It gets worse. Well, it started worse. It's still 100 channels of mostly-shit-you-don't-really-want. Wake the fuck up, AT&T (et al). I will gladly pay $35 for the ten (and that's stretching it) channels I actually care about, but I get to choose. M'kay?
Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder.
No. It is not. You may choose to believe that a three week old embryo is imbued with everything that makes it a citizen. Most of us do not. You don't get to force your religious convictions on women. Get it?
Let's have the government decide who can be married and who can't.
Pretty sure it's the liberals who wanted to mandate government issue marriage certificates to gays.
You get points for a game try, junior, but you are still wrong. What "the liberals" have been after is actually delivering on the Constitutional promise of equal protection under the law. The law defines marriage. Personally, I believe that was a mistake and the best remedy would be to have government get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Be that as it may, the law is the law and The Constitution says it applies equally to all. That is what the SCOTUS ruled on, and that is the only "mandate" that body has, to rule on the Constitutionality of this or that issue brought before it. Jeezuz H Christ! Don't they teach basic civics in school anymore?
There's going to be no place for a person like me who believes in individual sovereignty.
Why do you think that is? Could it be because so many so-called "conservatives" have abdicated that sovereignty so willingly every time the governing class told a scary story? "OMG! Same sex marriage?! Let's have the government decide who can be married and who can't. OMG! Women can choose what to do with their own bodies? That's not right. We need the government to step in and take that right away. OMG! Teh terrorists! Please make us safe. We don't care if you piss all over The Bill of Rights, just make us feel like you're doing something that matters."
And no, you libertarians don't get off the hook, because you tools have aligned yourselves with the Conservatives far more often than not. The result is that your rights, as a citizen, have been supplanted by corporate power.
laws and regulations give and unfair advantage to those who break them(like uber and airbnb) with impunity through loop holes, and to those who are well established(like the hotels here and regular taxi services) and can ensure the strict enforcement of them.
laws and regulations are unfair to those who are law abiding, in a environment where others do not follow them.
solution is to, have the least amount of laws and regulations practically possible, with least amount of complexity, and ensure these fewer simpler rules are followed.
Rand fan boy wet dreams notwithstanding, the free market is a myth. Always has been. Always will be. For that reason, regulation is required to protect consumers. The alternative is anarchy. Yes, such regulation does tend to create monopolies, but it does not have to. There are effective ways to avoid that pitfall as well.
This will be approved, and history will show it to have been a very bad thing for consumers. Bigly. Yuge-ly. One of the worst regulatory mistakes ever.
Users are a big part of this problem. Yes, the whole user/pass auth mechanism is past it's prime, but in most cases, it's all we have. For that reason, users/administrators must take a large share of the blame for recent events. Deploying anything with the default auth credentials in place in an Internet-facing location is, to say the least, irresponsible. When this much damage can be cause by such actions, it should hurt.
Well, no. The article points up the (most recent example of) rank hypocrisy on the part of the Trump campaign. I would argue that it also illustrates incompetent leadership. Whoever is in charge of security in that camp is doing a bad job and not carrying out the most fundamental best practices. Why would we trust a "leader" who allows such failings to exist?
"...a point lost on Trump supporters who have reported him to the Feds."
Oh, please. You're not being fair to Trump's supporters. Do you really expect them to understand things like information security, much less those "subtle" nuances like the role of white hat researchers?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
T-Mobile: "48 million? Pretty sure I've got that much on me right now. Once sec... Yep. Hundreds good?" (counts bundles of bills) "I was worried there for a minute 'cause I don't have my checkbook with me and I was expecting, you know, a real fine."
The problem here is that words mean things. And when the carriers throw out words like "unlimited", when what they're selling is not in fact unlimited; they are being duplicitous..
Oh, just shut up, you whiny liberal bitches. We paid for our monopoly, fair and square. How we choose to exploit it is our business. Besides, "free market". Right?
Regards,
Your Friends at Big Telco
How does retiring at age 50 sound? House paid off, Cars paid off, kids in college, $1.2M in bank. Of course it wasn't easy, working a minimum 65 hours per week and going home tired as death.
Sounds great. Now stop suggesting that your realization of "the American Dream" is accessible to anyone. It's not. You worked hard, but you also got lucky. Yes, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that "luck" is defined as "preparation meeting opportunity". The timing and scarcity of opportunities are such that most couldn't capitalize on them even if they were prepared. And yet the Republicans are still able to hoodwink the average American into thinking that things that would make an immediate difference in his life mean giving up his shot at wealth and fame.
...can we back up and talk about the almost innumerable variables that would have to go into the decision here? One passenger - one pedestrian = relatively short lost of things to consider. One passenger and ten pedestrians = not so much. How is the priority weighed? Is kinetic energy transfer factored into the decision? I will wager that it is not, nor are most of the variables that would affect outcomes. So just what is Mercedes talking about?
I'm still not sure how this points to the Russians....
Then you have not been paying attention. Security researchers know who they're looking at most of the time. No, it's not just based on geo location of an IP. In this case all the signs point to a handful of groups that have long been identified with state-sponsored activity in Russia.
We're encumbered by industry and government regulations when it comes to security. Many (most, actually) of our similarly encumbered peers have no idea how the rules apply when it comes to cloud services. If the vendor says "Yeah, it's compliant", that's all they need to hear. So it is absolutely no surprise that most cloud customers do not vet the security of the things they're buying. What was it, barely a year ago? When it was discovered that "big data" vendors had exposed entire databases to the world with exactly zero security? That's not a little screw up. It's a fundamental fail. How did the customers not know this going in? Answer: They did not look.
The options are A) Spend $600 million to upgrade the infrastructure so there is enough bandwidth. B) Gain $600 million by not upgrading the infrastructure and just charge more for people who try to use it. This seems like a pretty easy decision for a business and, as long as all competitors choose option "B", there is no real risk of losing customers.
But, but the free market... (insert dipshit Rand fan-boy whine here). I think we can all agree that consumers are getting screwed here. The question is what are we going to do about it? Churn is part of their business model. We could all switch carriers and nothing would change, so STFU about competition. It doesn't exist. Next suggestion?
"The essay concludes, "You might enjoy my book because you're not sure if I'm really endorsing Gary Johnson or just saying so to protect my brand."
You had them going. They were totally buying it - you had just whooshed...almost everybody. And then you go and let the cat out of the bag like that. Now, only half of them are going to believe you're serious.
Movie theaters had their reason to exist when they offered an added value over what you could have at home. That ceased to exist. Big screen? Have it. Dolby 7.1? Have it. 3D? Glad I don't have it. What else is there?
Arguably, ambiance. Even a big TV is not quite the same as that big screen, though I'll grant you that it's a trivial difference when compared to the other things one gets in the traditional theater "experience". You know, the talking, texting, seat-kicking and vaping assholes that one can't get away from outside of the boutique theaters which recognize the value of "the experience" (McMenamins and Alamo Drafthouse, to name two) and actually enforce basic rules of decorum. Call me an effete cinema snob, but I'll happily pay for that quality experience, on occasion. Sure, the beer costs more but I don't even have to get out of my seat for a refill.
Alamo Drafthouse (larger cities in Texas) and the McMenamins properties (in the PNIW), are two shining examples of what "movie theaters" could have done to save their asses, but didn't. The serve good food, even the popcorn is better, and alcohol. The are cleaner,...and quieter - a LOT quieter. Alamo Drafthouse is serious about their no-talking/no-texting rule. They will repeat offenders (you get one warning) out on their asses "...without a refund." They get all of my theater-going business now.
And to the operators of those theaters that have been remodeled in the last few years, No. Putting recliners in your same dirty, noisy theater isn't going to help. Get serious about what you're selling (an experience) or get serious about finding a buyer for your property.
His many lies have been shown, over and over, to be just that.
His hypocrisy knows know bounds. He brags about paying no taxes while insisting that his (largely vaporware) tax plan will tilt things in favor of "the working man".
He unapologetically insults women, minorities, religions, veterans, intellectuals, etc.
He encourages violent responses to those who don't agree with his views.
He has cheated thousands of businesses and their workers out of millions of dollars.
All these things, and more, are verifiable fact, a matter of incontrovertible public record. And yet, despite years of trying, the Republicans lacking anything at all in the way of constructive alternatives to Hillary's plans, have tried to attack her for made up "offenses", and failed to make anything stick.
Slashdot Mirror
It gets worse. Well, it started worse. It's still 100 channels of mostly-shit-you-don't-really-want. Wake the fuck up, AT&T (et al). I will gladly pay $35 for the ten (and that's stretching it) channels I actually care about, but I get to choose. M'kay?
...that only you transmit up to 'the cloud' anytime you want to use any of your passwords, anywhere.
I know it isn't quite that simple or risky, but it's rather close.
Password Managers, by design, serve the function of reducing your security.
That's not how it works.
Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder.
No. It is not. You may choose to believe that a three week old embryo is imbued with everything that makes it a citizen. Most of us do not. You don't get to force your religious convictions on women. Get it?
Let's have the government decide who can be married and who can't.
Pretty sure it's the liberals who wanted to mandate government issue marriage certificates to gays.
You get points for a game try, junior, but you are still wrong. What "the liberals" have been after is actually delivering on the Constitutional promise of equal protection under the law. The law defines marriage. Personally, I believe that was a mistake and the best remedy would be to have government get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Be that as it may, the law is the law and The Constitution says it applies equally to all. That is what the SCOTUS ruled on, and that is the only "mandate" that body has, to rule on the Constitutionality of this or that issue brought before it. Jeezuz H Christ! Don't they teach basic civics in school anymore?
There's going to be no place for a person like me who believes in individual sovereignty.
Why do you think that is? Could it be because so many so-called "conservatives" have abdicated that sovereignty so willingly every time the governing class told a scary story? "OMG! Same sex marriage?! Let's have the government decide who can be married and who can't. OMG! Women can choose what to do with their own bodies? That's not right. We need the government to step in and take that right away. OMG! Teh terrorists! Please make us safe. We don't care if you piss all over The Bill of Rights, just make us feel like you're doing something that matters."
And no, you libertarians don't get off the hook, because you tools have aligned yourselves with the Conservatives far more often than not. The result is that your rights, as a citizen, have been supplanted by corporate power.
And yet when you get down to it, it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way.
Every time.
[citation needed]
(Good fucking luck with that.)
laws and regulations give and unfair advantage to those who break them(like uber and airbnb) with impunity through loop holes, and to those who are well established(like the hotels here and regular taxi services) and can ensure the strict enforcement of them.
laws and regulations are unfair to those who are law abiding, in a environment where others do not follow them.
solution is to, have the least amount of laws and regulations practically possible, with least amount of complexity, and ensure these fewer simpler rules are followed.
Rand fan boy wet dreams notwithstanding, the free market is a myth. Always has been. Always will be. For that reason, regulation is required to protect consumers. The alternative is anarchy. Yes, such regulation does tend to create monopolies, but it does not have to. There are effective ways to avoid that pitfall as well.
This will be approved, and history will show it to have been a very bad thing for consumers. Bigly. Yuge-ly. One of the worst regulatory mistakes ever.
Users are a big part of this problem. Yes, the whole user/pass auth mechanism is past it's prime, but in most cases, it's all we have. For that reason, users/administrators must take a large share of the blame for recent events. Deploying anything with the default auth credentials in place in an Internet-facing location is, to say the least, irresponsible. When this much damage can be cause by such actions, it should hurt.
Well, no. The article points up the (most recent example of) rank hypocrisy on the part of the Trump campaign. I would argue that it also illustrates incompetent leadership. Whoever is in charge of security in that camp is doing a bad job and not carrying out the most fundamental best practices. Why would we trust a "leader" who allows such failings to exist?
Oh, please. You're not being fair to Trump's supporters. Do you really expect them to understand things like information security, much less those "subtle" nuances like the role of white hat researchers?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
T-Mobile: "48 million? Pretty sure I've got that much on me right now. Once sec... Yep. Hundreds good?" (counts bundles of bills) "I was worried there for a minute 'cause I don't have my checkbook with me and I was expecting, you know, a real fine."
The problem here is that words mean things. And when the carriers throw out words like "unlimited", when what they're selling is not in fact unlimited; they are being duplicitous. .
Oh, just shut up, you whiny liberal bitches. We paid for our monopoly, fair and square. How we choose to exploit it is our business. Besides, "free market". Right?
Regards,
Your Friends at Big Telco
...you have nothing to fear" rationale from the school and the software vendor. I get to monitor my kids' online activities. You do not. Stop it.
How does retiring at age 50 sound? House paid off, Cars paid off, kids in college, $1.2M in bank. Of course it wasn't easy, working a minimum 65 hours per week and going home tired as death.
Sounds great. Now stop suggesting that your realization of "the American Dream" is accessible to anyone. It's not. You worked hard, but you also got lucky. Yes, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that "luck" is defined as "preparation meeting opportunity". The timing and scarcity of opportunities are such that most couldn't capitalize on them even if they were prepared. And yet the Republicans are still able to hoodwink the average American into thinking that things that would make an immediate difference in his life mean giving up his shot at wealth and fame.
...can we back up and talk about the almost innumerable variables that would have to go into the decision here? One passenger - one pedestrian = relatively short lost of things to consider. One passenger and ten pedestrians = not so much. How is the priority weighed? Is kinetic energy transfer factored into the decision? I will wager that it is not, nor are most of the variables that would affect outcomes. So just what is Mercedes talking about?
I'm still not sure how this points to the Russians....
Then you have not been paying attention. Security researchers know who they're looking at most of the time. No, it's not just based on geo location of an IP. In this case all the signs point to a handful of groups that have long been identified with state-sponsored activity in Russia.
We're encumbered by industry and government regulations when it comes to security. Many (most, actually) of our similarly encumbered peers have no idea how the rules apply when it comes to cloud services. If the vendor says "Yeah, it's compliant", that's all they need to hear. So it is absolutely no surprise that most cloud customers do not vet the security of the things they're buying. What was it, barely a year ago? When it was discovered that "big data" vendors had exposed entire databases to the world with exactly zero security? That's not a little screw up. It's a fundamental fail. How did the customers not know this going in? Answer: They did not look.
The options are A) Spend $600 million to upgrade the infrastructure so there is enough bandwidth. B) Gain $600 million by not upgrading the infrastructure and just charge more for people who try to use it. This seems like a pretty easy decision for a business and, as long as all competitors choose option "B", there is no real risk of losing customers.
But, but the free market... (insert dipshit Rand fan-boy whine here). I think we can all agree that consumers are getting screwed here. The question is what are we going to do about it? Churn is part of their business model. We could all switch carriers and nothing would change, so STFU about competition. It doesn't exist. Next suggestion?
don't forget the charbroil's, roller food, fountain drinks, energy beverages and donuts!
Indeed, sir. And let us not be forgetting the Squishy, it being the signature drink of any convenience store that is at all respecting itself.
You had them going. They were totally buying it - you had just whooshed ...almost everybody. And then you go and let the cat out of the bag like that. Now, only half of them are going to believe you're serious.
Movie theaters had their reason to exist when they offered an added value over what you could have at home. That ceased to exist. Big screen? Have it. Dolby 7.1? Have it. 3D? Glad I don't have it. What else is there?
Arguably, ambiance. Even a big TV is not quite the same as that big screen, though I'll grant you that it's a trivial difference when compared to the other things one gets in the traditional theater "experience". You know, the talking, texting, seat-kicking and vaping assholes that one can't get away from outside of the boutique theaters which recognize the value of "the experience" (McMenamins and Alamo Drafthouse, to name two) and actually enforce basic rules of decorum. Call me an effete cinema snob, but I'll happily pay for that quality experience, on occasion. Sure, the beer costs more but I don't even have to get out of my seat for a refill.
And to the operators of those theaters that have been remodeled in the last few years, No. Putting recliners in your same dirty, noisy theater isn't going to help. Get serious about what you're selling (an experience) or get serious about finding a buyer for your property.
You seemed to be objectively bashing trump...
Well, yes, because:
All these things, and more, are verifiable fact, a matter of incontrovertible public record. And yet, despite years of trying, the Republicans lacking anything at all in the way of constructive alternatives to Hillary's plans, have tried to attack her for made up "offenses", and failed to make anything stick.
Take it easy, Obama.
Baby Bush oversaw a hell of a lot more scaling back of due process than Obama. But I bet you don't see it that way.
So it is OK to rob you if you have been robbed before?
No, but if I unilaterally call you an "enemy combatant", I can do whatever the fuck I want to you.