It this were FOIA, I'd defend you. But no, it's not. It's about Jeb releasing mails to Jeb.
"Mails to Jeb released in response to FOIA" is a FUCKTON different from "Jeb releases everything for apparently no real reason."
FOIA has a protocol to classify or hide information as appropriate. Jeb does not have such a protocol.
Your idiotic post said that Jeb = FOIA, and you should be kicked in the gender-specific gonads or, lacking those, appropriately burned in strategic places for suggesting such.
FOIA is a risk that people who communicate with their elected, or otherwise, official, take. Jeb deciding to repeat everything, verbatim, available to spammers and citizen vigilantes, without any relevant FOIA request, is a completely different thing. It's a completely different fucking ballpark.
"Aint no f*ckin' ballpark neither. Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touchin' his wife's feet and stickin your tongue in the holiest of holies aint the same f*ckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same f*ckin' sport. Look, foot massages don't mean shit."
It was promised as an anonymous, unbreakable, encryption-based currency. And for a while, it was exactly that.
I'm old enough to remember Flooz commercials. Turn money into e-Money, and it's transferable and spendable in bits.
Let's take PayPal as an example. Lots of people accept and spend PayPal money, without ever cashing out as dollars. I know you can argue otherwise, but at its most basic, it is the same thing.
Unless you consider that this particular exchange was particularly suspicious, given signals from previous exchanges which were reputable and still failed. This paragraph is subjective.
Put a middleman in between my BTC and someone else's? Good idea. Put a reputable middleman there? Better idea. Replace middleman with PayPal? Let's go back a bit.
Remember when people could not get money out of PayPal? When accounts could be frozen and your only recourse was to whine like a bitch on the precursors to Consumerist and blogs in general?
If not, you're not old enough. It didn't work well at first for a minority, a large minority, but it is stable and owned by a big responsible entity now.
In summary, the same mindset that brought success to PayPal also brought success to these charlatans. Charlatans were assisted by the intrusions into privacy.
Should they? No. Does anyone now? Fewer. But there's a sucker born any minute. And privacy intrusion contributes more to the ignorant's readiness to risk than any blog post or business plan possibly could.
Is this Bennett Hasselton's alt? Because when I think "shut down slashdot because of one user" I naturally leap to a conclusion.
If not, sorry weedman for accusing you of supernatural ignorance. Seriously, I apologise mary jane sir for suggesting super-universal dorkmanitude, if it is not appropriate.
If I am right, however, I will gladly mail you a rusty rake with which to fuck yourself sideways.
Again, if it is my error, keifbrother, I humbly genuflect and beg forgiveness.
His stance was consistent with his position - that the government should not regulate what the free market can and should take care of.
I'm not defending it.
I'm saying that he has an ideology, and he is consistent.
More importantly, people who agree with him, and later find out just how consistent he is, learn more about themselves than about him.
Abolish the EPA, let black people, or white people, into your business, or not, cause an economic crisis, ignore all manner of shit, and it's all consistent with his platform. I believe he would have supported Hitler right up until the government mandated what color skin and/or eyes the people should have.
It's only troubling if you don't understand him. If you do understand him, then everything about him should be troubling, and the whole segregation thing is par for the course.
I'm full-on libertarian until it makes no sense any more, and he crossed that line a long time ago. Right to kill a dude? Too libertarian for me. Discriminate? Too far. Drop mercury in as fish bait? Too far. Understand where the person stands, and whether you can deal with it. Frequently, the sound bites sound better than the planks.
First, browser developers are in charge of browser behavior, not a protocol. RFC may say "should", or "must", but browser implementers don't have to do that.
There is a need for this, but your question is whether the standard requests, or requires, the feature. Your other, unasked question, is whether any development team has committed to respect the "required" or "must" statement from the RFC.
I can only hope that the search warrant specifies all machines by IP address, or some other technical error so that all those 100 hostnames that point to the same address have their servers confiscated.
And I can also only hope that some LEO isn't communicating with another LEO, and it really was a honeypot that got everyone's servers hosed.
Rich tech people will throw piles of money and strange things will happen. I so hope this happens. Also, you're an idiot if you so much as click on that site.
It is difficult to put yourself in another person's shoes - to put aside your beliefs and look at the world from a different perspective.
It is even more challenging to update this constantly with each new person you see. And still more challenging to go through your life while staying mindful of others.
Normal people only think of the "now" self, and find it easy to make the future self do all the hard work, losing the mindfulness of even your own self.
Thinking about accessibility, or how someone else might not agree with your user interface choice, and especially how someone less fortunate might be happy to have your problems is extremely difficult.
Observing someone can temporarily grant you empathy, but not insight. For insight, you need both experience and mindfulness. Experience everything twice - as yourself, and as someone else. This is good advice in every situation, but very difficult.
But that's push polling. They asked a very neutral question to find out a real answer. That's more valuable. Even more valuable is maintaining a reputation of being a reliable source of numbers. Fucking that up means no one cares about your results.
You are free to conduct your own fake study where your real intent is to bias people, if that's your goal. But that was not the goal here.
Turn off your computer and go play in the dirt, and think about what you've done.
Is your overall opinion of [INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE ITEMS a. THROUGH b. FOLLOWED BY RANDOMIZED ITEMS c. THROUGH j.; OBSERVE FORM SPLITS] very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly UNfavorable, or very unfavorable? [INTERVIEWERS: PROBE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN âoeNEVER HEARD OFâ AND âoeCANâ(TM)T RATE.â] How about [NEXT ITEM]? [IF NECESSARY: Just in general, is your overall opinion of [ITEM] very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly UNfavorable, or very unfavorable?] [INTERVIEWERS: PROBE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN âoeNEVER HEARD OFâ AND âoeCANâ(TM)T RATE.â] (VOL.) (VOL.)
They specifically not only reported on the "never heard of" part, and tried to differentiate between that and "I really couldn't say".
How you can be moderated as insightful is simply astonishing, considering that you will probably never consider any fact that doesn't already fit into your established worldview. I would have accepted "ignorant", "mindless", or "automaton". But insightful? No. You do not deserve the internet.
Can yo point to anything at all to support this assertion? Because I'm saying it won't happen like you expect, and I point to all the money given to ISPs to subsidize building out infrastructure, that apparently just disappeared.
They won't reduce prices without either competition, or a law. And they will beg for more subsidies to do a half added job at meeting the absolute minimum. More expensive, especially since you pay a second time in taxes that go into the subsidies.
How frequently does your scenario happen? That's the sticking point here, coming up with realistic use cases. I'm more concerned with covering most people with the current definition.
Apparently you didn't read it at all. It was a bug in the application, not a compatibility issue. DOS did not advertise the use-after-free scenario as working, it just happened not to crash.
Do you define dis-allowing "use after free" to be breaking backwards compatibility? Because I don't think it should be allowed at all, and they inserted a whitelist to make sure new applications would not rely on the behavior.
This is a single example out of many, many, many special cases Microsoft implemented in order to keep things working. "Not break userspace", as I understand it, would apply both to API behavior, and not crashing a previously working application. The assumption is, however, that if you rely on undefined behavior, it's not the kernel team's responsibility to fix.
I really hope your post was just sarcasm that I did not detect, and not willful ignorance.
Ah the standard marginalization technique where you completely, often intentionally, misunderstand something to get your point across. Exactly like "I'm not going to play Fallout because you're just wandering around in a radioactive wasteland collecting bottlecaps."
They have make-up and post-processing and all kinds of things so you don't see pores. Unless you're looking at bad amateur porn, and then the camera is either poor quality, too jiggly, or out of focus.
I object on a more realistic argument - I don't need more pixels to see compression artifacts better. And I'm not confident that we have the content delivery problem solved. A new physical storage spec helps with the kind of thing people are going less frequently these days.
I predict that the tech industry will not contribute to someone who opposes their agenda.
If I owned any business that hired tech people, I would contribute a token amount to this dude, and more to his opponent. Unless his opponent were more against this whole thing.
This is on record, and unless I am a stupid Scientologist, it won't be deleted.
You are complaining about the headline, but didn't even read the summary?
For fuck's sake, please just tell your ISP that you are too stupid to afford their services.
Headlines are atrocious here, and summaries slightly less so. But the summary does not suck as much donkey cock as your reply does. I hope you are a hermaphrodite, because you really need to go fuck yourself.
And when money for non-destructive probing makes this concern irrelevant?
Or the corollary, when the internal structure cannot be replicated by the scanner? And perhaps it's not a corollary, because then you damaged the original.
The printer would need to be capable of printing whatever the scanner finds, and non-destructive methods incapable of the same discovery. I find this perhaps implausible for now.
No one is complaining about sexism in nursing or daycare or maids because there is not a reasonable expectation of gender diversity there.
Until we understand what makes gender diversity impossible in tech, the expectation is that equality should be the norm, and inequality is evidence of discrimination.
The question is why are women not interested? You accept it as a fact, but can you say that it has nothing to do with men actively making tech actively disinteresting to women? Is it teaching, or the workplace environment, the expected hours, or something else?
Until we know the answer, the questions will be asked. Repeatedly, probably unnecessarily, and most likely with an agenda driving it. Despite the obvious agenda driving some parts of it, it's still an unknown.
Slashdot Mirror
It this were FOIA, I'd defend you. But no, it's not. It's about Jeb releasing mails to Jeb.
"Mails to Jeb released in response to FOIA" is a FUCKTON different from "Jeb releases everything for apparently no real reason."
FOIA has a protocol to classify or hide information as appropriate. Jeb does not have such a protocol.
Your idiotic post said that Jeb = FOIA, and you should be kicked in the gender-specific gonads or, lacking those, appropriately burned in strategic places for suggesting such.
FOIA is a risk that people who communicate with their elected, or otherwise, official, take. Jeb deciding to repeat everything, verbatim, available to spammers and citizen vigilantes, without any relevant FOIA request, is a completely different thing. It's a completely different fucking ballpark.
I'm rooting for the American voter. Who are you rooting for?
It was promised as an anonymous, unbreakable, encryption-based currency. And for a while, it was exactly that.
I'm old enough to remember Flooz commercials. Turn money into e-Money, and it's transferable and spendable in bits.
Let's take PayPal as an example. Lots of people accept and spend PayPal money, without ever cashing out as dollars. I know you can argue otherwise, but at its most basic, it is the same thing.
Unless you consider that this particular exchange was particularly suspicious, given signals from previous exchanges which were reputable and still failed. This paragraph is subjective.
Put a middleman in between my BTC and someone else's? Good idea. Put a reputable middleman there? Better idea. Replace middleman with PayPal? Let's go back a bit.
Remember when people could not get money out of PayPal? When accounts could be frozen and your only recourse was to whine like a bitch on the precursors to Consumerist and blogs in general?
If not, you're not old enough. It didn't work well at first for a minority, a large minority, but it is stable and owned by a big responsible entity now.
In summary, the same mindset that brought success to PayPal also brought success to these charlatans. Charlatans were assisted by the intrusions into privacy.
Should they? No. Does anyone now? Fewer. But there's a sucker born any minute. And privacy intrusion contributes more to the ignorant's readiness to risk than any blog post or business plan possibly could.
Is this Bennett Hasselton's alt? Because when I think "shut down slashdot because of one user" I naturally leap to a conclusion.
If not, sorry weedman for accusing you of supernatural ignorance. Seriously, I apologise mary jane sir for suggesting super-universal dorkmanitude, if it is not appropriate.
If I am right, however, I will gladly mail you a rusty rake with which to fuck yourself sideways.
Again, if it is my error, keifbrother, I humbly genuflect and beg forgiveness.
His stance was consistent with his position - that the government should not regulate what the free market can and should take care of.
I'm not defending it.
I'm saying that he has an ideology, and he is consistent.
More importantly, people who agree with him, and later find out just how consistent he is, learn more about themselves than about him.
Abolish the EPA, let black people, or white people, into your business, or not, cause an economic crisis, ignore all manner of shit, and it's all consistent with his platform. I believe he would have supported Hitler right up until the government mandated what color skin and/or eyes the people should have.
It's only troubling if you don't understand him. If you do understand him, then everything about him should be troubling, and the whole segregation thing is par for the course.
I'm full-on libertarian until it makes no sense any more, and he crossed that line a long time ago. Right to kill a dude? Too libertarian for me. Discriminate? Too far. Drop mercury in as fish bait? Too far. Understand where the person stands, and whether you can deal with it. Frequently, the sound bites sound better than the planks.
Comprehension. It's difficult.
First, browser developers are in charge of browser behavior, not a protocol. RFC may say "should", or "must", but browser implementers don't have to do that.
There is a need for this, but your question is whether the standard requests, or requires, the feature. Your other, unasked question, is whether any development team has committed to respect the "required" or "must" statement from the RFC.
It's another hack-fest from theodp - the beater of the single horse.
Sometimes it's important, sometimes it's not. Mostly not.
Do we need to be reminded about every event? No. Do we need to be reminded from time to time when things turn nasty? I'd say yes.
Still, mostly no.
You sound rich.
I can only hope that the search warrant specifies all machines by IP address, or some other technical error so that all those 100 hostnames that point to the same address have their servers confiscated.
And I can also only hope that some LEO isn't communicating with another LEO, and it really was a honeypot that got everyone's servers hosed.
Rich tech people will throw piles of money and strange things will happen. I so hope this happens. Also, you're an idiot if you so much as click on that site.
It is difficult to put yourself in another person's shoes - to put aside your beliefs and look at the world from a different perspective.
It is even more challenging to update this constantly with each new person you see. And still more challenging to go through your life while staying mindful of others.
Normal people only think of the "now" self, and find it easy to make the future self do all the hard work, losing the mindfulness of even your own self.
Thinking about accessibility, or how someone else might not agree with your user interface choice, and especially how someone less fortunate might be happy to have your problems is extremely difficult.
Observing someone can temporarily grant you empathy, but not insight. For insight, you need both experience and mindfulness. Experience everything twice - as yourself, and as someone else. This is good advice in every situation, but very difficult.
But that's push polling. They asked a very neutral question to find out a real answer. That's more valuable. Even more valuable is maintaining a reputation of being a reliable source of numbers. Fucking that up means no one cares about your results.
You are free to conduct your own fake study where your real intent is to bias people, if that's your goal. But that was not the goal here.
Turn off your computer and go play in the dirt, and think about what you've done.
Better yet, how would you even broach the subject to a stranger without really sounding super creepy?
"Thanks for the coffee, barista person. Now, can I ask you how you feel about a three letter agency?"
The question was, literally,
They specifically not only reported on the "never heard of" part, and tried to differentiate between that and "I really couldn't say".
How you can be moderated as insightful is simply astonishing, considering that you will probably never consider any fact that doesn't already fit into your established worldview. I would have accepted "ignorant", "mindless", or "automaton". But insightful? No. You do not deserve the internet.
I know the guy that did it. Big data is about asking the guy that did it.
If I can assign that guy an identifier, then I know you forever.
I know the girl, and I know the guy. More importantly, I know the guy that didn't go for that girl. I want to get paid.
More importantly, I want everyone to be private.
Don't pay me. I can't be bought.
But everyone else, for all practical purposes, can.
Big data is really a thing.
Firefox feedback is not, in any sense, a representation of big data.
Global data sets are, for lack of a better word, global.
You are, for lack of a better word, a complete and total brain-lacking vacuum.
Can yo point to anything at all to support this assertion? Because I'm saying it won't happen like you expect, and I point to all the money given to ISPs to subsidize building out infrastructure, that apparently just disappeared.
They won't reduce prices without either competition, or a law. And they will beg for more subsidies to do a half added job at meeting the absolute minimum. More expensive, especially since you pay a second time in taxes that go into the subsidies.
How frequently does your scenario happen? That's the sticking point here, coming up with realistic use cases. I'm more concerned with covering most people with the current definition.
Apparently you didn't read it at all. It was a bug in the application, not a compatibility issue. DOS did not advertise the use-after-free scenario as working, it just happened not to crash.
Do you define dis-allowing "use after free" to be breaking backwards compatibility? Because I don't think it should be allowed at all, and they inserted a whitelist to make sure new applications would not rely on the behavior.
This is a single example out of many, many, many special cases Microsoft implemented in order to keep things working. "Not break userspace", as I understand it, would apply both to API behavior, and not crashing a previously working application. The assumption is, however, that if you rely on undefined behavior, it's not the kernel team's responsibility to fix.
I really hope your post was just sarcasm that I did not detect, and not willful ignorance.
Ah the standard marginalization technique where you completely, often intentionally, misunderstand something to get your point across. Exactly like "I'm not going to play Fallout because you're just wandering around in a radioactive wasteland collecting bottlecaps."
They have make-up and post-processing and all kinds of things so you don't see pores. Unless you're looking at bad amateur porn, and then the camera is either poor quality, too jiggly, or out of focus.
I object on a more realistic argument - I don't need more pixels to see compression artifacts better. And I'm not confident that we have the content delivery problem solved. A new physical storage spec helps with the kind of thing people are going less frequently these days.
I predict that the tech industry will not contribute to someone who opposes their agenda.
If I owned any business that hired tech people, I would contribute a token amount to this dude, and more to his opponent. Unless his opponent were more against this whole thing.
This is on record, and unless I am a stupid Scientologist, it won't be deleted.
You are complaining about the headline, but didn't even read the summary?
For fuck's sake, please just tell your ISP that you are too stupid to afford their services.
Headlines are atrocious here, and summaries slightly less so. But the summary does not suck as much donkey cock as your reply does. I hope you are a hermaphrodite, because you really need to go fuck yourself.
And when money for non-destructive probing makes this concern irrelevant?
Or the corollary, when the internal structure cannot be replicated by the scanner? And perhaps it's not a corollary, because then you damaged the original.
The printer would need to be capable of printing whatever the scanner finds, and non-destructive methods incapable of the same discovery. I find this perhaps implausible for now.
What "online adaptive solutions" OP saw will influence the answer.
From scratch, vs learn a framework CSS, is a huge savings, either way.
Median per capita income is about $30k, and households are about $65k. 6% are over $100k, so 94% are below.
I'd call that extraordinary, as in "not ordinary". And it's well more than "fairly decent".
No one is complaining about sexism in nursing or daycare or maids because there is not a reasonable expectation of gender diversity there.
Until we understand what makes gender diversity impossible in tech, the expectation is that equality should be the norm, and inequality is evidence of discrimination.
The question is why are women not interested? You accept it as a fact, but can you say that it has nothing to do with men actively making tech actively disinteresting to women? Is it teaching, or the workplace environment, the expected hours, or something else?
Until we know the answer, the questions will be asked. Repeatedly, probably unnecessarily, and most likely with an agenda driving it. Despite the obvious agenda driving some parts of it, it's still an unknown.