reported for tax purposes, that sets a tone of honesty and absolute integrity for the company.
Some people may not like to work in my companies, or work with me, because I'm strict about telling the truth, even when the truth is ugly. That's okay, they can go work for a car dealer or politician. We don't want them working in my companies.
If her defense is PowerPoint, she's doing it backwards.
PowerPoint isn't defensive, it's offensive. Death by PowerPoint.
That's interesting, thanks
Gas taxes are a pretty good proxy for that, and more efficient. Heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on the roads and use more fuel, so it works. The US has been doing this since 1932.
I'm curious what country you live in.
> Can a restaurant comp an appetizer if you never ordered an appetizer?
Yes. Hopefully they bring me free mozzarella sticks.
> if they haven't actually been given a sentence to pardon?
A *sentence* is commuted. A *person* is pardoned. Two tially different things.
So basically you said "how kiss a person if they haven't been given a toilet to flush?"
In 1866, the question came up of whether a President can pardon someone who hasn't been charged. The answer was yes. SCOTUS ruled then, and a couple times since then. If you were paying attention in history class, you might recall most Americans were unhappy when President Ford pardoned Nixon, who hadn't been charged with anything.
Here's a question SCOTUS has NOT yet ruled on.
Can a President pardon *himself*?
Most legal scholars say "yes, but Burdick v. United States would almost guarantee impeachment".
Under Burdick, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. If a President were to pardon himself, he would be admitting guilt. Based on this admission (and the ugliness of pardoning oneself), impeachment would follow.
How many times, over how many centuries, does the Supreme Court have to keep ruling on this before you recognize the stare decisis?
You say "arguably" - that was argued in 1865, and SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution means what it says. Most famously in the last fifty years, Ford pardoned Nixon, so the country could move forward from that mess - without an indictment or arrest.
> when an actual arrest has been made, it becomes increasingly difficult for a President ...
> acting before would likely create a Constitutional crisis of some sort.
So your argument is that "power to pardon any ..." means not before it goes to court, and not after?
The question *could* have caused a Constitutional crisis - in the 1800s, but it didn't. SCOTUS decided the question, as is their role, and that was that. A hundred years later most people thought the President SHOULDN'T pardon Nixon, but nobody made a serious claim that he COULDN'T.
US Constitution Article II, Section 2 states plainly that the President has pardon power for any offense with the sole exception being cases of impeachment.
Since at least Andrew Jackson in 1865, Presidents have use pardon prior to indictment to spare the country the turmoil of a controversial indictment and trial (in the case of a Confederate officer, for Jackson). The Supreme Court has upheld this repeatedly.
Imagine you seen a sign saying "no parking on Sundays 9AM-11AM". By law that implies that parking is allowed any other time. (exceptio probat regulam, in casibus non exceptis).
The Constitution is even more clear. It specifically says "all cases except impeachment". If it meant "all cases except impeachment and when AC doesn't like it", it would say that. It explicitly states the sole case in which the President does not have pardon power.
The defendant isn't being impeached, so clearly the President absolutely has an unquestionable Constitutional right to pardon her. Whether or not he SHOULD is an entirely different question. His legal power to do so is very clearly stated in the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.
Chrome hasn't done that for a long time.
There are still plugins available to have backspace go to the previous page, for those who want that.
Ask your dick. Your dick knows when you're watching porn.
TFS says:
--
roughly 30 million active accounts were consuming adult content, either re-sharing it or following the accounts of those producers
--
Do YOU "share" the porn YOU watch, or just watch it?
I'd definitely bet less than half the people checking out porn shared it or "followed" the pornster. Just browse the porn, do your thing, and move on. (But please wash your hands).
So about half of their users or more are there for porn.
That statement is incorrect for the proximity fobs too. That would kill the battery in the fob. Anyone such a fob can easily test it.
Go stand next to your car. You probably won't hear it unlock.
Touch the door handle. You'll hear it unlock.
What's going on is:
The handle has a capacitive sensor to detect your hand.
When your hand is on the handle, the car sends an *inductive pulse.
The fob has a coil in it, which works like a transformer to catch the pulse from the car.
Note this pulse is more like a transformer than a radio.
When the fob is triggered by the inductive pulse, it sends a radio packet to the car.
Regulation exists, but regulations around this topic are changed every two years.
Everything I've ever seen had Amazon talking about using quadcopters. I've never seen anything at all ever suggesting they were even thinking about using helicopters. Have you?
The hype is about using quads. The physics say that's not likely to work all that well. Not that very light packages (envelopes) would be impossible, as long as there isn't a breeze, but it doesn't scale.
The primary reason their plan won't work is physics. Amazon hasn't laid off all their Senators, so they could have the next round of regulation work for them if the physics made it practical.
"But on the 'World's Most Outrageous' TV show I saw ..."
Yeah yesterday I saw a Dum Dum's lollipop that was ten pounds. Not everything that is possible to do as as a ridiculous publicity stunt is practical to do for commercial deployment.
The *main* problem with quadcopters larger than about 300-500m across isn't regulation, it's math.
I have some and I enjoy flying them. I'm not anti-quad, I'm just pro-reality. To put simply, as the size of a quadcopter increases, the lift from the props is squared as the weight of the craft is cubed.
In other words, as the copter gets bigger, it's gets heavier a lot faster than the props gain lift. It very quickly can't lift itself, much less a package. Tiny quadcopters for flying around indoors are easy to build. A quadcopter 100 meters across is physically impossible, can't be done. In between are varying degrees of difficult to impossible.
Helicopters are a different story. Helicopters can and do have blades much longer than the width of the fuselage. You could do delivery with helicopters.
I just checked pricing for HBO. For just a one channel it's $15/month, plus you have to buy a service that offers HBO as an optional add-on. No thanks. Not for me.
I'd rather have a picture of Tide show up when I pause the video, rather than pay $15/month per channel.
> considering that it exists, and even seems to be a good idea. I suppose there's some downside I am unaware of? What is it?
It may be a good idea, or not. I'm reserving judgement on that and just saying it hasn't caught on. There are two issues I see immediately, obvious downsides. There may be more.
The first step for a targeted attack is surveillance, checking out the target environment and finding which systems one wants to compromise, what software they are running, which version, etc. Then the same for systems between the attacker and the valuable target - I might first compromise a firewall and a workstation in order to get to my real target, a database server.
At the security company I owned, we had one machine that existed solely to store credit card numbers and submit charges to the payment processor. That machine didn't run a public web server, which could be compromised. It didn't run our DNS or anything else, it *only* stored and submitted credit card numbers. Since the credit cards weren't being housed on the same server as any publicly accessible service, bad guys would have no way of knowing that machine even existed. Unless our CA published a publicly accessible log saying they issued a cert for cards.mycompany.com!
The CT log is an open list of sensitive systems, servers that people have decided need some security. A target list. That's certainly a downside.
Perhaps more importantly, it adds complexity. Complexity is the enemy of security. Bad guys love complex security protocols, because there is almost always a loophole, either in the spec or an implementation. An example is one of the worst TLS vulnerabilities ever, Apple's "goto fail". The code was effectively this:
if (hash-is-correct)
accept;
Seems simple, right? Only accept the cert if the hash is valid. The problem is that check was added before the check to see if the cert was valid for the name in use. The programmer accidentally accepted the cert if it had a valid hash - even if rhr cert was issued for cracker.com and then user is connecting to bank.com.
Every line of code you have is another opportunity for a vulnerability. I have over 100,000 vulnerabilities in my database. If you ask me to audit your program and give my stamp of approval saying it's not vulnerable, this will be my answer:
The only code that is known safe is code that doesn't exist.
We know you won't have any vulnerabilities in a feature if and only if you do not have that feature. If CT is widely adopted, that might be good or bad. If it's not widely adopted, support for it should be removed from all systems, because it's currently just one more place to have a bug.
I just pulled a tissue from my box of generic tissues and found it was made up of three layers. Carefully peeling off one layer and trying to breathe through it, I was surprised it didn't restrict airflow as much as I expected. Paper tissues were originally made to be filters in chemical weapons masks, so that just might work. I wonder if it would break down over time and become particles that get sucked into the case.
Manufacturers typically use a thin sheet of open cell foam. I don't have any specific brand. I'm sure Amazon sells them cheap.
Another thought about filtration - it depends on the particle size you're trying to filter out. A piece of window screen will block pet hair. To filter out cigarette smoke requires a filter with far smaller holes, because smoke has very small particles.