WTF are you talking about? Government absolutely spams people. Government is a bunch of politicians, each one with their own agenda, each one trying to make some money/name for himself. This has nothing to do with any so called 'public good' (there is no such thing anyway). These robocalls are illegal and now the government says: fuck you all, we are above the law. We will call you, promote our agenda, ask for money, threaten you into compliance, into voting a particular way, etc.etc.etc.
Tyranny of a collectivist government is worse than tyranny of a singular tyrant. A tyrant can be taken down, even killed. How do you kill the hydra that is a collectivist government?
Seriously? You don't like the government's policies, so your first reaction is to kill the leader? For the love of god, you're a shining example of the extremism that's become fashionable nowadays. This isn't Iran, if you have a problem you protest peacefully or become active in politics yourself, you don't fucking assassinate people.
Second off, I think the AC parent is the only one I've read so far who's RTFA. If you actually did, it still bans politicians, which will prevent the at times harassing political bombardments, but the government itself is of course going to need to call people. Businesses are exempt when they do business - but what does the government do? It's sure as hell not supposed to be business. Without the mass calling exemption, they wouldn't be able to distribute natural disaster alerts, the Amber Alert system would be questionable, and I think we can all agree saying no to a researcher the one time in your life you're called isn't too hard compared to the benefits scientific studies bring us all. I'm as frustrated with our government as anyone is right now, but geez people, think before saying something.
It is censorship. Comments are being suppressed, which is a form of censorship. I won't pretend that all censorship is inherently bad, but it is taking place here. And it really is a problem.
If you post as an AC, it takes a single downmod to be at -1. It doesn't mean that your post is unacceptable to Slashdot, as a whole. Rather, one user disliked your post and was able to put it at -1. That means a lot of users will never see the post and the moderation, if unjust, may never be undone. Furthermore, editors have unlimited mod points and can moderate a single post many times. There's no way to tell how often a post has been moderated or who is doing it.
Moderation also affects your ability to post. If you're logged in and your karma gers low enough, you post at -1 but can only post twice a day. It also affects your ability to moderate. In other words, it greatly affects your ability to participate in the system.
If a single user can very quickly moderate a post to -1, it makes it pretty unlikely that many people will see the post. Also, while its justifiable to censor off-topic posts, flames, and comments with patently false information, a lot of comments also get modded down because they're disagreeable with the prevailing point of view.
The system isn't very good at highlighting good posts. It is, however, very effective at promoting groupthink and suppressing opposing points of view.
I have been moderating at Slashdot for years, and in that time, I have browsed countless 0 and -1 posts. Most of that is complete and utter crap. If you want to post on how evil black people are, if you want to spam every page with comments on "those republicans are evil", "she did it again", "obama wants to kill black people", then YES, you should go to -1, because that is absolute garbage that contributes absolutely nothing. Almost all of the good and insightful posts at 0 eventually wind up at score 5, even though it takes longer, which it should - if you're not willing to lend your words a reputation, then yeah, they have to get by purely on content, which will require you to appeal to whatever the kind of person who reads at 0 is in hopes that they mod you up. If you really want to lend substance to your posts, then you post with a name, because then you actually have some form of punishment for trolling. As to that, trolling itself on Slashdot is absolutely ridiculous these days; some asshole loser, with waaaaaaaaa too much time on her hands floods every story with complete garbage, and it's getting longer and longer. So yeah, it will get modded down, because nobody wants to see it; we can only hope at some point she realizes what a stupid and pointless endeavor it is.
Furthermore, the system of karma works exactly as it's supposed to. If you take up a side in a debate or whatever, you'll almost always get modded up by both sides if you can actually make decent and coherent points. When you write "stup4d obama he against allz de Trumpz", you are just as likely to get modded down as if you wrote s/obama/cruz. If you have been modded down so incredibly often that you have -1 and can only post twice a day, well, maybe you should rethink what you're writing. If 99.99% of people hate it, then just maybe there's something wrong with it - I find it hard to believe someone is so incredibly special that we all immediately, all 99.99% of us, vote down their posts because we're so dumb we don't see the enlightenment in the above. For example, if you flood the story with a bunch of stupid political posts that have absolutely no relation or bearing with the story.
Third, moderation never deletes a post, only hides it. If you are genuinely confident in what you've written, then obviously that's not a problem; you know that anyone who wants to here your side of the story can easily find it by searching at 0. If your genuine goal is to contribute something, then you're obviously focusing on writing good content and not on how high you ca
I found it rather funny that I got four hits from a Nintendo Wii.
I've gotten hits from wacky devices too, such as a PS3, a PSP, some Windows 95 IE user, and what I believe was a Blackberry of some sort. It's really neat to see what people still browse with! Though I don't think my website would even display correctly in a version of IE that runs on Windows 95...
Some perspective, people; we've had encryption in use for over 40 years, and the actual amount of people using it to escape prosecution is almost none. Furthermore, if we put in a backdoor, it's inevitably going to be discovered by the rest of the world, and we will wind up with a situation where anybody in the world can read traffic made by American citizens, but they can't read the rest of the worlds. How does it improve national security if the US's banking details are all in plaintext while the rest of the world's isn't? Not only doesn't it improve it, but it dramatically weakens it - if the US really winds up in a war against China or Russia or whatever, and they've figured out the secret, they can effectively spy on any data in the US, read any file. We all know there's no way people are going to upgrade after, so how exciting will it be when the entire infrastructure is easily hackable and no citizen's data will be secure?
Second off, I'd like to point out this isn't going to yield us much benefit. If criminals can't communicate securely with computers, then they'll... use encryption anyway. If they constantly switch WiFi hot spots, use different computers and phones, only send brief messages, and use it for dead drops when they're not around, they have absolutely no possible risk, and the data remains unreadable anyways. And if even that is somehow, magically and impossibly, fixed, then they'll simply do it the old fashioned way; rely on (physical) coded messages, talk person to person, or use stenography or other measures to evade detection. They'll still successfully escape oversight, and it'll be even easier because now they'll be needles in a 300 million pound haystack.
Finally, let's consider the kind of data they're after. They're probably going to want messages, personal videos, etc. from people - stuff that's actual communication. If the data is not stored on the phone, or the phone is destroyed, then... where is it? I know that I don't send the same email back and forth to a person for 30 days, and if neither of us have a copy, there'll be non-left anyways. Oh sure, maybe the server you say, but if we assume a criminal or spy willing to use advanced encryption, why exactly wouldn't they securely delete their messages after they've been read? We did it with burning papers, and once that message is gone, it's gone, encryption or not. Unless, of course, you propose to store every single message, video, and photograph that crosses US internet lines, and that is impossible with how much data there is. Also, how much crime is committed with just the internet? Law enforcement has access to criminal records, on seen evidence, bank records, security footage, witnesses, talking to family, and all manners of power; why would this hamper them? If the criminal is caught with his face bare on a security cam, we's convicted; if a spy blatantly and repeatedly does erratic things and snoops around, he's going to be caught also. Every country did it perfectly fine back in the 80's. Computers are (theoretically) a nice thing to have for this sort of purpose, but they don't contribute that much in the grand scheme. They simply make the inevitable a little quicker.
In short, we have absolutely nothing to gain really, unless you want to go after the 2 or 3 people who used it, and we have the world to lose; people will lose confidence in our IT market, businesses will move to a place where they can store encrypted data legally, the US will become completely unsafe for sensitive records, the government can easily turn into an Orwellian tolitarian state, all of our information becomes accessible to an enemy in the event of a war, and everybody who's smart will find loopholes around this provision anyway. We are going to suffer if we ban encryption or require it to have a backdoor, we are going to suffer a lot, and if you've seen the results of humanity's past, irrational fear and hatred tend to produce pretty poor choices.
This actually doesn't look so bad to me, it's surprisingly sane, actually. The US is pretty reliant on only a few major industries for exporting, mainly entertainment and food. They're farther ahead then any other country when it comes to the size of their tech industry, so I think we should be focusing on ensuring that the country doesn't needlessly fall behind, especially with people becoming seriously concerned about the state of our privacy laws. Investing and growing it is a smart move, and I don't oppose the green card idea if we require foreigners to graduate with a degree from an American university (or other accredited source). If they did all the work an American would do and passed the same classes, and they stuck around long enough to complete it (which is usually around 4 years for a college degree), I absolutely don't see why we don't give them a green card. She recognizes how important tech is, and although I don't agree with all her policies, she's definitely got the right idea here.
The major concern with her internet policy is that she implicitly supports the bulk data collection. She is leagues and leagues ahead of Donald Trump, who has advocated for cutting America's internet off from the rest of the world and would almost certainly outlaw encryption of any kind, but she's far inferior to Bernie Sanders who favors privacy much more. Factoring this into account, I can live with her policys, but it's frustrating for us all that very few politicians seem to grasp what this means or that is actually weakens security, because now we have to automate sorting through it all on account of how big the data is and machines are so laughably bad compared to people at spotting this sort of thing.
I'm still LOLing at the Europeans even today, most of whom are mourning the first of many nations to leave the EU. It's a matter of time before the rest of the EU fails, too. I'm so thankful for being a Canadian, because we are smarter and better than the Europeans and Americans. Unlike the United States and most of Europe, Canada is not a failed state. Look for Canada to become the dominant power as China sinks deeper into recession, the United States spirals downward in decay, and the EU breaks apart at the seams. I really wonder if Civilization V will include the effects of the decay of the United States and EU and the rise of Canada as the world's dominant superpower.
I know the European and American moderators won't like hearing this and will quickly hide it at -1. It doesn't change the fact that your countries are decadent and in rapid decline, soon to be passed by Canada.
That last sentence is the first change you have made in entire days. You would think that if you have the time to obsessively wait until each story comes up and then post a stupid rant, you'd at least be willing to change something. I'm pretty disappointed, to be honest.
Judging by the name, it certainly looks like children were involved in the design process. Aside from my snarky remark, I'm not really impressed. If you've ever worked with those old 1000-in-1 electronic kits, you've done pretty much what they show here, hell, probably much more. Even if this didn't emulate a toy we've already had for ages, there are so many products marketed towards kids entering programming, and none of them seem to have really taken off at all. Lego Mindstorms has probably been the most successful of them all, but even then it's not something I've see many kids using, mostly adults actually. Google has a really bad record of throwing an overhyped (and overused, sometimes) idea into an oversaturated market, and it doesn't look like anything's changed today:/
And let's be honest, this is probably going to silently abandoned two years from now and it'll never grace Slashdot again.
Don't get me wrong. Islam has greatly advanced his illness. After all, mohammad was a pedophile. Also, Islam was the source for his phantasies as you correctly said. But in this particular case, him being gay-ist played a greater role than him being a muslim.
It was a radical islamic terrorist attack executed by a mentally ill gay person.
Ah, so him being gay was more dangerous then him being muslim? Then humor me, why would he attack other gay people? If gays were self-exterminating, then wouldn't they all be dead by now? Your delusions are fascinating. Tell me, how do the Chinese factor into this? Since they manufactured most of the products he likely touched, did their inherent chinese-ish also hijack his brain too? How about me? We were both American citizens. Since I am a "stupid overweight fag", as you so eloquently put it, did my evidently clearly inherent obesity travel across the IRS database and infect his mind? How do Obama and Trump figure into all of this? Please, tell me more.
It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with these traits to live as possible.
Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.
Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.
Yeah man, the US and Europe are totally stagnant and degenerate societies. Let's go to one where only the fittest survive, only the most intelligent, strongest, smartest people can. Let's go to Somolia! Why, they must practically be super human, enduring everything from a desert climate to a drug trade to a civil war to extreme poverty.
You forgot that evolution only applies to immediate risks - traits that are physically likely to kill you right here and now. Humans don't have natural selection anymore, not the kind that would make us any better, because we don't die. If we did go back to Africa, sure, quite a few people would die if they had to live out in the wild without any luxuries like medical care and clean water, but that goes against natural selection - the whole point is not to have people die in the first place. Second off, creativity and intelligence have nothing to do with your survival on a savannah. It doesn't matter how nice the pictures you draw are, if you're not capable of surviving malaria, you're dead. Likewise, intelligence only helps up to a very basic point in your example - whether one person can count to 10 and the other can do calculus, it doesn't matter, the physically buffer survives. Oh, but you might say, the calculus guy might be smart enough to build a strong, sturdy house. He might figure out a way to pipe water. He might even figure out a way to communicate with the world, by a telephone. That would be natural selection, wouldn't it? Ah, but that we enter a degenerate and stagnate society, don't we, because we're not all dying anymore. But we're only here in the first place because of natural selection, so wouldn't letting only the physically strongest survive, itself, be regressive? You'd be turning back the clock on natural selection. Some food for thought.
Interesting that you make the comparison of doctors to programmers. How many programmers do know that aren't that good at their job? What percentage of your graduating class was highly skilled? What percentage was mediocre or just barely getting through? Do you really think that distribution is much different in medical school?
One thing that I have noticed is that many doctors will blindly believe anything they are told in medical school without questioning it. Because of that, they fall behind in skill and depth of knowledge. This seems to be particularly true in the U.S., where they are all too happy to recommend unnecessary surgery for infants and 90 yr. olds, and oversubscribe antibiotics, opioids and other medications. This often results in causing more harm than good.
Yeah, that's true. But as the AC mentioned here (I'd mod him up if I hadn't already participated in this conversation), medical school has a much higher barrier for graduation, and doctors perform to much higher standards. The medical field actually used to work like the IT industry - look back about two hundred years or so in the US, and you'll see what I mean.
You do mention a valid point - doctors these days tend to overprescribe medicine. However, that's not specific to the US. Furthermore, I am advocating that you understand what and why you're being treated, not that you sit there and nod your head and wait for them to write your prescription. Opioids are commonly given for people suspected to be in severe pain - obviously, you can refuse them if it's not too bad. Likewise, with antibiotics, if you know it's a virus, then put up some resistance. But think of why they're recommending it to you, and ask them - for example, there are certain viruses (HIV is on the extreme end of this scale, but you get the idea) that weaken the immune system, and the antibiotics don't really service to kill the virus, but to potentially kill a bacteria strain that comes with the virus. Some diseases become really hard to treat after they've taken hold. That example probably sucks, because I don't have any special medical training, but you get the idea - don't automatically discount their ideas. If they really are presenting you with bullshit, a few curious questions should definitely put them on the spot.
Nope, there is a link between autism and vaccines, vaccines are the straw that can break the camels back. Autism is the result of a hyperactive immune response. If one is predisposed to such an immune response, vaccines can trigger the response by ramping up the immune system beyond the genetic/epigenetic threshold.
That is pure nonsense. Autism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the immune system at all, or you'd see people with compromised immune systems also exhibit something. Furthermore, your immune system does not even have a "genetic threshold" - your immune system is controlled almost entirely by chemicals, not directly by genetics.
Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder.
Applying Occam's Razor, the more likely explanation is that you're being trolled...
Of course it's a troll, I guess the sarcasm was a little subtle. But c'mon, you don't find an anti-gay troll who defends an Afghani over an American fascinating? Usually it's just the conservative points magnified. As crappy and obvious as it is, at least it's something new, most just repeat what's already been said a 1000 times. I have a policy of not feeding trolls, but every once in a while it's pretty entertaining to poke them.
Let's hope Trump will get president so that he makes people like you shut up. You harm our national integrity. Look how it has ended in orlando, here gay-ism has turned a peaceful young man with a family into a brutal killer who has killed fellow gay-ists. Most of the gays end up being peaceful, but it may also escalate like in this case. Its a matter of national security.
They need help why do you deny them that help.
Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder. Claims events happened that can be demonstrably proven not to have - hallucinations. Refuses to read another's viewpoint - narcissistic disorder. Belief that gay people are out to get you - severe paranoria. Buddy, if you have pills, please go and take them, your doctor prescribes medicine for a reason.
You have an interesting viewpoint though (stupid, but curious). Those gay people were Americans, and the guy who killed them immigrated from Afghanistan and dreamed of repeating 9/11. The kind of nonsense your spouting usually comes from are those who are super nationalists - that all foreigners are evil. You view a terrorist from Afghanistan as more justified than a gay American?
You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all. I am very pro-vaccine but I am always amazed at how people think doctors know something special about vaccines just because they went to medical school. They aren't pharmacologists. They just prescribe the stuff.
"They just prescribe stuff" is far more than you or I know. Why the hell isn't everyone a programmer? There can't be much more to it than just logical thinking, after all. Same with architecture - what the hell can there be to designing buildings? I can build one out of legos pretty well, it's just on a bigger scale.
If you're on Slashdot, you're more likely than most to have at least a little technical experience, so I'd like to point you out the person that we all hate, the technically illiterate manager. You know, the one who can't understand why you can't debug a program in 3 hours, why delays can possibly happen, and why the hell they pay you what they do to type on a keyboard all day. What do you do that an outsourced programmer in India can't? That probably offends you, of course you do valuable work, and someone who is on average poorer trained than you is going to output poorer work. After all, not everyone's fit to be a programmer, right?
It has been an official illness registered by the American Psychiatric Association. But the environmentalists and already befallen gay-ists have exerted pressure to un-mark it. The gays because they are gay and the environmentalists because they want to destroy any human life on earth to "preserve" it.
An irrational and intense fixation on a group that has no impact on your life, along with unsubstantiated statements that are soundly incorrect, is far more of a sign of mental distress than "gayism."
There aren't many people out there who are truly opposed to vaccinations. Please don't misrepresent our beliefs. We simply understand that vaccines have side effects. In adults, vaccines can cause soreness, fever, and nausea. Occasionally there are more serious side effects of vaccines, though these generally are rare in adults. One side effect that can be far more serious is that a person could have an allergic reaction to the vaccine. That can happen with any vaccine, though it's not especially common. Generally speaking, the side effects are either so rare or benign relative to actually getting the illness that the vaccine is worth it. In children, however, sometimes the side effects are different. In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism. The mechanisms for this aren't fully understood, but there is a strong link with some vaccines. I don't think most people truly oppose vaccinations, but rather are genuinely concerned about the side effects. And that's also true with medicines, which can sometimes have some very serious side effects. Please don't misrepresent our views as pseudoscience.
You seem to be surprisingly rational for someone holding that view, unusually even, so I'll make an attempt. Skepticism is always warranted a little bit, but it only works properly if you have actual concrete research to back it up. Can you even name the specific vaccine you're talking about? "Strongly linked" implies their was a research study done on it, at least to me. Can you please present that study? If there is one, I certainly don't know of it.
Second off, please remember that your doctors are professionally trained, have years of experience, and from what I understand, it's not that uncommon to have written an actual thesis as one. You are, almost certainly, not even trained at all, much less anywhere near that level, so you should be very skeptical of your own opinion because you are going to have a much narrower base of knowledge. Vaccines do have a chance of allergic reactions and such - but do you know the potential consequences of not getting them? Take the chickenpox one, for example. I'm not aware of allergic reactions to it, since I never needed the vaccine, but if you ignore the vaccine and your kids don't get it when they're young, they're at risk for getting chickenpox later on in life. Chickenpox as a kid is about as dangerous as a cold, but in an adult, it can be lethal if not properly treated, and even when it is it's much harder on your body. You have a 1-in-a-million chance or so with most vaccines of getting a reaction, but your odds of getting chickenpox are not that low at all, especially if you work anywhere near children.
Ultimately, please, ask your doctor. It's fine to be skeptical of something, so ask them why - they will have fully explored this issue, and will be capable of answering any questions you might have. That's, after all, they're job - they're here to help treat you, and they'll be able to explain to you the risks. Feel free to deliberate after them, but given that there is no correlation between vaccines and autism, allergic reactions are extremely rare, and the trace amounts of some chemicals is so small as to be medically insignificant, the very small risks of a vaccine far outweigh the potential risks of catching something like chickenpox or meningitis, for which both death is a possible outcome. Please, for your children's sake, ask your doctor.
Still, voting for him could be the "sensible" thing to do. Especially if you're a in a state where it's already more or less a given how the election will end.
If you're in a red|blue state where the outcome is roughly 70/30 in every election, it doesn't really matter whether you cast your vote for Hillary|Trump. It doesn't even matter whether the state is for or against the candidate you're for or against. Your vote simply does not matter.
You now essentially have three choices. Either you can say "fuck this shit" and stay at home, knowing that it doesn't matter anyway. You can participate in the circus and vote for Hillary|Trump. Or you can show that yes, you would've gone there, you wanted to participate but neither of the two clowns is good enough for your vote, but there is someone who voices your concerns, and he got your vote because of this.
No, this will not change anything. At the very least not immediately. The most you could hope for is that in further elections politicians will try to gain votes and check what agendas moved people. If you can get 5% more votes by catering to the anti-surveillance crowd, they'll go for this.
But then again, since your vote is for the toilet anyway, why not be creative with it?
This, exactly. Especially if you live in a state like California or Texas, where one party completely swamps out the other, you have nothing to gain from voting for either major - the Democrats are going to win whether you give them your vote or not, and the Republicans are not going to change because they win in other states. I would vote for Bernie Sanders if he runs as an independent after his loss, but if not, Mr. Johnson here would be a great next step. I don't agree with all of his policies - he need some federal services to oversea the state ones, and there really are times we as a country need to agree on something, or else we'll just fragment apart into many smaller ones. However, he's the only major contender in this race who goes for internet privacy, and if that is enough to influence someone like Mrs. Clinton, I'd be perfectly happy to give him my vote. People view the two parties as the only option because that's what they're parents did, but in reality, you can vote anyone for president - and as funny as Mickey Mouse and Darth Vader are, hopefully by voting for Gary Johnson we can have at least a little influence in our government.
It's not like you get a prize for betting on the winning horse.
In this case you do get a prize for voting for Trump: the best candidate gets in power for the next 4 years, and likely even for the next 8.
The reward associated with this prize is a restoration of America to its former glory. Immigration law is finally enforced for the first time in decades, strengthening the American economy. Unjust free trade deals would likely be thrown away, again strengthening the American economy. When America's economy is strong, like it was in the 1950s and 1960s, America accomplishes great things.
The last 40 years of open borders and unjust free trade have nearly destroyed America. That's why it's time to leave those policies behind and move forward with President Trump leading the way.
Yeah, the glory days of the fifties. The world was in ruins, most governments were new and fragile, and millions of people had died. I don't think you really understand that decade - the US did well despite the policy at the time, not because of it. The US became what it was because everybody else in the world had to deal with the fallout of the war, whereas the US's physical location shielded it from that. Furthermore, it was the war itself that directly brought the US out of the depths of the Great Depression. Without the incredible amounts of weapons exported, we'd still have absolutely no working rights, working 16 hour days for a dollar a day - in other words, what most developing countries endure today.
Are you seriously advocating for Mr. Trump to start a world war? Maybe you should look up what the 30's in the US looked like, because that's where we'd be heading if you want to follow the glorious policies of the past.
Try checking out the Memopad 572c. 2 GB RAM, a fantastic screen, supports SD cards, and a really high performing chip with ~ 10 hour battery life, all for less than $199. It's not made anymore, can only get up to Android 5 at the moment, and won't take on the full size ipad, but for what you get it's a fantastic deal, if you can still find it. A decent $199 tablet seems to be a lost art these days:/
Ahhh... but if the only requirement is length, you don't think we'll see "passwordpasswordpassword" become popular?
So? That's not inherently less secure than the shorter PasswordPassword, even if the later is caps-sensitive.
But it's not an improvement. If anything, it's worse, because it leads to a false sense of security. It's a much better use of effort to convince people why it's important, after which they'll naturally adopt strong passwords, as opposed to trying to force them into something they don't want to do.
No, they wouldn't. You seem to assume users have a set amount of effort they'll spend on a password, correct? That's a false assumption - because, most users will spend as little effort as possible.
You seem to assume that users will have a choice in the matter. I would expect that any site implementing a password autocorrect feature would also increase the minimum length to something significantly over 8 characters so as to prevent usage of single words as passwords.
Ahhh... but if the only requirement is length, you don't think we'll see "passwordpasswordpassword" become popular?
There are plenty of sites that require at least one uppercase letter in a password. And others that require at least one number. And others that require a non-alphanumeric 'special' character "()(*&^%$#@!". And others that do not ALLOW a non-alphanumeric character. And in some technological backwater there are probably sites that require ONLY uppercase or ONLY lowercase. The result is conflicting requirements that make it much harder for people to create and remember strong, long passwords.
If every site allowed a password like "MyPasswordOnSlashdotIsUnicornDroppings", it would be easy for people to have a mental system in place to create strong, unique passwords for every site. Autocorrect would help usability here, but would still not make a dictionary attack feasible when there are 7 or 8 dictionary words strung together.
Yes I know some people think XKCD is wrong and everybody should be using random passwords and a password manager, but personally I think A) they are full of shit, mainly because cross-device password manager usability sucks (especially when you're unwilling to trust your passwords to a cloud service, as I am), and B) that's just never going to happen anyway - people aren't going to switch to password managers en-masse ever.
No, they wouldn't. You seem to assume users have a set amount of effort they'll spend on a password, correct? That's a false assumption - because, most users will spend as little effort as possible. If FOOTBALL is the same as football, do you think they'll switch to something like "football12468;|"? No, they'll pick... football. But now, it's also Football. And fOotball. And FOOTBALL. Some limited forms of autocorrect don't really weaken security, but if we go to password case insensitivity, you are striking out a significant amount of work, and not only is cracking passwords quicker but it's more likely you'll have collisions (and yes, I know about salts, but many web developers don't).
What we need to do is to educate people on why strong passwords are important - and recommend some simply tricks that really can add security with a trivial amount of overhead, such as maybe adding a single phrase to the end of them all, so they remember it as "password" + extra phrase. Another method is to try to remember a catchy made up sentence, XKCD style, and then add some special symbols at the end like $$$ or <3 or whatever to help defeat dictionary attacks, and you've got a reasonably secure password with little extra effort.
Loss of jobs is the big one. An AI is not only not capable of killing humans, but would have nothing to gain from killing the people who maintain it. On the other hand, poor and unemployed people with nothing to lose will tear our society apart if that part grows large enough (as has been demonstrated numerous times throughout history) and I fear nobody seems to be taking this situation seriously. We need to find an alternative way to structure our society, and quickly, if we want AI that does all our work for us.
Office in particular is also something that legacy users like to hold onto.
Plus two of those are just more Microsoft. So you're argument basically comes down to "Microsoft is going to abuse you anyways, so you might as well think happy thoughts and pull your pants down".
No, he's advocating that if your customers use either of those, Windows 10 won't do anything those already will. He phrased it poorly, and the personal attack was rather petty, but he's right - unless you work solely with enterprise users, who don't use either of those two services, don't install the telemetry update on their Windows 7 machines, and are perfectly happy paying $30 per machine (or whatever your contract stipulates) when you need to upgrade, you're letting your personal feelings get in the way of your professional opinion. OS X (and more significantly, the hardware it runs on) is far more expensive and proprietary to fix than your common off the shelf desktops, and will evoke other headaches (such as changing software, dealing with platform incompatibilities, etc). OS X isn't inherently the wrong choice, but for a large enterprise, it is very very unlikely that OS X's features are going to be useful for most of the employees, and all you're doing is tripling (or more) your employer's costs over a personal opinion.
Alternatively, you're prescribing this for ordinary residential use, and in that case you have a stronger point. However, do you really think they won't use any of the above services? OS X is the right choice for many people, and I would recommend it for most end users if I know they aren't on a budget and know what they're paying for, but Windows 10 is a solid option for many, as it preserves much better compatibility and works with their existing hardware. For these users it's especially important because they're going to be paying $129 in a few weeks, and to a home user that is a significant investment. If they are going to be upgrading eventually anyway, why would you recommend they wait and then have to pay the money?
Consulting requires you to set aside your own beliefs and determine what's best for the client, and I recommend you seriously consider what you're advising. Showing your users how to disable the telemetry features and giving them an understanding of how tracking works is going to do far more good for them than "buy mac", especially if your opinion will shift to the complete opposite in 2 year's time if Apple introduces similar features.
But the second amendment was written at a time when we had no standing military,
Yes, that was the idea. Instead of which, we got a standing military, which the founders knew was harmful to freedom.
Once you get rid of our military and have formed militias, I'll support your interpretation, but not until then.
Once you become familiar with the history of the 2A, you'll support my interpretation. Once you become familiar with the history of standing militaries, you'll support my interpretation. Not until.
Uh, no, I wouldn't. George Washington complained that militias were inefficient and ineffective, and even though he was unable to enforce any order or structure (von Stuben, a German general, did it for him), he recognized it was not a system that would work. Later on, in the war of 1812, the Americans lost crucial battles and very important cities like New York and Boston early on, and much of it was because of how ineffective the American soldiers were. They were very poorly trained, had little professional equipment, they had no sense of group fighting or connections, and they were only interested in defending the immediate territory they owned. Possessing a gun made sense in the early days, when there was very little law or authority in most of the US, but I don't think that case stands any more. I don't mind too strongly one way or the other and I have an open mind, so long as proper training is mandatory, but your cases don't really hold up.
The military isn't oppressing your rights, politicians are.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF are you talking about? Government absolutely spams people. Government is a bunch of politicians, each one with their own agenda, each one trying to make some money/name for himself. This has nothing to do with any so called 'public good' (there is no such thing anyway). These robocalls are illegal and now the government says: fuck you all, we are above the law. We will call you, promote our agenda, ask for money, threaten you into compliance, into voting a particular way, etc.etc.etc.
Tyranny of a collectivist government is worse than tyranny of a singular tyrant. A tyrant can be taken down, even killed. How do you kill the hydra that is a collectivist government?
Seriously? You don't like the government's policies, so your first reaction is to kill the leader? For the love of god, you're a shining example of the extremism that's become fashionable nowadays. This isn't Iran, if you have a problem you protest peacefully or become active in politics yourself, you don't fucking assassinate people.
Second off, I think the AC parent is the only one I've read so far who's RTFA. If you actually did, it still bans politicians, which will prevent the at times harassing political bombardments, but the government itself is of course going to need to call people. Businesses are exempt when they do business - but what does the government do? It's sure as hell not supposed to be business. Without the mass calling exemption, they wouldn't be able to distribute natural disaster alerts, the Amber Alert system would be questionable, and I think we can all agree saying no to a researcher the one time in your life you're called isn't too hard compared to the benefits scientific studies bring us all. I'm as frustrated with our government as anyone is right now, but geez people, think before saying something.
It is censorship. Comments are being suppressed, which is a form of censorship. I won't pretend that all censorship is inherently bad, but it is taking place here. And it really is a problem.
If you post as an AC, it takes a single downmod to be at -1. It doesn't mean that your post is unacceptable to Slashdot, as a whole. Rather, one user disliked your post and was able to put it at -1. That means a lot of users will never see the post and the moderation, if unjust, may never be undone. Furthermore, editors have unlimited mod points and can moderate a single post many times. There's no way to tell how often a post has been moderated or who is doing it.
Moderation also affects your ability to post. If you're logged in and your karma gers low enough, you post at -1 but can only post twice a day. It also affects your ability to moderate. In other words, it greatly affects your ability to participate in the system.
If a single user can very quickly moderate a post to -1, it makes it pretty unlikely that many people will see the post. Also, while its justifiable to censor off-topic posts, flames, and comments with patently false information, a lot of comments also get modded down because they're disagreeable with the prevailing point of view.
The system isn't very good at highlighting good posts. It is, however, very effective at promoting groupthink and suppressing opposing points of view.
I have been moderating at Slashdot for years, and in that time, I have browsed countless 0 and -1 posts. Most of that is complete and utter crap. If you want to post on how evil black people are, if you want to spam every page with comments on "those republicans are evil", "she did it again", "obama wants to kill black people", then YES, you should go to -1, because that is absolute garbage that contributes absolutely nothing. Almost all of the good and insightful posts at 0 eventually wind up at score 5, even though it takes longer, which it should - if you're not willing to lend your words a reputation, then yeah, they have to get by purely on content, which will require you to appeal to whatever the kind of person who reads at 0 is in hopes that they mod you up. If you really want to lend substance to your posts, then you post with a name, because then you actually have some form of punishment for trolling. As to that, trolling itself on Slashdot is absolutely ridiculous these days; some asshole loser, with waaaaaaaaa too much time on her hands floods every story with complete garbage, and it's getting longer and longer. So yeah, it will get modded down, because nobody wants to see it; we can only hope at some point she realizes what a stupid and pointless endeavor it is.
Furthermore, the system of karma works exactly as it's supposed to. If you take up a side in a debate or whatever, you'll almost always get modded up by both sides if you can actually make decent and coherent points. When you write "stup4d obama he against allz de Trumpz", you are just as likely to get modded down as if you wrote s/obama/cruz. If you have been modded down so incredibly often that you have -1 and can only post twice a day, well, maybe you should rethink what you're writing. If 99.99% of people hate it, then just maybe there's something wrong with it - I find it hard to believe someone is so incredibly special that we all immediately, all 99.99% of us, vote down their posts because we're so dumb we don't see the enlightenment in the above. For example, if you flood the story with a bunch of stupid political posts that have absolutely no relation or bearing with the story.
Third, moderation never deletes a post, only hides it. If you are genuinely confident in what you've written, then obviously that's not a problem; you know that anyone who wants to here your side of the story can easily find it by searching at 0. If your genuine goal is to contribute something, then you're obviously focusing on writing good content and not on how high you ca
On my (unfortunately quite neglected) gardening website, for 2016 I see:
Windows 40.55% iOS 26.24% Android 17.12% Mac 12.40% Linux 1.52%
Chrome 38.31% Safari 30.31% Firefox 12.60% IE 10.30% Edge 3.62%
I found it rather funny that I got four hits from a Nintendo Wii.
I've gotten hits from wacky devices too, such as a PS3, a PSP, some Windows 95 IE user, and what I believe was a Blackberry of some sort. It's really neat to see what people still browse with! Though I don't think my website would even display correctly in a version of IE that runs on Windows 95...
Some perspective, people; we've had encryption in use for over 40 years, and the actual amount of people using it to escape prosecution is almost none. Furthermore, if we put in a backdoor, it's inevitably going to be discovered by the rest of the world, and we will wind up with a situation where anybody in the world can read traffic made by American citizens, but they can't read the rest of the worlds. How does it improve national security if the US's banking details are all in plaintext while the rest of the world's isn't? Not only doesn't it improve it, but it dramatically weakens it - if the US really winds up in a war against China or Russia or whatever, and they've figured out the secret, they can effectively spy on any data in the US, read any file. We all know there's no way people are going to upgrade after, so how exciting will it be when the entire infrastructure is easily hackable and no citizen's data will be secure?
Second off, I'd like to point out this isn't going to yield us much benefit. If criminals can't communicate securely with computers, then they'll... use encryption anyway. If they constantly switch WiFi hot spots, use different computers and phones, only send brief messages, and use it for dead drops when they're not around, they have absolutely no possible risk, and the data remains unreadable anyways. And if even that is somehow, magically and impossibly, fixed, then they'll simply do it the old fashioned way; rely on (physical) coded messages, talk person to person, or use stenography or other measures to evade detection. They'll still successfully escape oversight, and it'll be even easier because now they'll be needles in a 300 million pound haystack.
Finally, let's consider the kind of data they're after. They're probably going to want messages, personal videos, etc. from people - stuff that's actual communication. If the data is not stored on the phone, or the phone is destroyed, then... where is it? I know that I don't send the same email back and forth to a person for 30 days, and if neither of us have a copy, there'll be non-left anyways. Oh sure, maybe the server you say, but if we assume a criminal or spy willing to use advanced encryption, why exactly wouldn't they securely delete their messages after they've been read? We did it with burning papers, and once that message is gone, it's gone, encryption or not. Unless, of course, you propose to store every single message, video, and photograph that crosses US internet lines, and that is impossible with how much data there is. Also, how much crime is committed with just the internet? Law enforcement has access to criminal records, on seen evidence, bank records, security footage, witnesses, talking to family, and all manners of power; why would this hamper them? If the criminal is caught with his face bare on a security cam, we's convicted; if a spy blatantly and repeatedly does erratic things and snoops around, he's going to be caught also. Every country did it perfectly fine back in the 80's. Computers are (theoretically) a nice thing to have for this sort of purpose, but they don't contribute that much in the grand scheme. They simply make the inevitable a little quicker.
In short, we have absolutely nothing to gain really, unless you want to go after the 2 or 3 people who used it, and we have the world to lose; people will lose confidence in our IT market, businesses will move to a place where they can store encrypted data legally, the US will become completely unsafe for sensitive records, the government can easily turn into an Orwellian tolitarian state, all of our information becomes accessible to an enemy in the event of a war, and everybody who's smart will find loopholes around this provision anyway. We are going to suffer if we ban encryption or require it to have a backdoor, we are going to suffer a lot, and if you've seen the results of humanity's past, irrational fear and hatred tend to produce pretty poor choices.
This actually doesn't look so bad to me, it's surprisingly sane, actually. The US is pretty reliant on only a few major industries for exporting, mainly entertainment and food. They're farther ahead then any other country when it comes to the size of their tech industry, so I think we should be focusing on ensuring that the country doesn't needlessly fall behind, especially with people becoming seriously concerned about the state of our privacy laws. Investing and growing it is a smart move, and I don't oppose the green card idea if we require foreigners to graduate with a degree from an American university (or other accredited source). If they did all the work an American would do and passed the same classes, and they stuck around long enough to complete it (which is usually around 4 years for a college degree), I absolutely don't see why we don't give them a green card. She recognizes how important tech is, and although I don't agree with all her policies, she's definitely got the right idea here.
The major concern with her internet policy is that she implicitly supports the bulk data collection. She is leagues and leagues ahead of Donald Trump, who has advocated for cutting America's internet off from the rest of the world and would almost certainly outlaw encryption of any kind, but she's far inferior to Bernie Sanders who favors privacy much more. Factoring this into account, I can live with her policys, but it's frustrating for us all that very few politicians seem to grasp what this means or that is actually weakens security, because now we have to automate sorting through it all on account of how big the data is and machines are so laughably bad compared to people at spotting this sort of thing.
I'm still LOLing at the Europeans even today, most of whom are mourning the first of many nations to leave the EU. It's a matter of time before the rest of the EU fails, too. I'm so thankful for being a Canadian, because we are smarter and better than the Europeans and Americans. Unlike the United States and most of Europe, Canada is not a failed state. Look for Canada to become the dominant power as China sinks deeper into recession, the United States spirals downward in decay, and the EU breaks apart at the seams. I really wonder if Civilization V will include the effects of the decay of the United States and EU and the rise of Canada as the world's dominant superpower.
I know the European and American moderators won't like hearing this and will quickly hide it at -1. It doesn't change the fact that your countries are decadent and in rapid decline, soon to be passed by Canada.
That last sentence is the first change you have made in entire days. You would think that if you have the time to obsessively wait until each story comes up and then post a stupid rant, you'd at least be willing to change something. I'm pretty disappointed, to be honest.
Judging by the name, it certainly looks like children were involved in the design process. Aside from my snarky remark, I'm not really impressed. If you've ever worked with those old 1000-in-1 electronic kits, you've done pretty much what they show here, hell, probably much more. Even if this didn't emulate a toy we've already had for ages, there are so many products marketed towards kids entering programming, and none of them seem to have really taken off at all. Lego Mindstorms has probably been the most successful of them all, but even then it's not something I've see many kids using, mostly adults actually. Google has a really bad record of throwing an overhyped (and overused, sometimes) idea into an oversaturated market, and it doesn't look like anything's changed today :/
And let's be honest, this is probably going to silently abandoned two years from now and it'll never grace Slashdot again.
Don't get me wrong. Islam has greatly advanced his illness. After all, mohammad was a pedophile. Also, Islam was the source for his phantasies as you correctly said. But in this particular case, him being gay-ist played a greater role than him being a muslim.
It was a radical islamic terrorist attack executed by a mentally ill gay person.
Ah, so him being gay was more dangerous then him being muslim? Then humor me, why would he attack other gay people? If gays were self-exterminating, then wouldn't they all be dead by now? Your delusions are fascinating. Tell me, how do the Chinese factor into this? Since they manufactured most of the products he likely touched, did their inherent chinese-ish also hijack his brain too? How about me? We were both American citizens. Since I am a "stupid overweight fag", as you so eloquently put it, did my evidently clearly inherent obesity travel across the IRS database and infect his mind? How do Obama and Trump figure into all of this? Please, tell me more.
It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with these traits to live as possible.
Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.
Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.
Yeah man, the US and Europe are totally stagnant and degenerate societies. Let's go to one where only the fittest survive, only the most intelligent, strongest, smartest people can. Let's go to Somolia! Why, they must practically be super human, enduring everything from a desert climate to a drug trade to a civil war to extreme poverty.
You forgot that evolution only applies to immediate risks - traits that are physically likely to kill you right here and now. Humans don't have natural selection anymore, not the kind that would make us any better, because we don't die. If we did go back to Africa, sure, quite a few people would die if they had to live out in the wild without any luxuries like medical care and clean water, but that goes against natural selection - the whole point is not to have people die in the first place. Second off, creativity and intelligence have nothing to do with your survival on a savannah. It doesn't matter how nice the pictures you draw are, if you're not capable of surviving malaria, you're dead. Likewise, intelligence only helps up to a very basic point in your example - whether one person can count to 10 and the other can do calculus, it doesn't matter, the physically buffer survives. Oh, but you might say, the calculus guy might be smart enough to build a strong, sturdy house. He might figure out a way to pipe water. He might even figure out a way to communicate with the world, by a telephone. That would be natural selection, wouldn't it? Ah, but that we enter a degenerate and stagnate society, don't we, because we're not all dying anymore. But we're only here in the first place because of natural selection, so wouldn't letting only the physically strongest survive, itself, be regressive? You'd be turning back the clock on natural selection. Some food for thought.
Interesting that you make the comparison of doctors to programmers. How many programmers do know that aren't that good at their job? What percentage of your graduating class was highly skilled? What percentage was mediocre or just barely getting through? Do you really think that distribution is much different in medical school? One thing that I have noticed is that many doctors will blindly believe anything they are told in medical school without questioning it. Because of that, they fall behind in skill and depth of knowledge. This seems to be particularly true in the U.S., where they are all too happy to recommend unnecessary surgery for infants and 90 yr. olds, and oversubscribe antibiotics, opioids and other medications. This often results in causing more harm than good.
Yeah, that's true. But as the AC mentioned here (I'd mod him up if I hadn't already participated in this conversation), medical school has a much higher barrier for graduation, and doctors perform to much higher standards. The medical field actually used to work like the IT industry - look back about two hundred years or so in the US, and you'll see what I mean.
You do mention a valid point - doctors these days tend to overprescribe medicine. However, that's not specific to the US. Furthermore, I am advocating that you understand what and why you're being treated, not that you sit there and nod your head and wait for them to write your prescription. Opioids are commonly given for people suspected to be in severe pain - obviously, you can refuse them if it's not too bad. Likewise, with antibiotics, if you know it's a virus, then put up some resistance. But think of why they're recommending it to you, and ask them - for example, there are certain viruses (HIV is on the extreme end of this scale, but you get the idea) that weaken the immune system, and the antibiotics don't really service to kill the virus, but to potentially kill a bacteria strain that comes with the virus. Some diseases become really hard to treat after they've taken hold. That example probably sucks, because I don't have any special medical training, but you get the idea - don't automatically discount their ideas. If they really are presenting you with bullshit, a few curious questions should definitely put them on the spot.
Nope, there is a link between autism and vaccines, vaccines are the straw that can break the camels back. Autism is the result of a hyperactive immune response. If one is predisposed to such an immune response, vaccines can trigger the response by ramping up the immune system beyond the genetic/epigenetic threshold.
That is pure nonsense. Autism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the immune system at all, or you'd see people with compromised immune systems also exhibit something. Furthermore, your immune system does not even have a "genetic threshold" - your immune system is controlled almost entirely by chemicals, not directly by genetics.
Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder.
Applying Occam's Razor, the more likely explanation is that you're being trolled...
Of course it's a troll, I guess the sarcasm was a little subtle. But c'mon, you don't find an anti-gay troll who defends an Afghani over an American fascinating? Usually it's just the conservative points magnified. As crappy and obvious as it is, at least it's something new, most just repeat what's already been said a 1000 times. I have a policy of not feeding trolls, but every once in a while it's pretty entertaining to poke them.
Let's hope Trump will get president so that he makes people like you shut up. You harm our national integrity. Look how it has ended in orlando, here gay-ism has turned a peaceful young man with a family into a brutal killer who has killed fellow gay-ists. Most of the gays end up being peaceful, but it may also escalate like in this case. Its a matter of national security.
They need help why do you deny them that help.
Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder. Claims events happened that can be demonstrably proven not to have - hallucinations. Refuses to read another's viewpoint - narcissistic disorder. Belief that gay people are out to get you - severe paranoria. Buddy, if you have pills, please go and take them, your doctor prescribes medicine for a reason.
You have an interesting viewpoint though (stupid, but curious). Those gay people were Americans, and the guy who killed them immigrated from Afghanistan and dreamed of repeating 9/11. The kind of nonsense your spouting usually comes from are those who are super nationalists - that all foreigners are evil. You view a terrorist from Afghanistan as more justified than a gay American?
You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all. I am very pro-vaccine but I am always amazed at how people think doctors know something special about vaccines just because they went to medical school. They aren't pharmacologists. They just prescribe the stuff.
"They just prescribe stuff" is far more than you or I know. Why the hell isn't everyone a programmer? There can't be much more to it than just logical thinking, after all. Same with architecture - what the hell can there be to designing buildings? I can build one out of legos pretty well, it's just on a bigger scale.
If you're on Slashdot, you're more likely than most to have at least a little technical experience, so I'd like to point you out the person that we all hate, the technically illiterate manager. You know, the one who can't understand why you can't debug a program in 3 hours, why delays can possibly happen, and why the hell they pay you what they do to type on a keyboard all day. What do you do that an outsourced programmer in India can't? That probably offends you, of course you do valuable work, and someone who is on average poorer trained than you is going to output poorer work. After all, not everyone's fit to be a programmer, right?
Then why the hell is it different for doctors?
It has been an official illness registered by the American Psychiatric Association. But the environmentalists and already befallen gay-ists have exerted pressure to un-mark it. The gays because they are gay and the environmentalists because they want to destroy any human life on earth to "preserve" it.
An irrational and intense fixation on a group that has no impact on your life, along with unsubstantiated statements that are soundly incorrect, is far more of a sign of mental distress than "gayism."
There aren't many people out there who are truly opposed to vaccinations. Please don't misrepresent our beliefs. We simply understand that vaccines have side effects. In adults, vaccines can cause soreness, fever, and nausea. Occasionally there are more serious side effects of vaccines, though these generally are rare in adults. One side effect that can be far more serious is that a person could have an allergic reaction to the vaccine. That can happen with any vaccine, though it's not especially common. Generally speaking, the side effects are either so rare or benign relative to actually getting the illness that the vaccine is worth it. In children, however, sometimes the side effects are different. In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism. The mechanisms for this aren't fully understood, but there is a strong link with some vaccines. I don't think most people truly oppose vaccinations, but rather are genuinely concerned about the side effects. And that's also true with medicines, which can sometimes have some very serious side effects. Please don't misrepresent our views as pseudoscience.
You seem to be surprisingly rational for someone holding that view, unusually even, so I'll make an attempt. Skepticism is always warranted a little bit, but it only works properly if you have actual concrete research to back it up. Can you even name the specific vaccine you're talking about? "Strongly linked" implies their was a research study done on it, at least to me. Can you please present that study? If there is one, I certainly don't know of it.
Second off, please remember that your doctors are professionally trained, have years of experience, and from what I understand, it's not that uncommon to have written an actual thesis as one. You are, almost certainly, not even trained at all, much less anywhere near that level, so you should be very skeptical of your own opinion because you are going to have a much narrower base of knowledge. Vaccines do have a chance of allergic reactions and such - but do you know the potential consequences of not getting them? Take the chickenpox one, for example. I'm not aware of allergic reactions to it, since I never needed the vaccine, but if you ignore the vaccine and your kids don't get it when they're young, they're at risk for getting chickenpox later on in life. Chickenpox as a kid is about as dangerous as a cold, but in an adult, it can be lethal if not properly treated, and even when it is it's much harder on your body. You have a 1-in-a-million chance or so with most vaccines of getting a reaction, but your odds of getting chickenpox are not that low at all, especially if you work anywhere near children.
Ultimately, please, ask your doctor. It's fine to be skeptical of something, so ask them why - they will have fully explored this issue, and will be capable of answering any questions you might have. That's, after all, they're job - they're here to help treat you, and they'll be able to explain to you the risks. Feel free to deliberate after them, but given that there is no correlation between vaccines and autism, allergic reactions are extremely rare, and the trace amounts of some chemicals is so small as to be medically insignificant, the very small risks of a vaccine far outweigh the potential risks of catching something like chickenpox or meningitis, for which both death is a possible outcome. Please, for your children's sake, ask your doctor.
Still, voting for him could be the "sensible" thing to do. Especially if you're a in a state where it's already more or less a given how the election will end.
If you're in a red|blue state where the outcome is roughly 70/30 in every election, it doesn't really matter whether you cast your vote for Hillary|Trump. It doesn't even matter whether the state is for or against the candidate you're for or against. Your vote simply does not matter.
You now essentially have three choices. Either you can say "fuck this shit" and stay at home, knowing that it doesn't matter anyway. You can participate in the circus and vote for Hillary|Trump. Or you can show that yes, you would've gone there, you wanted to participate but neither of the two clowns is good enough for your vote, but there is someone who voices your concerns, and he got your vote because of this.
No, this will not change anything. At the very least not immediately. The most you could hope for is that in further elections politicians will try to gain votes and check what agendas moved people. If you can get 5% more votes by catering to the anti-surveillance crowd, they'll go for this.
But then again, since your vote is for the toilet anyway, why not be creative with it?
This, exactly. Especially if you live in a state like California or Texas, where one party completely swamps out the other, you have nothing to gain from voting for either major - the Democrats are going to win whether you give them your vote or not, and the Republicans are not going to change because they win in other states. I would vote for Bernie Sanders if he runs as an independent after his loss, but if not, Mr. Johnson here would be a great next step. I don't agree with all of his policies - he need some federal services to oversea the state ones, and there really are times we as a country need to agree on something, or else we'll just fragment apart into many smaller ones. However, he's the only major contender in this race who goes for internet privacy, and if that is enough to influence someone like Mrs. Clinton, I'd be perfectly happy to give him my vote. People view the two parties as the only option because that's what they're parents did, but in reality, you can vote anyone for president - and as funny as Mickey Mouse and Darth Vader are, hopefully by voting for Gary Johnson we can have at least a little influence in our government.
In this case you do get a prize for voting for Trump: the best candidate gets in power for the next 4 years, and likely even for the next 8.
The reward associated with this prize is a restoration of America to its former glory. Immigration law is finally enforced for the first time in decades, strengthening the American economy. Unjust free trade deals would likely be thrown away, again strengthening the American economy. When America's economy is strong, like it was in the 1950s and 1960s, America accomplishes great things.
The last 40 years of open borders and unjust free trade have nearly destroyed America. That's why it's time to leave those policies behind and move forward with President Trump leading the way.
Yeah, the glory days of the fifties. The world was in ruins, most governments were new and fragile, and millions of people had died. I don't think you really understand that decade - the US did well despite the policy at the time, not because of it. The US became what it was because everybody else in the world had to deal with the fallout of the war, whereas the US's physical location shielded it from that. Furthermore, it was the war itself that directly brought the US out of the depths of the Great Depression. Without the incredible amounts of weapons exported, we'd still have absolutely no working rights, working 16 hour days for a dollar a day - in other words, what most developing countries endure today.
Are you seriously advocating for Mr. Trump to start a world war? Maybe you should look up what the 30's in the US looked like, because that's where we'd be heading if you want to follow the glorious policies of the past.
Try checking out the Memopad 572c. 2 GB RAM, a fantastic screen, supports SD cards, and a really high performing chip with ~ 10 hour battery life, all for less than $199. It's not made anymore, can only get up to Android 5 at the moment, and won't take on the full size ipad, but for what you get it's a fantastic deal, if you can still find it. A decent $199 tablet seems to be a lost art these days :/
So? That's not inherently less secure than the shorter PasswordPassword, even if the later is caps-sensitive.
But it's not an improvement. If anything, it's worse, because it leads to a false sense of security. It's a much better use of effort to convince people why it's important, after which they'll naturally adopt strong passwords, as opposed to trying to force them into something they don't want to do.
No, they wouldn't. You seem to assume users have a set amount of effort they'll spend on a password, correct? That's a false assumption - because, most users will spend as little effort as possible.
You seem to assume that users will have a choice in the matter. I would expect that any site implementing a password autocorrect feature would also increase the minimum length to something significantly over 8 characters so as to prevent usage of single words as passwords.
Ahhh... but if the only requirement is length, you don't think we'll see "passwordpasswordpassword" become popular?
There are plenty of sites that require at least one uppercase letter in a password. And others that require at least one number. And others that require a non-alphanumeric 'special' character "()(*&^%$#@!". And others that do not ALLOW a non-alphanumeric character. And in some technological backwater there are probably sites that require ONLY uppercase or ONLY lowercase. The result is conflicting requirements that make it much harder for people to create and remember strong, long passwords. If every site allowed a password like "MyPasswordOnSlashdotIsUnicornDroppings", it would be easy for people to have a mental system in place to create strong, unique passwords for every site. Autocorrect would help usability here, but would still not make a dictionary attack feasible when there are 7 or 8 dictionary words strung together. Yes I know some people think XKCD is wrong and everybody should be using random passwords and a password manager, but personally I think A) they are full of shit, mainly because cross-device password manager usability sucks (especially when you're unwilling to trust your passwords to a cloud service, as I am), and B) that's just never going to happen anyway - people aren't going to switch to password managers en-masse ever.
No, they wouldn't. You seem to assume users have a set amount of effort they'll spend on a password, correct? That's a false assumption - because, most users will spend as little effort as possible. If FOOTBALL is the same as football, do you think they'll switch to something like "football12468;|"? No, they'll pick... football. But now, it's also Football. And fOotball. And FOOTBALL. Some limited forms of autocorrect don't really weaken security, but if we go to password case insensitivity, you are striking out a significant amount of work, and not only is cracking passwords quicker but it's more likely you'll have collisions (and yes, I know about salts, but many web developers don't).
What we need to do is to educate people on why strong passwords are important - and recommend some simply tricks that really can add security with a trivial amount of overhead, such as maybe adding a single phrase to the end of them all, so they remember it as "password" + extra phrase. Another method is to try to remember a catchy made up sentence, XKCD style, and then add some special symbols at the end like $$$ or <3 or whatever to help defeat dictionary attacks, and you've got a reasonably secure password with little extra effort.
Loss of jobs is the big one. An AI is not only not capable of killing humans, but would have nothing to gain from killing the people who maintain it. On the other hand, poor and unemployed people with nothing to lose will tear our society apart if that part grows large enough (as has been demonstrated numerous times throughout history) and I fear nobody seems to be taking this situation seriously. We need to find an alternative way to structure our society, and quickly, if we want AI that does all our work for us.
...assuming anyone uses any of those either.
Office in particular is also something that legacy users like to hold onto.
Plus two of those are just more Microsoft. So you're argument basically comes down to "Microsoft is going to abuse you anyways, so you might as well think happy thoughts and pull your pants down".
No, he's advocating that if your customers use either of those, Windows 10 won't do anything those already will. He phrased it poorly, and the personal attack was rather petty, but he's right - unless you work solely with enterprise users, who don't use either of those two services, don't install the telemetry update on their Windows 7 machines, and are perfectly happy paying $30 per machine (or whatever your contract stipulates) when you need to upgrade, you're letting your personal feelings get in the way of your professional opinion. OS X (and more significantly, the hardware it runs on) is far more expensive and proprietary to fix than your common off the shelf desktops, and will evoke other headaches (such as changing software, dealing with platform incompatibilities, etc). OS X isn't inherently the wrong choice, but for a large enterprise, it is very very unlikely that OS X's features are going to be useful for most of the employees, and all you're doing is tripling (or more) your employer's costs over a personal opinion.
Alternatively, you're prescribing this for ordinary residential use, and in that case you have a stronger point. However, do you really think they won't use any of the above services? OS X is the right choice for many people, and I would recommend it for most end users if I know they aren't on a budget and know what they're paying for, but Windows 10 is a solid option for many, as it preserves much better compatibility and works with their existing hardware. For these users it's especially important because they're going to be paying $129 in a few weeks, and to a home user that is a significant investment. If they are going to be upgrading eventually anyway, why would you recommend they wait and then have to pay the money?
Consulting requires you to set aside your own beliefs and determine what's best for the client, and I recommend you seriously consider what you're advising. Showing your users how to disable the telemetry features and giving them an understanding of how tracking works is going to do far more good for them than "buy mac", especially if your opinion will shift to the complete opposite in 2 year's time if Apple introduces similar features.
But the second amendment was written at a time when we had no standing military,
Yes, that was the idea. Instead of which, we got a standing military, which the founders knew was harmful to freedom.
Once you get rid of our military and have formed militias, I'll support your interpretation, but not until then.
Once you become familiar with the history of the 2A, you'll support my interpretation. Once you become familiar with the history of standing militaries, you'll support my interpretation. Not until.
Uh, no, I wouldn't. George Washington complained that militias were inefficient and ineffective, and even though he was unable to enforce any order or structure (von Stuben, a German general, did it for him), he recognized it was not a system that would work. Later on, in the war of 1812, the Americans lost crucial battles and very important cities like New York and Boston early on, and much of it was because of how ineffective the American soldiers were. They were very poorly trained, had little professional equipment, they had no sense of group fighting or connections, and they were only interested in defending the immediate territory they owned. Possessing a gun made sense in the early days, when there was very little law or authority in most of the US, but I don't think that case stands any more. I don't mind too strongly one way or the other and I have an open mind, so long as proper training is mandatory, but your cases don't really hold up.
The military isn't oppressing your rights, politicians are.