FYI, the data you love masturbating to is 15 years out date. That's fine, though, I see that you are a superfan for team D, so facts don't matter.
I understand because I'm kinda the same way - I still have a John Elway jersey. I didn't publicly say "the Broncos are the best because in the Redskins game John Elway rushed for...". I'd look silly citing a stat that old.
It's cool though, enjoy rooting for the team you picked.
A. Your state decides what is needed in your state. State taxpayers approve it via whatever mechanisms your state has. Taxpayers pay the cost for it.
B. Kamala Harris and the rest of the Washington politicians decide what your state needs. Washington politicians approve taxing you. Taxpayers send their money to Washington. Washington sends part of it back to your state. Tax payers pay the actual cost of program, plus the bureacracy cost of sending it back and forth, plus Washington's cut.
It's pretty plain why Kamala Harris wants to send your money through Washington and keep a portion of it. Why YOU would agree with that I have no idea. Unless you're just a superfan of politicians that play for team D. Superfans do non-sensical things.
On a more serious note, Texas is 800 miles North to South, so you can live where it stays warm or in a cooler climate. Texans live on the coast, and 600 miles from the coast.
The Texas panhandle to Brownsville is as far as Death Valley to Oregon, with nearly as much difference in weather.
-- 25 years ago they didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world --
She SAID it's because they didn't exist 25 years ago (not part of the good old boys club that finances her) and they've been very successful.
I understand you wish she had said something different, something you could agree with. She didn't say something different, she said exactly what she said. If you don't like what she said, if you don't agree with what she said, the that's cool - you don't agree with her.
Maybe you WANT to agree with her, so you WANT for her to have said something that isn't stupid. She said what she said
Apple doesn't fit her reasoning. Look at what her reasoning is for why government (her) needs more power:
--- 25 years ago they didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world.... That highlights why the government must break up... ---
She's saying they must destroy "new* companies that have done well. Apple isn't new.
I'm not sure she read what she wrote before sending it in, though. The fact that upstarts can compete and become major players, like Amazon beat both Walmart and IBM/Dell/HP is why government has to break up established companies, she says. Because Amazon wouldn't have stood a chance if the government hadn't knocked Walmart down? Amazon couldn't have competed in data center computing if the government hadn't gotten rid of HP? Google couldn't have done anything with search, had the government not broken up Yahoo?
The lists off a bunch of companies that beat out the established big players, by being BETTER, not by having the government break up the existing successful companies. Then says those are examples of why the government needs to break up successful companies. Those are actually examples of why the government doesn't NOT need to meddle with things. All of the companies ahe listed beat out much larger companies, by simply offering something customers prefer, by being better.
Even though I normally use a debit card rather than cash for anything over $10, I absolutely agree with you on the power of cash.
Day to day decisions about spending are as much emotional as mathematical, and cash has emotional connections that can often subconsciously help us be more wise with our money. I switch to cash for a month a few times per year. I teach my daughter about money by putting hers, as cash, in a clear plastic cup where it's visible - it's not hidden behind a card.
I'm also super ADD and remembering to get cash, the right amount, all the time adds cognitive load that doesn't work well for my weird brain. I could stuff my wallet with a month's worth of cash at the beginning of every month, but I misplace my wallet far too often.
I'm the type of guy whom everyone in the office comes to for help because I'm "so smart", yet I forgot to wear a shirt to the office. Walked in my office, took off my coat, and "oh shit". No shirt. For *me* a debit card normally works better. I suggest people try cash, based on a budget, though. It works very well for a lot of people.
> you will find there is a correlation between being poor, having bad credit, and also making bad financial decisions (of which having bad credit is a sub-set). Not saying it is causal
I'll say it's causal. Given that the definition of "making bad financial decisions" is pretty much "doing things that cause poor financial conditions, that's causation by definition. Making bad financial decisions causes poor financial situations.
Remember most millionaires in the US never made $100K in a year, they became millionaires by deciding to save rather than spending the entire paycheck today. Decisions. Based on culture, values, and education.
As you mentioned, credit score is a measurement of certain types of financial decisions. Specifically the "buying things using other people's savings, instead of saving like a grown-up" variety.
To make this totally clear, you can make six figures and be turned down for a checking account because you bounced checks. I know because I've done that.
You can flip burgers for a living and have two checking accounts. I know because I've done that.
It's not a rich or poor thing, it's a "don't write checks for more than what's in the bank" thing
To be specific, it's bouncing a lot of checks that will make it difficult to get a checking account. A company called ChexSystems tracks that. It not related to your credit score, which is about borrowing money
I'm at the grocery store right now. I've heard comments about "cracking down", and there are anonymous prepaid Visa cards for sale right here in the grocery store.
That said, it's factually incorrect, and in my opinion silly, to pretend the only options are carrying cash or borrowing from Capital One. Maybe it's a symptom of our debtor society and lack of basic education about money that when some people think of a card, it doesn't occur to them there is any card but a credit card.
Many of us store our money in the bank or credit union, which is free, then use our debit card to spend our money. In fact that's how most people whose financial picture is improving do it. If you're using a credit card for everything, you're likey going deeper and deeper into debt. If you haven't bothered to get a checking at savings account at your local credit union, your money management probably hasn't improved all that much since you were getting an allowance.
A debit card, spending your money which is stored in your local credit union or bank, is absolutely an option. It's even the option most people use who aren't spending more than they make, going into debt.
Most Republicans see Pllanned Parenthood in one of two ways:
A. They are in the business of murdering babies. B. It's not quite the same as murdering babies, let me see if I can explain the difference...
If your perspective is A, Planned Parenthood is literally similar to the Nazis, and you definitely want to put a stop to it.
If your perspective is B, "not technically murdering babies, there is a subtle difference" also sounds like a pretty horrible thing!
That's what I find interesting. Some people think using a straw should be a crime, while "not *exactly* killing babies for profit" is perfectly fine. How can one be in love with government enough to think outlawing a large soda is a good idea, but when it comes to "it's slightly different from murdering babies", suddenly they are all about freedom?
I also immediately thought of Solyndra and similar green slush fund companies. Of course, Solyndra never sold a product, and nobody ever tried to stop them, so you can't really say anyone killed Solyndra other than their own leadership. I don't know if they actually INTENDED to eventually sell a product, or to just keep taking tax money while repeatedly announcing plans to make solar panels "real soon now". Republicans sure had fun with Obama getting auckered into that, though.
They took the standard Kickstarter vaporware hype scam up to 11 and Obama went all in. Of course, Kaiser had given Obama almost $100,000 at that point, so I guess Oabma owed him a press conference.
We can have fast CPUs with speculation execution and all of that, and all of the same security for private keys you'd get with a simple, slow CPU.
An Intel Core i9 is good for transcoding video and cost $500. An Intel 8051 is secure for handling encryption keys and cost $1. If you can afford the $500 Core i9, you can afford to add the equivalent of an 8051 for the most security sensitive stuff like generating and handling encryption keys.
That's what chips like the DS5250 are for. They don't have speculative execution or any of that fancy stuff. A Core i9 has billions of transistors. Lots and lots of places for things to leak. Some of the smaller, much simpler CPUs have a few thousand transistors. That's a lot less attack surface. No reason not to have both. The DS5250 is designed for security and it costs about a buck.
That's a good question. There are several reasons, some of which are unique to international relations and some of which apply to any negotiation, and you can use yourself.
In high-profile political relations, one thing very important to the leaders is to look like they won. In many cultures, they want to look "tough". They don't want the appearance of giving in. In fact, for their career it's often better to not make a deal at all than to look like they gave in. For their countries, making a deal is normally better. Looking tough is a low priority. There are things that are important talking points to the leader's political base, and there are things that actually matter. So there is a difference between what the leaders want to show on Twitter and what is actually good in the political relationship.
It's not unusual for staff to exchange appearance, words, for concrete things. "He doesn't mind giving you most of what you want, if you give us these things, but he needs you to publicly be hesitant, act like he drove a hard bargain." So one leader gives up the political points of bragging, acting like he won, in exchange for getting what his country wants. Timing matters. "He has to stay tough for now because we're also negotiating with Iran. After the Iran negotiation is over, he can take a softer position".
At work we're in negotiations with a supplier. The supplier starting out saying they want to raise the price they charge us by 400%. They think we are dependent on them. It wouldn't have hurt if one of our engineers bumped into one of their engineers at a conference and mentioned that we're testing open source replacements and there is no way our boss is going to agree to anything like 400%. Also an increase more than 35% requires a ton of paperwork on our side to get it approved. Our guy could quietly hint to them that our boss would probably do 35%, but 36% would be a much harder sell. That's kinda what happened, though not exactly.
Managers get a certain budget approved for raises every year. They can then apportion those raises among their people. Before you ask for a raise, do you think it would be helpful to know if your manager has a big pool available this year, or a small pool? A back channel can tell you, so you start the direct negotiation with the manager from a workable starting point. I learned that this year my manager didn't get his usual bonus because thr company is trying to cut payroll expenses for a year. Do you think that's useful information if I'm thinking about asking him to get me a lot more money?
I'd say more about that last point, but it's NEXT week that I have a meeting planned with my manager and someone at work reads Slashdot. Let's just say that my plans are affected by back channel info about what he can and can't agree to.
> Why would Trump associates continue pursuing a back channel nine days before the inauguration?
See for example the Cuban missile crisis. Which would have been the nuclear war, had it not been for back channels facilitating a peaceful resolution by letting leaders on each side know what the other one would accept and not accept via official communications.
You copy-pasted a lot of stuff about "December 1" and "days before the inauguration". That's when Trump was the president-elect. When he was about to take control of the nuclear football (the big button). It would be extraordinarily reckless for him to NOT start opening lines of communication at that point. Like end-of-world reckless. A US president damn well better have a way to get a message to someone to who can whisper in Putin's ear, and vice-versa.
A) Ajit Pai's position is that it's up to Congress, not him, to make law. That was his big issue with it.
B) I sure hope this passes because those 13 months when network neutrality was in effect were SO awesome! We never would have gotten rid of AOL and Prodigy if the FCC commissioners hadn't enacted network neutrality 20 years after they were gone.
I live in Dallas, in a $3,500 square foot house that costs less than $2,000 / month.
As far as jobs go, there are a lot of big companies here. A lot of aerospace, technology, financial services... I'm not in management, I'm a techie, and earn well into six figures.
Of course, here in Dallas they build based on need. When prices went up for a few years 2014-2018, they built like crazy, which kept prices under control. You don't have local and state government saying nobody is allowed to build any housing.
We put several authentication options in the HTTP spec back in the 1990s. Some pretty secure, one was specifically marked as not secure. It was intended to be used the same way you'd use the latch on a bathroom stall. Of the three standards, the only one anyone ever used was trivial one, basic authentication. After that most people started coding their own really bad authentication schemes, often based on PHP sessions.
Then came SAML. A lot of larger companies used SAML, for handing off users after they were originally authenticated by crap homemade authentication.
Now we have an effort by the major companies to standardize on actually using a non-crap (but not perfect) protocol. There are plenty of other decent protocols you can use, but virtually nobody uses them. The problem isn't a lack of decent protocols. The problem is that nobody uses the decent protocols, either because they don't know about them or they think that it'll be easier to come up with some homemade crap. We'll see if this effort gets people actually using a non-crap design.
It seems to be you are saying he sometimes "predicts" *current* events. That's funny.
I have noticed that a great many people predict the past, and their prediction are wrong. Often we see people making arguments about why they think socialism would work just great, for example. Obviously, either these people have never seen a history book (or newspaper), or alternatively they are too stoned to put two and two together.
We often see people try to predict that unconstitutional, or nearly unconstitutional, gun laws would work out just great. Gun laws like the ones they've had in Washington DC, Chicago, etc for many years. Guess what? We know what happens when you pass Chicago-style gun laws. You end up with Chicago-style crime. The UK banned handguns, as soon as all law-abiding citizens were guaranteed to be defenseless, violent crime doubled. Rapes increased over 50% - immediately. There is no need to predict this stuff, to guess - it's the past.
Someone who was very careful about what they say and do, someone concerned about risk, would not have built SpaceX and Tesla into what they are, in such a short time. Musk is not a careful person, he's a daredevil.
> Every other car company seems to be more responsible than Tesla
Every other car company sells MILLIONS of cars. They want to protect their highly successful companies. Tesla sells THOUSANDS of cars and wants to sell millions. Tesla want to increase their sales a thousandfold, and they won't do that by be being careful.
Musk doesn't mind taking risks, and often doesn't even speak time thinking about the risks before he does or says something. That's part of his success and will probably be his downfall, unless he hands control of the companies over to more careful people, as they transition from "trying to become a major car company" to "is a major car company".
The submitter seems to have some misunderstanding about how law works. "Very likely illegal"? What law would be violated? The submitter doesn't seem to quite understand that laws are written down, and given numbers for easy reference. For example, web sites must comply with US Code 2257. Unless the submitter can point to USC [number], they have a *feeling*, not a law.
I used to work as a private investigator and I did follow people. I had to be very diligent about documenting what I saw, because a PI is not supposed to tell the client or court what they *think*, only exactly what they *saw*. As a PI, I couldn't say "he's boning his secretary". I had to say "at 6:35 PM the subject entered hotel room #123 with a blonde woman of medium height. Both parties left the hotel room at 7:40". I can't speculate about what they did in the hotel room (could be discussing his campaign for governor of Arkansas), so I have to be specific about what I saw to allow others to decide how to interpret the facts.
I'm going to guess that when you saw the term "safe harbor" you thought of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, or some other law you are familiar with. Many laws have safe harbor provisions - including GDPR.
GDPR Article 47 states that companies outside the EEA that adopt "binding corporate rules" for data protection are exempt from GDPR Article 45, if their adoption is "approved by a competent supervisory authority".
Such "binding corporate rules" was first laid down in the EU-US Safe Harbour Principles (2000-2015), which was later renamed (with minor changes) as the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework (2016).
In a word, no. There could be some concerns in some cases, but generally not an issue.
The Cloud Act relates to what a warrant or subpeona may reach, and doesn't change anything - it just affirms what existing law, stating explicitly what had been implicit.
It says that the pre-existing power of US courts to order US companies to turn over data material to a case cannot be thwarted by the US company stashing the bits on disks which are physically overseas. That was already a bit of a "duh, no shit" to anyone who has studied law, but Congress saw fit to state it explicitly.
GDPR doesn't say you can't comply with a subpoena or warrant. It explicitly says you can comply. So no problem, there, no conflict between Cloud Act and GDPR, generally.
The one wrinkle is that GDPR says when you send data to another country, one of two things needs to be in place
A mutual legal assistance agreement Or The other country has approved privacy law
The US has both. A new data privacy safe harbor agreement with the US was approved by the EU in 2016, after the previous one was found lacking. We also have a Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (MLAA).
There could be cases, however, in which a subpoena is issued which doesn't comply with the MLAA. Then one could argue complying with that particular subpeona could violate GDPR. Except we ALSO have the 2016 safe harbor agreement, so the MLAA isn't actually necessary anyway.
So in rare cases you could argue that there might be a conflict, but you'd probably lose that argument.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, the data you love masturbating to is 15 years out date. That's fine, though, I see that you are a superfan for team D, so facts don't matter.
I understand because I'm kinda the same way - I still have a John Elway jersey. I didn't publicly say "the Broncos are the best because in the Redskins game John Elway rushed for ...". I'd look silly citing a stat that old.
It's cool though, enjoy rooting for the team you picked.
Two options when states need to do something:
A. Your state decides what is needed in your state. State taxpayers approve it via whatever mechanisms your state has. Taxpayers pay the cost for it.
B. Kamala Harris and the rest of the Washington politicians decide what your state needs. Washington politicians approve taxing you. Taxpayers send their money to Washington. Washington sends part of it back to your state. Tax payers pay the actual cost of program, plus the bureacracy cost of sending it back and forth, plus Washington's cut.
It's pretty plain why Kamala Harris wants to send your money through Washington and keep a portion of it. Why YOU would agree with that I have no idea. Unless you're just a superfan of politicians that play for team D. Superfans do non-sensical things.
Haha that's funny.
On a more serious note, Texas is 800 miles North to South, so you can live where it stays warm or in a cooler climate. Texans live on the coast, and 600 miles from the coast.
The Texas panhandle to Brownsville is as far as Death Valley to Oregon, with nearly as much difference in weather.
This is what she said:
--
25 years ago they didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world
--
She SAID it's because they didn't exist 25 years ago (not part of the good old boys club that finances her) and they've been very successful.
I understand you wish she had said something different, something you could agree with. She didn't say something different, she said exactly what she said. If you don't like what she said, if you don't agree with what she said, the that's cool - you don't agree with her.
Maybe you WANT to agree with her, so you WANT for her to have said something that isn't stupid. She said what she said
Apple doesn't fit her reasoning. Look at what her reasoning is for why government (her) needs more power:
--- ...
25 years ago they didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world.... That highlights why the government must break up
---
She's saying they must destroy "new* companies that have done well. Apple isn't new.
I'm not sure she read what she wrote before sending it in, though. The fact that upstarts can compete and become major players, like Amazon beat both Walmart and IBM/Dell/HP is why government has to break up established companies, she says. Because Amazon wouldn't have stood a chance if the government hadn't knocked Walmart down? Amazon couldn't have competed in data center computing if the government hadn't gotten rid of HP? Google couldn't have done anything with search, had the government not broken up Yahoo?
The lists off a bunch of companies that beat out the established big players, by being BETTER, not by having the government break up the existing successful companies. Then says those are examples of why the government needs to break up successful companies. Those are actually examples of why the government doesn't NOT need to meddle with things. All of the companies ahe listed beat out much larger companies, by simply offering something customers prefer, by being better.
Even though I normally use a debit card rather than cash for anything over $10, I absolutely agree with you on the power of cash.
Day to day decisions about spending are as much emotional as mathematical, and cash has emotional connections that can often subconsciously help us be more wise with our money. I switch to cash for a month a few times per year. I teach my daughter about money by putting hers, as cash, in a clear plastic cup where it's visible - it's not hidden behind a card.
I'm also super ADD and remembering to get cash, the right amount, all the time adds cognitive load that doesn't work well for my weird brain. I could stuff my wallet with a month's worth of cash at the beginning of every month, but I misplace my wallet far too often.
I'm the type of guy whom everyone in the office comes to for help because I'm "so smart", yet I forgot to wear a shirt to the office. Walked in my office, took off my coat, and "oh shit". No shirt. For *me* a debit card normally works better. I suggest people try cash, based on a budget, though. It works very well for a lot of people.
> you will find there is a correlation between being poor, having bad credit, and also making bad financial decisions (of which having bad credit is a sub-set). Not saying it is causal
I'll say it's causal. Given that the definition of "making bad financial decisions" is pretty much "doing things that cause poor financial conditions, that's causation by definition. Making bad financial decisions causes poor financial situations.
Remember most millionaires in the US never made $100K in a year, they became millionaires by deciding to save rather than spending the entire paycheck today. Decisions. Based on culture, values, and education.
As you mentioned, credit score is a measurement of certain types of financial decisions. Specifically the "buying things using other people's savings, instead of saving like a grown-up" variety.
To make this totally clear, you can make six figures and be turned down for a checking account because you bounced checks. I know because I've done that.
You can flip burgers for a living and have two checking accounts. I know because I've done that.
It's not a rich or poor thing, it's a "don't write checks for more than what's in the bank" thing
To be specific, it's bouncing a lot of checks that will make it difficult to get a checking account. A company called ChexSystems tracks that. It not related to your credit score, which is about borrowing money
I'm at the grocery store right now. I've heard comments about "cracking down", and there are anonymous prepaid Visa cards for sale right here in the grocery store.
I'm fine with the law. Doesn't bother me.
That said, it's factually incorrect, and in my opinion silly, to pretend the only options are carrying cash or borrowing from Capital One. Maybe it's a symptom of our debtor society and lack of basic education about money that when some people think of a card, it doesn't occur to them there is any card but a credit card.
Many of us store our money in the bank or credit union, which is free, then use our debit card to spend our money. In fact that's how most people whose financial picture is improving do it. If you're using a credit card for everything, you're likey going deeper and deeper into debt. If you haven't bothered to get a checking at savings account at your local credit union, your money management probably hasn't improved all that much since you were getting an allowance.
A debit card, spending your money which is stored in your local credit union or bank, is absolutely an option. It's even the option most people use who aren't spending more than they make, going into debt.
That's for sure.
Most Republicans see Pllanned Parenthood in one of two ways:
A. They are in the business of murdering babies. ...
B. It's not quite the same as murdering babies, let me see if I can explain the difference
If your perspective is A, Planned Parenthood is literally similar to the Nazis, and you definitely want to put a stop to it.
If your perspective is B, "not technically murdering babies, there is a subtle difference" also sounds like a pretty horrible thing!
That's what I find interesting. Some people think using a straw should be a crime, while "not *exactly* killing babies for profit" is perfectly fine. How can one be in love with government enough to think outlawing a large soda is a good idea, but when it comes to "it's slightly different from murdering babies", suddenly they are all about freedom?
I also immediately thought of Solyndra and similar green slush fund companies. Of course, Solyndra never sold a product, and nobody ever tried to stop them, so you can't really say anyone killed Solyndra other than their own leadership. I don't know if they actually INTENDED to eventually sell a product, or to just keep taking tax money while repeatedly announcing plans to make solar panels "real soon now". Republicans sure had fun with Obama getting auckered into that, though.
They took the standard Kickstarter vaporware hype scam up to 11 and Obama went all in. Of course, Kaiser had given Obama almost $100,000 at that point, so I guess Oabma owed him a press conference.
We can have fast CPUs with speculation execution and all of that, and all of the same security for private keys you'd get with a simple, slow CPU.
An Intel Core i9 is good for transcoding video and cost $500.
An Intel 8051 is secure for handling encryption keys and cost $1.
If you can afford the $500 Core i9, you can afford to add the equivalent of an 8051 for the most security sensitive stuff like generating and handling encryption keys.
That's what chips like the DS5250 are for. They don't have speculative execution or any of that fancy stuff. A Core i9 has billions of transistors. Lots and lots of places for things to leak. Some of the smaller, much simpler CPUs have a few thousand transistors. That's a lot less attack surface. No reason not to have both. The DS5250 is designed for security and it costs about a buck.
That's a good question. There are several reasons, some of which are unique to international relations and some of which apply to any negotiation, and you can use yourself.
In high-profile political relations, one thing very important to the leaders is to look like they won. In many cultures, they want to look "tough". They don't want the appearance of giving in. In fact, for their career it's often better to not make a deal at all than to look like they gave in. For their countries, making a deal is normally better. Looking tough is a low priority. There are things that are important talking points to the leader's political base, and there are things that actually matter. So there is a difference between what the leaders want to show on Twitter and what is actually good in the political relationship.
It's not unusual for staff to exchange appearance, words, for concrete things. "He doesn't mind giving you most of what you want, if you give us these things, but he needs you to publicly be hesitant, act like he drove a hard bargain." So one leader gives up the political points of bragging, acting like he won, in exchange for getting what his country wants. Timing matters. "He has to stay tough for now because we're also negotiating with Iran. After the Iran negotiation is over, he can take a softer position".
At work we're in negotiations with a supplier. The supplier starting out saying they want to raise the price they charge us by 400%. They think we are dependent on them. It wouldn't have hurt if one of our engineers bumped into one of their engineers at a conference and mentioned that we're testing open source replacements and there is no way our boss is going to agree to anything like 400%. Also an increase more than 35% requires a ton of paperwork on our side to get it approved. Our guy could quietly hint to them that our boss would probably do 35%, but 36% would be a much harder sell. That's kinda what happened, though not exactly.
Managers get a certain budget approved for raises every year. They can then apportion those raises among their people. Before you ask for a raise, do you think it would be helpful to know if your manager has a big pool available this year, or a small pool? A back channel can tell you, so you start the direct negotiation with the manager from a workable starting point. I learned that this year my manager didn't get his usual bonus because thr company is trying to cut payroll expenses for a year. Do you think that's useful information if I'm thinking about asking him to get me a lot more money?
I'd say more about that last point, but it's NEXT week that I have a meeting planned with my manager and someone at work reads Slashdot. Let's just say that my plans are affected by back channel info about what he can and can't agree to.
> Why would Trump associates continue pursuing a back channel nine days before the inauguration?
See for example the Cuban missile crisis. Which would have been the nuclear war, had it not been for back channels facilitating a peaceful resolution by letting leaders on each side know what the other one would accept and not accept via official communications.
You copy-pasted a lot of stuff about "December 1" and "days before the inauguration". That's when Trump was the president-elect. When he was about to take control of the nuclear football (the big button). It would be extraordinarily reckless for him to NOT start opening lines of communication at that point. Like end-of-world reckless. A US president damn well better have a way to get a message to someone to who can whisper in Putin's ear, and vice-versa.
A) Ajit Pai's position is that it's up to Congress, not him, to make law. That was his big issue with it.
B) I sure hope this passes because those 13 months when network neutrality was in effect were SO awesome! We never would have gotten rid of AOL and Prodigy if the FCC commissioners hadn't enacted network neutrality 20 years after they were gone.
A couple of people poked fun at my stray dollar sign.
Yours was the funniest, imho.
I live in Dallas, in a $3,500 square foot house that costs less than $2,000 / month.
As far as jobs go, there are a lot of big companies here. A lot of aerospace, technology, financial services ...
I'm not in management, I'm a techie, and earn well into six figures.
Of course, here in Dallas they build based on need. When prices went up for a few years 2014-2018, they built like crazy, which kept prices under control. You don't have local and state government saying nobody is allowed to build any housing.
We put several authentication options in the HTTP spec back in the 1990s. Some pretty secure, one was specifically marked as not secure. It was intended to be used the same way you'd use the latch on a bathroom stall. Of the three standards, the only one anyone ever used was trivial one, basic authentication. After that most people started coding their own really bad authentication schemes, often based on PHP sessions.
Then came SAML. A lot of larger companies used SAML, for handing off users after they were originally authenticated by crap homemade authentication.
Now we have an effort by the major companies to standardize on actually using a non-crap (but not perfect) protocol. There are plenty of other decent protocols you can use, but virtually nobody uses them. The problem isn't a lack of decent protocols. The problem is that nobody uses the decent protocols, either because they don't know about them or they think that it'll be easier to come up with some homemade crap. We'll see if this effort gets people actually using a non-crap design.
It seems to be you are saying he sometimes "predicts" *current* events. That's funny.
I have noticed that a great many people predict the past, and their prediction are wrong. Often we see people making arguments about why they think socialism would work just great, for example. Obviously, either these people have never seen a history book (or newspaper), or alternatively they are too stoned to put two and two together.
We often see people try to predict that unconstitutional, or nearly unconstitutional, gun laws would work out just great. Gun laws like the ones they've had in Washington DC, Chicago, etc for many years. Guess what? We know what happens when you pass Chicago-style gun laws. You end up with Chicago-style crime. The UK banned handguns, as soon as all law-abiding citizens were guaranteed to be defenseless, violent crime doubled. Rapes increased over 50% - immediately. There is no need to predict this stuff, to guess - it's the past.
It was ended in 2015, then re-done in 2016.
It's possible something happened in the last few weeks that I'm unaware of.
Someone who was very careful about what they say and do, someone concerned about risk, would not have built SpaceX and Tesla into what they are, in such a short time. Musk is not a careful person, he's a daredevil.
> Every other car company seems to be more responsible than Tesla
Every other car company sells MILLIONS of cars. They want to protect their highly successful companies. Tesla sells THOUSANDS of cars and wants to sell millions. Tesla want to increase their sales a thousandfold, and they won't do that by be being careful.
Musk doesn't mind taking risks, and often doesn't even speak time thinking about the risks before he does or says something. That's part of his success and will probably be his downfall, unless he hands control of the companies over to more careful people, as they transition from "trying to become a major car company" to "is a major car company".
The submitter seems to have some misunderstanding about how law works. "Very likely illegal"? What law would be violated? The submitter doesn't seem to quite understand that laws are written down, and given numbers for easy reference. For example, web sites must comply with US Code 2257. Unless the submitter can point to USC [number], they have a *feeling*, not a law.
I used to work as a private investigator and I did follow people. I had to be very diligent about documenting what I saw, because a PI is not supposed to tell the client or court what they *think*, only exactly what they *saw*. As a PI, I couldn't say "he's boning his secretary". I had to say "at 6:35 PM the subject entered hotel room #123 with a blonde woman of medium height. Both parties left the hotel room at 7:40". I can't speculate about what they did in the hotel room (could be discussing his campaign for governor of Arkansas), so I have to be specific about what I saw to allow others to decide how to interpret the facts.
I'm going to guess that when you saw the term "safe harbor" you thought of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, or some other law you are familiar with. Many laws have safe harbor provisions - including GDPR.
GDPR Article 47 states that companies outside the EEA that adopt "binding corporate rules" for data protection are exempt from GDPR Article 45, if their adoption is "approved by a competent supervisory authority".
Such "binding corporate rules" was first laid down in the EU-US Safe Harbour Principles (2000-2015), which was later renamed (with minor changes) as the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework (2016).
In a word, no. There could be some concerns in some cases, but generally not an issue.
The Cloud Act relates to what a warrant or subpeona may reach, and doesn't change anything - it just affirms what existing law, stating explicitly what had been implicit.
It says that the pre-existing power of US courts to order US companies to turn over data material to a case cannot be thwarted by the US company stashing the bits on disks which are physically overseas. That was already a bit of a "duh, no shit" to anyone who has studied law, but Congress saw fit to state it explicitly.
GDPR doesn't say you can't comply with a subpoena or warrant. It explicitly says you can comply. So no problem, there, no conflict between Cloud Act and GDPR, generally.
The one wrinkle is that GDPR says when you send data to another country, one of two things needs to be in place
A mutual legal assistance agreement
Or
The other country has approved privacy law
The US has both. A new data privacy safe harbor agreement with the US was approved by the EU in 2016, after the previous one was found lacking. We also have a Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (MLAA).
There could be cases, however, in which a subpoena is issued which doesn't comply with the MLAA. Then one could argue complying with that particular subpeona could violate GDPR. Except we ALSO have the 2016 safe harbor agreement, so the MLAA isn't actually necessary anyway.
So in rare cases you could argue that there might be a conflict, but you'd probably lose that argument.