On the contrary, Hitler rose to power because the Weimarer Republic had no provisions against hate speech and parties who directly acted against the constitution. Continuous hate speech, violence in the streets by the SA, and flaws in the constitution in combination allowed Nazis to take advantage of a power vacuum and then seize complete control after Hitler was elected. One of the lessons learned from the Nazi regime and the failure of the Weimarer Republic was that a democracy must be able to defend itself efficiently against enemies within and not just against enemies outside. Hate speech and possible party prohibitions (with very high juridical hurdles) are among these measures. There is also an irrevocable right in the constitution to resist unconstitutional actions by authorities, a delicate balance of power with a relatively powerless president, the Verfassungsschutz offices responsible not just for counter-espionage but also for intelligence regarding enemies of the constitution, and so forth.
It's a very modern and complex system of safeguards against totalitarianism. On a side note, the development of the (West) German constitution including its provisions against hate and unconstitutional speech and symbols was to a large extent guided by the US.
These assertions are meaningless without comparing them to the password security you get when none of these best practices are in place. Run 10000 real passwords taken from a site A with password policies and 10000 real passwords taken from a very similar type of site B without any password policy through a fast password cracker with a huge base password list in the TB range, and then compare the results. Otherwise you're just guessing. If we're guessing, I'd guess that system A will fare better unless it also imposes limits on password length. But that's only a guess.
None of this has anything to do with Net Neutrality, though, and it's important to make people aware of the fact that whoever wrote the original story has not the slightest clue about net neutrality. It's important, because the enemies of net neutrality are aggressively pushing all kinds of false narratives about it.
Most of the stuff on Youtube is fake. Check out Captain Disillusion's channel. After you've seen a few videos, you won't trust many videos on Youtube any longer. He easily spots indicators that I would never recognize. It's just a pity that he can't produce more - the production quality of his videos is very, very high, so it takes a lot of time to make them.
That being said, among the more legit sources such as multiple recordings from TV channels, these are very rare and I've never seen anything that wasn't easily explained as an airplane, laser-show or reflection of headlights in the sky. The latter seems to be the most common phenomenon. They are also described by eye witnesses very often. When you see some blurry illuminated objects in the sky that are static or in slow uniform motion and then suddenly accelerate extremely fast, maybe changing their course rapidly, then chances are very, very high that you've seen the reflections of lights of some vehicle on ground.
All of that is not to say that you haven't seen a UFO, APK. I'm just pointing out that most of the sightings are not very credible. (Why did I write this? UFOs and possible life on extrasolar planets are among my long-term interests and I'm writing science fiction novels in my spare time.)
Yes, and for some reason the images are always extremely blurry or they were "improved" with known Adobe After Effects packages (thanks Cpt. Disillusion!).
As for mere sightings, who cares? People also often see pink elephants, Elvis and the Holy Mary.
Call me old-fashioned but I can't help considering someone ridiculous who apparently gets all his knowledge from Youtube videos. No matter what message you've got, I didn't even check it and don't care, try reading some books first. You can find them in the library.
It's not in the interest of consumers, because it will significantly increase the investments and hurdles for Internet startup companies to effect that there will be less competition and less consumer choices in the long run. You'll need millions of investment funding and countless deals and (re-)negotiations with Verizon and Comcast just to establish a new "cloud" backup product. God forbid someone wants to sell some innovative new web services that require high bandwidth, such ideas will more likely to be copied rather than making a deal with a small newcomer even if you can secure the funding for the special contracts you'll need.
In my opinion you're confusing cause and effect. They are big now because you didn't stop them earlier. Don't get me wrong,I perfectly understand why you don't want to stop them - Freedom of Speech is a high value and I'm more on the side of the US than other countries in that respect. But there is a catch. The problem is that the Internet has given radicals plenty of forums to collude and these allow them to grow. This doesn't just apply to radical right-wing, of course, it's a problem with all radical opinions: radical right, radical left, radical religious zealots, ISIS, sovereign citizens. Plenty of idiots out there.
I'm also not claiming that there is an easy solution. Everybody should be entitled to their opinion. But the way US society is being polarized and played by small minorities right now has something to do with the majority not speaking out against them, and it's always like that - the majority of decent and centered people never speak out, they have better things to do. It's fine to be for freedom of speech, but there should be limits. You don't have to fight for the rights of white supremacists, for the same reason as you don't have to fight for the "freedom of speech" of pedophiles. After all, we're not talking about state censorship here, we're talking about private companies not supporting certain fringe groups. Consider being less tolerant to people who are not tolerant themselves.
Classical fallacy, the equivalent of saying that women with short skirts "had it coming" after they were raped. I'm not creating anything, you've got a serious problem with radical right-wing people and need to deal with it. And yes, the white supremacists the original post is about are Nazis, they are in fact fairly typical Nazis. Moreover, the "extreme left" you're talking about simply does not exist in the US. Maybe in your imagination, but not in reality. There are no communists marching towards the White House. You're just another apologist. Totalitarian ideologies have this creepy feature, they can turn from a fringe movement to a mass movement with the help of terror and fear within a very short time period.
Learn from history. People used to laugh about Hitler, for a long time he was no more than a curious party guest that others found funny, if not annoying. A few years later your grandparents died fighting Nazis. They had many good reasons, maybe you should take a look at them.
It's not a stupid question at all, unless your goal is to intentionally misunderstand the question. The OP obviously meant software that you wouldn't expect to stop working without the Internet. My favorite word processor, for instance, starts warning about the license after a few days without Internet access. It takes a week or two until it stops entirely.
Also, Firefox works fine without Internet and my webcam, too.
These things keep happening because companies are not really held accountable for their software, not even in security-sensitive domains. They apologize and are then rewarded with additional contracts to fix the issues.
Nah, it's obvious that you and the US in general is just making cheap excuses. Donald Trump would certainly *not* sign a binding, enforcable climate deal either. If the US is not even willing to sign a declaration of intent, so much the worse for the US. What becomes of this formerly mighty country? The assclown of all nations, apparently.
What he's suggesting is that in the US people have among the longest work days and the least holidays of all developed countries in the world in combination with low job security and overall dwindling middle class, which results in less good sleep, and that you could choose to improve that situation by voting accordingly. Instead you've voted for a retarded billionaire who likes to tweet stupidities. Basically, OP's post says "your own fault! bahaha!". Just in case you were too stupid to understand it in the first place, as you've claimed.
A long rant because I feel like it. Got some time to kill.:)
People really need to get this idea of an allegedly "unbiased news source" out of their head. The news comes from journalists, reporters on the ground with cameras, recording devices and laptops/pencils. They are certainly less biased than "Joe the Plumber", as can be seen from the fact that professional journalists can write for many different journals, but they are certainly only humans with their own thoughts and beliefs. They occasionally make mistakes and they are also biased. There is nothing wrong with that. Likewise, there is only a limited number of journalists (correspondents, freelancers, press agency employees, etc.) and so they, together with the press agencies, need to select where they go and what to investigate. There also just limited space for news / news consumers are easily tired, and so a further editorial selection is required by the editor in chief and his team. This is all quite normal and there is no problem with that either.
Everybody I've ever heard from who works in journalism has said that news are biased in one way or another. In fact, I remember very well that this was considered a trivial truism when I grew up in the 80s. I think we even learned and discussed that in school. And it was never considered a problem, because intelligent people do not automatically believe everything they read and critical readers can investigate different sources when needed. It was and has always been a problem with the tabloid press (like Bild or Daily Mail). But everybody knows that. Not even idiots take everything they read in tabloids seriously.
So where does the sudden hysteria about lack of objectivity in mass media come from? Two reasons. The first reason is that in the US a fringe right-wing movement has become much stronger than in the past due to Trump's election and other factors. Radical left and radical right have always criticized mass media, so now in the US there is a stronger right-wing critique on them. This critique is, of course, ideological. Radical ideologies fare better with disinformation, because they tend to not have reality on their side. (That's in a sense why they are "radical"- otherwise they'd be more on the "obvious" side.)
Second reason: There are strong forces with an interest in advertisement and disinformation for clickbait, viral marketing, political shilling, and in some cases even information warfare. These came to power with the Internet and do for the most part not even employ journalists, they just copy and paste "stories", including fake news and rumors, from other sources for mildly annoying to very nefarious purposes. There is no big conspiracy, the motives vary from getting more ad clicks to pushing some ideological agendas. All of these sites have in common, however, that it is in their interest to paint traditional media in a bad light to get more clicks and readers.
That's why so many people are suddenly so keen to point out how "biased" mass media are, as if there were any less biased "fringe media". Everybody knows that all media are biased and every news is selected by someone according to trends. It has always been that way, since the first newspaper was started. Another problem is that apparently some people have lost the ability to distinguish between news and editorial/comments entirely and also often loose track of who said what. But I'll stop here. (This is all quite obvious, so pardon me if you got bored.)
Well, the Intel Management engine would be far less dangerous if the user had total control over it. In fact, it would be pretty awesome if it could be reflashed (after flipping a hardware switch) to run an antivirus and intrusion detection system on it.
I want the details, not some pop science. Wikipedia articles are a very good source for looking things up. I hope they stay as they are, an overview in the beginning and then the compressed details afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, Hitler rose to power because the Weimarer Republic had no provisions against hate speech and parties who directly acted against the constitution. Continuous hate speech, violence in the streets by the SA, and flaws in the constitution in combination allowed Nazis to take advantage of a power vacuum and then seize complete control after Hitler was elected. One of the lessons learned from the Nazi regime and the failure of the Weimarer Republic was that a democracy must be able to defend itself efficiently against enemies within and not just against enemies outside. Hate speech and possible party prohibitions (with very high juridical hurdles) are among these measures. There is also an irrevocable right in the constitution to resist unconstitutional actions by authorities, a delicate balance of power with a relatively powerless president, the Verfassungsschutz offices responsible not just for counter-espionage but also for intelligence regarding enemies of the constitution, and so forth.
It's a very modern and complex system of safeguards against totalitarianism. On a side note, the development of the (West) German constitution including its provisions against hate and unconstitutional speech and symbols was to a large extent guided by the US.
These assertions are meaningless without comparing them to the password security you get when none of these best practices are in place. Run 10000 real passwords taken from a site A with password policies and 10000 real passwords taken from a very similar type of site B without any password policy through a fast password cracker with a huge base password list in the TB range, and then compare the results. Otherwise you're just guessing. If we're guessing, I'd guess that system A will fare better unless it also imposes limits on password length. But that's only a guess.
None of this has anything to do with Net Neutrality, though, and it's important to make people aware of the fact that whoever wrote the original story has not the slightest clue about net neutrality. It's important, because the enemies of net neutrality are aggressively pushing all kinds of false narratives about it.
Most of the stuff on Youtube is fake. Check out Captain Disillusion's channel. After you've seen a few videos, you won't trust many videos on Youtube any longer. He easily spots indicators that I would never recognize. It's just a pity that he can't produce more - the production quality of his videos is very, very high, so it takes a lot of time to make them.
That being said, among the more legit sources such as multiple recordings from TV channels, these are very rare and I've never seen anything that wasn't easily explained as an airplane, laser-show or reflection of headlights in the sky. The latter seems to be the most common phenomenon. They are also described by eye witnesses very often. When you see some blurry illuminated objects in the sky that are static or in slow uniform motion and then suddenly accelerate extremely fast, maybe changing their course rapidly, then chances are very, very high that you've seen the reflections of lights of some vehicle on ground.
All of that is not to say that you haven't seen a UFO, APK. I'm just pointing out that most of the sightings are not very credible. (Why did I write this? UFOs and possible life on extrasolar planets are among my long-term interests and I'm writing science fiction novels in my spare time.)
Yes, and for some reason the images are always extremely blurry or they were "improved" with known Adobe After Effects packages (thanks Cpt. Disillusion!).
As for mere sightings, who cares? People also often see pink elephants, Elvis and the Holy Mary.
Call me old-fashioned but I can't help considering someone ridiculous who apparently gets all his knowledge from Youtube videos. No matter what message you've got, I didn't even check it and don't care, try reading some books first. You can find them in the library.
Bottled water, particularly so called "table water" (= tap water), is an even greater rip-off.
It's not in the interest of consumers, because it will significantly increase the investments and hurdles for Internet startup companies to effect that there will be less competition and less consumer choices in the long run. You'll need millions of investment funding and countless deals and (re-)negotiations with Verizon and Comcast just to establish a new "cloud" backup product. God forbid someone wants to sell some innovative new web services that require high bandwidth, such ideas will more likely to be copied rather than making a deal with a small newcomer even if you can secure the funding for the special contracts you'll need.
It's a nightmare for innovation.
We tried globalism. It meant that everyone else was more important than we were
This is the most delusional description of US foreign policy that I've ever read in my life.
In my opinion you're confusing cause and effect. They are big now because you didn't stop them earlier. Don't get me wrong,I perfectly understand why you don't want to stop them - Freedom of Speech is a high value and I'm more on the side of the US than other countries in that respect. But there is a catch. The problem is that the Internet has given radicals plenty of forums to collude and these allow them to grow. This doesn't just apply to radical right-wing, of course, it's a problem with all radical opinions: radical right, radical left, radical religious zealots, ISIS, sovereign citizens. Plenty of idiots out there.
I'm also not claiming that there is an easy solution. Everybody should be entitled to their opinion. But the way US society is being polarized and played by small minorities right now has something to do with the majority not speaking out against them, and it's always like that - the majority of decent and centered people never speak out, they have better things to do. It's fine to be for freedom of speech, but there should be limits. You don't have to fight for the rights of white supremacists, for the same reason as you don't have to fight for the "freedom of speech" of pedophiles. After all, we're not talking about state censorship here, we're talking about private companies not supporting certain fringe groups. Consider being less tolerant to people who are not tolerant themselves.
Classical fallacy, the equivalent of saying that women with short skirts "had it coming" after they were raped. I'm not creating anything, you've got a serious problem with radical right-wing people and need to deal with it. And yes, the white supremacists the original post is about are Nazis, they are in fact fairly typical Nazis. Moreover, the "extreme left" you're talking about simply does not exist in the US. Maybe in your imagination, but not in reality. There are no communists marching towards the White House. You're just another apologist. Totalitarian ideologies have this creepy feature, they can turn from a fringe movement to a mass movement with the help of terror and fear within a very short time period.
Learn from history. People used to laugh about Hitler, for a long time he was no more than a curious party guest that others found funny, if not annoying. A few years later your grandparents died fighting Nazis. They had many good reasons, maybe you should take a look at them.
Yes, yes. Poor little Nazis... why does nobody think of the Nazis?
So many US soldiers died fighting against Nazis, commentaries like yours are just nuts.
Sure, go ahead. You have my blessing.
It's not a stupid question at all, unless your goal is to intentionally misunderstand the question. The OP obviously meant software that you wouldn't expect to stop working without the Internet. My favorite word processor, for instance, starts warning about the license after a few days without Internet access. It takes a week or two until it stops entirely.
Also, Firefox works fine without Internet and my webcam, too.
These things keep happening because companies are not really held accountable for their software, not even in security-sensitive domains. They apologize and are then rewarded with additional contracts to fix the issues.
Nah, it's obvious that you and the US in general is just making cheap excuses. Donald Trump would certainly *not* sign a binding, enforcable climate deal either. If the US is not even willing to sign a declaration of intent, so much the worse for the US. What becomes of this formerly mighty country? The assclown of all nations, apparently.
Nobody should be allowed to do that, neither private companies nor law enforcement. It's called due process under judicial oversight.
What he's suggesting is that in the US people have among the longest work days and the least holidays of all developed countries in the world in combination with low job security and overall dwindling middle class, which results in less good sleep, and that you could choose to improve that situation by voting accordingly. Instead you've voted for a retarded billionaire who likes to tweet stupidities. Basically, OP's post says "your own fault! bahaha!". Just in case you were too stupid to understand it in the first place, as you've claimed.
Backdoors in operating systems and application software are no longer needed, thanks to the Intel Management Engine and AMD's PSP.
A long rant because I feel like it. Got some time to kill. :)
People really need to get this idea of an allegedly "unbiased news source" out of their head. The news comes from journalists, reporters on the ground with cameras, recording devices and laptops/pencils. They are certainly less biased than "Joe the Plumber", as can be seen from the fact that professional journalists can write for many different journals, but they are certainly only humans with their own thoughts and beliefs. They occasionally make mistakes and they are also biased. There is nothing wrong with that. Likewise, there is only a limited number of journalists (correspondents, freelancers, press agency employees, etc.) and so they, together with the press agencies, need to select where they go and what to investigate. There also just limited space for news / news consumers are easily tired, and so a further editorial selection is required by the editor in chief and his team. This is all quite normal and there is no problem with that either.
Everybody I've ever heard from who works in journalism has said that news are biased in one way or another. In fact, I remember very well that this was considered a trivial truism when I grew up in the 80s. I think we even learned and discussed that in school. And it was never considered a problem, because intelligent people do not automatically believe everything they read and critical readers can investigate different sources when needed. It was and has always been a problem with the tabloid press (like Bild or Daily Mail). But everybody knows that. Not even idiots take everything they read in tabloids seriously.
So where does the sudden hysteria about lack of objectivity in mass media come from? Two reasons. The first reason is that in the US a fringe right-wing movement has become much stronger than in the past due to Trump's election and other factors. Radical left and radical right have always criticized mass media, so now in the US there is a stronger right-wing critique on them. This critique is, of course, ideological. Radical ideologies fare better with disinformation, because they tend to not have reality on their side. (That's in a sense why they are "radical"- otherwise they'd be more on the "obvious" side.)
Second reason: There are strong forces with an interest in advertisement and disinformation for clickbait, viral marketing, political shilling, and in some cases even information warfare. These came to power with the Internet and do for the most part not even employ journalists, they just copy and paste "stories", including fake news and rumors, from other sources for mildly annoying to very nefarious purposes. There is no big conspiracy, the motives vary from getting more ad clicks to pushing some ideological agendas. All of these sites have in common, however, that it is in their interest to paint traditional media in a bad light to get more clicks and readers.
That's why so many people are suddenly so keen to point out how "biased" mass media are, as if there were any less biased "fringe media". Everybody knows that all media are biased and every news is selected by someone according to trends. It has always been that way, since the first newspaper was started. Another problem is that apparently some people have lost the ability to distinguish between news and editorial/comments entirely and also often loose track of who said what. But I'll stop here. (This is all quite obvious, so pardon me if you got bored.)
Well, the Intel Management engine would be far less dangerous if the user had total control over it. In fact, it would be pretty awesome if it could be reflashed (after flipping a hardware switch) to run an antivirus and intrusion detection system on it.
I want the details, not some pop science. Wikipedia articles are a very good source for looking things up. I hope they stay as they are, an overview in the beginning and then the compressed details afterwards.
There was a metric shitton of evidence. You must have been living on the moon if you haven't seen any.
Not my cup of tea.