The modern military that cannot operate within the US.
In addition to not legally operating in the US (which wouldn't actually apply in the case of insurrection, btw), the modern US military entirely depends on its long supply chain, which largely resides in the US (and is thus protected during foreign excursions). This supply chain is very vulnerable and is heavily intertwined with private industry. Defection of US troops aside, the modern military becomes much less impressive when it can't keep its soldiers fed, its vehicles fueled and repaired, its lights on, and can't even transport supplies between bases without being subject to ambush.
The modern US military is awesome when operating outside of the US, but highly vulnerable inside the US. Your country's piddling military sure couldn't prop up the suppression of the US government in the case of a full-on rebellion.
If you're searching for a site using Google, or going to a site that has embedded Facebook shit chances are you're not trying to hide something.
Tired old, "if you have nothing to hide" line coupled with "Google/Facebook are the good guys" bootlicking.
In any case the privacy aspects of Google and Facebook are different again. It's one thing to be lumped in with Google's anonymised analytics and sold to a third party, or Facebook's "here's a list of everyone who lives in {insert here} and is gay", but it's quite another to be identified as "Firstname, Lastname, SSN, living in address {insert address}, spent all last night browsing fetlife.com"
The ISP thing scares me far more than Google does, even if Google are better at it.
Google's and Facebook's dossier on you is certainly not anonymized and what they sell to third parties is limited only by what they decide to sell to third parties. If they change their catalog of what's for sale, they won't suddenly forget everything they know about you.
You may trust and admire Google and Facebook, but that is not a universally held opinion. The typical ISP may be scummier in character, but they are also limited in reach.
The word "MSM" was invented and propagated by the alt right and conspiracy theorists in an attempt to marginalize *all* professional journalists.
LOL. The term "mainstream media" was coined (or at least early adopted) by Noam Chomsky in the early seventies! He's definitely what I'd call "alt-right"!
Exactly! If you want to reliably cultivate a lasting interest in a topic, the first exposure should be positive. Not starting with the foundations also allows the truly disinterested student to opt-out without leaving a lifelong bad impression ("math is hard!").
I'd even make the case that the best way to teach the foundations is through a series of interesting and fun applied scenarios. For example: straight calculus classes are boring (even to mathy-types like me), but a student in a physics class can learn a remarkable amount of calculus in the process of solving fun physics problems. Following this, more advanced math classes that build on that foundation become much easier and much less boring.
Using your grammar example, learning grammar and literature history by actually reading literature leaves a much more solid understanding than memorizing tomes of grammar rules.
Maybe I have just been lucky. That luck will probably turn around now that I was all snarky with you!
Most of the problems I've found seem to come from misconfiguration on the receiving end. I've recently had to set my SPF record to softfail because several universities that work with (that both use Office365) are consistently checking the sender's SPF records against one of their own internal relays. So every single email from an outside domain that has a SPF hard fail record is sent to spam. After I and the faculty at the universities talked to the IT department, the proscribed course of action was for them to turn off junk filtering in their email client. They insisted that the obvious screw-up that was evident in every message's headers was just as they had intended it. (This happened at two different universities.)
I keep hearing this, but I've never experienced such a scenario. If you don't run your server from an ISP's dynamic IP pool and don't run an open relay, you're extremely unlikely to be blocked by these services (as shitty and unaccountable as they are). If you go a step further and set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, it's even less likely for mail to be binned as spam.
Are you sure you're not just sending spam or running an open relay?
Fair enough. I think I got lost mid-thread and thought that you were talking about general browser policy. Frighteningly, I've actually heard such a policy proposed for browser defaults.
Which is an awesome step away from the internet-that-was to the entirely commercialized and corporate web. Why would anybody was isn't a "legitimate business" want an SSL certificate?
I'd add "all unnecessary police activity" to that list. Where I live, the police justify owning their helicopter(s?) by circling them low over different parts of town during the night. I've heard that they were looking for grow operations, which is such a good fucking reason for waking up tens of thousands of people every night, but pot is now legal here and they still do it, so I'm not sure what their current excuse is.
Browser vendors like (Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, and Apple) don't support DANE because they're big enough to each run their own trusted (by the other browsers) CA and so they don't feel the pain of having to buy certificates and "trust" third parties. They're fully invested in the CA model: sometimes charging for continued inclusion on their root CA lists and other times proposing standards that further cement the mandatory role of CAs (Certificate Transparency).
Just like you'll never see laws that are genuinely beneficial to the people come from our autocratic politicians, you'll never see support for a (more-) decentralized trust system like DANE come from the self-declared "trusted" Certificate Authorities.
It would be just like that if the electric company edited the microwave manual so that the Microwave Repair Hotline rang up the electric company. The telecommunication companies inserted themselves in the middle of the update process, so they need to either issue/approve updates or remove themselves from that role.
Putting trust in corporations is stupid and trusting an advertising company (whose core business model is tracking people and building dossiers on them) to not track you is equally stupid. I don't have any evidence that they're tracking you, but you don't have any evidence that they're not and tracking you would fit their MO perfectly.
Do what you want -- nobody cares -- but there's nothing unreasonable about distrusting Google, even in the absence of hard evidence.
I don't think that he's saying that you can be compelled to produce a physical key, but that a physical key can be seized against your will if it can be found. Since a product of your mind can't (yet!) be seized without your cooperation, and you can't be compelled to cooperate, it is off limits.
Google's entire business model requires continuous and ever increasing access to user data. They're not starving for data now, but they need to secure future streams of user data or they will be starving in the future.
This isn't about these specific exploitable resources in Kansas; they are just a small subset of resources and all of them are worthless to Google if they can't be data-mined for advertising purposes.
It's because of "corporate thinking": big businesses always talk about 'innovation' and that sort of thing, but they are too timid to actually go for anything truly innovative.
It's due to the bloat of "management" and the (mis-)assignment of business critical decisions to professional managers. They often have literally no idea how their company works or what the core-business employees do with their time. "Innovation" is a magic word to them that they think they can get access to by following cargo cult trends in their favorite management journals.
You can presume that they dropped support for XMPP federation for a noble reason, but I'll presume that it was an sleazy reason (force people to need to use Google services to talk to to the consumers that are Google's chattel and hopefully get them using all of the other data harvesting services out of convenience).
The so-called 'instant-messaging problem' has been solved. TFA is hand-wringing over a non-issue..
Something like the common use of XMPP federation is what the article was asking for and it hasn't been solved. It just needs more than a technical solution. How do we get bad faith actors like Google and Apple and Yahoo and... to stop building walled gardens?
You don't need a detente to fix this situation, you only need better behavior from employers and the rest of the situation resolves itself.
Employees job-hop because it is increasingly difficult to get any substantial increase in compensation or position without moving to a new employer. If employers regularly gave raises that matched an employee's increasing skills or value to the company, employees would stop feeling so exploited and undervalued. If employers trained employees to the positions that they desired instead of laying them off and seeking perfect-match replacements every time, employees would be able to advance their careers without moving to a new employer.
There is no part of this that can be fixed by employees making the first move (which would only lead to employers delightfully exploiting the newfound loyalty). The situation was entirely created by, and can be easily and rapidly fixed by, employers. They don't even need any cooperative participation from the employees themselves in the process.
Which is fine in both cases, because the lower core count processors and the binned processors had different prices to go with their different capabilities. You didn't buy a four core processor to find out that it only had three functional cores.
If LCDs were binned for dead pixels and you could opt to get a panel with some dead pixels for cheaper, nobody would be complaining.
To make this self replicating you'd have to add the sequences to a bacteria like E-Coli, and somehow ensure that the cell doesn't just kick the useless (for it) DNA out again.
Tack it onto a gene for antibiotic resistance so that it's not useless. It'll be the typical movie piracy scenario played out on the microscale: not only does this version of Arrival of a train at La Ciotat not have any DRM, but it has kanamycin resistance thrown in too!
His reckless disregard for the safety of others put somebody in the hospital! That's the sort of thing that gets you a little jail time (note: we're not talking prison here). That's real, demonstrable threat-to-others sort of behavior.
Let out the pot smokers and publicly intoxicated, but the people who hurt others shouldn't be the ones who get off with just a fine.
The difference here is that somebody was actually hurt by his actions. Being rendered unconscious by an impact to the head is not something to just blow off.
Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor in WA. If the woman was actually knocked unconscious, then it seems like a pretty fair description of what he did.
How big was this thing and why did he feel ok flying it above bystanders? If the "guy next to him" ran a stop sign and hit a pedestrian and knocked them unconscious, he may end up with a little jail time, too.
Slashdot Mirror
The modern military that cannot operate within the US.
In addition to not legally operating in the US (which wouldn't actually apply in the case of insurrection, btw), the modern US military entirely depends on its long supply chain, which largely resides in the US (and is thus protected during foreign excursions). This supply chain is very vulnerable and is heavily intertwined with private industry. Defection of US troops aside, the modern military becomes much less impressive when it can't keep its soldiers fed, its vehicles fueled and repaired, its lights on, and can't even transport supplies between bases without being subject to ambush.
The modern US military is awesome when operating outside of the US, but highly vulnerable inside the US. Your country's piddling military sure couldn't prop up the suppression of the US government in the case of a full-on rebellion.
If you're searching for a site using Google, or going to a site that has embedded Facebook shit chances are you're not trying to hide something.
Tired old, "if you have nothing to hide" line coupled with "Google/Facebook are the good guys" bootlicking.
In any case the privacy aspects of Google and Facebook are different again. It's one thing to be lumped in with Google's anonymised analytics and sold to a third party, or Facebook's "here's a list of everyone who lives in {insert here} and is gay", but it's quite another to be identified as "Firstname, Lastname, SSN, living in address {insert address}, spent all last night browsing fetlife.com"
The ISP thing scares me far more than Google does, even if Google are better at it.
Google's and Facebook's dossier on you is certainly not anonymized and what they sell to third parties is limited only by what they decide to sell to third parties. If they change their catalog of what's for sale, they won't suddenly forget everything they know about you.
You may trust and admire Google and Facebook, but that is not a universally held opinion. The typical ISP may be scummier in character, but they are also limited in reach.
The word "MSM" was invented and propagated by the alt right and conspiracy theorists in an attempt to marginalize *all* professional journalists.
LOL. The term "mainstream media" was coined (or at least early adopted) by Noam Chomsky in the early seventies! He's definitely what I'd call "alt-right"!
Exactly! If you want to reliably cultivate a lasting interest in a topic, the first exposure should be positive. Not starting with the foundations also allows the truly disinterested student to opt-out without leaving a lifelong bad impression ("math is hard!").
I'd even make the case that the best way to teach the foundations is through a series of interesting and fun applied scenarios. For example: straight calculus classes are boring (even to mathy-types like me), but a student in a physics class can learn a remarkable amount of calculus in the process of solving fun physics problems. Following this, more advanced math classes that build on that foundation become much easier and much less boring.
Using your grammar example, learning grammar and literature history by actually reading literature leaves a much more solid understanding than memorizing tomes of grammar rules.
Maybe I have just been lucky. That luck will probably turn around now that I was all snarky with you!
Most of the problems I've found seem to come from misconfiguration on the receiving end. I've recently had to set my SPF record to softfail because several universities that work with (that both use Office365) are consistently checking the sender's SPF records against one of their own internal relays. So every single email from an outside domain that has a SPF hard fail record is sent to spam. After I and the faculty at the universities talked to the IT department, the proscribed course of action was for them to turn off junk filtering in their email client. They insisted that the obvious screw-up that was evident in every message's headers was just as they had intended it. (This happened at two different universities.)
I keep hearing this, but I've never experienced such a scenario. If you don't run your server from an ISP's dynamic IP pool and don't run an open relay, you're extremely unlikely to be blocked by these services (as shitty and unaccountable as they are). If you go a step further and set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, it's even less likely for mail to be binned as spam.
Are you sure you're not just sending spam or running an open relay?
Fair enough. I think I got lost mid-thread and thought that you were talking about general browser policy. Frighteningly, I've actually heard such a policy proposed for browser defaults.
Which is an awesome step away from the internet-that-was to the entirely commercialized and corporate web. Why would anybody was isn't a "legitimate business" want an SSL certificate?
I'd add "all unnecessary police activity" to that list. Where I live, the police justify owning their helicopter(s?) by circling them low over different parts of town during the night. I've heard that they were looking for grow operations, which is such a good fucking reason for waking up tens of thousands of people every night, but pot is now legal here and they still do it, so I'm not sure what their current excuse is.
The registrar doesn't sign the TLD, the administrator for that TLD does. So for .com, it's Verisign.
Browser vendors like (Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, and Apple) don't support DANE because they're big enough to each run their own trusted (by the other browsers) CA and so they don't feel the pain of having to buy certificates and "trust" third parties. They're fully invested in the CA model: sometimes charging for continued inclusion on their root CA lists and other times proposing standards that further cement the mandatory role of CAs (Certificate Transparency).
Just like you'll never see laws that are genuinely beneficial to the people come from our autocratic politicians, you'll never see support for a (more-) decentralized trust system like DANE come from the self-declared "trusted" Certificate Authorities.
It would be just like that if the electric company edited the microwave manual so that the Microwave Repair Hotline rang up the electric company. The telecommunication companies inserted themselves in the middle of the update process, so they need to either issue/approve updates or remove themselves from that role.
Putting trust in corporations is stupid and trusting an advertising company (whose core business model is tracking people and building dossiers on them) to not track you is equally stupid. I don't have any evidence that they're tracking you, but you don't have any evidence that they're not and tracking you would fit their MO perfectly.
Do what you want -- nobody cares -- but there's nothing unreasonable about distrusting Google, even in the absence of hard evidence.
I don't think that he's saying that you can be compelled to produce a physical key, but that a physical key can be seized against your will if it can be found. Since a product of your mind can't (yet!) be seized without your cooperation, and you can't be compelled to cooperate, it is off limits.
Google's entire business model requires continuous and ever increasing access to user data. They're not starving for data now, but they need to secure future streams of user data or they will be starving in the future.
This isn't about these specific exploitable resources in Kansas; they are just a small subset of resources and all of them are worthless to Google if they can't be data-mined for advertising purposes.
It's because of "corporate thinking": big businesses always talk about 'innovation' and that sort of thing, but they are too timid to actually go for anything truly innovative.
It's due to the bloat of "management" and the (mis-)assignment of business critical decisions to professional managers. They often have literally no idea how their company works or what the core-business employees do with their time. "Innovation" is a magic word to them that they think they can get access to by following cargo cult trends in their favorite management journals.
You can presume that they dropped support for XMPP federation for a noble reason, but I'll presume that it was an sleazy reason (force people to need to use Google services to talk to to the consumers that are Google's chattel and hopefully get them using all of the other data harvesting services out of convenience).
The so-called 'instant-messaging problem' has been solved. TFA is hand-wringing over a non-issue..
Something like the common use of XMPP federation is what the article was asking for and it hasn't been solved. It just needs more than a technical solution. How do we get bad faith actors like Google and Apple and Yahoo and ... to stop building walled gardens?
You don't need a detente to fix this situation, you only need better behavior from employers and the rest of the situation resolves itself.
Employees job-hop because it is increasingly difficult to get any substantial increase in compensation or position without moving to a new employer. If employers regularly gave raises that matched an employee's increasing skills or value to the company, employees would stop feeling so exploited and undervalued. If employers trained employees to the positions that they desired instead of laying them off and seeking perfect-match replacements every time, employees would be able to advance their careers without moving to a new employer.
There is no part of this that can be fixed by employees making the first move (which would only lead to employers delightfully exploiting the newfound loyalty). The situation was entirely created by, and can be easily and rapidly fixed by, employers. They don't even need any cooperative participation from the employees themselves in the process.
Which is fine in both cases, because the lower core count processors and the binned processors had different prices to go with their different capabilities. You didn't buy a four core processor to find out that it only had three functional cores.
If LCDs were binned for dead pixels and you could opt to get a panel with some dead pixels for cheaper, nobody would be complaining.
To make this self replicating you'd have to add the sequences to a bacteria like E-Coli, and somehow ensure that the cell doesn't just kick the useless (for it) DNA out again.
Tack it onto a gene for antibiotic resistance so that it's not useless. It'll be the typical movie piracy scenario played out on the microscale: not only does this version of Arrival of a train at La Ciotat not have any DRM, but it has kanamycin resistance thrown in too!
It could be able to tell, using the same techniques as modern hearing tests.
It's called baleen; he was feeding.
Oh yeah, sure. It's not fair that there's a bear poised to maul you, but it still doesn't make sense to goad it on.
His reckless disregard for the safety of others put somebody in the hospital! That's the sort of thing that gets you a little jail time (note: we're not talking prison here). That's real, demonstrable threat-to-others sort of behavior.
Let out the pot smokers and publicly intoxicated, but the people who hurt others shouldn't be the ones who get off with just a fine.
The difference here is that somebody was actually hurt by his actions. Being rendered unconscious by an impact to the head is not something to just blow off.
Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor in WA. If the woman was actually knocked unconscious, then it seems like a pretty fair description of what he did.
How big was this thing and why did he feel ok flying it above bystanders? If the "guy next to him" ran a stop sign and hit a pedestrian and knocked them unconscious, he may end up with a little jail time, too.