Don't a lot of those countries have xenophobic laws that require X percent of content made available be domestically produced? I'm fairly certain France does at any rate. If so, then I don't think it's just the content industry that would want to keep Netflix within the US borders, but xenophobic politicians as well.
That wasn't the case until recently. Every time I shop around for new cards, performance per watt while still having decent performance is perhaps my highest priority (it already gets too hot in my room during the summer, and cooling solutions simply displace the heat, not get rid of it.) The last two I bought were AMD mid-grade cards for this reason. The only cards Nvidia offered that were comparable were just way too slow. However today Nvidia seems to be doing a better job than AMD, as the GTX 970 seems to have relatively good performance per watt, where nothing from AMD compares right now.
From what I gather, it's still somewhat common for people to find relics of the prohibition era (e.g. remains of speakeasies and distilleries) buried underground somewhere even today.
You're basically assuming that Chinese culture is (or at least "ought to be") the same as that of the West. Most of these workers are migrants. That means they work a lot of hours in a short time period and then go back home afterwards with the intention that they'll have made more working a few months at the factory than they would have made all year in their local farming community.
Really you aren't speaking for their best interests. You think you are, but you aren't. If you told all of them what you just said here, they'd probably think you're a self righteous stuck up bourgeois asshole.
In Canada, even the Democrats would be seen as too right-wing.
The problem with that statement is that it is so non-descriptive that it is just meaningless.
Take me for example, I'm a huge mishmash of opposing spectrum:
I'm in favor of legalizing almost anything drug related, gambling related, and sex related (including legalizing prostitution) and I'm also very much atheist. Many will describe that as being very left wing.
However I'm also very pro-second amendment, pro-capitalism, and very supportive of freedom of association (including allowing religious establishments to refuse to provide contraception, allowing people to smoke in places open to the public, allowing private businesses to refuse service to anybody for *any* reason.) Many will describe that as being very right wing.
Yet neither description seems to work in my case.
Narrowing political viewpoints into a one dimensional spectrum is likewise dumb. When I hear somebody say x is right or left of y, my first thought is: On what subject?
I mean shit, if you look at this political compass (which is at least two dimensional, but still a very bad way to label political viewpoints as IMO there are easily hundreds of different dimensions) Adolph Hitler is pegged pretty damn close to being a centrist on the left/right scale, yet Milton Friedman is pegged as far right:
And before somebody says I'm an anarcho-libertarian on that two dimensional compass, that is also false. I very much support the rule of law and prefer a government to establish order so that everybody can have a common set of enforced rules that permit commerce (capitalism just isn't possible without the rule of law and/or a set of guidelines to make sure that transactions occur in a fair and just manner in addition to having a robust system for dispute resolution -- something that anarchy cannot have.)
The first lady has always been a target with every president. SNL and MadTV both frequently ran sketches that made Barbara Bush look dumb and/or get trash talked by other people. Though recently Michelle Obama made herself a really bad target. She was at a store when some random customer who didn't recognize her asked her if she could grab something off of the top shelf (Michelle is my height, 5'11", and I get asked that kind of thing often) and so she later made a stink about it in the media saying that it was an example of racism.
Oh, and also ICANN doesn't have any say in this matter. They just set the rules and enforcement for ownership of domain names and IP blocks. That would be like asking the US Patent and Trademark office to set rules against wifi signal jamming.
They can't. For example, the current protections that exist for preventing IP spoofing for example aren't universal. The IETF did create an RFC for blocking them at the ISP level, but not all ISPs have chosen to implement. In fact, a lot of standards the IETF has created either aren't used or are broken all the time.
You'd need some kind of legal entity to enforce it, and said legal entity could blackhole any ISP that doesn't comply by removing it from the global BGP table.
This is actually how some games used to work. For example, the original Starcraft worked that way.
This lead to a bunch of problems though; namely each user was exposing their public IP address to each other, and back in the days of winnuke this was problematic from a DoS perspective. Not only that but the games would tend to suffer much worse latency problems as a result of it.
Today I imagine such a setup would be even worse. There are apparently businesses out there that sell services to other gamers where they'll ddos somebody for you for x amount of time for x amount of dollars. They go by the name of "booter" services. You just plug in an IP address and pay the fee and that person gets knocked off of the internet for your desired duration.
Presently the most popular way of doing this is to find the persons's IP address by knowing their skype name. The machines that do the DDoSing are of course everyday users with machines that have a trojan, rootkit, or whatever installed, and their owners are unaware.
In my opinion, egress filtering is definitely the way to do it, but don't just restrict it to block IP spoofing. Various groups already have a rather large honeypot infrastructure in place to identify ddos sources; I think what ought to be done is have some bayesian logic applied to this traffic to figure out what is legit and what isn't, and apply egress filtering to what are probably compromised systems at their ISP border routers.
This wouldn't be easy to implement though; we'd need some kind of international treaty body similar to maritime treaty to enforce those kinds of rules. The rules would need to be very specific so as to be only for the purpose of preventing DDoS attacks, and nothing else (even other kinds of hacking or illegal activity should not be filtered.)
In other words, you're one of those "the past was always better than the present" people that another slashdot article mentioned.
Here's a little dose of reality: Until about 150 years ago, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; the state governments could do whatever they wanted, including censorship, banning religions, etc. In fact, in the early days of the US, some states didn't allow ANYBODY to vote for the federal government. In New York for example, the state government decided by itself what representatives to send, what electors to send, etc.
And he actually got modded up too. We don't need the media to feed us this shit, it's just average idiots that do it. This person probably isn't even aware that until about 150 years ago, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; the state governments could do whatever they wanted, including censorship, banning religions, etc. In fact, in the early days of the US, some states didn't allow ANYBODY to vote for the federal government. In New York for example, the state government decided by itself what representatives to send, what electors to send, etc.
It's not just news outlets, it's sensational people as well, and there are a LOT of them, especially on slashdot. For example, how many people routinely claim that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer?
Well lets do a little then and now comparison:
Rich 100 years ago meant you owned an actual car, which was likely a piece of shit that poor people of today would even scoff at. Rich 50 years ago meant you owned more than one television, televisions which look like crap and had tiny screens compared to ones that poor people have access to in abundance today. Rich 30 years ago meant you had a car phone, which had crap coverage and no data, and perhaps a portable computer and perhaps a laser disc player. Middle class in the same era meant maybe owning a commodore vic-20.
If you were poor 100 years ago you could barely afford to eat enough calories to meet your minimum daily needs. Today poor people are often overweight, and I've seen homeless people carry a laptop to starbucks, and the money they get from begging usually goes towards booze or cigarettes (any actual food or clothing they need are usually given to them for free by food banks, and if they so choose, they can get free or close to free section 8 housing.)
In spite of all of this, its only politically correct to say that we're poorer now than we have ever been, mainly because a lot of people are incredibly dumb and can't tell the difference between money and wealth (money, by definition, does not make somebody rich or wealthy.)
Now, does some government spreadsheet say that we have more poor today than before? Yeah, probably, but mainly because the goalpost is constantly getting pushed up. Just to put things into perspective: If minimum wage ACTUALLY kept up with inflation from the day it was first introduced, then it would be only $4.15 an hour today.
Anyways my point is, it's not just news outlets that are at fault here. Most people, for whatever reason, hold the general belief that everything is always worse in the present day than it was in the past. Penn and Teller did an episode on this once:
Apparently Google did that with this particular fleet because the current design is intended to psychologically make other drivers less likely to road rage against the machine. Literally. And it makes sense too, because these only drive about 25 mph, and given that they're putting them on public roadways, it's easy to see how that might piss somebody off.
The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. It’s going to suck.
Perfect response to this:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." -- Agent K.
As an example, all too often when I see comparisons of the US and abroad, Europeans often refer to their way of doing things as the way "the rest of the world" works, and likewise Europeans also think of themselves as being "the world."
Just as an example from recent memory, one guy was detracting an article about EMV adoption in the US in the comments, saying it was just a ploy by the banking companies to force you to pay for fraudulent charges, and I responded to him saying that in the US there are already protections against that kind of thing so it doesn't matter anyways, to which he replies to me that I'm a stupid ignorant American and that "the rest of the world" isn't like us, and had to remind me that he was from France and not the USA and how I shouldn't just assume that he's American, in spite of the fact that the fucking article was about the USA, so I'm not sure what basis he was to expect me to expect him to not be from the USA, other than simple arrogance on his part.
Another thing I can think of is that South American's take GREAT offense when you refer to people in the USA as American. It doesn't have to be somebody within the USA doing it, rather if somebody from say Europe, Asia, or wherever says it (which they often do) whereas they themselves don't seem to have any qualms about being identified as such. Forget that none of their countries have the word "America" in it, they just get pissed when you issue that name to somebody they term "estadiounidense".
Also as a minor example, for whatever reason when you talk to Germans about the holocaust, they inevitably redirect the conversation by saying that the US is the most racist country in the world, even though that's unlikely.
That makes no sense to me. The nucleotides are one of a pair of adenine/thymine, or guanine/cytosine yielding four possibilities for that nucleotide at protein transcription. If you changed the composition (i.e. flipping and/or replacing one) then you are changing the sequence.
I only took college biology, so I'm not *that* adept at it, but I don't see how that can be considered "changing" the DNA. As far as I can tell it just activates certain genes that previously weren't activated (while still remaining unchanged) so that the previously inactive genes are now transcribing into proteins where previously they weren't being transcribed into anything (and were effectively unused, or "junk" DNA.)
I thought he was amazing as Evil Archer in the mirror episodes. In fact both of those episodes were downright awesome. Season 4 was probably the best season of that show, but by that point its viewership numbers had dropped to what the networks term the "point of no return" so it had to be cancelled.
I think the Romulan wars would have been interesting had it gotten to that (it WAS in the show's immediate future, after all.) To remain canonical, they would have to had never shown a Romulan's face, which would have made for a mysterious unseen enemy with ships that cloak, in addition to nuclear bombardments (which again, was canonical as per the descriptions of the Romulan wars in the TOS episodes that talked about it.) THAT would have been entertaining to watch in a 1970's Battlestar Galactica kind of way, only in traditional Star Trek fashion where technology is the great enabler and savior instead of the ultimate necessary evil.
I don't think the FBI would give a shit about Tor. If they want to find your identity bad enough, they'll do so via extralegal means, mainly because they can. See the ongoing silk road case, where the DOJ has yet to show how exactly they physically identified its owner and its server locations.
The only organizations powerful enough with enough motive to take out Tor would have to be either Russia or China. China especially because Tor is perhaps the biggest means of circumventing the GFW, and unlike the FBI, China doesn't have either physical influence or physical presence in any of Tor's geographical nerve centers. (And yes, in spite of the distributed nature of Tor, I did correctly use the word center.)
You know what could completely stop identity theft? Holding banks responsible for the loss when they were tricked by some thief pretending to their customers. You will see them tightening their authentication and fraud detection overnight.
This is how it already works in the USA. By law, customers can only be held liable for up to $50 for credit card fraud, and almost all banks just offer the courtesy of reducing the liability to zero (you have to be with an incredibly shitty one and/or have a VERY shitty credit rating for them to not do this.)
And if somebody steals your identity by taking out loans in your name, it's on the lender to prove that you were the one who actually took out the loan to begin with. It's inconvenient as hell granted because of all of the shit you have to go through to sort it out, but at the end of the day you don't have to pay anything to the banks if you're the victim, and the banks are the ones that lose.
Identity theft still happens anyways because whether the thief steals from you or the bank, they still make money out of the deal (unless they get caught.)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't a lot of those countries have xenophobic laws that require X percent of content made available be domestically produced? I'm fairly certain France does at any rate. If so, then I don't think it's just the content industry that would want to keep Netflix within the US borders, but xenophobic politicians as well.
That wasn't the case until recently. Every time I shop around for new cards, performance per watt while still having decent performance is perhaps my highest priority (it already gets too hot in my room during the summer, and cooling solutions simply displace the heat, not get rid of it.) The last two I bought were AMD mid-grade cards for this reason. The only cards Nvidia offered that were comparable were just way too slow. However today Nvidia seems to be doing a better job than AMD, as the GTX 970 seems to have relatively good performance per watt, where nothing from AMD compares right now.
From what I gather, it's still somewhat common for people to find relics of the prohibition era (e.g. remains of speakeasies and distilleries) buried underground somewhere even today.
You're basically assuming that Chinese culture is (or at least "ought to be") the same as that of the West. Most of these workers are migrants. That means they work a lot of hours in a short time period and then go back home afterwards with the intention that they'll have made more working a few months at the factory than they would have made all year in their local farming community.
I recommend watching this:
https://www.ted.com/talks/lesl...
Really you aren't speaking for their best interests. You think you are, but you aren't. If you told all of them what you just said here, they'd probably think you're a self righteous stuck up bourgeois asshole.
Are you saying that because SNL did it, it must be ok?
No, just saying that I can't recall any period where the first lady has ever been exempt from public lampooning.
In Canada, even the Democrats would be seen as too right-wing.
The problem with that statement is that it is so non-descriptive that it is just meaningless.
Take me for example, I'm a huge mishmash of opposing spectrum:
I'm in favor of legalizing almost anything drug related, gambling related, and sex related (including legalizing prostitution) and I'm also very much atheist. Many will describe that as being very left wing.
However I'm also very pro-second amendment, pro-capitalism, and very supportive of freedom of association (including allowing religious establishments to refuse to provide contraception, allowing people to smoke in places open to the public, allowing private businesses to refuse service to anybody for *any* reason.) Many will describe that as being very right wing.
Yet neither description seems to work in my case.
Narrowing political viewpoints into a one dimensional spectrum is likewise dumb. When I hear somebody say x is right or left of y, my first thought is: On what subject?
I mean shit, if you look at this political compass (which is at least two dimensional, but still a very bad way to label political viewpoints as IMO there are easily hundreds of different dimensions) Adolph Hitler is pegged pretty damn close to being a centrist on the left/right scale, yet Milton Friedman is pegged as far right:
http://www.politicalcompass.or...
Like I said, meaningless.
And before somebody says I'm an anarcho-libertarian on that two dimensional compass, that is also false. I very much support the rule of law and prefer a government to establish order so that everybody can have a common set of enforced rules that permit commerce (capitalism just isn't possible without the rule of law and/or a set of guidelines to make sure that transactions occur in a fair and just manner in addition to having a robust system for dispute resolution -- something that anarchy cannot have.)
The first lady has always been a target with every president. SNL and MadTV both frequently ran sketches that made Barbara Bush look dumb and/or get trash talked by other people. Though recently Michelle Obama made herself a really bad target. She was at a store when some random customer who didn't recognize her asked her if she could grab something off of the top shelf (Michelle is my height, 5'11", and I get asked that kind of thing often) and so she later made a stink about it in the media saying that it was an example of racism.
You mean like that playboy comic that showed the Bush kids running a meth lab?
Sorry but this "my party is better than yours" crap is just that: crap.
Eh...I'd say democrats do. They were referring to the president as being a monkey long before the current president's term.
Oh, and also ICANN doesn't have any say in this matter. They just set the rules and enforcement for ownership of domain names and IP blocks. That would be like asking the US Patent and Trademark office to set rules against wifi signal jamming.
They can't. For example, the current protections that exist for preventing IP spoofing for example aren't universal. The IETF did create an RFC for blocking them at the ISP level, but not all ISPs have chosen to implement. In fact, a lot of standards the IETF has created either aren't used or are broken all the time.
You'd need some kind of legal entity to enforce it, and said legal entity could blackhole any ISP that doesn't comply by removing it from the global BGP table.
This is actually how some games used to work. For example, the original Starcraft worked that way.
This lead to a bunch of problems though; namely each user was exposing their public IP address to each other, and back in the days of winnuke this was problematic from a DoS perspective. Not only that but the games would tend to suffer much worse latency problems as a result of it.
Today I imagine such a setup would be even worse. There are apparently businesses out there that sell services to other gamers where they'll ddos somebody for you for x amount of time for x amount of dollars. They go by the name of "booter" services. You just plug in an IP address and pay the fee and that person gets knocked off of the internet for your desired duration.
Presently the most popular way of doing this is to find the persons's IP address by knowing their skype name. The machines that do the DDoSing are of course everyday users with machines that have a trojan, rootkit, or whatever installed, and their owners are unaware.
In my opinion, egress filtering is definitely the way to do it, but don't just restrict it to block IP spoofing. Various groups already have a rather large honeypot infrastructure in place to identify ddos sources; I think what ought to be done is have some bayesian logic applied to this traffic to figure out what is legit and what isn't, and apply egress filtering to what are probably compromised systems at their ISP border routers.
This wouldn't be easy to implement though; we'd need some kind of international treaty body similar to maritime treaty to enforce those kinds of rules. The rules would need to be very specific so as to be only for the purpose of preventing DDoS attacks, and nothing else (even other kinds of hacking or illegal activity should not be filtered.)
In other words, you're one of those "the past was always better than the present" people that another slashdot article mentioned.
Here's a little dose of reality: Until about 150 years ago, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; the state governments could do whatever they wanted, including censorship, banning religions, etc. In fact, in the early days of the US, some states didn't allow ANYBODY to vote for the federal government. In New York for example, the state government decided by itself what representatives to send, what electors to send, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Case in point:
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
And he actually got modded up too. We don't need the media to feed us this shit, it's just average idiots that do it. This person probably isn't even aware that until about 150 years ago, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; the state governments could do whatever they wanted, including censorship, banning religions, etc. In fact, in the early days of the US, some states didn't allow ANYBODY to vote for the federal government. In New York for example, the state government decided by itself what representatives to send, what electors to send, etc.
It's not just news outlets, it's sensational people as well, and there are a LOT of them, especially on slashdot. For example, how many people routinely claim that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer?
Well lets do a little then and now comparison:
Rich 100 years ago meant you owned an actual car, which was likely a piece of shit that poor people of today would even scoff at. Rich 50 years ago meant you owned more than one television, televisions which look like crap and had tiny screens compared to ones that poor people have access to in abundance today. Rich 30 years ago meant you had a car phone, which had crap coverage and no data, and perhaps a portable computer and perhaps a laser disc player. Middle class in the same era meant maybe owning a commodore vic-20.
If you were poor 100 years ago you could barely afford to eat enough calories to meet your minimum daily needs. Today poor people are often overweight, and I've seen homeless people carry a laptop to starbucks, and the money they get from begging usually goes towards booze or cigarettes (any actual food or clothing they need are usually given to them for free by food banks, and if they so choose, they can get free or close to free section 8 housing.)
In spite of all of this, its only politically correct to say that we're poorer now than we have ever been, mainly because a lot of people are incredibly dumb and can't tell the difference between money and wealth (money, by definition, does not make somebody rich or wealthy.)
Now, does some government spreadsheet say that we have more poor today than before? Yeah, probably, but mainly because the goalpost is constantly getting pushed up. Just to put things into perspective: If minimum wage ACTUALLY kept up with inflation from the day it was first introduced, then it would be only $4.15 an hour today.
Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Anyways my point is, it's not just news outlets that are at fault here. Most people, for whatever reason, hold the general belief that everything is always worse in the present day than it was in the past. Penn and Teller did an episode on this once:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Apparently Google did that with this particular fleet because the current design is intended to psychologically make other drivers less likely to road rage against the machine. Literally. And it makes sense too, because these only drive about 25 mph, and given that they're putting them on public roadways, it's easy to see how that might piss somebody off.
The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags.
It’s going to suck.
Perfect response to this:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." -- Agent K.
The irony is pretty thick there as well.
As an example, all too often when I see comparisons of the US and abroad, Europeans often refer to their way of doing things as the way "the rest of the world" works, and likewise Europeans also think of themselves as being "the world."
Just as an example from recent memory, one guy was detracting an article about EMV adoption in the US in the comments, saying it was just a ploy by the banking companies to force you to pay for fraudulent charges, and I responded to him saying that in the US there are already protections against that kind of thing so it doesn't matter anyways, to which he replies to me that I'm a stupid ignorant American and that "the rest of the world" isn't like us, and had to remind me that he was from France and not the USA and how I shouldn't just assume that he's American, in spite of the fact that the fucking article was about the USA, so I'm not sure what basis he was to expect me to expect him to not be from the USA, other than simple arrogance on his part.
Another thing I can think of is that South American's take GREAT offense when you refer to people in the USA as American. It doesn't have to be somebody within the USA doing it, rather if somebody from say Europe, Asia, or wherever says it (which they often do) whereas they themselves don't seem to have any qualms about being identified as such. Forget that none of their countries have the word "America" in it, they just get pissed when you issue that name to somebody they term "estadiounidense".
Also as a minor example, for whatever reason when you talk to Germans about the holocaust, they inevitably redirect the conversation by saying that the US is the most racist country in the world, even though that's unlikely.
So why in the universe then? Or maybe why in the milky way? Or maybe why in the sol system?
That makes no sense to me. The nucleotides are one of a pair of adenine/thymine, or guanine/cytosine yielding four possibilities for that nucleotide at protein transcription. If you changed the composition (i.e. flipping and/or replacing one) then you are changing the sequence.
I only took college biology, so I'm not *that* adept at it, but I don't see how that can be considered "changing" the DNA. As far as I can tell it just activates certain genes that previously weren't activated (while still remaining unchanged) so that the previously inactive genes are now transcribing into proteins where previously they weren't being transcribed into anything (and were effectively unused, or "junk" DNA.)
I thought he was amazing as Evil Archer in the mirror episodes. In fact both of those episodes were downright awesome. Season 4 was probably the best season of that show, but by that point its viewership numbers had dropped to what the networks term the "point of no return" so it had to be cancelled.
I think the Romulan wars would have been interesting had it gotten to that (it WAS in the show's immediate future, after all.) To remain canonical, they would have to had never shown a Romulan's face, which would have made for a mysterious unseen enemy with ships that cloak, in addition to nuclear bombardments (which again, was canonical as per the descriptions of the Romulan wars in the TOS episodes that talked about it.) THAT would have been entertaining to watch in a 1970's Battlestar Galactica kind of way, only in traditional Star Trek fashion where technology is the great enabler and savior instead of the ultimate necessary evil.
I don't think the FBI would give a shit about Tor. If they want to find your identity bad enough, they'll do so via extralegal means, mainly because they can. See the ongoing silk road case, where the DOJ has yet to show how exactly they physically identified its owner and its server locations.
The only organizations powerful enough with enough motive to take out Tor would have to be either Russia or China. China especially because Tor is perhaps the biggest means of circumventing the GFW, and unlike the FBI, China doesn't have either physical influence or physical presence in any of Tor's geographical nerve centers. (And yes, in spite of the distributed nature of Tor, I did correctly use the word center.)
Furthermore, the summary headline saying that it changes your DNA is downright incorrect as no nucleotide sequences seem to be altered.
Hmm...have any of them considered using bitcoin?
You know what could completely stop identity theft? Holding banks responsible for the loss when they were tricked by some thief pretending to their customers. You will see them tightening their authentication and fraud detection overnight.
This is how it already works in the USA. By law, customers can only be held liable for up to $50 for credit card fraud, and almost all banks just offer the courtesy of reducing the liability to zero (you have to be with an incredibly shitty one and/or have a VERY shitty credit rating for them to not do this.)
And if somebody steals your identity by taking out loans in your name, it's on the lender to prove that you were the one who actually took out the loan to begin with. It's inconvenient as hell granted because of all of the shit you have to go through to sort it out, but at the end of the day you don't have to pay anything to the banks if you're the victim, and the banks are the ones that lose.
Identity theft still happens anyways because whether the thief steals from you or the bank, they still make money out of the deal (unless they get caught.)