This isn't government control of the internet, and government control of the internet would be a very bad thing. How long do you think unbreakable encryption would last if the government had control? The FBI is already starting to take up a position that they want to ban it entirely.
That doesn't make any sense. Nobody is trying to escape capitalist countries to get to communist ones (unless they're some kind of wanted felon or something.) It always has been the other way around, which is why communist countries have to forbid their citizenry from leaving, and was the entire purpose of the Berlin Wall.
Southern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Southern Republicans, and Northern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Northern Republicans. But Southern Democrats were opposed to civil rights as compared to Northern Republicans, and since there were a lot of Southern Democrats there were a lot of anti-civil rights Democrats.
No, this is false. In fact, during the Civil Rights movement, the majority of those in congress who voted in favor of reforms were Republicans. There was just one major exception, which was that Barry Goldwater voted against one of the Civil Rights bills, and he voted against it because he was libertarian and he didn't want to force it upon private businesses, e.g. "We reserve the right to deny service to anybody for any reason."
Being a libertarian myself, I agree with that viewpoint, but it has nothing to do with racism. If I owned a business, I wouldn't deny service over race. But I would deny it to a gangbanger who comes in with baggy clothes hanging so low that you can see the brown stains on his whitey tighties. I've actually that walk into a used car dealership I used to work for, and this person was asking to be financed for a used car, with the immediate answer being no. Yes he was black, but race wasn't the reason for it. Still, I'd be pretty pissed if some law forced us to offer a loan to somebody who comes in looking like he has probably never made a timely payment in his life.
At any rate, this particular opposition won Barry Goldwater the electoral votes in his home state as well as a number of southern states. However, the three presidential elections afterwards, none of the southern electorates went to Republicans. The first for that to happen (other than goldwater) was Richard Nixon, who took basically the entire nation (including left wing havens New York and California.)
You might want to read this, which consults several historians and has sources:
Honestly I'm not a fan of gaming laptops at all. I've had one before, and it sounds nice on paper, but it ends up being so heavy and such a battery hog that you end up leaving it on a desk all the time anyways and never carry it anywhere except for special occasions.
What actually happened to the Dixiecrats is they essentially retired, and in their place were younger politicians which weren't pro-segregation, who joined the GOP.
There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Anyways don't let me get in the way of your quest to rewrite history. Remember to just keep repeating your lie enough, and it will become the truth.
In my experience the Surface Pro tablets cost more because the price they list doesn't include the keyboard, which it alone is anywhere from $150 to $200.
Can we talk about how the right endlessly defended slavery?
Take John C. Calhoun [wikipedia.org]: "he became a greater proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade".
What does this have to do with today's right? John C Calhoun was part of the same party that Obama is now part of. And no, the parties didn't switch spectrum, rather all of them have changed their stances on certain subjects. Remember it was still the Democrats that were largely opposed to civil rights during the 50's and 60's (for example, it was a Democrat governor who called in the national guard to keep black students out of Central High School in Arkansas.)
The biggest change a lot of people refer to happened during the 80's under the Raegan. Prior to Raegan, Democrats were staunchly opposed to communism (Kennedy and Johnson for example) and somehow the modern Democrat party moved away from that hard line stance (Greenpeace is an example of that, and Patrick Moore cited the organization as looking favorably upon communism as an environmental solution as part of his reasoning for leaving.) At the same time, a huge portion of the US population shifted to the right, which was mainly those that were still hard-line opposed to communism and were disillusioned by the Jane Fonda types of that era.
And yes, during the 80's, communism was still a pretty serious threat to the west, it only stopped being so after its biggest backer (the USSR) decided they have had enough of it and finally dropped the Iron Curtain. And now to this day, several major Democratic figureheads like to claim that the Red Scare was just a big farce, communism really isn't so bad and just needs to be done right, etc.
However neither party has been in favor of either discrimination or slavery since at least the late 70's. But prior to then, Democrats were the pro-discrimination party, and prior to at least the 1900's they were still the pro-slavery party.
Politicians care about 70 year old and their problems because they show up at the polls at twice the rate of 35 year olds.
That's not true, and I can prove it here and now. You know WHO the Obama admin cares the most about? Hollywood. Why? Because Hollywood gives him the WHAT he cares most about: Free branding. And I say "free" lightly because it's very powerful branding that's worth a lot, even though it's given away for free.
Do you know what prompted Obama to skip the Senate (as required by the Constitution) when he signed ACTA? This did:
Anyways what were you saying...oh yeah, old poeple. Well no, Obama cares much more about the branding provided by Hollywood. And since they provide it to him free of charge, it doesn't count towards that money in politics that he rants against, because after all, nobody spent a red cent on that branding, just the actors donate their time.
Exactly, thank you. I'm tired of this mantra that we need to vote just for the sake of voting. It's stupid and it's the entire reason why we're stuck in a two party system.
I mean shit, during the early days of the everyday Joe's being able to vote in the US they had to take exams to determine whether or not they were informed, and even then everyday Joe's weren't permitted to vote for federal elections (the people they elected for their state government would themselves elect congressmen, senators, and the electors who voted for the president.)
Now, I'm NOT saying we should go back to that. Being required to take exams would mean that the voters would have to e.g. accept your particular version of history, which is decidedly not democratic. Not only that but only permitting special people to vote isn't either.
However what I am saying is that we need to stop encouraging people to vote just for the sake of it. THAT is the reason there's money in politics.
Pretty much the worst complaining I do about the outcome is when somebody says that their guy is only doing something bad because the opposite party forced his hand into doing it. It's such a bullshit response that I can't help but call people out on it, exactly like I did in response to an AC comment above.
I don't think it will even be that. In my experience, most people just vote for somebody based on very meaningless reasons. E.g. vote for who their friends voted for, or in the case of the last president, my sister voted for him just because she felt it was time we had a black president...seriously no other reason than that. I've personally made it a point to stop registering to vote and not vote at all just because of how pointless I feel the whole thing has become due to the signal to noise being really bad. Even going out of my way to not register, somehow I still keep getting voter ID cards and mail in ballots every election, which during the 2014 election I literally threw in the trash.
That said, the president thinks this will take money out of politics...sorry but that has to be among the dumbest things I've heard him say. If anything, it will make it worse. Another thing people tend to do is stick to branding impressions. For example people who live in Dallas are more likely to vote for the Cowboys as the best sports team because that is the branding that they are the most exposed to. People likewise tend to pick a political party, and then will bend their views to whatever they think their party is most in favor of...Republicans and Democrats both do this, so don't think your party doesn't (another symptom of branding.)
Likewise, if we have compulsory voting, politicians are probably more likely to be elected solely based on how their brand image is promoted through advertising, so there's going to be a LOT more money in politics.
In other words "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos". Obama had all of the same opinions now that he had before he was president, just most people chose to ignore his political history and only listen to his campaign promises.
Finding hidden malware is considerably harder than finding pedestrians out in the open. If pedestrians were hiding themselves from traffic the way malware distributors hide their code, then Darwin would have claimed them long before a Google car does.
I didn't know what SJW meant so I found this urbandictionary definition to be helpful:
SJW Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online. #1:
A social justice warrior reads an essay about a form of internal misogyny where women and girls insult stereotypical feminine activities and characteristics in order to boost themselves over other women.
The SJW absorbs this and later complains in response to a Huffington Post article about a 10-year-old feminist's letter, because the 10-year-old called the color pink "prissy".
#2:
Commnter: "I don't like getting manicures. It's too prissy."
SJW: "Oh my god, how fucking dare you use that word, you disgusting sexist piece of shit!"
Well if European justice worked like US justice even had at this time, they not only would have arrested Hitler, but they would have put the whole Nazi party under check for being a terrorist organization and probably arrested most of their ringleaders for conspiracy and had it forcibly disbanded.
Which if you want a precedent for this, look at the first KKK which was hunted down by the federal government and was completely obliterated by 1882. (The current KKK is a different organization.) The first KKK would routinely try to influence elections and had popular support in many areas, just like the Nazi party. It took martial law in many areas to get rid of them.
Stalin himself (or rather, the Communist Party) probably wouldn't have gained power if the Germans hadn't invaded.
Something Hitler learned was that you need an enemy in order to rally your population to war, giving you power in the process. The enemy Hitler created was the Jews. Russia however had a real enemy, the Germans. Before Germany invaded Russia, Russia's army was rather pathetic.
Even after WWII, Russia had most of its population convinced that Fascism was still the biggest threat, and they also had them convinced that the west was trying to continue Fascism (keep in mind that Fascism IS a western concept, born in Italy and was very popular throughout most of Europe in several governments for quite a while even after WWII.) In fact the "official" reason Russia used for creating the Berlin wall was to keep Fascist influence out (though the real reason was because they needed to keep people from leaving the soviet bloc because it was a serious drain on their population of skilled workers who wanted to go to capitalist countries where they knew they could live better.)
The first time Hitler tried to seize power in Germany via a coup, he was arrested and used his trial to gain publicity, and rallied a lot of people towards his cause while he was in prison.
Which by the way, 20 people died in his coup attempt, something that would probably have made him eligible for the death penalty in the US (felony-murder doctrine) which had he been executed, it would have averted his eventual reign which itself lead to WWII.
I'll second that, and add that I suspect this could also be used for hypervisor/sandbox escapes on practically *any* platform that doesn't use ECC memory.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't government control of the internet, and government control of the internet would be a very bad thing. How long do you think unbreakable encryption would last if the government had control? The FBI is already starting to take up a position that they want to ban it entirely.
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
That doesn't make any sense. Nobody is trying to escape capitalist countries to get to communist ones (unless they're some kind of wanted felon or something.) It always has been the other way around, which is why communist countries have to forbid their citizenry from leaving, and was the entire purpose of the Berlin Wall.
Well in its defense, communism fails faster if you can't keep people from leaving.
You misremember.
Southern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Southern Republicans, and Northern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Northern Republicans. But Southern Democrats were opposed to civil rights as compared to Northern Republicans, and since there were a lot of Southern Democrats there were a lot of anti-civil rights Democrats.
No, this is false. In fact, during the Civil Rights movement, the majority of those in congress who voted in favor of reforms were Republicans. There was just one major exception, which was that Barry Goldwater voted against one of the Civil Rights bills, and he voted against it because he was libertarian and he didn't want to force it upon private businesses, e.g. "We reserve the right to deny service to anybody for any reason."
Being a libertarian myself, I agree with that viewpoint, but it has nothing to do with racism. If I owned a business, I wouldn't deny service over race. But I would deny it to a gangbanger who comes in with baggy clothes hanging so low that you can see the brown stains on his whitey tighties. I've actually that walk into a used car dealership I used to work for, and this person was asking to be financed for a used car, with the immediate answer being no. Yes he was black, but race wasn't the reason for it. Still, I'd be pretty pissed if some law forced us to offer a loan to somebody who comes in looking like he has probably never made a timely payment in his life.
At any rate, this particular opposition won Barry Goldwater the electoral votes in his home state as well as a number of southern states. However, the three presidential elections afterwards, none of the southern electorates went to Republicans. The first for that to happen (other than goldwater) was Richard Nixon, who took basically the entire nation (including left wing havens New York and California.)
You might want to read this, which consults several historians and has sources:
http://freeplanetickettonorthk...
I'll concur with that, in fact I'll say it's way better than the macbook air. Just the SP3 isn't IMO.
Honestly I'm not a fan of gaming laptops at all. I've had one before, and it sounds nice on paper, but it ends up being so heavy and such a battery hog that you end up leaving it on a desk all the time anyways and never carry it anywhere except for special occasions.
The Dixiecrats, who favored segregation, largely became Republicans in the 70's.
Really?
http://www.archives.gov/federa...
What actually happened to the Dixiecrats is they essentially retired, and in their place were younger politicians which weren't pro-segregation, who joined the GOP.
And if you want a source, here it is:
http://freeplanetickettonorthk...
Note this bite in particular:
There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Anyways don't let me get in the way of your quest to rewrite history. Remember to just keep repeating your lie enough, and it will become the truth.
In my experience the Surface Pro tablets cost more because the price they list doesn't include the keyboard, which it alone is anywhere from $150 to $200.
Can we talk about how the right endlessly defended slavery?
Take John C. Calhoun [wikipedia.org]: "he became a greater proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade".
What does this have to do with today's right? John C Calhoun was part of the same party that Obama is now part of. And no, the parties didn't switch spectrum, rather all of them have changed their stances on certain subjects. Remember it was still the Democrats that were largely opposed to civil rights during the 50's and 60's (for example, it was a Democrat governor who called in the national guard to keep black students out of Central High School in Arkansas.)
The biggest change a lot of people refer to happened during the 80's under the Raegan. Prior to Raegan, Democrats were staunchly opposed to communism (Kennedy and Johnson for example) and somehow the modern Democrat party moved away from that hard line stance (Greenpeace is an example of that, and Patrick Moore cited the organization as looking favorably upon communism as an environmental solution as part of his reasoning for leaving.) At the same time, a huge portion of the US population shifted to the right, which was mainly those that were still hard-line opposed to communism and were disillusioned by the Jane Fonda types of that era.
And yes, during the 80's, communism was still a pretty serious threat to the west, it only stopped being so after its biggest backer (the USSR) decided they have had enough of it and finally dropped the Iron Curtain. And now to this day, several major Democratic figureheads like to claim that the Red Scare was just a big farce, communism really isn't so bad and just needs to be done right, etc.
However neither party has been in favor of either discrimination or slavery since at least the late 70's. But prior to then, Democrats were the pro-discrimination party, and prior to at least the 1900's they were still the pro-slavery party.
I'm not sure I'd put my faith into somebody who puts his faith into people who pretend for a living.
I have two chronic, heritable diseases, and yes, I would like them edited out.
Yes, no record but guessing yes, and yes.
He openly spoke against these things on the campaign trail, but look at his pre-presidential voting record:
http://opinion.latimes.com/opi...
Sorry made an editing mistake, that last sentence should read "prioritize branding more than individual people"
Politicians care about 70 year old and their problems because they show up at the polls at twice the rate of 35 year olds.
That's not true, and I can prove it here and now. You know WHO the Obama admin cares the most about? Hollywood. Why? Because Hollywood gives him the WHAT he cares most about: Free branding. And I say "free" lightly because it's very powerful branding that's worth a lot, even though it's given away for free.
Do you know what prompted Obama to skip the Senate (as required by the Constitution) when he signed ACTA? This did:
https://ustr.gov/sites/default...
And let's not forget this:
http://boingboing.net/2012/01/...
Anyways what were you saying...oh yeah, old poeple. Well no, Obama cares much more about the branding provided by Hollywood. And since they provide it to him free of charge, it doesn't count towards that money in politics that he rants against, because after all, nobody spent a red cent on that branding, just the actors donate their time.
Remember this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Or this?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...
Yeah, politicians, such as Obama, prioritize branding more than votes.
Exactly, thank you. I'm tired of this mantra that we need to vote just for the sake of voting. It's stupid and it's the entire reason why we're stuck in a two party system.
I mean shit, during the early days of the everyday Joe's being able to vote in the US they had to take exams to determine whether or not they were informed, and even then everyday Joe's weren't permitted to vote for federal elections (the people they elected for their state government would themselves elect congressmen, senators, and the electors who voted for the president.)
Now, I'm NOT saying we should go back to that. Being required to take exams would mean that the voters would have to e.g. accept your particular version of history, which is decidedly not democratic. Not only that but only permitting special people to vote isn't either.
However what I am saying is that we need to stop encouraging people to vote just for the sake of it. THAT is the reason there's money in politics.
Pretty much the worst complaining I do about the outcome is when somebody says that their guy is only doing something bad because the opposite party forced his hand into doing it. It's such a bullshit response that I can't help but call people out on it, exactly like I did in response to an AC comment above.
I don't think it will even be that. In my experience, most people just vote for somebody based on very meaningless reasons. E.g. vote for who their friends voted for, or in the case of the last president, my sister voted for him just because she felt it was time we had a black president...seriously no other reason than that. I've personally made it a point to stop registering to vote and not vote at all just because of how pointless I feel the whole thing has become due to the signal to noise being really bad. Even going out of my way to not register, somehow I still keep getting voter ID cards and mail in ballots every election, which during the 2014 election I literally threw in the trash.
That said, the president thinks this will take money out of politics...sorry but that has to be among the dumbest things I've heard him say. If anything, it will make it worse. Another thing people tend to do is stick to branding impressions. For example people who live in Dallas are more likely to vote for the Cowboys as the best sports team because that is the branding that they are the most exposed to. People likewise tend to pick a political party, and then will bend their views to whatever they think their party is most in favor of...Republicans and Democrats both do this, so don't think your party doesn't (another symptom of branding.)
Likewise, if we have compulsory voting, politicians are probably more likely to be elected solely based on how their brand image is promoted through advertising, so there's going to be a LOT more money in politics.
In other words "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos". Obama had all of the same opinions now that he had before he was president, just most people chose to ignore his political history and only listen to his campaign promises.
Finding hidden malware is considerably harder than finding pedestrians out in the open. If pedestrians were hiding themselves from traffic the way malware distributors hide their code, then Darwin would have claimed them long before a Google car does.
I didn't know what SJW meant so I found this urbandictionary definition to be helpful:
SJW
Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.
#1:
A social justice warrior reads an essay about a form of internal misogyny where women and girls insult stereotypical feminine activities and characteristics in order to boost themselves over other women.
The SJW absorbs this and later complains in response to a Huffington Post article about a 10-year-old feminist's letter, because the 10-year-old called the color pink "prissy".
#2:
Commnter: "I don't like getting manicures. It's too prissy."
SJW: "Oh my god, how fucking dare you use that word, you disgusting sexist piece of shit!"
Well if European justice worked like US justice even had at this time, they not only would have arrested Hitler, but they would have put the whole Nazi party under check for being a terrorist organization and probably arrested most of their ringleaders for conspiracy and had it forcibly disbanded.
Which if you want a precedent for this, look at the first KKK which was hunted down by the federal government and was completely obliterated by 1882. (The current KKK is a different organization.) The first KKK would routinely try to influence elections and had popular support in many areas, just like the Nazi party. It took martial law in many areas to get rid of them.
Stalin himself (or rather, the Communist Party) probably wouldn't have gained power if the Germans hadn't invaded.
Something Hitler learned was that you need an enemy in order to rally your population to war, giving you power in the process. The enemy Hitler created was the Jews. Russia however had a real enemy, the Germans. Before Germany invaded Russia, Russia's army was rather pathetic.
Even after WWII, Russia had most of its population convinced that Fascism was still the biggest threat, and they also had them convinced that the west was trying to continue Fascism (keep in mind that Fascism IS a western concept, born in Italy and was very popular throughout most of Europe in several governments for quite a while even after WWII.) In fact the "official" reason Russia used for creating the Berlin wall was to keep Fascist influence out (though the real reason was because they needed to keep people from leaving the soviet bloc because it was a serious drain on their population of skilled workers who wanted to go to capitalist countries where they knew they could live better.)
The first time Hitler tried to seize power in Germany via a coup, he was arrested and used his trial to gain publicity, and rallied a lot of people towards his cause while he was in prison.
Which by the way, 20 people died in his coup attempt, something that would probably have made him eligible for the death penalty in the US (felony-murder doctrine) which had he been executed, it would have averted his eventual reign which itself lead to WWII.
other big hosts like Equinix say that ECC memory is "available"
I suspect they'd change that policy in a hurry if people started using this for hypervisor escapes.
I'll second that, and add that I suspect this could also be used for hypervisor/sandbox escapes on practically *any* platform that doesn't use ECC memory.