Trump's tweets are so "effective" because he was running for and then held the most powerful office on the planet and he is totally incompetent in every way except for media manipulation. And even there he routinely shoots himself into the foot.
The very fact that he is anywhere near this office much less in it is totally appalling to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the facts. That group will re-tweet because of the seriousness of the consequences of the election are quite real to them. Add to that his base that loves him will retweet him no matter what. The "effectiveness" has little to do with the structure of his utterances.
Comparing this to anything else for any purpose other than point out how outrageous it is is meaningless.
Can someone with knowledge on the topic post what the packaging and cooling strategy for the 175W chip looks like? Is air cooling still going to be enough? Will a typical system still be able to run at 50C ambient?
I wonder if someone could get an injunction against Microsoft if they produced a Windows version that wasn't a super fertile viral ecosystem to begin with. The court order would force them to put exploits back into the code so that nobody would be put out of work.
I doubt Microsoft could actually do that but it would be interesting if they did.
Readers here may recall that Trump's budget director Mick Mulvaney published a budget that had a $2 Trilliondollarmath error.
Republicans (think Paul Ryan) often (always?) produce budgets that contain all sorts of tax cuts for upper brackets and then a "magic asterisk" that gives no detail but says the shortfall will be made up by a) economic growth stimulated by the tax cuts and b) cost savings from cutting government waste.
So my take is the bad optics of all this finally bubbled up to Trump (I guess Fox News couldn't filter it out totally) and he gave the command to his minions to find trillions of dollars of "government waste and inefficiency" to save the budget. So they came up with this.
It doesn't have to make sense. All he wants to do is get headlines out there that proclaim Trump Saves Us Trillions and for most of his base and way too much of the swing voters that is all they will see. It is ideal for this media purpose. If the topic gets the slightest bit technical he can count on the talking airheads to gloss it over and he'd up with "opposing views on this story" in the worst case.
What that means: enough voters will think have this view: Trump and Republicans produced a budget that will save our economy and Democrats are Fighting It.. They don't have to be right. They just have to throw up enough chaff to confuse the voter and Republicans win the mid-terms again.
So how do you pay $1M (or any amount) of bitcoin to a the ransomware owners without getting some sort of guarantee from them that they will actually deliver the decrypt key? You just send the transaction and hope they hold up their end of the bargain?
If they were in communication with the bad guys, that means there is some communication trail back to them. I can't see savvy malware people exposing themselves that way.
It seems to be quite the thing to trash Comcast but they have done a reasonably good job in my area.
When they first acquired the network in my area from AT&T (it was the domain of @Home originally which was pretty much the first cable-modem ISP) I had all sorts of reliability problems. Service would blink out for minutes at a time at random intervals. Very annoying when you are VPNed into the company network or watching a video.
That persisted for a while but now I have had no downtime for years with DOCSIS 3 service. 100Mbit/sec downloads consistently any time of day.
Apparently not everyone gets that kind of service which is a shame.
I live in Fremont, just across the bay from Google and Facebook. If I were offered a job at either of them I would consider turning it down solely because of the commute problem in this area. In nominal conditions I can make it to Stanford Hospital in about 38.5 minutes. In commute conditions without access to the commuter lane that can stretch to 2 hours or more.
Would 300 units even make a dent in the problem? The Google lunch area alone (been there) accommodates several times that number. At best this would be temporary accommodations.
And the problem with temporary accommodations is that they tend to turn into permanent accommodations. And it is rarely very pretty.
It is hard enough to produce a finished (or, rather, deployable) software product without adding impossible constraints on it. Harder still to make a profit out of it if you are going to have to carry liability insurance assuming that would ever be available.
My current project is a web application with client-side javascript, running on top of an unknown operating system, connected via the Internet via unknown switches and routers, with the back end with two Linux Virtual machines provided by a vendor whose hardware and hypervisor I don't know. Those at least I know but one is running a Glassfish container running in a JVM and the other is a MySQL data base engine. I would say maybe 2% of the code running to make it all go is something that I wrote or had direct control over.
In that chain of software I can think of a dozen things that could break and spill (either accidentally or via malware) private customer information. I have defended against all of them I can think of, but if there are 12 I can think of there is probably another 12 I haven't thought of. If I had to accept liability for anything bad happening in any of those millions of lines of code I basically would be ill-advised to do the business. Or the insurance cost would just price me out of the market.
My simple little social application is in a different category than something life critical. It isn't responsible for air or ground traffic, monitoring someone's heart, controlling toxic materials, guarding against fire or explosion, or managing someone's money. It used to be that kind of software was always run in carefully controlled environments. There was at least a chance of managing the risk of product liability.
These days? I see avionics applications running on iPads. Sooner or later that fact will show up in court.
Because the majority of the voters want the Iraq war and the War on Drugs (I'm with you, by the way, on those items), but the majority of voters don't want "free" health care because they're smart enough to understand that health care isn't actually free.
Keep in mind that many "approval" numbers for the ACA appear low because there is a percentage of people who will not approve of the ACA when they call it "Obamacare." Second there is also a percentage that is against the ACA because it does not for them go far enough. They want single-payer.
There is absolutely no evidence beyond right-wing sound bites that indicate that government involvement in health care is unpopular.
Well, the practical answer is that the US Constitution makes defense and international treaties a federal responsibility, but not healthcare.
But people who actually favor liberty believe that no such right exists for any of these issues and that none of them are proper government functions.
Oh really.
“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Even the Roberts court was able to figure out that the ACA was constitutional.
I recall from his '50s-era novel "Space Cadet" Heinlein described a cell-phone as used by one of his characters. Technology aside he actually got the social impact right: "hey is that your phone ringing? Oh yeah I guess it is." In other words how a portable phone obtrudes (would obtrude) in a social setting.
Anyone else remember that? (My books are packed deep and far and I haven't seen that particular one in decades so I am curious if I remembered it right.)
But you DON'T have a right to make ME give YOU health care.
See the difference?
I don't.
If you have the right to make me pay for the Iraq war, which I didn't want, or the War on Drugs, which I didn't want, and many other things I didn't want, then why don't I (meaning a majority of voters) have the right to make you pay into a universal risk pool for health care?
You could write one record a second for 200 billion years and still not run into a problem.
But if I manage to sign up 1 billion users and each user produces 1 record per second on average then I break my data base in a mere 200 years. In the age of IoT including body-embedded devices and 99% global connectivity such a data base is actually a possibility. I am sure Facebook, Google, and NSA have all had to ponder this limit already even though they might not have hit it this year or next.
I am currently working on a web site backed by a MySQL data base. The main table has a must-be-unique ID field which is typed as a Java Long object. So my data base is going to break when it hits 2^63 records. Should I be worried?
Point 2: He's right. Now that several layers of courts and the White House via Spicer have established that Trump's tweets are in fact relevant to his administration's policies then they should be treated as they were presidential records.
Point 3: Make it retroactive so he is already in violation for his deleted Tweets.
Point 4: This will never make it to the floor but if it did and passed Trump would veto it anyway.
Comey has been routinely insisting that he had no choice but to do what he did.
And he had been told by his superiors at the DoJ not to do what he did. Also reportedly had counsel within his own FBI to not do what he did. The specific reason: we the FBI do not interfere in elections. As far as what Comey was required to do, to the proximity of the election would and should have far overridden any immediate duty-to-disclose.
Also there were some reports that parties within the FBI NY office put pressure on Comey to write that letter. The story is there is a faction there that hates Clinton more than anything. I am not sure I believe that but if it were true it would explain some things.
Of course there would have been fall-out for Comey had he not disclosed and then there was something to the Wiener follow-up. That should not have been a consideration of his and anyway his ass was covered with multiple layers. He just screwed up. He didn't intend to interfere with election 2016 but did anyway.
Oh, those masterful Russian manipulators and their devious long-term plans!
It is pretty clear you are not responding to what I wrote, but what you imagine I wrote. To see what it looks like when someone gets it and dispenses with your arguments (if they can even be called that) in two succinct lines, read the following post by Lisandro below.
I am not sure what the point of your post is, unless it is just that you are immensely entertained by your own babble.
As usual the media noise machine has managed to deflect everyone from the real issue. Of course the Russians will interfere if they can. This last time around they probably didn't think when they started that it would work out so well but it did. It was a low cost, low risk enterprise probably intended to a) test the weapons and b) trim Hillary's wings rather than win Trump the White House.
Had Comey not done his political stunt with the Weiner's e-mails it wouldn't have flipped the election and I doubt they expected it to. Yet Nate Silver's numbers are pretty clear: Hillary had 6%+ lead until Comey did that and down 3%+ points after, close enough for the EC to do its thing. Had it not been for Comey the election would not have even been close.
As it turned out if Trump can manage it he will end the Russian sanctions which have been crippling to the Russian economy. Hillary would not have. She would have continued Obama policies. That is not a bad payoff for what this cyber op probably cost.
Back to the point at hand is Trump is most likely innocent in the part about the election. What has him worried is that he knows that if they keep digging on the investigation what will come to light is his deep financial dependents on Russian money interests, all of whom are either pals of Putin if not outright operatives of his office.
A month or so ago Trump had one of his lawyers write up a letter that declared that "nobody in Russia owes Trump money." While the Trump supporters view that (as intended) as some sort of vindication/valdiation the reality-based world realizes nobody ever thought he did. What the real problem is that Trump owes Russians (i.e. Putin money big time.)
For the last two decades no American based bank would loan Trump money due to his shady business practices and so the money he has been using comes from either Russia. Or China (a whole new issue.) So I would bet that a lot of Trump businesses are heavily leveraged in Russian debt and possibly in default. In other words Putin probably has the power to ruin Trump -- the U.S. President! -- and family financially with just a phone call.
That is what Trump doesn't want you to know and why he has been so eager to stop any investigation regarding Russia. It will come up eventually and the only real question is how far Trump will hang on and how far the Republicans in the house will go to protect him. Based on what has gone on so far is pretty damn far.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump's tweets are so "effective" because he was running for and then held the most powerful office on the planet and he is totally incompetent in every way except for media manipulation. And even there he routinely shoots himself into the foot.
The very fact that he is anywhere near this office much less in it is totally appalling to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the facts. That group will re-tweet because of the seriousness of the consequences of the election are quite real to them. Add to that his base that loves him will retweet him no matter what. The "effectiveness" has little to do with the structure of his utterances.
Comparing this to anything else for any purpose other than point out how outrageous it is is meaningless.
Can someone with knowledge on the topic post what the packaging and cooling strategy for the 175W chip looks like? Is air cooling still going to be enough? Will a typical system still be able to run at 50C ambient?
If this does actually go to trial I hope Oliver's attorneys let Oliver do the cross examination. That would be epic television.
I wonder if someone could get an injunction against Microsoft if they produced a Windows version that wasn't a super fertile viral ecosystem to begin with. The court order would force them to put exploits back into the code so that nobody would be put out of work.
I doubt Microsoft could actually do that but it would be interesting if they did.
Readers here may recall that Trump's budget director Mick Mulvaney published a budget that had a $2 Trillion dollar math error.
Republicans (think Paul Ryan) often (always?) produce budgets that contain all sorts of tax cuts for upper brackets and then a "magic asterisk" that gives no detail but says the shortfall will be made up by a) economic growth stimulated by the tax cuts and b) cost savings from cutting government waste.
So my take is the bad optics of all this finally bubbled up to Trump (I guess Fox News couldn't filter it out totally) and he gave the command to his minions to find trillions of dollars of "government waste and inefficiency" to save the budget. So they came up with this.
It doesn't have to make sense. All he wants to do is get headlines out there that proclaim Trump Saves Us Trillions and for most of his base and way too much of the swing voters that is all they will see. It is ideal for this media purpose. If the topic gets the slightest bit technical he can count on the talking airheads to gloss it over and he'd up with "opposing views on this story" in the worst case.
What that means: enough voters will think have this view: Trump and Republicans produced a budget that will save our economy and Democrats are Fighting It. . They don't have to be right. They just have to throw up enough chaff to confuse the voter and Republicans win the mid-terms again.
So how do you pay $1M (or any amount) of bitcoin to a the ransomware owners without getting some sort of guarantee from them that they will actually deliver the decrypt key? You just send the transaction and hope they hold up their end of the bargain?
If they were in communication with the bad guys, that means there is some communication trail back to them. I can't see savvy malware people exposing themselves that way.
It seems to be quite the thing to trash Comcast but they have done a reasonably good job in my area.
When they first acquired the network in my area from AT&T (it was the domain of @Home originally which was pretty much the first cable-modem ISP) I had all sorts of reliability problems. Service would blink out for minutes at a time at random intervals. Very annoying when you are VPNed into the company network or watching a video.
That persisted for a while but now I have had no downtime for years with DOCSIS 3 service. 100Mbit/sec downloads consistently any time of day.
Apparently not everyone gets that kind of service which is a shame.
I didn't do the second posting. I have no idea who Beau1080p is and why he duplicated and did weird edits to my original post.
I live in Fremont, just across the bay from Google and Facebook. If I were offered a job at either of them I would consider turning it down solely because of the commute problem in this area. In nominal conditions I can make it to Stanford Hospital in about 38.5 minutes. In commute conditions without access to the commuter lane that can stretch to 2 hours or more.
Would 300 units even make a dent in the problem? The Google lunch area alone (been there) accommodates several times that number. At best this would be temporary accommodations.
And the problem with temporary accommodations is that they tend to turn into permanent accommodations. And it is rarely very pretty.
It is hard enough to produce a finished (or, rather, deployable) software product without adding impossible constraints on it. Harder still to make a profit out of it if you are going to have to carry liability insurance assuming that would ever be available.
My current project is a web application with client-side javascript, running on top of an unknown operating system, connected via the Internet via unknown switches and routers, with the back end with two Linux Virtual machines provided by a vendor whose hardware and hypervisor I don't know. Those at least I know but one is running a Glassfish container running in a JVM and the other is a MySQL data base engine. I would say maybe 2% of the code running to make it all go is something that I wrote or had direct control over.
In that chain of software I can think of a dozen things that could break and spill (either accidentally or via malware) private customer information. I have defended against all of them I can think of, but if there are 12 I can think of there is probably another 12 I haven't thought of. If I had to accept liability for anything bad happening in any of those millions of lines of code I basically would be ill-advised to do the business. Or the insurance cost would just price me out of the market.
My simple little social application is in a different category than something life critical. It isn't responsible for air or ground traffic, monitoring someone's heart, controlling toxic materials, guarding against fire or explosion, or managing someone's money. It used to be that kind of software was always run in carefully controlled environments. There was at least a chance of managing the risk of product liability.
These days? I see avionics applications running on iPads. Sooner or later that fact will show up in court.
- military satellites are often into the billions of dollars, and as such are less price sensitive on the launch and more success sensitive.
If they are overpaying 6x for launches is it possible they are also overpaying 6x for the hardware they are putting into orbit? Just asking.
Because the majority of the voters want the Iraq war and the War on Drugs (I'm with you, by the way, on those items), but the majority of voters don't want "free" health care because they're smart enough to understand that health care isn't actually free.
Gallup polls: 55% support the ACA
Quinnipiac University: 17% support Obamacare repeal.
USA Today: 51% of those surveyed said they would prefer to keep and work to improve ACA. Another 7% said they wanted to keep the health care law as is.
Keep in mind that many "approval" numbers for the ACA appear low because there is a percentage of people who will not approve of the ACA when they call it "Obamacare." Second there is also a percentage that is against the ACA because it does not for them go far enough. They want single-payer.
There is absolutely no evidence beyond right-wing sound bites that indicate that government involvement in health care is unpopular.
Oh really.
“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Even the Roberts court was able to figure out that the ACA was constitutional.
I recall from his '50s-era novel "Space Cadet" Heinlein described a cell-phone as used by one of his characters. Technology aside he actually got the social impact right: "hey is that your phone ringing? Oh yeah I guess it is." In other words how a portable phone obtrudes (would obtrude) in a social setting.
Anyone else remember that? (My books are packed deep and far and I haven't seen that particular one in decades so I am curious if I remembered it right.)
But you DON'T have a right to make ME give YOU health care.
See the difference?
I don't.
If you have the right to make me pay for the Iraq war, which I didn't want, or the War on Drugs, which I didn't want, and many other things I didn't want, then why don't I (meaning a majority of voters) have the right to make you pay into a universal risk pool for health care?
So are we going to get a post in this thread about Musk's unworkable technology wet dreams and delusional business model?
That's what I come for whenever a Tesla article comes up. Makes my day.
To most normal people that's not a SUV.
It isn't an SUV and it isn't a cross-over. It is a mini-van pure and simple.
OK for soccer moms and stuff but not an SUV.
You could write one record a second for 200 billion years and still not run into a problem.
But if I manage to sign up 1 billion users and each user produces 1 record per second on average then I break my data base in a mere 200 years. In the age of IoT including body-embedded devices and 99% global connectivity such a data base is actually a possibility. I am sure Facebook, Google, and NSA have all had to ponder this limit already even though they might not have hit it this year or next.
I am currently working on a web site backed by a MySQL data base. The main table has a must-be-unique ID field which is typed as a Java Long object. So my data base is going to break when it hits 2^63 records. Should I be worried?
Point 1: Master level trolling.
Point 2: He's right. Now that several layers of courts and the White House via Spicer have established that Trump's tweets are in fact relevant to his administration's policies then they should be treated as they were presidential records.
Point 3: Make it retroactive so he is already in violation for his deleted Tweets.
Point 4: This will never make it to the floor but if it did and passed Trump would veto it anyway.
Comey has been routinely insisting that he had no choice but to do what he did.
And he had been told by his superiors at the DoJ not to do what he did. Also reportedly had counsel within his own FBI to not do what he did. The specific reason: we the FBI do not interfere in elections. As far as what Comey was required to do, to the proximity of the election would and should have far overridden any immediate duty-to-disclose.
Also there were some reports that parties within the FBI NY office put pressure on Comey to write that letter. The story is there is a faction there that hates Clinton more than anything. I am not sure I believe that but if it were true it would explain some things.
Of course there would have been fall-out for Comey had he not disclosed and then there was something to the Wiener follow-up. That should not have been a consideration of his and anyway his ass was covered with multiple layers. He just screwed up. He didn't intend to interfere with election 2016 but did anyway.
It is pretty clear you are not responding to what I wrote, but what you imagine I wrote. To see what it looks like when someone gets it and dispenses with your arguments (if they can even be called that) in two succinct lines, read the following post by Lisandro below.
I am not sure what the point of your post is, unless it is just that you are immensely entertained by your own babble.
As usual the media noise machine has managed to deflect everyone from the real issue. Of course the Russians will interfere if they can. This last time around they probably didn't think when they started that it would work out so well but it did. It was a low cost, low risk enterprise probably intended to a) test the weapons and b) trim Hillary's wings rather than win Trump the White House.
Had Comey not done his political stunt with the Weiner's e-mails it wouldn't have flipped the election and I doubt they expected it to. Yet Nate Silver's numbers are pretty clear: Hillary had 6%+ lead until Comey did that and down 3%+ points after, close enough for the EC to do its thing. Had it not been for Comey the election would not have even been close.
As it turned out if Trump can manage it he will end the Russian sanctions which have been crippling to the Russian economy. Hillary would not have. She would have continued Obama policies. That is not a bad payoff for what this cyber op probably cost.
Back to the point at hand is Trump is most likely innocent in the part about the election. What has him worried is that he knows that if they keep digging on the investigation what will come to light is his deep financial dependents on Russian money interests, all of whom are either pals of Putin if not outright operatives of his office.
A month or so ago Trump had one of his lawyers write up a letter that declared that "nobody in Russia owes Trump money." While the Trump supporters view that (as intended) as some sort of vindication/valdiation the reality-based world realizes nobody ever thought he did. What the real problem is that Trump owes Russians (i.e. Putin money big time.)
For the last two decades no American based bank would loan Trump money due to his shady business practices and so the money he has been using comes from either Russia. Or China (a whole new issue.) So I would bet that a lot of Trump businesses are heavily leveraged in Russian debt and possibly in default. In other words Putin probably has the power to ruin Trump -- the U.S. President! -- and family financially with just a phone call.
That is what Trump doesn't want you to know and why he has been so eager to stop any investigation regarding Russia. It will come up eventually and the only real question is how far Trump will hang on and how far the Republicans in the house will go to protect him. Based on what has gone on so far is pretty damn far.
I wouldn't hire a guy whom I couldn't trust to have all my data at his house.
Could you explain "salt?" It's new to me but from your context I should know it. (A link would be fine).