Fuck Apple. They're not even in the game. Management is so wedded to consumer hardware sales, they don't even realize that everyone will eventually move to cloud, and Apple won't be able to provide the services that Google, Amazon, or Microsoft can.
I did not say cloud systems are more secure because they're paying them. I'm saying cloud systems are more secure because software AND architecture is homogeneous on the infrastructure level. In fact, patching is automated in cloud systems. In the civilian homesteads, patching & security is dependent on people with no clue about either. Why go through the f-ing Windoze hassle once a month, or even leave yourself at the mercy of windows10 or app update scheduling, when you pay a cheap, flat fee to fire up a firmware thin client, and have all the (scalable) computing with no management/debugging hassle? The answer is that companies providing true cloud services are still more expensive than the TCO of a subnominal local hack.
The rational betting puts the advantage on Hillary, now that's she's beyond immediate indictment. You can check out this website, which tracks how the US election system actually works (Its not popular vote that determines the winner). Normally, that wouldn't even be a significant problem to a competent candidate, but with miniscule fundraising and self-funding, there's no "ground game" of political operatives working battleground states. It doesn't look good for Trump right now.
And all the partisans are overlooking the big picture. Its not that Hillary should crush Trump in the national election (the way that Nixon crushed McGovern). Its that Trump is so crushable, and yet Hillary is such a poor politician, she still doesn't appear to be running away with the election race yet.
When they wrote the fourth amendment, the framers did not foresee a future where we would be constantly under threat of non-state actors wishing to do us harm
Are you kidding? What do you think Barbary pirates were all about? What do you think the public thought of American Indians? The CotUS is designed to address such matters; the problem is that isn't not ideally designed for your future fascist state. And its not their fault that you don't commit genocides like they did back then. And all the amendments in the CotUS was designed to address fascists like you, who want to feel free to subvert any amendment upon pretext.
First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US.
Says such thriving democratic institutions as Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina.
Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights.
What will protect your right to self-defense when you're elderly or handicapped? A lot of good a court will do affirming your "right" after you're dead, or the offending party is not caught.
Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one
Which is just as relevant an example as WW2 was for defending American civil rights.
Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights.
Gun ownership are not directly for the purpose of securing and retaining individual civil rights. Gun ownership is symbolic of a citizen's "right" to self defense even when disadvantaged. Having a mob of rabid, well armed American citizens is a check against government overreach.
Right now, the legal system is claiming its perfectly legitimate for the federal gov't to spy and warehouse information on American citizens, that black men choked to death by local law enforcement is not a crime, and that LEOs can seize any large sums of cash upon your person or property without observing due process "rights". Right now, my PotUS choice is between Hillary Clinton, who didn't have the common sense to decline having a "private" email server, and Donald Trump. And you're telling me I can count on these people to protect my rights????
You don't need it to protect your rights from the government.
Firearm ownership is the MAD doctrine between government and its citizens. It is not necessary in a nation which will zealously defend its citizens' rights, but when is the last time we've seen government legislators and bureaucrats meet this standard?
You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals.
This one did. And there are many, many other examples.
You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose.
Probably not. But you don't have a need for a right to peaceably assemble. Those Dallas cops wouldn't have been shot if those people weren't protesting for their rights. What good did those public demonstrations do to prevent/end the Iraq invasion/occupation? What good did the "Occupy Wall Street" protests do towards the SEC and DOJ filing prosecutions against bankers? How did it encourage the Federal Reserve to stop consolidating banks into huge conglomerates which don't adequately serve small business and individual borrowers? And giving individuals to right to vote for their gov't representatives? Look what good it did in the UK.
What you fail to understand is that a Constitutionally recognized human right is not a privilege bestowed by the federal gov't. Rights are not meant to be taken away by an elected gov't when the majority deems them to be counter-productive or irrelevant. The right to own tools to shoot and maim many other people, is the same right to express a desire to invade other countries to feel "safer", or the right to not self-incriminate oneself, even if they are a drug kingpin or banker, ad nauseum. If one allows the gov't to arbitrarily take away any right, no right is safe from the mob (or elite).
You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control.
Nope. I own a gun to put a hole in anyone breaking into my house that can present a threat to the well being of my residents. I re
Their oath involves protecting America and the CotUS from all enemies, foreign and domestic. By definition, that implies being able to shoot upon other American (enemies). Its just a matter of how military members will define as "enemies".
Why? Because the people on the TV tell you so? Because machine politics works in 2016, just like it did 40 years ago? Is that why we have such predictable candidates like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
Technically, the only Red seats that are in "jeopardy" are in "battleground" states. I am fully prepared to see Clinton win the PotUS election and expect media pundits to be mystified why there wasn't a bigger turnover in the House and Senate.
I can't see a Hillary executive changing much in terms of foreign policy,
The best thing to come out of this is to realize how utterly clueless you are, and perhaps you should consider forgoing your future participation in national elections. Hillary is a neoconservative; there isn't any place in the world too insignificant to invade on behalf of "US interests". I'd be shocked if the US isn't invading Syria in her first term.
There's a 54% [slate.com] chance of a conservative justice kicking it in the next four years
Its not a very convincing study. The article rates 2 white males and a white female having twice the probability of dying over 1 black, overweight justice. And it puts Sotomayor at 3.75%, when Sotomayor has the beetus. Granted diabetes is unlikely to kill a middle-aged person in a four year period, but it has a way of inflicting other debilitating health problems which will kill/incapacitate them.
I see it as a win-win. Microsoft somehow makes a significant increase in profit from this move, and customers learn what it means to "trust" either Microsoft or Google (or Amazon or IBM, ad nauseum...)
OneDrive is awesome for backups if you're a non-technical consumer. Even if it manages to somehow manage to lose some or all of your data, its still more likely to do a better job of backup than your grandmother (unless grandma indexes all her backups and gives you an alternate copy to store where you live. That's also assuming neither party lives with their mother...).
Sad to say, for 99% of the real world, IT is not a revenue generator; its an infrastructural cost. If/when cloud providers can provide a lower TCO at acceptable reliability/flexibility, there's no reason to prefer buying new hardware every few years and pay employee salaries to keep the hardware working.
Cloud computing is a godsend for upper management, who now don't need to know much about computer issues to enjoy its benefits. Its also probably the most cost-effective way to diversify security costs over many more machines than one owns.
Look at it this way: that service they will provide for a fee will also be more secure, because updating the cloud means not needing to patch every freaking machine you use, and not making the "community" vulnerable because of a few holdouts.
A USB stick doesn't do you any good when its left at home and you're away. It also doesn't do you any good when it burns along with your house in a fire.
Pluto is the largest sized TNO by volume. Eris has ~27% more mass than Pluto. Eris is actually the largest resident of the KB. Eris is also the third-most distant known TNO.
Optimization for performance is definitely not a reason I'd expect to see asm hit #10 - most companies don't spend enough time on their applications to get to the point where they can optimize intelligently, and writing something in assembly is not always or a performance enhancer.
You're looking at it all wrong. Companies are not hiriing assembler programmers to optimize performance (code execution speed). They are hiring them to optimize profits. They maximize their profit by either using cheaper components, or add enhanced function on the same production component to avoid redesign costs. And on embedded products, that requires an assembler programmer; hence the "demand".
I am sort of in agreement with what you say, but you are phrasing things so incorrectly, you're still distorting the meaning of entrapment.
Entrapment is when the government agents make you commit a crime that you weren't otherwise willing to do.
This is wrong. Obviously, if gov't agents "make" you commit a crime, that's entrapment. But the lack of overt coercion does not mean the agents have a clean indictment. The standard is, "you would not have committed the crime without the active inducement by law enforcement to commit the crime".
Ifs not entrapment to merely ask, "Hey, are you willing to commit a crime?". But once law enforcement goes beyond that point they risk sabotaging the legal case. If they "hand you tools" which would otherwise be beyond the ability or inclination of the perpetrator to make/acquire, that's still entrapment. Also, if they paid you "a lot" of money, which they knew you needed for medical treatment of a loved one, that would be considered "entrapment", because those agents, knowing how desperate the target was, induced the target to commit a crime society would normally believe they would not do. If the crime was murder, it would not be considered entrapment, because no normal citizen would consider committing murder for money. If the crime was fraud, that's a lot easier to argue entrapment, if the perpetrator was "induced" to do something they normally would not do.
Speaking out of this context, I really don't appreciate the legal argument these defense lawyers are trying to make. The argument, as far as I can tell, is not entrapment. They are arguing that the evidence collected via FISA wiretaps should be inadmissible, because the defendant has American citizenship but the person he was talking to was not a citizen, thus the conversation required a warrant to be admissible. Given how the SCotUS has gone roughshod on standards, allowing evidence even when it originated from an "accidentally" improper manner, the defense team will probably lose, and set precedent to further erode the legal rights of American citizens.
What I find little creepy about the US system is the way defendants can require the investigative tools from the government
What do you mean by "require"?
Sadly yes, investigative tools used by police/gov't are not audited by independent oversight, or its use documented & monitored. On the other hand, your system is not incorporating technology or procedures into law enforcement in a timely manner.
Slashdot Mirror
You're going to carry a terabyte of USB stick storage??? Even at 128GB per stick, that's a lot of sticks to carry.
Fuck Apple. They're not even in the game. Management is so wedded to consumer hardware sales, they don't even realize that everyone will eventually move to cloud, and Apple won't be able to provide the services that Google, Amazon, or Microsoft can.
I did not say cloud systems are more secure because they're paying them. I'm saying cloud systems are more secure because software AND architecture is homogeneous on the infrastructure level. In fact, patching is automated in cloud systems. In the civilian homesteads, patching & security is dependent on people with no clue about either. Why go through the f-ing Windoze hassle once a month, or even leave yourself at the mercy of windows10 or app update scheduling, when you pay a cheap, flat fee to fire up a firmware thin client, and have all the (scalable) computing with no management/debugging hassle? The answer is that companies providing true cloud services are still more expensive than the TCO of a subnominal local hack.
The rational betting puts the advantage on Hillary, now that's she's beyond immediate indictment. You can check out this website, which tracks how the US election system actually works (Its not popular vote that determines the winner). Normally, that wouldn't even be a significant problem to a competent candidate, but with miniscule fundraising and self-funding, there's no "ground game" of political operatives working battleground states. It doesn't look good for Trump right now.
And all the partisans are overlooking the big picture. Its not that Hillary should crush Trump in the national election (the way that Nixon crushed McGovern). Its that Trump is so crushable, and yet Hillary is such a poor politician, she still doesn't appear to be running away with the election race yet.
Why yes, they did...
When they wrote the fourth amendment, the framers did not foresee a future where we would be constantly under threat of non-state actors wishing to do us harm
Are you kidding? What do you think Barbary pirates were all about? What do you think the public thought of American Indians? The CotUS is designed to address such matters; the problem is that isn't not ideally designed for your future fascist state. And its not their fault that you don't commit genocides like they did back then. And all the amendments in the CotUS was designed to address fascists like you, who want to feel free to subvert any amendment upon pretext.
Because you don't listen to them. I am not joking.
First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US.
Says such thriving democratic institutions as Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina.
Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights.
What will protect your right to self-defense when you're elderly or handicapped? A lot of good a court will do affirming your "right" after you're dead, or the offending party is not caught.
Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one
Which is just as relevant an example as WW2 was for defending American civil rights.
Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights.
Gun ownership are not directly for the purpose of securing and retaining individual civil rights. Gun ownership is symbolic of a citizen's "right" to self defense even when disadvantaged. Having a mob of rabid, well armed American citizens is a check against government overreach.
Right now, the legal system is claiming its perfectly legitimate for the federal gov't to spy and warehouse information on American citizens, that black men choked to death by local law enforcement is not a crime, and that LEOs can seize any large sums of cash upon your person or property without observing due process "rights". Right now, my PotUS choice is between Hillary Clinton, who didn't have the common sense to decline having a "private" email server, and Donald Trump. And you're telling me I can count on these people to protect my rights????
You don't need it to protect your rights from the government.
Firearm ownership is the MAD doctrine between government and its citizens. It is not necessary in a nation which will zealously defend its citizens' rights, but when is the last time we've seen government legislators and bureaucrats meet this standard?
You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals.
This one did. And there are many, many other examples.
You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose.
Probably not. But you don't have a need for a right to peaceably assemble. Those Dallas cops wouldn't have been shot if those people weren't protesting for their rights. What good did those public demonstrations do to prevent/end the Iraq invasion/occupation? What good did the "Occupy Wall Street" protests do towards the SEC and DOJ filing prosecutions against bankers? How did it encourage the Federal Reserve to stop consolidating banks into huge conglomerates which don't adequately serve small business and individual borrowers? And giving individuals to right to vote for their gov't representatives? Look what good it did in the UK.
What you fail to understand is that a Constitutionally recognized human right is not a privilege bestowed by the federal gov't. Rights are not meant to be taken away by an elected gov't when the majority deems them to be counter-productive or irrelevant. The right to own tools to shoot and maim many other people, is the same right to express a desire to invade other countries to feel "safer", or the right to not self-incriminate oneself, even if they are a drug kingpin or banker, ad nauseum. If one allows the gov't to arbitrarily take away any right, no right is safe from the mob (or elite).
You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control.
Nope. I own a gun to put a hole in anyone breaking into my house that can present a threat to the well being of my residents. I re
Their oath involves protecting America and the CotUS from all enemies, foreign and domestic. By definition, that implies being able to shoot upon other American (enemies). Its just a matter of how military members will define as "enemies".
It's likely to swing Blue.
Why? Because the people on the TV tell you so? Because machine politics works in 2016, just like it did 40 years ago? Is that why we have such predictable candidates like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
Technically, the only Red seats that are in "jeopardy" are in "battleground" states. I am fully prepared to see Clinton win the PotUS election and expect media pundits to be mystified why there wasn't a bigger turnover in the House and Senate.
I can't see a Hillary executive changing much in terms of foreign policy,
The best thing to come out of this is to realize how utterly clueless you are, and perhaps you should consider forgoing your future participation in national elections. Hillary is a neoconservative; there isn't any place in the world too insignificant to invade on behalf of "US interests". I'd be shocked if the US isn't invading Syria in her first term.
There's a 54% [slate.com] chance of a conservative justice kicking it in the next four years
Its not a very convincing study. The article rates 2 white males and a white female having twice the probability of dying over 1 black, overweight justice. And it puts Sotomayor at 3.75%, when Sotomayor has the beetus. Granted diabetes is unlikely to kill a middle-aged person in a four year period, but it has a way of inflicting other debilitating health problems which will kill/incapacitate them.
Its smart to put oneself on the CIA "This congressman should not be re-elected" list?
I see it as a win-win. Microsoft somehow makes a significant increase in profit from this move, and customers learn what it means to "trust" either Microsoft or Google (or Amazon or IBM, ad nauseum...)
OneDrive is awesome for backups if you're a non-technical consumer. Even if it manages to somehow manage to lose some or all of your data, its still more likely to do a better job of backup than your grandmother (unless grandma indexes all her backups and gives you an alternate copy to store where you live. That's also assuming neither party lives with their mother...).
Sad to say, for 99% of the real world, IT is not a revenue generator; its an infrastructural cost. If/when cloud providers can provide a lower TCO at acceptable reliability/flexibility, there's no reason to prefer buying new hardware every few years and pay employee salaries to keep the hardware working.
Cloud computing is a godsend for upper management, who now don't need to know much about computer issues to enjoy its benefits. Its also probably the most cost-effective way to diversify security costs over many more machines than one owns.
Look at it this way: that service they will provide for a fee will also be more secure, because updating the cloud means not needing to patch every freaking machine you use, and not making the "community" vulnerable because of a few holdouts.
A USB stick doesn't do you any good when its left at home and you're away. It also doesn't do you any good when it burns along with your house in a fire.
Pluto is the largest sized TNO by volume. Eris has ~27% more mass than Pluto. Eris is actually the largest resident of the KB. Eris is also the third-most distant known TNO.
Optimization for performance is definitely not a reason I'd expect to see asm hit #10 - most companies don't spend enough time on their applications to get to the point where they can optimize intelligently, and writing something in assembly is not always or a performance enhancer.
You're looking at it all wrong. Companies are not hiriing assembler programmers to optimize performance (code execution speed). They are hiring them to optimize profits. They maximize their profit by either using cheaper components, or add enhanced function on the same production component to avoid redesign costs. And on embedded products, that requires an assembler programmer; hence the "demand".
I am sort of in agreement with what you say, but you are phrasing things so incorrectly, you're still distorting the meaning of entrapment.
Entrapment is when the government agents make you commit a crime that you weren't otherwise willing to do.
This is wrong. Obviously, if gov't agents "make" you commit a crime, that's entrapment. But the lack of overt coercion does not mean the agents have a clean indictment. The standard is, "you would not have committed the crime without the active inducement by law enforcement to commit the crime".
Ifs not entrapment to merely ask, "Hey, are you willing to commit a crime?". But once law enforcement goes beyond that point they risk sabotaging the legal case. If they "hand you tools" which would otherwise be beyond the ability or inclination of the perpetrator to make/acquire, that's still entrapment. Also, if they paid you "a lot" of money, which they knew you needed for medical treatment of a loved one, that would be considered "entrapment", because those agents, knowing how desperate the target was, induced the target to commit a crime society would normally believe they would not do. If the crime was murder, it would not be considered entrapment, because no normal citizen would consider committing murder for money. If the crime was fraud, that's a lot easier to argue entrapment, if the perpetrator was "induced" to do something they normally would not do.
Speaking out of this context, I really don't appreciate the legal argument these defense lawyers are trying to make. The argument, as far as I can tell, is not entrapment. They are arguing that the evidence collected via FISA wiretaps should be inadmissible, because the defendant has American citizenship but the person he was talking to was not a citizen, thus the conversation required a warrant to be admissible. Given how the SCotUS has gone roughshod on standards, allowing evidence even when it originated from an "accidentally" improper manner, the defense team will probably lose, and set precedent to further erode the legal rights of American citizens.
If you defend the use of a "no-fly" list, this is the kind of law enforcement you support.
God help us all...
What I find little creepy about the US system is the way defendants can require the investigative tools from the government
What do you mean by "require"?
Sadly yes, investigative tools used by police/gov't are not audited by independent oversight, or its use documented & monitored. On the other hand, your system is not incorporating technology or procedures into law enforcement in a timely manner.
Which ones? Based on what technical detail? Raspi 3 has a "current" ARM chip; by your presumption, it should "not" be clean.
93 petaflops in linpack. Nothing theoretical about that. Go back to pouting in your mom's basement. Jingoism and chanting is a jock thing.
ARM based chips currently don't have microcoded backdoors. You can build a "slow" desktop based on that, for your purposes.