No, it's friction that does the work. Water and soap help you get into the cracks. The fact that washing your hands and using soap removes germs is not up for debate, it's a pretty solid scientific fact. Elbow grease, as they say, is how you get things clean.
Dampness is not a big issue unless you stayed damp a long time (especially in a high risk environment like a bathroom), which would be odd. Things like doorknobs that are outside of the hand washing order of operations are the problem. You wash your hands then you touch that door that all the non hand washers have touches and you're right back to potentially being patient zero.
This is not an era of celebrity political power. It's one election where the GOP yet against failed to put up any viable candidates and spent the last 8 years programming their supporters with propaganda about how bad the country is and how horrible Obama and basically all liberal are. They have spent billions of dollars over the last 30+ years to push this narrative every year and propaganda does work.
This is nothing more than a leadership and talent vacuum in the GOP that allowed someone like Trump to opportunistically jump in at a very weak point for the GOP. The GOP entirely did this to themselves, but that is beside the fact.
Trump's honeymoon won't last more than one election cycle because he is going to lose to Cruz and then if he runs third party he will lose to Hilary because the GOP votes will be split and there is zero chance of a victory that way, even against Sanders neither Cruz nor Trump running side by side would beat Hilary or Sanders.
It's really all up to Trump if he wants to give Cruz a shot at winning by stepping out or if more likely based on his persona Trump will want to keep his supporters, particularly because the GOP is working against him to support Cruz and plans on winning in a rather unfair way. That will only give fuel to Trump potential third party run and he may as well go ahead and brand a political party while he is at it.. even if only for one election cycle. It will make more money for him if he brands it. I don't think the Trump Party is a smart move though. Cruz and the GOP can only pray that Trump backs out after he loses the delegate count.
After this cycle Trump will lose half or more of those GOP voters, though not soon enough for the GOP and Cruz to not get destroyed in the Presidency and maybe in congressional races, especially if we have two conservative candidates in the General fighting each other. Trump isn't the kind of guy to backdown, but in this case he has no good options. He can't beat Hilary and the GOP, not even close. He doesn't even have half the GOP voters.
That means the Director of the FBI did not think of putting tape on his laptop camera or that it was a security concern before seeing it on TV.
This is why we should be be afraid of the FBI when it comes to technology. Just ignore them and they will die off like all the other old out of touch people.
Are you insane Slashdot? Donald Trump is not tech news and what in the world does Donald Trump's uncle have to do with Donald Trump. Get serious people.. you're supposed to be the smarter community over here, not clickbait sheep.
Cruz is going to win the nomination anyway, but there is no reason to think either can beat Hilary, especially with Trump in the race destroying the normal GOP unified groupthink.
I see no proof that Trump is particularly intelligent. He seems like a pretty average 100-120 IQ type. He doesn't have a great memory, he doesn't speak well, he doesn't come up with lines and quotes that show off his brain power at all. Trumps had a lot of failures and he has a lot of mediocre investments and retail lines that aren't going anywhere. Trump has major interpersonal skill issues and that's not an advantage in life at all. He has earned a pretty crappy reputation for himself long before his political ambitions. He is/was considered high risk by many banks.
The fact he hasn't lost his fathers fortune yet is hardly a reason to call him some great success. Trump also hasn't produced any proof to his new worth or where his supposed money actually comes from. I suspect he won't produce that information if he hasn't already because he needs everything he can get at this point to beat Cruz.Most ppl don't realize Trump is about to lose to Cruz.
To me Trump seems more like a used car salesman or maybe a thanksgiving day turkey that was deep fried in spray tan oil. He was never a person to take seriously, that's why he is a B reality star on top of everything. Why would a successful business man want to be in lame reality show? TV pay ok, but not hundreds of millions per year and being in a show can take come considerable time.
I can't imagine the real billionaires of the world spending time on reality TV shows. People like Warrent Buffet and Bill Gates seem to have better things to do which is what I would expect from a successful businessman. If you're that good at business, you don't need all that PR, like Elon Musk, you will rise or fall on the merit of your ideas and work ethic.
Those are the ONLY kind of businessmen worth respecting, the others are just spoiled rich kids like Trump and Bush and they aren't ever going to do anything meaningful with their lives because they have no real drive and they've never suffered or been challenged in life. Great leaders more or less have to had suffered and overcome to be great. You can be a good leader without suffering, but never a great leader. Unique examples would be someone like FDR whom had the easy rich life, but Polio stole it from him and humbled him into a much more potent and useful man. Had FDR only just been a spoiled rich Roosevelt, he would never have been able to unite the middle class and become anywhere near as loved as we was. FDR didn't just guide us through the Great Depression and WW2. He set the stage for Democratic political victories all the way into the 70s.
You can look at the data for yourselves. After The Great Depression Democrats hold dominate power in US politics up until desegregation destabalized their grip. Lyndon Johnson famously said, we've lost the South for a generation. Conservatives begin to gain some power back in the 60s, but they don't have the demographics. This eventually led to radical and desperate political movement like Barry Goldwater's. From there the GOP changes into a different party and focuses on picking up all the southern voters the Democrats lost.
The problem is that real conservative politics don't benefit the poor Southerns like liberals politics did, but the Southerns hate for blacks and lower IQ and poorer schools keeps them voting Republican. Religious folks also have nothing in common with conservative politics. Conservative policies are more about letting the poor rise and fall on their own. That's absolutely the opposite of what Jesus said to do. He clearly said you path to salvation is by helping and loving the poor. Then he also throw out greedy money lenders AND he out right said rich people hav
Nobody needs to do anything to Russia to weaken it other than allow the existing corporations and leaders to run it into the ground.
You have one of the best pieces of land on the planet for making money and yet the Russian GDP is a tiny 2 trillion dollars. Russia has always been good with using less money to do more, but a 2 trillion dollar economy from the world largest and most resource filled nation is pathetic and embarrassing.
Russia should be the worlds 2nd largest economy, not 33% below Brazil. Russia economy is effectively Globally insignificant. The only thing they currently do that matters is add some fossil fuels, lumber and metals to the market, but really not enough to matter one way or another.
I guess Russia is playing the long game. Waiting for it's resources to be worth more, but that's not going to happen. Once automated mining hits the scene the value of resources is going to plummet because the available resources to mine cost effectively will go way way up. There is also the fact that we have tons of resources trapped in the mantle and that's going to be easier and probably safer to mine than mining in space.
The point is.. there is no resource shortage. The world will hit it's capacity for fresh water and farmable land long before it runs out of necessary resources. Most of the existing resources are infinitely recyclable. We will easily be able to build vertical farming in the future as labor costs go way down due to automation.
There is no reason to think the world won't have robots fully capable of most human labor in 100 years. As long as we can make it 100 years or so most of our problems today can be engineered away with cheap 24 hour labor. Most of our visions of the world are completely wrong because they don't allow for the major breakthroughs like the Industrial Revolution and the coming Automation Revolution. It's going to reshape everything about economics, commodities and labor.
One thing we can't avoid though will be rising land prices.. but most other things will lose value because everything in the industrial process will be automated.. from mining to transport to manufacturing to shipping back to retail and for that matter retail is almost highly automated via websites. We will all have robot assistants in a couple decades and they will just get more and more complex.
Things like Amazon's Echo are just the start. Soon these things will follow you around and get you stuff and the start doing complex tasks like cleaning, laundry and cooking. I suspect making a humanoid robot will be most idea vs making many highly specialized robots. At first specialization seems most ideal, but not in this situation where the world is full of tools and appliances made to be used by bi-peds ranging from 4-6 feet tall. To leverage all that existing infrastructure, to make people more comfortable and to ensure we don't fully depreciate ourselves, it will be best to make robots that work like humans eventually.
Simple solution.. add password or biometric security to the Authenticator apps. Breaching the unified platform won't give you access to the authenticator app because it would effectively have root permissions and require authentication with each use.
All you'd be doing by using an app is ensuring a higher chance of being caught. If that works then the FBI/NSA should be pumping out honeypot apps because that's just free terrorist info and a direct to secret prison membership.
So.. no, sorry. Terrorist apps in the app store are not going to be a thing, no should we be scared of terrorists voluntarily handing their info over. There just is no way to use Android and be secure. Android is, without one tiny doubt, the least secure AND most proliferated OS on the planet.. so if terrorists want to use Android.. go for it! You don't ever see the FBI asking for help cracking Android phones, because 99% of them are trivial to crack and not nearly hard enough to remote exploit.
Terrorists are no smarter in real life than any other criminal. They use simple and proven methods.. burner phones and hide in plain site. Most humans are talented enough liars that it makes it quite easy to blend into a society while also planning to attack it. Technology didn't start terrorism and in the end has almost nothing to do with terrorism.
ISIS PR campaign is effective locally. The global impact is insignificant from a perspective of growing the organization. They really aren't using technology effectively to communicate anymore than any other stupid criminal, because just like any gang 98 or 99% of them are just brainless peons. They don't need most of the technological PR. They are roaming gang of people with drugs and stuff and sex slaves. They don't need technology one little bit to do that.
The whole social networking thing and to a degree the production level of the videos is done FOR the west. To show and impress the west, because a lot of the people they want to recruit don't yet have cell phones, computers or televisions and there is no mass global ISIS recruitment wave. They do that to get in the news so they can say to their people.. HEY look at us in the news.. now have some drugs and forced sex and join us... and for the most part they have them at drugs and forced sex.
The need to then sit them down and show them a propaganda video is actually quite limited.
Skype, overall, always sucked. MS hasn't made it much worse. It's pretty much the same as ever. Horrible interface, horrible chat, decent video/voice calling. I don't even see why you guys care so much. There are tons of other options out there.
If you use Skype to connect to friends.. your dumb. It's not good for that. It's not a good main IM/communications platform. It's for occasional video/voice chat. Sad.. but true. MS could make it better, but that would mean making it nothing like Skype ever was.
The client doesn't have to be entirely native, but it can't be built into a damn browser either. That's really not a secure way to do things. You want to tie the least things into your browser as possible because it's the highest risk platform you will likely use. Plus we don't want people forced to use their browsers.
Web apps are a stop gap solution that will die off for something like Universal Apps which can integrate into the desktop far far better. Allowing a web browser to integrate apps into the desktop would be a nightmare and any other solution is likely going to be limited other than perhaps everyone agreeing on a set of APIs and we know that won't happen even between Linux distros devs can't manage to come together on things often without big money getting involved.
What I see if Facebook and Google making Universal App because they can see MS's integreation into the OS is now a clear selling point. Things like reminders that just work from your phone to your desktop without a bunch of BS or unreliable Chrome desktop notifications. It's entirely seamless and a vastly better experience than Android and Windows.
Skype in theory also offers fairly robust messaging between the two platforms, though I don't like skype because it's chat interface has always been total crap and I don't get that. Google again.. fails to bring messaging to the OS other then through Chrome and I have no interest in being tied to Chrome or running everything through a web browser.
That should be obvious that people would not really want that vs a standalone app. Why would you want to load and app to load an app? Not only that but Chrome sucks balls as a platform. The interface is horrible. 90% of users don't even know how to get to Google Apps even though it's right there the whole time.
If you don't realize Windows Phone is awesome and getting more awesome, you're kidding yourself.
One day people will just be like.. oh well.. this phone is cooler than the others.. I like it now. MS just needs some more key apps and they prob have the better OS already, which is saying a lot since they are so late the game.
Hate on their lack of apps all you want. Windows 10 is doing just fine and Windows 10 mobile will too just by sheer extension of the power of being the 80-90% desktop market share leader. MS will, over time, leverage themselves into a top mobile spot.
The fact their os is technically so impressive and that their whole Windows 10 unified platform is starting to come together is just proof that their.NET portable framework strategy is working out.
MS can now pump out a full blow mobile operating systems for any architecture faster than anyone.AND have universal apps that run on it. At the same time Intel and MS are clearly moving to try to make Intel the next big thing in mobile chips and give ARM some comp. This is why Intel is going low power on desktops too. It makes sense, but it also matches their long term profit strat.
There is more money to be made selling phone chips now than desktops. Intel and MS are going to try to push mobile x86 on the world and MS can to some degree leverage their entire existing app library, though in the end Universal App are what everyone should want. That are more universal really than anything other portable language because they aren't just built on a portable language. They are built on a portable framework.I don't think most people really understand that or get how powerful.NET and CLR really are.
Consider the current business model. Facebook and Google generally want you on a phone or tablet, ideally a phone. That's the device they profit from the most to keep you on the most. Facebook and Google are both pulling standlone Windows apps from the market and Google has for the longest time completely ignored the fact that they have almost no real desktop integration. Now.. why is that?
Is it that Chrome is good enough for everyone and Chrome notification are reasonable replacement for a standalone app meant to sync Google to your desktop? Is it that google just never though people wanted better syncing to their desktop? I guess Messenger for Windows 10 desktop and Google Talk for WIndows 10 were all just too costly to maintain?
BULLSHIT, Facebook and Google are conspiring to keep you on the platforms THEY make the most money from. Google wants to make it hard to integrate into Windows because if they do that they will never be able to sell you a Google desktop down the road. Facebook things it's a platform. Google things it's a platform.. but they are toys. They are silly little web platforms that can't really go anywhere and they are just WAY too limited to impress anyone.
Windows mobile is going to create real competition and real pressure for integration. Facebook and Google are changing their business models now and it's all because of that silly failed Windows Mobile OS that they can see is very dangerous in the long run. There is also the fact that people really have no loyalty to mobile OS's yet..and they shouldn't because they all suck one way or another right now. But people have more or less settled on Windows desktops for another 10-20 years. There is no real pressure to move and google isn't going to provide that pressure. That means the fucking should have been integrating into WIndows fully the entire god damn time.
I've had to download notification programs and find workarounds for Gmail and Calendar for years now.. it's a pain in the ass that google shouldn't be forcing on users, nor should they expect us all to use Chrome so we can get their dumb ass desktop notifications. I also don't want your bloated browser running god know how many instances in the background all the time.
I have crap Lumia 520 I got for 30 bucks as an MP3 player/toy. It's very impressive for only 512 megs of
Why does MS have an obligation to support Linux anyway?
I feel that 90% of Linux fans don't realize that Linux as a whole platform is a complete clusterfuck nightmare for developers to try to stay compatible with.
If you want the benefits of decentralized OS with many flavors, you have to accept the disadvantages of that level of customization. You don't get the top apps for your OS first because your the low market share OS that's splintered into several major compating and non-compatible variants. Then, like Android, you also have a constant battle between people pushing kernel updates and breaking apps or people dragging ass and not staying up dated enough, sometimes forcing you to change distos to get the apps you want.
That's not the apps makers faults. That's the fault of Linux as a platform lacking some level of central leadership that it needs to demand/negotiate app compatibility without asking devs to write 10 different Linux variants of their apps. PLUS the OSX, iOS, Android, Windows 10 desktop AND windows 10 universal app.
The fact of the mater is we don't have nearly enough talented devs to get all this done AND write hundreds of thousands of useless mobile apps that constantly get depreciated or just never really did anything in the first place beside steal money or personal info from people.
Why? Because people need fucking money and Linux doesn't pay out. What do you guys really expect? Top notch programs for free with no strings attached? How do you image that really works out in a world were we have bills and ambitions?
I don't blame MS or any dev for not wanting to keep up with mess that is Linux. It's a good OS for what it is, but form a support perspective it's a nightmare OS and that's with the community of user being some of the most educated.
The Linux community should be writing it's own open source skype and have it's own for profit unified Linux Store and FORCE distros to come together so the OS has real leverage in the markets. It's not as if Linux is the BIG third OS market.. it's just not at all and there is no money in it. That's why devs flock to the mobile platforms even with all the competition.
For that I think iOS and MS are the best stores to develop for. Android is too immature and changing too much, constantly breaking apps and just not really improving the overall experience much at all, perhaps making it worse.
Google is obsessed with their advertising platform, so Android is probably a dead end because like Amazon gadgets it's all just designed to bring you back to the Google and keep you on Chrome and keep you pushing out data so they can keep mining the data and selling it for profit. iOS and Windows Mobile seem like more of an attempt at a real OS with productivity in mind and providing a reasonable user experience. Google does not seem to care about that. It just seems to focuses on whatever is popular to keep it's own name trending high and keep people trying out services.
For google making a service and getting people to use it and it failing is still profitable. The service doesn't have to be that great, as long as creates attention and gets downloads, it's bound to mine data in the process and make them money. Apple and MS have vastly less advertising revenue, though they prob would both like more.. especially MS.
I would guess they are targeting someone in the company or they are working with someone in the company, not merely targeting the service for spite or to extort money.. unless they have a history of paying out in which case they did that to themselves.
Bitcoin prob isn't going to mature much more anyway and newer/better things will replace it. It was a good effort, but the moment is all but gone and the BIG problem is that it's too easy to track and it winds up being regulated at which point it's an odd an inferior money payment system based off some weird number crunching hobby that people used to have.
In the big picture bitcoin is likely a net loss when you factor in electric costs, hardware costs and serious technical limitations. Perhaps they can keep the existing value of Bitcoin and port it over to a more robust and well designed payment/money structure.
As it stands Bitcoin is more like commodity or a collectors item than a currency. It's slow, it's prone to far to much human error, the blockchain is right out in the open, coins are too easy to lose or steal and eCommerce services that use bitcoin are immature and often prone to major security breaches. Any place that deals in bitcoin will attract more hackers because it's an ideal thing to steal remotely. The upside is that the big bad government can't see what you do.. and since bitcoin isn't secure that's not true either. The reality of even money laundering is that small time stuff doesn't require bitcoin and could attract too much attention currently. While bitcoin can in theory scale to large scale, it's just not that easy and people with millions of dollars have will invested frameworks to launder money as well as deliver money. It's good for a very select group of people who commit crimes remotely whether that be illegal purchases or services or direct bitcoin theft and often without a conventional criminal framework. Having mined and made some money in the cryptocoin market.. I don't see it as much more than that and it's scaling up far far too slow. Now.. perhaps that's ideal and keeps it where it wants to be.. out of the mainstream, but a lot of companies seem to think its going to replace Visa and I just don't get their business model other than to trick investors out of cash.
Without fast payment or privacy Bitcoin sucks as a modern digital currency for the masses. It's a collectors item that some stores accept as cash,
Phone have more than topped out in high end hardware needs and have way surpased developers ability to keep apps updated with Google constant core OS changes.
Cheap devices are the future.. just like we saw in desktops and laptops which are now basically disposable.. but this market is much higher volume and faster moving. High end phone makers are all going to eat it and be forced to bring costs down because giant phones are stupid..curved phones are stupid.. phones that can plan Crysis are stupid.. especially when they still mostly suck as phones or PDAs... phones are vastly better at gaming and watching movies than anything else. That is because that makes more money.. which is all the mobile market places are all about.
Nope, not this time. People have been making fruit unhealthy since hominids found patches of fruited and pigged out on them.. as well as enjoyed the fermenting ones for their mysterious and magic properties.
From wine to fruit juices throughout the ages. We've had the technology to mass produce juice, just not so cheap that the peons could have it. Now that they do, just as the aristocrats likely predicted, they can't handle the responsibility. We've certainly produce alcohol for millennium now and that's hard to sell as healthy, particularly when it's all you drink because of the evil water spirits.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable paying for studies that 'prove' well known scientific facts. Yes.. sugar does in fact have calories and amazingly those drinks have their calories and sugar content listed on them.. as if for some divine reason.
Was there really any doubt or any push back to the fact that fruit drinks have calories and those calories affect you mostly in the same way as any food or drink?
Decades ago on a planet much skinner than today, people drank fruit drinks responsibly - that means in small portions or watered down. They were also more active. It's sad that decades later we are treating common dieting sense as some kind of new science that needs to still be proven.
If the programs worked, we'd be thwarting terror plots more than getting hit by them.. yet that is not what is happening. The NSA does not really have access to the level of info they'd really need and they don't have the coding or AI to pull of quantifying the data they do have. Since the NSA has failed for over a decade now to make these programs do anything useful it's pretty safe to say they don't know how to use the data or they aren't getting the right data.
You don't need to be an insider to know that..and as you say.. claiming to know that as an insider really means nothing anyway. For that matter we should not take Snowden's claims entirely seriously because he didn't have the clearance to all the data he would need to understand the programs he has supposedly exposed. He only has pieces of data and almost none of it was real world data... such as proof of damaging illegal use of the NSA program. Snowden primarly exposed potential for abuse, not much actual abuse, and that matters a great deal as far as getting people to really care about the NSA programs. Half of so of Americans simply don't care enough to fight the program and perhaps it makes them feel safer. That's a big problem when it comes to reform.
Pretty obvious in any case as you horde info like that you wind up with 99% of that info be 100% worthless.
It's common knowledge if you bother to read.. these reports have been coming down the line for years and it's fully predictable that would happen.
The main use of all this data always was a timemachine of sorta, not effective real time keyword based spying. The fact is we don't have programmers good enough to pull that off yet. It takes billions just to get a car to drive itself within fairly obvious present rules.
The idea that you'd intelligently understand human behavior via relatively simple algorithms should be an obvious fail using today's technology. It's not that it's can't be done, it's just that nobody can do it yet and the NSA is not particularly ahead of the curve on much of anything other than secret warrants. NSA exploits have almost all come from the wild and we've seen that they have near zero capcity to stop even the simplest terror plots, often run almost entirely in the open including posts on facebook.
If the NSA's programs don't stop a terrorist scheme as simple and out in the open as the Boston Bombers, we know they aren't effective. Almost none of these attacks have used any sophisticated technology and the NSA has stopped almost no attacks.
We know they cannot effectively parse that data, because if they could we would see the result as a reduction of plainly obvious militants operating domestically with no problem.. even while real people around them question or report them. So.. even with leads from real people the NSA and FBI generally cannot manage to arrest terrorists in the act or any significant crime.
They use virtualization platforms due to lots of paranoia about chinese hackers infiltrating their network supposedly, Particularly for Space-X technology.
it's a nice browser, but it's not really worth using vs Chrome unless you do so for the sake of privacy, at which point you'd be drawn to FireFox. The problem with web browsers is primarily bad webpage coding and we can all fix that easily by just not going to website that load slow or use too much ads.
That's really the better solution. We the people train the marketand coders to work how we want it instead of just being sheep spending their lives running from once fence to another because they heard it was better over there. Sites likes slashdot and reddit aren't slow. If you can't make a site without too much trash I just don't go there. We shouldn't have to engineer around the problem.
The other big problem is just bad handling of multiple open tabs. They should be able to drop resources on tabs that aren't being used with minimal overhead. You may have 20 tabs open, but only one needs to be fully rendered and using any real resource, yet that is not how any browser works.
Finally, we should all disable flash and leave it off until they get the fucking message. It's complete and total crap and flash has caused BILLIONS of dollars in damages due to being massively insecure and massively bloated and inefficient. Flash is basically a virus that can run some cool games.
Pretty common for people to fear something they have no experience with, rather common human response really. Self driving cars will prove themselves over time like any other technology, polls are meaningless at this point since the technology is experimental.
I'd also like to say.. why is AAA doing this poll anyway? They must know that with the tech being immature that their poll results can't be very accurate, so i guess they are just projecting the increasing acceptance of self driving cars by creating a benchmark... right. It's not that they have any fiscal interest in mechanical cars that break more, crash more and cost more.
I think it's good people are skeptical, but I'm not sure what anyone would hope to get from such a poll when these cars still have years of R&D and testing before they are truly self driving in most real world situations.
Ok, so i like the research, but the theory that it could be used anytime soon for some type of rouge wave detection or prevention seems far fetched.
I don't see it being very easy to map out wave activity in a large enough area in all the varying conditions you come across at sea AND produce any useful lead time in warning no less what does a warning do. Boats maneuver like.. boats. When you're out in the vast fluid dynamics of the ocean there isn't much you're going to do to get away from a wave or block the force of it's impact.
Perhaps we can come up with areas and conditions where rouge waves can be said to be more common, but real time prediction or prevention isn't happening anytime soon and why would it, rouge waves are not any kind of pressing issue. Boats are just not made to survive large waves due to their large broadsides. If you want to make a boat that is protected from a rouge wave then engineer more stable boats. What else will you do tether a giant mesh of sensor to the boat?
Sounds like people getting paid for science that will never see the light of day.
No.. republicans are always vastly more united on the issues than Democrats, that's partly why they tend to get more done with less people than the liberals.
The Republicans just hate lots of things, so you probably think they hate their party more, but they are far far more loyal to their party and against liberals than liberals are to the Democrats.
It would be way easier for a sane Republican to pick up liberals votes than it would be for a liberal to pick up conservative votes. Conservatives have been trained to hate everything liberal even before they hear the issue. The people have been trained to be easy to manipulate and Trump is exploiting that, He uses the racists stuff to 'prove' to them that he is one of them and beyond that he is willing to speak off the cuff and is not an established politician, which is popular right now with congresses approval rating being so low.
Democrats are much harder to get to unify behind one idea than conservatives. The party is more diverse than the GOP and doesn't not unify as well under pressure as the GOP. You could claim the Dems think for themselves a bit more and the GOP are more likely to follow a group think philosophy because they care more about beating liberals than understanding the issues. If most of those Trump supporters had to understand the issues they'd not be involved in politics at all, but that what makes them so easy to yank from the GOP. All he had to do is appear more willing to be racits and push the same old narrative we always hear from the GOP. Trump didn't make up any of that, he is just saying what those people like to hear to quickly build a base with almost no investment. Major media outlets do all the work for him and people who've never questioned their candidate on the issues continue to vote as they always have.
To those people Trump is as republican as any candidate, if not more so, because Republican to them just means hating on liberals, immigrants, blaming government for all problem, loving guns and a few other issues. The problem is that a good 30% of Republicans are educated and believe in the core values which they don't see him representing at all.
At the polls Trump is basically pulling almost 50% of the base away from any candidate they GOP could truly unify behind. In the general election if half of those core GOP voters don't go vote for Trump then Hilary will win by a landslide. It's safe to assume 10% or more of core GOP voters will not vote for Trump and those people are also some of the most reliable voting demographics.. wealthy and old.
Trump makes great news and the news is going to hype his chances of winning up in order to keep people interested, but there is no reason to think Trump can enough of the non Trump GOP voters to win at this point. It's not a matter of simple choice. About 30% of the GOP's most avid supporters would back any candidate other than Trump. Trump will have to appeal to moderates, independents and even liberals to win the general election without the GOP elites which more or less control the party and usually just tell those Trump supporters what to think and they do.
Even after Bush and the GOP almost destroy the economy the election was still way too close. The GOP LOVES their party most of the time, but the strategy of congressional obstruction and pointless investigations from the House was overplayed by the GOP. They didn't govern, they didn't legislate, they didn't present new ideas and their entire world seems to revolve around Obama and Hilary Clinton and what they can get away with blaming them for. That's a great way to fuck the country up and piss everyone off, but you can't win elections through long term obstruction.
The GOP hasn't really won seats, they've lost them to the Tea Party and that has been good enough to stop liberal progress, but it's not a real plan because the Tea Party guys are complete losers with no idea what they are doing other than riding in a wave of hate against the congress that does nothing. Everyone in congress who doesn't want to obstruct gets fucked
He is just loud, self funded and he is not a career politician and this year that's all it takes to excite people. When it comes to his twitter put downs, they aren't in any way masterful or really even all that useful, they just ensure that his name constantly gets bumped from his tweets and then of course the media coverage on this tweets.
Trumps use of the already established GOP key issues and the fact that he is not one of them is his winning combination, being self funded clearly helps/allows such a rather risky strategy, which does not seem likely to pay off in the general election since we have most of the top conservative money donors opposing Trump. If Trump does win those rich GOP string pullers are going to keep attacking him like they did Obama and much of GOP congress will obstruct him when told to by their sponsors.
The question is what happens after the first 2 years of Trump and GOP/Dem obstruction. Well, if I know my American's, they will want to blame Trump, but I don't think it would be hard for Trump to actively deflect the blame to congress because of the long term obstruction strategy.
Trump is a direct result of the GOP obstruction policy against Obama and for that matter all liberals. Refusing to play ball is not a valid political strategy than anyone can market for very long and the GOP did it too long. Now 50% of their base hate them so much they've abandoned any real concern for the core conservative issues of abortion, gun control. Trump was pro-choice and pro assault weapon ban back in 2000, so right before 2001 Donald was a liberal. Sometimes around 2011 he re-invents himself as a republican. He is using the hate to legitimize himself as a conservatve because he has to in order to get his foot in the door, it's a sacrifice play of sorta. In all reality he wants as much of the hispanic vote as he can get, but he needs to defend himself from the obvious line of attack... Donald is not a real conservative.
If he wants he can even come clean in the general election and admit that he just said that to win the primary because it was cheaper/easier than going Independent right from the start. If the GOP tries to block him at the delegates he can go Independent and claim to basically be running against the entire government. In those scenarios he might do even better against Hilary.
If the GOP attacks Trump for the entire rest of the primary it's going to hurt him more than it helps. Being the outsider is great, but long term spending on hate ads is almost always effective and it leaves Trump with nobody to attack back because it's not even a candidate that is going after him. I'm not sure they can stop Trump, but every conservative state is going to try and along with millions in attack against from the conservative party Trump will come out with to face Hilary with a lot more secrets exposed and then face the DNCs attack line.
Trump is a better speaker and attack artist than Hilary, but Trump has never been attacked like he be over the remainder of the primary and general election. Being rich all his life will have helped very much to keep his secrets secret, but some will play out badly for him in the media. Oddly enough the GOP and the DNC will have similar attack ads this year.
For Democrats it's mostly a win win situation. Trump is far left of anyone we've seen come close to winning as the GOP candidate since Reagan or perhaps even before and that's great for overall reform of the US because the GOP is clearly the party that needs the most reform and it's where the dumbest and most racist BS almost seems to originate.
Trump can't push through legislation if he wins, but he has already created the most serious debate about reforming the GOP since Goldwater. Even if Trump attacks Congress with his all it's unlikely he'd see anything resembling a Trump friendly congress withing 6 years, that's just how voting works in the US. It is not possible to thoroughly sweep congress in just one election and voters almost always give up when they don't get what they want in the first two years. I d
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's friction that does the work. Water and soap help you get into the cracks. The fact that washing your hands and using soap removes germs is not up for debate, it's a pretty solid scientific fact. Elbow grease, as they say, is how you get things clean. Dampness is not a big issue unless you stayed damp a long time (especially in a high risk environment like a bathroom), which would be odd. Things like doorknobs that are outside of the hand washing order of operations are the problem. You wash your hands then you touch that door that all the non hand washers have touches and you're right back to potentially being patient zero.
This is not an era of celebrity political power. It's one election where the GOP yet against failed to put up any viable candidates and spent the last 8 years programming their supporters with propaganda about how bad the country is and how horrible Obama and basically all liberal are. They have spent billions of dollars over the last 30+ years to push this narrative every year and propaganda does work. This is nothing more than a leadership and talent vacuum in the GOP that allowed someone like Trump to opportunistically jump in at a very weak point for the GOP. The GOP entirely did this to themselves, but that is beside the fact. Trump's honeymoon won't last more than one election cycle because he is going to lose to Cruz and then if he runs third party he will lose to Hilary because the GOP votes will be split and there is zero chance of a victory that way, even against Sanders neither Cruz nor Trump running side by side would beat Hilary or Sanders. It's really all up to Trump if he wants to give Cruz a shot at winning by stepping out or if more likely based on his persona Trump will want to keep his supporters, particularly because the GOP is working against him to support Cruz and plans on winning in a rather unfair way. That will only give fuel to Trump potential third party run and he may as well go ahead and brand a political party while he is at it.. even if only for one election cycle. It will make more money for him if he brands it. I don't think the Trump Party is a smart move though. Cruz and the GOP can only pray that Trump backs out after he loses the delegate count. After this cycle Trump will lose half or more of those GOP voters, though not soon enough for the GOP and Cruz to not get destroyed in the Presidency and maybe in congressional races, especially if we have two conservative candidates in the General fighting each other. Trump isn't the kind of guy to backdown, but in this case he has no good options. He can't beat Hilary and the GOP, not even close. He doesn't even have half the GOP voters.
And he's gonna go do gods work against them.
That means the Director of the FBI did not think of putting tape on his laptop camera or that it was a security concern before seeing it on TV. This is why we should be be afraid of the FBI when it comes to technology. Just ignore them and they will die off like all the other old out of touch people.
Are you insane Slashdot? Donald Trump is not tech news and what in the world does Donald Trump's uncle have to do with Donald Trump. Get serious people.. you're supposed to be the smarter community over here, not clickbait sheep. Cruz is going to win the nomination anyway, but there is no reason to think either can beat Hilary, especially with Trump in the race destroying the normal GOP unified groupthink. I see no proof that Trump is particularly intelligent. He seems like a pretty average 100-120 IQ type. He doesn't have a great memory, he doesn't speak well, he doesn't come up with lines and quotes that show off his brain power at all. Trumps had a lot of failures and he has a lot of mediocre investments and retail lines that aren't going anywhere. Trump has major interpersonal skill issues and that's not an advantage in life at all. He has earned a pretty crappy reputation for himself long before his political ambitions. He is/was considered high risk by many banks. The fact he hasn't lost his fathers fortune yet is hardly a reason to call him some great success. Trump also hasn't produced any proof to his new worth or where his supposed money actually comes from. I suspect he won't produce that information if he hasn't already because he needs everything he can get at this point to beat Cruz.Most ppl don't realize Trump is about to lose to Cruz. To me Trump seems more like a used car salesman or maybe a thanksgiving day turkey that was deep fried in spray tan oil. He was never a person to take seriously, that's why he is a B reality star on top of everything. Why would a successful business man want to be in lame reality show? TV pay ok, but not hundreds of millions per year and being in a show can take come considerable time. I can't imagine the real billionaires of the world spending time on reality TV shows. People like Warrent Buffet and Bill Gates seem to have better things to do which is what I would expect from a successful businessman. If you're that good at business, you don't need all that PR, like Elon Musk, you will rise or fall on the merit of your ideas and work ethic. Those are the ONLY kind of businessmen worth respecting, the others are just spoiled rich kids like Trump and Bush and they aren't ever going to do anything meaningful with their lives because they have no real drive and they've never suffered or been challenged in life. Great leaders more or less have to had suffered and overcome to be great. You can be a good leader without suffering, but never a great leader. Unique examples would be someone like FDR whom had the easy rich life, but Polio stole it from him and humbled him into a much more potent and useful man. Had FDR only just been a spoiled rich Roosevelt, he would never have been able to unite the middle class and become anywhere near as loved as we was. FDR didn't just guide us through the Great Depression and WW2. He set the stage for Democratic political victories all the way into the 70s. You can look at the data for yourselves. After The Great Depression Democrats hold dominate power in US politics up until desegregation destabalized their grip. Lyndon Johnson famously said, we've lost the South for a generation. Conservatives begin to gain some power back in the 60s, but they don't have the demographics. This eventually led to radical and desperate political movement like Barry Goldwater's. From there the GOP changes into a different party and focuses on picking up all the southern voters the Democrats lost. The problem is that real conservative politics don't benefit the poor Southerns like liberals politics did, but the Southerns hate for blacks and lower IQ and poorer schools keeps them voting Republican. Religious folks also have nothing in common with conservative politics. Conservative policies are more about letting the poor rise and fall on their own. That's absolutely the opposite of what Jesus said to do. He clearly said you path to salvation is by helping and loving the poor. Then he also throw out greedy money lenders AND he out right said rich people hav
Nobody needs to do anything to Russia to weaken it other than allow the existing corporations and leaders to run it into the ground. You have one of the best pieces of land on the planet for making money and yet the Russian GDP is a tiny 2 trillion dollars. Russia has always been good with using less money to do more, but a 2 trillion dollar economy from the world largest and most resource filled nation is pathetic and embarrassing. Russia should be the worlds 2nd largest economy, not 33% below Brazil. Russia economy is effectively Globally insignificant. The only thing they currently do that matters is add some fossil fuels, lumber and metals to the market, but really not enough to matter one way or another. I guess Russia is playing the long game. Waiting for it's resources to be worth more, but that's not going to happen. Once automated mining hits the scene the value of resources is going to plummet because the available resources to mine cost effectively will go way way up. There is also the fact that we have tons of resources trapped in the mantle and that's going to be easier and probably safer to mine than mining in space. The point is.. there is no resource shortage. The world will hit it's capacity for fresh water and farmable land long before it runs out of necessary resources. Most of the existing resources are infinitely recyclable. We will easily be able to build vertical farming in the future as labor costs go way down due to automation. There is no reason to think the world won't have robots fully capable of most human labor in 100 years. As long as we can make it 100 years or so most of our problems today can be engineered away with cheap 24 hour labor. Most of our visions of the world are completely wrong because they don't allow for the major breakthroughs like the Industrial Revolution and the coming Automation Revolution. It's going to reshape everything about economics, commodities and labor. One thing we can't avoid though will be rising land prices.. but most other things will lose value because everything in the industrial process will be automated.. from mining to transport to manufacturing to shipping back to retail and for that matter retail is almost highly automated via websites. We will all have robot assistants in a couple decades and they will just get more and more complex. Things like Amazon's Echo are just the start. Soon these things will follow you around and get you stuff and the start doing complex tasks like cleaning, laundry and cooking. I suspect making a humanoid robot will be most idea vs making many highly specialized robots. At first specialization seems most ideal, but not in this situation where the world is full of tools and appliances made to be used by bi-peds ranging from 4-6 feet tall. To leverage all that existing infrastructure, to make people more comfortable and to ensure we don't fully depreciate ourselves, it will be best to make robots that work like humans eventually.
Simple solution.. add password or biometric security to the Authenticator apps. Breaching the unified platform won't give you access to the authenticator app because it would effectively have root permissions and require authentication with each use.
All you'd be doing by using an app is ensuring a higher chance of being caught. If that works then the FBI/NSA should be pumping out honeypot apps because that's just free terrorist info and a direct to secret prison membership. So.. no, sorry. Terrorist apps in the app store are not going to be a thing, no should we be scared of terrorists voluntarily handing their info over. There just is no way to use Android and be secure. Android is, without one tiny doubt, the least secure AND most proliferated OS on the planet.. so if terrorists want to use Android.. go for it! You don't ever see the FBI asking for help cracking Android phones, because 99% of them are trivial to crack and not nearly hard enough to remote exploit. Terrorists are no smarter in real life than any other criminal. They use simple and proven methods.. burner phones and hide in plain site. Most humans are talented enough liars that it makes it quite easy to blend into a society while also planning to attack it. Technology didn't start terrorism and in the end has almost nothing to do with terrorism. ISIS PR campaign is effective locally. The global impact is insignificant from a perspective of growing the organization. They really aren't using technology effectively to communicate anymore than any other stupid criminal, because just like any gang 98 or 99% of them are just brainless peons. They don't need most of the technological PR. They are roaming gang of people with drugs and stuff and sex slaves. They don't need technology one little bit to do that. The whole social networking thing and to a degree the production level of the videos is done FOR the west. To show and impress the west, because a lot of the people they want to recruit don't yet have cell phones, computers or televisions and there is no mass global ISIS recruitment wave. They do that to get in the news so they can say to their people.. HEY look at us in the news.. now have some drugs and forced sex and join us... and for the most part they have them at drugs and forced sex. The need to then sit them down and show them a propaganda video is actually quite limited.
Skype, overall, always sucked. MS hasn't made it much worse. It's pretty much the same as ever. Horrible interface, horrible chat, decent video/voice calling. I don't even see why you guys care so much. There are tons of other options out there. If you use Skype to connect to friends.. your dumb. It's not good for that. It's not a good main IM/communications platform. It's for occasional video/voice chat. Sad.. but true. MS could make it better, but that would mean making it nothing like Skype ever was.
The client doesn't have to be entirely native, but it can't be built into a damn browser either. That's really not a secure way to do things. You want to tie the least things into your browser as possible because it's the highest risk platform you will likely use. Plus we don't want people forced to use their browsers. Web apps are a stop gap solution that will die off for something like Universal Apps which can integrate into the desktop far far better. Allowing a web browser to integrate apps into the desktop would be a nightmare and any other solution is likely going to be limited other than perhaps everyone agreeing on a set of APIs and we know that won't happen even between Linux distros devs can't manage to come together on things often without big money getting involved. What I see if Facebook and Google making Universal App because they can see MS's integreation into the OS is now a clear selling point. Things like reminders that just work from your phone to your desktop without a bunch of BS or unreliable Chrome desktop notifications. It's entirely seamless and a vastly better experience than Android and Windows. Skype in theory also offers fairly robust messaging between the two platforms, though I don't like skype because it's chat interface has always been total crap and I don't get that. Google again.. fails to bring messaging to the OS other then through Chrome and I have no interest in being tied to Chrome or running everything through a web browser. That should be obvious that people would not really want that vs a standalone app. Why would you want to load and app to load an app? Not only that but Chrome sucks balls as a platform. The interface is horrible. 90% of users don't even know how to get to Google Apps even though it's right there the whole time.
If you don't realize Windows Phone is awesome and getting more awesome, you're kidding yourself. One day people will just be like.. oh well.. this phone is cooler than the others.. I like it now. MS just needs some more key apps and they prob have the better OS already, which is saying a lot since they are so late the game. Hate on their lack of apps all you want. Windows 10 is doing just fine and Windows 10 mobile will too just by sheer extension of the power of being the 80-90% desktop market share leader. MS will, over time, leverage themselves into a top mobile spot. The fact their os is technically so impressive and that their whole Windows 10 unified platform is starting to come together is just proof that their .NET portable framework strategy is working out.
MS can now pump out a full blow mobile operating systems for any architecture faster than anyone.AND have universal apps that run on it. At the same time Intel and MS are clearly moving to try to make Intel the next big thing in mobile chips and give ARM some comp. This is why Intel is going low power on desktops too. It makes sense, but it also matches their long term profit strat.
There is more money to be made selling phone chips now than desktops. Intel and MS are going to try to push mobile x86 on the world and MS can to some degree leverage their entire existing app library, though in the end Universal App are what everyone should want. That are more universal really than anything other portable language because they aren't just built on a portable language. They are built on a portable framework.I don't think most people really understand that or get how powerful .NET and CLR really are.
Consider the current business model. Facebook and Google generally want you on a phone or tablet, ideally a phone. That's the device they profit from the most to keep you on the most. Facebook and Google are both pulling standlone Windows apps from the market and Google has for the longest time completely ignored the fact that they have almost no real desktop integration. Now.. why is that?
Is it that Chrome is good enough for everyone and Chrome notification are reasonable replacement for a standalone app meant to sync Google to your desktop? Is it that google just never though people wanted better syncing to their desktop? I guess Messenger for Windows 10 desktop and Google Talk for WIndows 10 were all just too costly to maintain?
BULLSHIT, Facebook and Google are conspiring to keep you on the platforms THEY make the most money from. Google wants to make it hard to integrate into Windows because if they do that they will never be able to sell you a Google desktop down the road. Facebook things it's a platform. Google things it's a platform.. but they are toys. They are silly little web platforms that can't really go anywhere and they are just WAY too limited to impress anyone.
Windows mobile is going to create real competition and real pressure for integration. Facebook and Google are changing their business models now and it's all because of that silly failed Windows Mobile OS that they can see is very dangerous in the long run. There is also the fact that people really have no loyalty to mobile OS's yet. .and they shouldn't because they all suck one way or another right now. But people have more or less settled on Windows desktops for another 10-20 years. There is no real pressure to move and google isn't going to provide that pressure. That means the fucking should have been integrating into WIndows fully the entire god damn time.
I've had to download notification programs and find workarounds for Gmail and Calendar for years now.. it's a pain in the ass that google shouldn't be forcing on users, nor should they expect us all to use Chrome so we can get their dumb ass desktop notifications. I also don't want your bloated browser running god know how many instances in the background all the time.
I have crap Lumia 520 I got for 30 bucks as an MP3 player/toy. It's very impressive for only 512 megs of
Why does MS have an obligation to support Linux anyway? I feel that 90% of Linux fans don't realize that Linux as a whole platform is a complete clusterfuck nightmare for developers to try to stay compatible with. If you want the benefits of decentralized OS with many flavors, you have to accept the disadvantages of that level of customization. You don't get the top apps for your OS first because your the low market share OS that's splintered into several major compating and non-compatible variants. Then, like Android, you also have a constant battle between people pushing kernel updates and breaking apps or people dragging ass and not staying up dated enough, sometimes forcing you to change distos to get the apps you want. That's not the apps makers faults. That's the fault of Linux as a platform lacking some level of central leadership that it needs to demand/negotiate app compatibility without asking devs to write 10 different Linux variants of their apps. PLUS the OSX, iOS, Android, Windows 10 desktop AND windows 10 universal app. The fact of the mater is we don't have nearly enough talented devs to get all this done AND write hundreds of thousands of useless mobile apps that constantly get depreciated or just never really did anything in the first place beside steal money or personal info from people. Why? Because people need fucking money and Linux doesn't pay out. What do you guys really expect? Top notch programs for free with no strings attached? How do you image that really works out in a world were we have bills and ambitions? I don't blame MS or any dev for not wanting to keep up with mess that is Linux. It's a good OS for what it is, but form a support perspective it's a nightmare OS and that's with the community of user being some of the most educated. The Linux community should be writing it's own open source skype and have it's own for profit unified Linux Store and FORCE distros to come together so the OS has real leverage in the markets. It's not as if Linux is the BIG third OS market.. it's just not at all and there is no money in it. That's why devs flock to the mobile platforms even with all the competition. For that I think iOS and MS are the best stores to develop for. Android is too immature and changing too much, constantly breaking apps and just not really improving the overall experience much at all, perhaps making it worse. Google is obsessed with their advertising platform, so Android is probably a dead end because like Amazon gadgets it's all just designed to bring you back to the Google and keep you on Chrome and keep you pushing out data so they can keep mining the data and selling it for profit. iOS and Windows Mobile seem like more of an attempt at a real OS with productivity in mind and providing a reasonable user experience. Google does not seem to care about that. It just seems to focuses on whatever is popular to keep it's own name trending high and keep people trying out services. For google making a service and getting people to use it and it failing is still profitable. The service doesn't have to be that great, as long as creates attention and gets downloads, it's bound to mine data in the process and make them money. Apple and MS have vastly less advertising revenue, though they prob would both like more.. especially MS.
I would guess they are targeting someone in the company or they are working with someone in the company, not merely targeting the service for spite or to extort money.. unless they have a history of paying out in which case they did that to themselves. Bitcoin prob isn't going to mature much more anyway and newer/better things will replace it. It was a good effort, but the moment is all but gone and the BIG problem is that it's too easy to track and it winds up being regulated at which point it's an odd an inferior money payment system based off some weird number crunching hobby that people used to have. In the big picture bitcoin is likely a net loss when you factor in electric costs, hardware costs and serious technical limitations. Perhaps they can keep the existing value of Bitcoin and port it over to a more robust and well designed payment/money structure. As it stands Bitcoin is more like commodity or a collectors item than a currency. It's slow, it's prone to far to much human error, the blockchain is right out in the open, coins are too easy to lose or steal and eCommerce services that use bitcoin are immature and often prone to major security breaches. Any place that deals in bitcoin will attract more hackers because it's an ideal thing to steal remotely. The upside is that the big bad government can't see what you do.. and since bitcoin isn't secure that's not true either. The reality of even money laundering is that small time stuff doesn't require bitcoin and could attract too much attention currently. While bitcoin can in theory scale to large scale, it's just not that easy and people with millions of dollars have will invested frameworks to launder money as well as deliver money. It's good for a very select group of people who commit crimes remotely whether that be illegal purchases or services or direct bitcoin theft and often without a conventional criminal framework. Having mined and made some money in the cryptocoin market.. I don't see it as much more than that and it's scaling up far far too slow. Now.. perhaps that's ideal and keeps it where it wants to be.. out of the mainstream, but a lot of companies seem to think its going to replace Visa and I just don't get their business model other than to trick investors out of cash. Without fast payment or privacy Bitcoin sucks as a modern digital currency for the masses. It's a collectors item that some stores accept as cash,
Phone have more than topped out in high end hardware needs and have way surpased developers ability to keep apps updated with Google constant core OS changes. Cheap devices are the future.. just like we saw in desktops and laptops which are now basically disposable.. but this market is much higher volume and faster moving. High end phone makers are all going to eat it and be forced to bring costs down because giant phones are stupid..curved phones are stupid.. phones that can plan Crysis are stupid.. especially when they still mostly suck as phones or PDAs... phones are vastly better at gaming and watching movies than anything else. That is because that makes more money.. which is all the mobile market places are all about.
Nope, not this time. People have been making fruit unhealthy since hominids found patches of fruited and pigged out on them .. as well as enjoyed the fermenting ones for their mysterious and magic properties.
From wine to fruit juices throughout the ages. We've had the technology to mass produce juice, just not so cheap that the peons could have it. Now that they do, just as the aristocrats likely predicted, they can't handle the responsibility. We've certainly produce alcohol for millennium now and that's hard to sell as healthy, particularly when it's all you drink because of the evil water spirits.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable paying for studies that 'prove' well known scientific facts. Yes.. sugar does in fact have calories and amazingly those drinks have their calories and sugar content listed on them.. as if for some divine reason. Was there really any doubt or any push back to the fact that fruit drinks have calories and those calories affect you mostly in the same way as any food or drink? Decades ago on a planet much skinner than today, people drank fruit drinks responsibly - that means in small portions or watered down. They were also more active. It's sad that decades later we are treating common dieting sense as some kind of new science that needs to still be proven.
If the programs worked, we'd be thwarting terror plots more than getting hit by them.. yet that is not what is happening. The NSA does not really have access to the level of info they'd really need and they don't have the coding or AI to pull of quantifying the data they do have. Since the NSA has failed for over a decade now to make these programs do anything useful it's pretty safe to say they don't know how to use the data or they aren't getting the right data. You don't need to be an insider to know that. .and as you say.. claiming to know that as an insider really means nothing anyway. For that matter we should not take Snowden's claims entirely seriously because he didn't have the clearance to all the data he would need to understand the programs he has supposedly exposed. He only has pieces of data and almost none of it was real world data... such as proof of damaging illegal use of the NSA program. Snowden primarly exposed potential for abuse, not much actual abuse, and that matters a great deal as far as getting people to really care about the NSA programs. Half of so of Americans simply don't care enough to fight the program and perhaps it makes them feel safer. That's a big problem when it comes to reform.
Pretty obvious in any case as you horde info like that you wind up with 99% of that info be 100% worthless.
It's common knowledge if you bother to read.. these reports have been coming down the line for years and it's fully predictable that would happen. The main use of all this data always was a timemachine of sorta, not effective real time keyword based spying. The fact is we don't have programmers good enough to pull that off yet. It takes billions just to get a car to drive itself within fairly obvious present rules. The idea that you'd intelligently understand human behavior via relatively simple algorithms should be an obvious fail using today's technology. It's not that it's can't be done, it's just that nobody can do it yet and the NSA is not particularly ahead of the curve on much of anything other than secret warrants. NSA exploits have almost all come from the wild and we've seen that they have near zero capcity to stop even the simplest terror plots, often run almost entirely in the open including posts on facebook. If the NSA's programs don't stop a terrorist scheme as simple and out in the open as the Boston Bombers, we know they aren't effective. Almost none of these attacks have used any sophisticated technology and the NSA has stopped almost no attacks. We know they cannot effectively parse that data, because if they could we would see the result as a reduction of plainly obvious militants operating domestically with no problem.. even while real people around them question or report them. So.. even with leads from real people the NSA and FBI generally cannot manage to arrest terrorists in the act or any significant crime.
They use virtualization platforms due to lots of paranoia about chinese hackers infiltrating their network supposedly, Particularly for Space-X technology.
it's a nice browser, but it's not really worth using vs Chrome unless you do so for the sake of privacy, at which point you'd be drawn to FireFox. The problem with web browsers is primarily bad webpage coding and we can all fix that easily by just not going to website that load slow or use too much ads. That's really the better solution. We the people train the marketand coders to work how we want it instead of just being sheep spending their lives running from once fence to another because they heard it was better over there. Sites likes slashdot and reddit aren't slow. If you can't make a site without too much trash I just don't go there. We shouldn't have to engineer around the problem. The other big problem is just bad handling of multiple open tabs. They should be able to drop resources on tabs that aren't being used with minimal overhead. You may have 20 tabs open, but only one needs to be fully rendered and using any real resource, yet that is not how any browser works. Finally, we should all disable flash and leave it off until they get the fucking message. It's complete and total crap and flash has caused BILLIONS of dollars in damages due to being massively insecure and massively bloated and inefficient. Flash is basically a virus that can run some cool games.
Pretty common for people to fear something they have no experience with, rather common human response really. Self driving cars will prove themselves over time like any other technology, polls are meaningless at this point since the technology is experimental. I'd also like to say.. why is AAA doing this poll anyway? They must know that with the tech being immature that their poll results can't be very accurate, so i guess they are just projecting the increasing acceptance of self driving cars by creating a benchmark... right. It's not that they have any fiscal interest in mechanical cars that break more, crash more and cost more. I think it's good people are skeptical, but I'm not sure what anyone would hope to get from such a poll when these cars still have years of R&D and testing before they are truly self driving in most real world situations.
It can't possibly determine the location of any image. Many will simply have too little location data to form a reasonable guess.
Ok, so i like the research, but the theory that it could be used anytime soon for some type of rouge wave detection or prevention seems far fetched. I don't see it being very easy to map out wave activity in a large enough area in all the varying conditions you come across at sea AND produce any useful lead time in warning no less what does a warning do. Boats maneuver like.. boats. When you're out in the vast fluid dynamics of the ocean there isn't much you're going to do to get away from a wave or block the force of it's impact. Perhaps we can come up with areas and conditions where rouge waves can be said to be more common, but real time prediction or prevention isn't happening anytime soon and why would it, rouge waves are not any kind of pressing issue. Boats are just not made to survive large waves due to their large broadsides. If you want to make a boat that is protected from a rouge wave then engineer more stable boats. What else will you do tether a giant mesh of sensor to the boat? Sounds like people getting paid for science that will never see the light of day.
No.. republicans are always vastly more united on the issues than Democrats, that's partly why they tend to get more done with less people than the liberals. The Republicans just hate lots of things, so you probably think they hate their party more, but they are far far more loyal to their party and against liberals than liberals are to the Democrats. It would be way easier for a sane Republican to pick up liberals votes than it would be for a liberal to pick up conservative votes. Conservatives have been trained to hate everything liberal even before they hear the issue. The people have been trained to be easy to manipulate and Trump is exploiting that, He uses the racists stuff to 'prove' to them that he is one of them and beyond that he is willing to speak off the cuff and is not an established politician, which is popular right now with congresses approval rating being so low. Democrats are much harder to get to unify behind one idea than conservatives. The party is more diverse than the GOP and doesn't not unify as well under pressure as the GOP. You could claim the Dems think for themselves a bit more and the GOP are more likely to follow a group think philosophy because they care more about beating liberals than understanding the issues. If most of those Trump supporters had to understand the issues they'd not be involved in politics at all, but that what makes them so easy to yank from the GOP. All he had to do is appear more willing to be racits and push the same old narrative we always hear from the GOP. Trump didn't make up any of that, he is just saying what those people like to hear to quickly build a base with almost no investment. Major media outlets do all the work for him and people who've never questioned their candidate on the issues continue to vote as they always have. To those people Trump is as republican as any candidate, if not more so, because Republican to them just means hating on liberals, immigrants, blaming government for all problem, loving guns and a few other issues. The problem is that a good 30% of Republicans are educated and believe in the core values which they don't see him representing at all. At the polls Trump is basically pulling almost 50% of the base away from any candidate they GOP could truly unify behind. In the general election if half of those core GOP voters don't go vote for Trump then Hilary will win by a landslide. It's safe to assume 10% or more of core GOP voters will not vote for Trump and those people are also some of the most reliable voting demographics.. wealthy and old. Trump makes great news and the news is going to hype his chances of winning up in order to keep people interested, but there is no reason to think Trump can enough of the non Trump GOP voters to win at this point. It's not a matter of simple choice. About 30% of the GOP's most avid supporters would back any candidate other than Trump. Trump will have to appeal to moderates, independents and even liberals to win the general election without the GOP elites which more or less control the party and usually just tell those Trump supporters what to think and they do. Even after Bush and the GOP almost destroy the economy the election was still way too close. The GOP LOVES their party most of the time, but the strategy of congressional obstruction and pointless investigations from the House was overplayed by the GOP. They didn't govern, they didn't legislate, they didn't present new ideas and their entire world seems to revolve around Obama and Hilary Clinton and what they can get away with blaming them for. That's a great way to fuck the country up and piss everyone off, but you can't win elections through long term obstruction. The GOP hasn't really won seats, they've lost them to the Tea Party and that has been good enough to stop liberal progress, but it's not a real plan because the Tea Party guys are complete losers with no idea what they are doing other than riding in a wave of hate against the congress that does nothing. Everyone in congress who doesn't want to obstruct gets fucked
He is just loud, self funded and he is not a career politician and this year that's all it takes to excite people. When it comes to his twitter put downs, they aren't in any way masterful or really even all that useful, they just ensure that his name constantly gets bumped from his tweets and then of course the media coverage on this tweets. Trumps use of the already established GOP key issues and the fact that he is not one of them is his winning combination, being self funded clearly helps/allows such a rather risky strategy, which does not seem likely to pay off in the general election since we have most of the top conservative money donors opposing Trump. If Trump does win those rich GOP string pullers are going to keep attacking him like they did Obama and much of GOP congress will obstruct him when told to by their sponsors. The question is what happens after the first 2 years of Trump and GOP/Dem obstruction. Well, if I know my American's, they will want to blame Trump, but I don't think it would be hard for Trump to actively deflect the blame to congress because of the long term obstruction strategy. Trump is a direct result of the GOP obstruction policy against Obama and for that matter all liberals. Refusing to play ball is not a valid political strategy than anyone can market for very long and the GOP did it too long. Now 50% of their base hate them so much they've abandoned any real concern for the core conservative issues of abortion, gun control. Trump was pro-choice and pro assault weapon ban back in 2000, so right before 2001 Donald was a liberal. Sometimes around 2011 he re-invents himself as a republican. He is using the hate to legitimize himself as a conservatve because he has to in order to get his foot in the door, it's a sacrifice play of sorta. In all reality he wants as much of the hispanic vote as he can get, but he needs to defend himself from the obvious line of attack... Donald is not a real conservative. If he wants he can even come clean in the general election and admit that he just said that to win the primary because it was cheaper/easier than going Independent right from the start. If the GOP tries to block him at the delegates he can go Independent and claim to basically be running against the entire government. In those scenarios he might do even better against Hilary. If the GOP attacks Trump for the entire rest of the primary it's going to hurt him more than it helps. Being the outsider is great, but long term spending on hate ads is almost always effective and it leaves Trump with nobody to attack back because it's not even a candidate that is going after him. I'm not sure they can stop Trump, but every conservative state is going to try and along with millions in attack against from the conservative party Trump will come out with to face Hilary with a lot more secrets exposed and then face the DNCs attack line. Trump is a better speaker and attack artist than Hilary, but Trump has never been attacked like he be over the remainder of the primary and general election. Being rich all his life will have helped very much to keep his secrets secret, but some will play out badly for him in the media. Oddly enough the GOP and the DNC will have similar attack ads this year. For Democrats it's mostly a win win situation. Trump is far left of anyone we've seen come close to winning as the GOP candidate since Reagan or perhaps even before and that's great for overall reform of the US because the GOP is clearly the party that needs the most reform and it's where the dumbest and most racist BS almost seems to originate. Trump can't push through legislation if he wins, but he has already created the most serious debate about reforming the GOP since Goldwater. Even if Trump attacks Congress with his all it's unlikely he'd see anything resembling a Trump friendly congress withing 6 years, that's just how voting works in the US. It is not possible to thoroughly sweep congress in just one election and voters almost always give up when they don't get what they want in the first two years. I d