Nope. Early Christians didn't have those particular schismatic conceptions, and oddly all of the ones you name are post-Martin Luther, it's like you've never heard of Nestorians or Coptics.
That depends on how far back you go. In the earliest days they just called it "the way". As the different sects divided they typically (but not always) identified themselves after whoever founded their sect. It wasn't until the 50's that they all started calling themselves Christian again, at least in the US, which came about because a lot of them felt that their divisions were allowing i.e. Atheists, Unitarians, Jews, other less religious sects, etc, to have their sway into mainstream politics; for example, abolishment of prayer in schools.
I use AMT a lot as well, and have for years. My main question here is: How the fuck is this even remotely news material? Furthermore, why is it presented as some sort of conspiracy? Intel advertises this as a feature and never made any attempt to hide it. AMT is also off by default, by the way.
The only Intel feature I'm at all concerned about is SGX, which by design can't be audited, and has nothing to do with anything mentioned in TFS.
Umm no, they don't. Maybe back in 2000 to around 2008, after Intel went with that netburst shit, but not anymore. Every datacenter I've managed for the last 3 years has almost no AMD gear at all.
Should Christians be subject to extra monitoring? Are one group of Christians the real Christians and the others just misunderstood? Or is "Christian" just a label adopted by a ton of people with wildly divergent beliefs?
It's actually the later. Nobody really identified as "Christian" until somewhat recently. Instead they identified as e.g. Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Protestant, etc.
Talk to a shrink, lose your right to own a gun...No unintended consequences in that.
I'm glad they don't do it this way, and I'd wager that most mental health professionals are glad as well. They can't take any adverse action against you unless somebody has gotten hurt or is at risk of getting hurt. You can admit anything to them up to and including being a drug dealer, and they aren't allowed to tell anybody about it. But, if they think you're at risk of hurting either yourself or others, you'd end up as an inpatient at a mental health hospital as basically a first step, and having your guns taken away would happen secondary to that.
But taking guns away from people who don't show any apparent signs of wanting to hurt themselves or others is likely to only make them worse off because of the stigma that is attached to that sort of thing.
I am of half a mind though, that in cases like this guy where he went under the FBI's radar after they had already suspected him of terrorist association, they should have paid to get his mental state evaluated.
You guys really believe that ? Well try showing a pair of tits on daytime broadcast TV or saying the word 'pussy' on the radio.
This has zero to do with the internet, and furthermore, that is on spectrum granted by the government. Is it bullshit? Yeah, but if you do it on cable TV, nobody will give a shit.
If zero censorship is the goal - Germany would probably be a better choice.
Are you high? If you so much as goosestep there or hit your fist to your chest and raise your hand up high, even if you're just joking, you'll go to jail. Also, any kind of WWII memorabilia is completely illegal, and you can easily got to jail if something you say is even remotely considered hateful, up to and including making statements like "I really don't think we should mass import muslims that hate us just because they're trying to escape from other muslims that hate them more."
Make no mistake about it: The Nazi's still reign there, just it's a different kind of Nazi now.
Its your contradiction not mine. You are asking me to trust a government you do not trust yourself.
I never made any contradiction, rather you're just making a bunch of brain-dead assumptions about my comments thus far, and likewise putting words in my mouth.
I never at any point asked you to do anything, nor have I stated whether or not I trust the US government. What I'm stating is that the powers that be should leave the current domain name system with its existing status quo, because it already works well and is one of the few government things in this world that isn't already broken. When it comes to freedom of speech, NOBODY is as liberal as the US government. And so, on this particular matter, and on this particular matter ONLY, I'll trust my government over your chosen one any day of the year, and I honestly don't give a shit whether or not you trust it the same because unless the US Department of Commerce cedes control over the domain name system, you really have no say in this matter, and that's also the way I like it.
I know, it sounds very controlling of me to say that, but I say that because I don't want nor do I trust you or anybody you choose to "fix" something that isn't broken at all. The only things you could perceive as broken is the fact that the status quo doesn't require censorship of any speech that you don't like. And, a zero censorship policy is just the way I like it.
The FCC rules mandate that the end user isn't able to, in any practical manner, use Wi-Fi channels that aren't part of the unlicensed spectrum in the US. This whole thing came about precisely because people running open source software on their routers were using channels that are only legal in Europe and Japan, thus causing interference with other equipment that's licensed to use that spectrum in the US.
Essentially, they just need a way to make it so that radios shipped in the US aren't capable of hitting licensed spectrum, but that's not practical from an economies of scale perspective (I.e manufacturers save on cost by making the same chips for all markets, and then using software to disable different channels on a regional basis.)
In principle, I like the idea of making the radio subsystem be virtualized, and just have a software interface that controls the radio. This could actually improve open source compatibility because you don't even need to worry about i.e closed source broadcom drivers. Kind of like how running Linux or BSD in a virtual machine means you don't have to worry about whether or not your physical hardware is compatible with your chosen OS.
Sorry, we don't share your blind trust in your government - and having nominated the orangutan with the bad checks - we trust your government even less now.
You don't trust you OWN government, but you demand that WE must trust them ?
So in one statement you say I blindly trust my government, and in the very next you say I don't? I think that in your case, the truth is that you can't even figure yourself out, let alone my opinion on anything. Try being less of a scatterbrain, and then after that, come try again at making an argument.
There's zero difference between the Chinese trying to censor Tienanmen Square and what the RIAA tries to do, and because of that, the US government is no better at protecting "free speech".
Yes, there's quite a difference. If the RIAA/MPAA could bring down just any domain it wants, then public torrent trackers would have a very hard time even existing. The reason they are able to float from domain to domain is precisely because the USA doesn't have jurisdiction over non-US TLDs, which means that US based corporations can't obtain a court order to shut them down either, unless they have a presence in another country and go through the legal channels in that country. In the case of TPB, there's an organization called BREIN that was able to get a takedown of their.se domain recently, but it took them a VERY LONG time to do so.
However you'll never see any purely US based entity get a domain seizure for a website registered in another country unless that country's government specifically consents for that to happen. The US government does not, and there are no indications that it will ever, seize another country's TLD.
In fact, what the US actually controls is what you call the root domain, which is just a dot. For example, www.slashdot.org is actually www.slashdot.org., just the last dot at the end is always implied and never shown in most client software. When we talk about "keys to the internet" what we're really talking about is who ultimately owns the dot at the end. In France for example, the US delegates complete control to France the ownership of the "fr." top level domain, and doesn't set any terms for what France can or cannot do with it.
Now, if we turn this over to some international entity, like say the UN, they can and probably will set terms for what a country can and can't do with their top level domain. The first thing that comes to mind is mandating that countries de-list sites that speak negatively against a particular religion, or just in some way sound negative against some kind of ethnic group, regardless of whether or not that is what a site is. For example, they could set rules requiring that slashdot should be delisted unless it outright deletes posts that have GNAA material, and that having them downmodded just isn't enough.
If you want to argue that said international entity won't require such censorship...then I have to ask...what exactly does anybody gain by turning it over to an international body? And again, I need to emphasize, the US doesn't set any rules for what websites can and can't say. Other countries can even host ISIS propaganda websites, pro-drug websites, copyright infringement, and everything else the US government hates with a passion, and the US still doesn't intervene, nor does it have any kind of "unenforced policy" or anything of that nature. When a country owns a TLD, it's theirs to do as they please.
Agreed. It's not like the US has an unblemished record of openness and propriety when managing this either. The US has seized domains names and banned activities they don't like. Europe is actually much farther along on ensuring preservation of internet liberties, data protection, etc.
Actually that's not true at all. The US seizes domain names only within its own jurisdiction, just like everybody else. However Europe, and especially China, Russia, and numerous third world countries, have expressed a desire to force other countries to censor speech, regardless of the other countries laws. Case in point, France wants Google to censor search results in ALL of its domains.
The US hasn't had anything even approaching an equivalent.
I personally have more income than I know what to do with besides just save it. I don't really feel the urge to go on expensive vacations or buy expensive cars even though I could if I wanted to.
Yeah I think this is by far the biggest "douche vs turd" election I've ever witnessed, and I can't even fathom how it could possibly get even worse than this. Seriously, this year politics in America has probably hit rock bottom.
I think that's the direction Bezos is anticipating, or in the more broad sense, putting shit in orbit might get a lot cheaper in the future. Reusable rockets may very well just be the beginning. Afterwards...Space elevators? Who knows, the sky is the limit.
One nice thing about space is you don't have to deal with NIMBY syndrome, so it may prove advantageous just for the fact that you don't have to ask, especially if you don't remain in orbit and don't put anything in Earth's path. Or even tidal lock it behind the moon.
I've never seen anything to suggest that Google backs up all of your settings, keys, passwords, or wifi networks. Contacts and calendar information is an optional part of your gmail account. If you want, you can just ignore Google Calendar and use some other app, and Google won't have your calendar information, and you can still benefit from all of the same features that Google Calendar offers provided your chosen app supports them. You can also opt to store your contacts locally, in which case they won't sync with gmail.
When you say Google, are you referring to Android, ChromeOS or both? last I used a Chromebook, it seemed like you could use a Google account... or nothing.
For me to reset an old local account password and gain access to a PC takes me less than 20 seconds.
What good is resetting your password if all of your data is encrypted based on it? It still remains encrypted, even if you reset the password. However the Microsoft account just gives your encryption keys to Microsoft to store in plaintext.
If somebody breaks into your Microsoft account (which has a much bigger attack surface,) they have all they need to own your PC, encrypted files and all. Such is not the case with a local account: Either you have the password, or you don't have shit.
So every IT company has to have infrastructure in Turkey to do business there? Sounds like they'll seriously limit their ability to participate in modern global commerce.
A note on Microsoft accounts: ALWAYS configure local authentication and NOT Microsoft account authentication. If you do the latter, Microsoft retains a copy of your encryption keys on their servers, limits your password length to 14 characters and reduced complexity, and they (not you) ultimately hold the keys for unlocking your own system. Almost needless to say, this dramatically reduces your security and privacy, especially considering that Microsoft's public cloud may very well be your weakest link. And before a Microsoft apologist mutters something about Google and/or Apple, note that they don't do any of the three things that I mentioned.
Just a note on this: A firewall running on your local machine WILL NOT WORK. Microsoft has configured the kernel so that telemetry effectively ignores firewall rules and hosts configuration. The only way to block it is if it runs on an external (preferably non windows) device.
Why not just turn this on by default? If this breaks some kind of DOS convention, then it's likely only relevant to enterprise users running some legacy crap, and assuming they run Windows 10 at all, I highly doubt they're going to upgrade to this build any time soon anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Early Christians didn't have those particular schismatic conceptions, and oddly all of the ones you name are post-Martin Luther, it's like you've never heard of Nestorians or Coptics.
That depends on how far back you go. In the earliest days they just called it "the way". As the different sects divided they typically (but not always) identified themselves after whoever founded their sect. It wasn't until the 50's that they all started calling themselves Christian again, at least in the US, which came about because a lot of them felt that their divisions were allowing i.e. Atheists, Unitarians, Jews, other less religious sects, etc, to have their sway into mainstream politics; for example, abolishment of prayer in schools.
I use AMT a lot as well, and have for years. My main question here is: How the fuck is this even remotely news material? Furthermore, why is it presented as some sort of conspiracy? Intel advertises this as a feature and never made any attempt to hide it. AMT is also off by default, by the way.
The only Intel feature I'm at all concerned about is SGX, which by design can't be audited, and has nothing to do with anything mentioned in TFS.
Umm no, they don't. Maybe back in 2000 to around 2008, after Intel went with that netburst shit, but not anymore. Every datacenter I've managed for the last 3 years has almost no AMD gear at all.
Should Christians be subject to extra monitoring? Are one group of Christians the real Christians and the others just misunderstood? Or is "Christian" just a label adopted by a ton of people with wildly divergent beliefs?
It's actually the later. Nobody really identified as "Christian" until somewhat recently. Instead they identified as e.g. Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Protestant, etc.
I was doing it as late as 2004. Why? Because breaking smart cards was more fun than actually watching TV, which has mostly uninteresting crap.
Talk to a shrink, lose your right to own a gun...No unintended consequences in that.
I'm glad they don't do it this way, and I'd wager that most mental health professionals are glad as well. They can't take any adverse action against you unless somebody has gotten hurt or is at risk of getting hurt. You can admit anything to them up to and including being a drug dealer, and they aren't allowed to tell anybody about it. But, if they think you're at risk of hurting either yourself or others, you'd end up as an inpatient at a mental health hospital as basically a first step, and having your guns taken away would happen secondary to that.
But taking guns away from people who don't show any apparent signs of wanting to hurt themselves or others is likely to only make them worse off because of the stigma that is attached to that sort of thing.
I am of half a mind though, that in cases like this guy where he went under the FBI's radar after they had already suspected him of terrorist association, they should have paid to get his mental state evaluated.
or had been modified to not comply with the local regulation.
And how, pray tell, was it modified? Be specific.
You guys really believe that ? Well try showing a pair of tits on daytime broadcast TV or saying the word 'pussy' on the radio.
This has zero to do with the internet, and furthermore, that is on spectrum granted by the government. Is it bullshit? Yeah, but if you do it on cable TV, nobody will give a shit.
If zero censorship is the goal - Germany would probably be a better choice.
Are you high? If you so much as goosestep there or hit your fist to your chest and raise your hand up high, even if you're just joking, you'll go to jail. Also, any kind of WWII memorabilia is completely illegal, and you can easily got to jail if something you say is even remotely considered hateful, up to and including making statements like "I really don't think we should mass import muslims that hate us just because they're trying to escape from other muslims that hate them more."
Make no mistake about it: The Nazi's still reign there, just it's a different kind of Nazi now.
Or maybe he did. If you read his post, it was about as thoughtful as that totally incoherent 9 minutes of acting.
Its your contradiction not mine. You are asking me to trust a government you do not trust yourself.
I never made any contradiction, rather you're just making a bunch of brain-dead assumptions about my comments thus far, and likewise putting words in my mouth.
I never at any point asked you to do anything, nor have I stated whether or not I trust the US government. What I'm stating is that the powers that be should leave the current domain name system with its existing status quo, because it already works well and is one of the few government things in this world that isn't already broken. When it comes to freedom of speech, NOBODY is as liberal as the US government. And so, on this particular matter, and on this particular matter ONLY, I'll trust my government over your chosen one any day of the year, and I honestly don't give a shit whether or not you trust it the same because unless the US Department of Commerce cedes control over the domain name system, you really have no say in this matter, and that's also the way I like it.
I know, it sounds very controlling of me to say that, but I say that because I don't want nor do I trust you or anybody you choose to "fix" something that isn't broken at all. The only things you could perceive as broken is the fact that the status quo doesn't require censorship of any speech that you don't like. And, a zero censorship policy is just the way I like it.
The FCC rules mandate that the end user isn't able to, in any practical manner, use Wi-Fi channels that aren't part of the unlicensed spectrum in the US. This whole thing came about precisely because people running open source software on their routers were using channels that are only legal in Europe and Japan, thus causing interference with other equipment that's licensed to use that spectrum in the US.
Essentially, they just need a way to make it so that radios shipped in the US aren't capable of hitting licensed spectrum, but that's not practical from an economies of scale perspective (I.e manufacturers save on cost by making the same chips for all markets, and then using software to disable different channels on a regional basis.)
In principle, I like the idea of making the radio subsystem be virtualized, and just have a software interface that controls the radio. This could actually improve open source compatibility because you don't even need to worry about i.e closed source broadcom drivers. Kind of like how running Linux or BSD in a virtual machine means you don't have to worry about whether or not your physical hardware is compatible with your chosen OS.
I don't know about anybody else, but I thought college was MUCH easier than high school.
Sorry, we don't share your blind trust in your government - and having nominated the orangutan with the bad checks - we trust your government even less now.
You don't trust you OWN government, but you demand that WE must trust them ?
So in one statement you say I blindly trust my government, and in the very next you say I don't? I think that in your case, the truth is that you can't even figure yourself out, let alone my opinion on anything. Try being less of a scatterbrain, and then after that, come try again at making an argument.
There's zero difference between the Chinese trying to censor Tienanmen Square and what the RIAA tries to do, and because of that, the US government is no better at protecting "free speech".
Yes, there's quite a difference. If the RIAA/MPAA could bring down just any domain it wants, then public torrent trackers would have a very hard time even existing. The reason they are able to float from domain to domain is precisely because the USA doesn't have jurisdiction over non-US TLDs, which means that US based corporations can't obtain a court order to shut them down either, unless they have a presence in another country and go through the legal channels in that country. In the case of TPB, there's an organization called BREIN that was able to get a takedown of their .se domain recently, but it took them a VERY LONG time to do so.
However you'll never see any purely US based entity get a domain seizure for a website registered in another country unless that country's government specifically consents for that to happen. The US government does not, and there are no indications that it will ever, seize another country's TLD.
In fact, what the US actually controls is what you call the root domain, which is just a dot. For example, www.slashdot.org is actually www.slashdot.org., just the last dot at the end is always implied and never shown in most client software. When we talk about "keys to the internet" what we're really talking about is who ultimately owns the dot at the end. In France for example, the US delegates complete control to France the ownership of the "fr." top level domain, and doesn't set any terms for what France can or cannot do with it.
Now, if we turn this over to some international entity, like say the UN, they can and probably will set terms for what a country can and can't do with their top level domain. The first thing that comes to mind is mandating that countries de-list sites that speak negatively against a particular religion, or just in some way sound negative against some kind of ethnic group, regardless of whether or not that is what a site is. For example, they could set rules requiring that slashdot should be delisted unless it outright deletes posts that have GNAA material, and that having them downmodded just isn't enough.
If you want to argue that said international entity won't require such censorship...then I have to ask...what exactly does anybody gain by turning it over to an international body? And again, I need to emphasize, the US doesn't set any rules for what websites can and can't say. Other countries can even host ISIS propaganda websites, pro-drug websites, copyright infringement, and everything else the US government hates with a passion, and the US still doesn't intervene, nor does it have any kind of "unenforced policy" or anything of that nature. When a country owns a TLD, it's theirs to do as they please.
Agreed. It's not like the US has an unblemished record of openness and propriety when managing this either. The US has seized domains names and banned activities they don't like. Europe is actually much farther along on ensuring preservation of internet liberties, data protection, etc.
Actually that's not true at all. The US seizes domain names only within its own jurisdiction, just like everybody else. However Europe, and especially China, Russia, and numerous third world countries, have expressed a desire to force other countries to censor speech, regardless of the other countries laws. Case in point, France wants Google to censor search results in ALL of its domains.
The US hasn't had anything even approaching an equivalent.
I personally have more income than I know what to do with besides just save it. I don't really feel the urge to go on expensive vacations or buy expensive cars even though I could if I wanted to.
Yeah I think this is by far the biggest "douche vs turd" election I've ever witnessed, and I can't even fathom how it could possibly get even worse than this. Seriously, this year politics in America has probably hit rock bottom.
I think that's the direction Bezos is anticipating, or in the more broad sense, putting shit in orbit might get a lot cheaper in the future. Reusable rockets may very well just be the beginning. Afterwards...Space elevators? Who knows, the sky is the limit.
One nice thing about space is you don't have to deal with NIMBY syndrome, so it may prove advantageous just for the fact that you don't have to ask, especially if you don't remain in orbit and don't put anything in Earth's path. Or even tidal lock it behind the moon.
I've never seen anything to suggest that Google backs up all of your settings, keys, passwords, or wifi networks. Contacts and calendar information is an optional part of your gmail account. If you want, you can just ignore Google Calendar and use some other app, and Google won't have your calendar information, and you can still benefit from all of the same features that Google Calendar offers provided your chosen app supports them. You can also opt to store your contacts locally, in which case they won't sync with gmail.
When you say Google, are you referring to Android, ChromeOS or both? last I used a Chromebook, it seemed like you could use a Google account... or nothing.
Which doesn't contradict anything I said.
For me to reset an old local account password and gain access to a PC takes me less than 20 seconds.
What good is resetting your password if all of your data is encrypted based on it? It still remains encrypted, even if you reset the password. However the Microsoft account just gives your encryption keys to Microsoft to store in plaintext.
If somebody breaks into your Microsoft account (which has a much bigger attack surface,) they have all they need to own your PC, encrypted files and all. Such is not the case with a local account: Either you have the password, or you don't have shit.
So every IT company has to have infrastructure in Turkey to do business there? Sounds like they'll seriously limit their ability to participate in modern global commerce.
A note on Microsoft accounts: ALWAYS configure local authentication and NOT Microsoft account authentication. If you do the latter, Microsoft retains a copy of your encryption keys on their servers, limits your password length to 14 characters and reduced complexity, and they (not you) ultimately hold the keys for unlocking your own system. Almost needless to say, this dramatically reduces your security and privacy, especially considering that Microsoft's public cloud may very well be your weakest link. And before a Microsoft apologist mutters something about Google and/or Apple, note that they don't do any of the three things that I mentioned.
Just a note on this: A firewall running on your local machine WILL NOT WORK. Microsoft has configured the kernel so that telemetry effectively ignores firewall rules and hosts configuration. The only way to block it is if it runs on an external (preferably non windows) device.
Why not just turn this on by default? If this breaks some kind of DOS convention, then it's likely only relevant to enterprise users running some legacy crap, and assuming they run Windows 10 at all, I highly doubt they're going to upgrade to this build any time soon anyways.