Do you actually believe they couldn't simply have the police guarding their exit? That they couldn't taint some food so she would be sure to be sound asleep? The people we're talking about have unlimited resources, the ability to silence any witnesses and even the ability to have law enforcement protect them while they do it.
She's attributing cartoonish technical prowess (a stuck key for gods sake) and ignoring the simple fact that if they actually wanted her out of the way she would be out of the way. Putting files on her laptop is the behavior or a 14 year old, a bored neighbor and poor wireless security or malware available from about half the internet. Given what Snowden has revealed, if they had actually wanted to gain access to her computer it would have been trivially easy (less than 5 minutes of access) and absolutely undetectable. Remember the security camera images (I can't recall the mans name that recorded it with a hidden camera) of the guys that used a key to open the guys door and just long enough to boot the computer, insert a USB stick then turn the computer off during the 10 minutes it took for the guy to go buy some groceries?
That's what the NSA does, they can write malware directly into the firmware of the chips that can't be removed. And as I said if they wanted to warn her off something it would have been far more direct and far easier to deny. And if they wanted her out of the way she would have had a tragic "accident". Not one person in this country would question a car accident that appeared genuine because almost 50k people per year die in collisions. It's so common we all know someone that died in one. This doesn't even take into account something like planting cash and drugs in her car/home then calling in an anonymous tip along with supplying some "witnesses". The war on drugs has given the government almost endless ability to destroy people they don't like and the laws are written in such a way that you lose almost all ability to defend yourself.
My entire point on this is that the government wouldn't engage in script kiddie/malware level stupidity if they were intent on shutting her up.They would be much more direct and far more dangerous. Hoover was an amateur compared to what they can do today and he was capable of shutting up the most powerful people in America.
You can't get much more teflon than selling weapons to a country you've loudly proclaimed is an enemy (Iran) to provide funding to insurgents that routinely murder innocent people (Contras) and you get away with it because you tell everyone you don't remember.
More than half the internet is serving malware. If you visit random websites with IE on windows you will be loaded to the gills with malware in less than an hour. The existence of malware does not tie it to the government. It simply means the user doesn't understand the risks and how to avoid those infections.
If they want to scare her they wake her up in the middle of the night with 4 people in her bedroom and quietly tell her that if she keeps it up bad things might happen. Then they proceed to make themselves visible at times, for example show up and do the same thing to their mother, let her see them talking to someone she cares about, etc.. It's far more intimidating, far more effective and completely deniable. She doesn't listen and she ends up in a "car accident" or commits "suicide".
The people that would do such things would be far subtler and wouldn't be leaving traces that could be traced back. The warnings would come in situations they completely controlled where they could be sure there was no recording device present. My god Obama has claimed the President has the right to kill American citizens without even a court order. If he was as evil as she claims she'd be dead already.
Her ramblings are a sign of insanity. On the plus side she'll fit right in at Infowars and probably has a bright future over there.
Which is exactly why Bill Nye debating Ken Ham was a bad idea. They even had different definition of the word debate let alone logic and evidence. Ham's idea of a "debate" was a lecture on morality. There was no logic there, only religion. That's not a debate it's a pulpit with a sucker on the left providing respectability to the otherwise crazy preacher that wouldn't normally get attention.
I'm sorry Bill, you had good intentions but you should have realized the guy was a nut job that wouldn't play by the rules and would turn it into a lecture from the pulpit.
Don't be foolish. The laws that govern this have no requirement that a "credit card" be involved. The law is called the Federal Credit Billing Act [FCBA] and it covers any use of interstate consumer credit. The only reason debit cards aren't covered is because credit is never extended, the transaction is a banking transaction that falls under separate banking laws which treat a debit transaction as an electronic check. To avoid the FCBA requirements Apple would be required to essentially act as a bank, which they aren't, and process the transaction as debit cards. This would mean preloading money into the account before you could spend it.
If Apple were stupid enough to attempt what you suggest they would get smacked down so hard they wouldn't stop spinning for a month. The FCBA is incredibly strict and provides guaranteed consumer rights and very harsh penalties for violations including the immediate suspension of business if caught violating it. I sincerely doubt Apple's lawyers are that dumb so this "rumor" your heard is the made up variety that is quite common with Apple.
The law applies to "open end" credit accounts, like credit cards, and revolving charge accounts, like department store accounts. It doesnâ(TM)t cover installment contracts â" loans or extensions of credit you repay on a fixed schedule. People often buy cars, furniture, and major appliances on an installment basis, and repay personal loans in installments, as well.
This should bloody well be common knowledge. The FCBA is the only reason credit cards ever became successful and was a major act of congress that superseded many state laws. It covers pretty much any act of credit except for a few very special exceptions.
Rumor has it that the Apple Pay user will be liable for fraud to a much larger degree because it's so hard for the process to be abused.
Apple can't change federal law. Federal law sets a maximum of $50 of liability for a fraudulent credit transaction if reported within 48 hours of discovery. No matter what Apples terms are if they try to charge higher liability than that assigned by law they will be in big trouble. So I wouldn't be placing much in the rumor you heard unless congress is going to revise the law for Apple.
It's entirely possible and common for gross margin to be positive but to still be losing money on it. Gross margin hasn't had SG&A costs subtracted yet, that includes advertising and all the administrative charges (labor) for producing the tables.
Given the heavy advertising budget for Surface I would be surprised if it's profitable even if gross margin is positive. Because gross margin subtracts outside costs, such as contract manufacturing a positive gross margin means at least the the revenue for the surface is at least enough to cover the cost of constructing the hardware and shipping it to market even if there is no net profit. That is undoubtedly a good sign that the market will respond to but until there is a net profit on the sales I wouldn't be claiming the battle is won and the Surface is a success. It's primarily sending the signal that they are at least selling enough surface that they aren't going to be losing hundreds of millions on unsold inventory.
The only threat has been the implied threat he created. They are happy to let him imprison himself in the Ecuadoran embassy and know with absolute certainty at some point in the future the president of Ecuador will change and the new one will probably throw him out. Then he will get taken to Sweden and whatever charges will eventually be resolved and he'll proclaim widely that the reason the US didn't put him in Guantanamo bay is because he scared them out of it.
He's never going to be prosecuted or even arrested by the US. They are happy to let him think he is though, because of the extreme measures he's taken to avoid it including breaking English law which might end up putting him in an English jail.
And lets not forget the naive English supporter he fucked over that lost their house because they put it up as collateral to bail him our of jail and then he violated his bail. I don't know why anyone would be stupid enough to support him considering how he likes to fuck people over, literally and figuratively.
I'm using anti-trust in the context of how it was used in the article referenced in the summary which you didn't read. Yes the context is screwy cause I changed the tense and should have phrased it differently but if you want to play grammar nazi go play it elsewhere.
There are two things going on as far as the antitrust authority is concerned, a Bundeskartellamt spokesman said.
The publishers base part of their claim on a German online copyright law that came into effect last August, which gave publishers the exclusive right to the commercial use of their content and parts thereof, except in the case of single words or small text snippets. However, the law does not give anyone the right to get paid for these snippets, the spokesman said.
Another twist to the case is that Google could be violating German antitrust laws if it started delisting publishers from the search results, the spokesman said. Google is a dominant player in Germany, controlling about 90 percent of the German search market. In Germany, dominant players have the obligation to handle each customer equally and are not allowed to discriminate
It's no different than the last publisher that went and got a court order forbidding Google from displaying any of their content (not realizing what that meant). A week after Google pulled everything from the index and their traffic had dropped of 95% they called up Google and offered to cut a deal (which I highly doubt Google paid a dime for).
Personally I think Google should just take a hard line in these states like Germany and require a signed document authorizing their use in perpetuity or they yank the entire site from all their indexes. If they did it to the entire German industry all at once I doubt the state could claim it was an anti-trust violation because they would be treating everyone equally.
Amazon is trying to lower prices, Apple was trying to raise them. The difference between them is what makes the difference between market collusion and frugal negotiating.
Apple caused ebook prices to go up between 30-100% across the entire industry. Amazon is trying to force prices lower so they sell more, apparently while trying to convince the publisher that lower prices can mean more revenue for everyone. There is a significant difference between the two actions, if you can't see that because your blinded by your apple devotion that's your problem. The rest of us can see quite clearly that what Apple did was an evil distortion of market forces designed to increase prices and their own revenue. Something we've made illegal in the US. Apple is free to set whatever price they want, but when they collude with the manufacturer to force that price up throughout the industry they are breaking the law.
The settlement offer the lawyers wanted to take was WAY too low. After the agreement collapsed Google alone had to give their entire staff a $10k year raise, and they think less than $5k per person for multiple years is sufficient? Everyone should be getting $10k per year minimum. Lawyer fees should be capped and be above and beyond payment to the class holders. Only if these companies have to give every employee affected by this $50 or $100K in damages will this set a precedent that will prevent future abuses.
I've never heard the space argument for binary logging. The reasons I have heard and that are listed on numerous websites are worth the couple megabytes they occupy. It's an utterly silly reason to be opposed to systemd, because you run syslog on top of sysv now, running it on top of systemd isn't functionally any different from a user perspective. That a binary logging file exists has no impact on the system other than providing the numerous benefits they can convey.
Whether or not it has remarkable runs of stability Debian testing does have and will continue to have gotcha moments just like they've had in the past. I don't run testing on servers, I've run it on desktops where all the real data was safe in the home partition. But my point still stands, to have a gotcha in testing that was related to systemd and then blame systemd when you are using testing is silly.
That's the reason they have the warning about testing so that you understand that if you take the risk running testing you are taking the risk that one day your system might not be bootable. This is the reason they've talked about adding another repository that is closer to the Ubuntu LTS and Regular Ubuntu where LTS would be stable and a new repository between testing and stable could be added that would be more up to date. My understanding is that the idea was nixed because the amount of work was tremendous and beyond the number of volunteers that help run the system.
Don't look at me buddy. I take them at their word with that big warning that says this is unstable. Debian is old, that's the point, it's stable. Most of us appreciate that.
If you want a recent and "stable" version of Debian Testing use Ubuntu. But if you listed to some talking head on the internet that testing was just a more up to date Debian than that is your fault, because the warning is very plain, so stop bitching when it turns out it's not. Testing breaks all the time. You run testing you better keep your home on a separate partition so when they inevitably bork testing like they do quite frequently then you format / and reinstall while keeping your data safe in/home.
Blaming systemd when there are endless stories of people relying on testing and getting fucked over that can be found in a few seconds on Google is just plain stupid. It wasn't systemd that screwed up your Debian testing install, it was because it WAS testing. Yea it doesn't break everyday like Unstable but it still breaks and those breaks can be quite catastrophic. People that want stable systems run stable, even if it is ancient. Those that run stable but need a newer piece of software then use/etc/apt/preferences to add in select newer software packages from testing that they want/need. Those that run straight up testing 24/7 are asking for breakage.
Apparently you didn't take my advise about unbunching your panties. Try it, you might like it, I suspect though that you like them that way as you've clearly gotten very angry about being advised that they are bunched. Give it a try, see how it feels, I dare you.
Yes please mod me down, after all I hurt his feelings! Boohoo
Yes text log files are very handy, and just like with SysV you can run syslog on top of systemd just like you did before when you ran syslog on top of SysV. Amazing isn't it!
So you were running a distribution which is declared inherently unstable (the warning with Debian Testing) and not recommended for anything but testing and you're upset that it wasn't stable? And then you blamed it all on one piece of software?
Is this a joke? It's not April first so I must be missing the joke.
My reply was more targeted at the summary than your reply but I replied to you because you perpetuated that same line of thought by claiming Fusion generates a waste stream. Fusion and Fission aren't in the same ballpark. Anyone claiming Thorium reactors are just as good is full of shit.
Now calm down, you're hyperventilating over a comment on slashdot. If this is typical behavior you should consider seeking medical help with your anxiety problem.
The fusion "waste" isn't even in the same category. The fission reactor has the same problem with the neutron flux of the containment vessel and adds on a waste stream from the reaction. On top of that processing the fuel is not without it's own waste stream. It's that very processing which did in breeder reactors because it was dirtier and more polluting than the reactor.
Saying they generate approximately equivalent waste streams is an out and out lie. The fusion systems neutron enriched vessel and systems can be taken care of by leaving on site for 50 years then decommissioning and burying it in a conventional low level nuclear landfill or waiting 100 years and then melting it down and reusing it. The waste products generated from not only the fission reactor, the vessel, and the processing of the fuel are not even in the same category, the vessel alone might be close but even that will likely be contaminated beyond just neutron enrichment.
Slashdot Mirror
Christ the "expert" could be her 12 year old son for all we know.
Do you actually believe they couldn't simply have the police guarding their exit? That they couldn't taint some food so she would be sure to be sound asleep? The people we're talking about have unlimited resources, the ability to silence any witnesses and even the ability to have law enforcement protect them while they do it.
She's attributing cartoonish technical prowess (a stuck key for gods sake) and ignoring the simple fact that if they actually wanted her out of the way she would be out of the way. Putting files on her laptop is the behavior or a 14 year old, a bored neighbor and poor wireless security or malware available from about half the internet. Given what Snowden has revealed, if they had actually wanted to gain access to her computer it would have been trivially easy (less than 5 minutes of access) and absolutely undetectable. Remember the security camera images (I can't recall the mans name that recorded it with a hidden camera) of the guys that used a key to open the guys door and just long enough to boot the computer, insert a USB stick then turn the computer off during the 10 minutes it took for the guy to go buy some groceries?
That's what the NSA does, they can write malware directly into the firmware of the chips that can't be removed. And as I said if they wanted to warn her off something it would have been far more direct and far easier to deny. And if they wanted her out of the way she would have had a tragic "accident". Not one person in this country would question a car accident that appeared genuine because almost 50k people per year die in collisions. It's so common we all know someone that died in one. This doesn't even take into account something like planting cash and drugs in her car/home then calling in an anonymous tip along with supplying some "witnesses". The war on drugs has given the government almost endless ability to destroy people they don't like and the laws are written in such a way that you lose almost all ability to defend yourself.
My entire point on this is that the government wouldn't engage in script kiddie/malware level stupidity if they were intent on shutting her up.They would be much more direct and far more dangerous. Hoover was an amateur compared to what they can do today and he was capable of shutting up the most powerful people in America.
You can't get much more teflon than selling weapons to a country you've loudly proclaimed is an enemy (Iran) to provide funding to insurgents that routinely murder innocent people (Contras) and you get away with it because you tell everyone you don't remember.
More than half the internet is serving malware. If you visit random websites with IE on windows you will be loaded to the gills with malware in less than an hour. The existence of malware does not tie it to the government. It simply means the user doesn't understand the risks and how to avoid those infections.
You forgot the sarcasm tag and there are lots of people that don't get sarcasm. Expect lots of serious replies.
If they want to scare her they wake her up in the middle of the night with 4 people in her bedroom and quietly tell her that if she keeps it up bad things might happen. Then they proceed to make themselves visible at times, for example show up and do the same thing to their mother, let her see them talking to someone she cares about, etc.. It's far more intimidating, far more effective and completely deniable. She doesn't listen and she ends up in a "car accident" or commits "suicide".
The people that would do such things would be far subtler and wouldn't be leaving traces that could be traced back. The warnings would come in situations they completely controlled where they could be sure there was no recording device present. My god Obama has claimed the President has the right to kill American citizens without even a court order. If he was as evil as she claims she'd be dead already.
Her ramblings are a sign of insanity. On the plus side she'll fit right in at Infowars and probably has a bright future over there.
Which is exactly why Bill Nye debating Ken Ham was a bad idea. They even had different definition of the word debate let alone logic and evidence. Ham's idea of a "debate" was a lecture on morality. There was no logic there, only religion. That's not a debate it's a pulpit with a sucker on the left providing respectability to the otherwise crazy preacher that wouldn't normally get attention.
I'm sorry Bill, you had good intentions but you should have realized the guy was a nut job that wouldn't play by the rules and would turn it into a lecture from the pulpit.
Don't be foolish. The laws that govern this have no requirement that a "credit card" be involved. The law is called the Federal Credit Billing Act [FCBA] and it covers any use of interstate consumer credit. The only reason debit cards aren't covered is because credit is never extended, the transaction is a banking transaction that falls under separate banking laws which treat a debit transaction as an electronic check. To avoid the FCBA requirements Apple would be required to essentially act as a bank, which they aren't, and process the transaction as debit cards. This would mean preloading money into the account before you could spend it.
If Apple were stupid enough to attempt what you suggest they would get smacked down so hard they wouldn't stop spinning for a month. The FCBA is incredibly strict and provides guaranteed consumer rights and very harsh penalties for violations including the immediate suspension of business if caught violating it. I sincerely doubt Apple's lawyers are that dumb so this "rumor" your heard is the made up variety that is quite common with Apple.
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/ar...
This should bloody well be common knowledge. The FCBA is the only reason credit cards ever became successful and was a major act of congress that superseded many state laws. It covers pretty much any act of credit except for a few very special exceptions.
Apple can't change federal law. Federal law sets a maximum of $50 of liability for a fraudulent credit transaction if reported within 48 hours of discovery. No matter what Apples terms are if they try to charge higher liability than that assigned by law they will be in big trouble. So I wouldn't be placing much in the rumor you heard unless congress is going to revise the law for Apple.
It's entirely possible and common for gross margin to be positive but to still be losing money on it. Gross margin hasn't had SG&A costs subtracted yet, that includes advertising and all the administrative charges (labor) for producing the tables.
Given the heavy advertising budget for Surface I would be surprised if it's profitable even if gross margin is positive. Because gross margin subtracts outside costs, such as contract manufacturing a positive gross margin means at least the the revenue for the surface is at least enough to cover the cost of constructing the hardware and shipping it to market even if there is no net profit. That is undoubtedly a good sign that the market will respond to but until there is a net profit on the sales I wouldn't be claiming the battle is won and the Surface is a success. It's primarily sending the signal that they are at least selling enough surface that they aren't going to be losing hundreds of millions on unsold inventory.
The only threat has been the implied threat he created. They are happy to let him imprison himself in the Ecuadoran embassy and know with absolute certainty at some point in the future the president of Ecuador will change and the new one will probably throw him out. Then he will get taken to Sweden and whatever charges will eventually be resolved and he'll proclaim widely that the reason the US didn't put him in Guantanamo bay is because he scared them out of it.
He's never going to be prosecuted or even arrested by the US. They are happy to let him think he is though, because of the extreme measures he's taken to avoid it including breaking English law which might end up putting him in an English jail.
And lets not forget the naive English supporter he fucked over that lost their house because they put it up as collateral to bail him our of jail and then he violated his bail. I don't know why anyone would be stupid enough to support him considering how he likes to fuck people over, literally and figuratively.
I'm using anti-trust in the context of how it was used in the article referenced in the summary which you didn't read. Yes the context is screwy cause I changed the tense and should have phrased it differently but if you want to play grammar nazi go play it elsewhere.
It's no different than the last publisher that went and got a court order forbidding Google from displaying any of their content (not realizing what that meant). A week after Google pulled everything from the index and their traffic had dropped of 95% they called up Google and offered to cut a deal (which I highly doubt Google paid a dime for).
Personally I think Google should just take a hard line in these states like Germany and require a signed document authorizing their use in perpetuity or they yank the entire site from all their indexes. If they did it to the entire German industry all at once I doubt the state could claim it was an anti-trust violation because they would be treating everyone equally.
Amazon is trying to lower prices, Apple was trying to raise them. The difference between them is what makes the difference between market collusion and frugal negotiating.
Apple caused ebook prices to go up between 30-100% across the entire industry. Amazon is trying to force prices lower so they sell more, apparently while trying to convince the publisher that lower prices can mean more revenue for everyone. There is a significant difference between the two actions, if you can't see that because your blinded by your apple devotion that's your problem. The rest of us can see quite clearly that what Apple did was an evil distortion of market forces designed to increase prices and their own revenue. Something we've made illegal in the US. Apple is free to set whatever price they want, but when they collude with the manufacturer to force that price up throughout the industry they are breaking the law.
The settlement offer the lawyers wanted to take was WAY too low. After the agreement collapsed Google alone had to give their entire staff a $10k year raise, and they think less than $5k per person for multiple years is sufficient? Everyone should be getting $10k per year minimum. Lawyer fees should be capped and be above and beyond payment to the class holders. Only if these companies have to give every employee affected by this $50 or $100K in damages will this set a precedent that will prevent future abuses.
I've never heard the space argument for binary logging. The reasons I have heard and that are listed on numerous websites are worth the couple megabytes they occupy. It's an utterly silly reason to be opposed to systemd, because you run syslog on top of sysv now, running it on top of systemd isn't functionally any different from a user perspective. That a binary logging file exists has no impact on the system other than providing the numerous benefits they can convey.
Whether or not it has remarkable runs of stability Debian testing does have and will continue to have gotcha moments just like they've had in the past. I don't run testing on servers, I've run it on desktops where all the real data was safe in the home partition. But my point still stands, to have a gotcha in testing that was related to systemd and then blame systemd when you are using testing is silly.
That's the reason they have the warning about testing so that you understand that if you take the risk running testing you are taking the risk that one day your system might not be bootable. This is the reason they've talked about adding another repository that is closer to the Ubuntu LTS and Regular Ubuntu where LTS would be stable and a new repository between testing and stable could be added that would be more up to date. My understanding is that the idea was nixed because the amount of work was tremendous and beyond the number of volunteers that help run the system.
Don't look at me buddy. I take them at their word with that big warning that says this is unstable. Debian is old, that's the point, it's stable. Most of us appreciate that.
If you want a recent and "stable" version of Debian Testing use Ubuntu. But if you listed to some talking head on the internet that testing was just a more up to date Debian than that is your fault, because the warning is very plain, so stop bitching when it turns out it's not. Testing breaks all the time. You run testing you better keep your home on a separate partition so when they inevitably bork testing like they do quite frequently then you format / and reinstall while keeping your data safe in /home.
Blaming systemd when there are endless stories of people relying on testing and getting fucked over that can be found in a few seconds on Google is just plain stupid. It wasn't systemd that screwed up your Debian testing install, it was because it WAS testing. Yea it doesn't break everyday like Unstable but it still breaks and those breaks can be quite catastrophic. People that want stable systems run stable, even if it is ancient. Those that run stable but need a newer piece of software then use /etc/apt/preferences to add in select newer software packages from testing that they want/need. Those that run straight up testing 24/7 are asking for breakage.
Apparently you didn't take my advise about unbunching your panties. Try it, you might like it, I suspect though that you like them that way as you've clearly gotten very angry about being advised that they are bunched. Give it a try, see how it feels, I dare you.
Yes please mod me down, after all I hurt his feelings! Boohoo
Yes text log files are very handy, and just like with SysV you can run syslog on top of systemd just like you did before when you ran syslog on top of SysV. Amazing isn't it!
As has been stated 1 Billion times already you still run syslog right on top and have all text readable logs.
So you were running a distribution which is declared inherently unstable (the warning with Debian Testing) and not recommended for anything but testing and you're upset that it wasn't stable? And then you blamed it all on one piece of software?
Is this a joke? It's not April first so I must be missing the joke.
Did the microchip in your brain tell you to say that?
Unbunch your panties.
My reply was more targeted at the summary than your reply but I replied to you because you perpetuated that same line of thought by claiming Fusion generates a waste stream. Fusion and Fission aren't in the same ballpark. Anyone claiming Thorium reactors are just as good is full of shit.
Now calm down, you're hyperventilating over a comment on slashdot. If this is typical behavior you should consider seeking medical help with your anxiety problem.
The fusion "waste" isn't even in the same category. The fission reactor has the same problem with the neutron flux of the containment vessel and adds on a waste stream from the reaction. On top of that processing the fuel is not without it's own waste stream. It's that very processing which did in breeder reactors because it was dirtier and more polluting than the reactor.
Saying they generate approximately equivalent waste streams is an out and out lie. The fusion systems neutron enriched vessel and systems can be taken care of by leaving on site for 50 years then decommissioning and burying it in a conventional low level nuclear landfill or waiting 100 years and then melting it down and reusing it. The waste products generated from not only the fission reactor, the vessel, and the processing of the fuel are not even in the same category, the vessel alone might be close but even that will likely be contaminated beyond just neutron enrichment.
This is a total bullshit claim.