You take "great pride" in attending a school you did not choose, and that you had no hand in designing, building, or maintaining? Do you also feel full after someone else eats a meal? How peculiar.
It may surprise you to learn this, but some people have not yet become cynical assholes and can appreciate being a part of something special. even if it is just in a small way.
Or ask Hibbing, Minnesota. From 1919 to 1921, the entire city moved about two miles to make way for what became the largest open-pit iron mine in the world.
The surveillance revelations so far have been scary, sinister, infuriating, offensive. But this one? This is just... sad.
OK, bad guys could potentially use the in-game comms functions on X-Box live to plans their nefarious deeds, but do we really need to be paying teams of people to go into the games and play them all day long? If they really need to snoop on that shit (they don't) then couldn't they just hoover up all the conversations and analyse them offline like they do our emails, phone calls, texts etc? What additional benefit does having someone actually in the game world offer? Are they worried that somewhere out there a virtual ogre and elf controlled by kiddie-porn-terrorists are communicating in avatar sign language or something? This is fucking ridiculous.
Our government is telling us they can't afford basic shit like hospitals and education and welfare, but they can afford to pay dorks to play Xbox all fucking day. I get the feeling some very ballsy gamer put together a presentation to get paid taxpayers' money for playing CoD all day long and hit the jackpot. If there was any justice on this fucking planet we'd all be knee deep in fired "intelligence" agents months ago.
"They have more than enough watching what real people, of all ages, do."
So if they're watching you 14 year old daughter banging her boyfriend isn't that kiddy porn? Burn the NSA and other agencies.
THIS, by a wide margin.
Once we have evidence of the NSA in possession of underage porn it's the way to pull the plug... Because if we've learned anything in America, the best way to ram something through against the wishes of whomever opposes it is to say it is "for the children." In this case it would be a white-lie in so much as it isn't "for the children" in the "preventing kiddie porn" sense, but "for the children" in the "So those children can grow up in a world where they still get to have some freedom and privacy."
In fact, it might be the first time in all of recorded history where something that was done "for the children" actually turned out to benefit actual children.
You enforce it after the breach. There was a DDOS attach, they investigate, find out you were running things years out of date or whatever, then the fines kick in. Much like how it's illegal to not use a seat-belt in the US. They can't really look in every car and be sure as it's driving down the road. But if you get pulled over for something else or you get into an accident that's when you usually get a ticket for it.
Then the fine makes for good evidence in a legal case against the company by whomever was attacked.
Think about that for a moment... It's totally unenforceable because nobody is legally obligated to keep a full version-control of every setting, piece of software, or chunk of code they're running, so unless the law requires them to continue running with "vulnerabilities" in place until an investigator can record them for fine-tallying purpose then it is extremely unlikely that any fine will ever actually be assessed because in the end the sorts of shops that run open-relays and rootable DNS servers aren't likely to have good documentation practices, either.
Ha! I've used that to describe spamhaus and their minions... Years ago I had a client who ended up getting blocked randomly because (drumroll please) spamhaus added an entire/22 to their IP blocklist! The client's/29 was inside that block, so naturally they got blocked by anybody honoring spamhaus' block list... (And to the legion of assholes that troll anybody criticizing spamhaus' slipshod work and labels them a "spammer," Fuck you! They didn't send any spam, EVER. And blocking an entire/22 (covering some of a datacenter's customers, but not others) is arbitrary to the point of negligence.
When it had all played out the/22 block was a result of (wait for it!) a disgruntled employee at the datacenter exploiting Spamhaus' notoriously weak quality-control to screw-over his former employer with an annoying, somewhat hard to identify problem... Annoying because spamhaus will keep blocking it in perpetuity until somebody figures out how to make them stop. Somewhat hard to identify because it wasn't every client having problems, and the ones having problems weren't having it with all recipients. Now, of course, we know that description of symptoms can easily be an RBL run amok... Of course then the question becomes "which one?"
I don't like spam any more than the next guy, but dealing with the shrill assholes who have made it their life's work to fight spam (hint: When somebody tells this to you, FFS, don't laugh!) is just one step less-unpleasant than repeated, unneeded root canal... The high and mighty, pompous, and arrogant attitudes (anybody who disagrees with us is stupid or a spammer!) make the low-quality of the work produced that much more glaring. Honestly, haven't you people ever heard of IronPort, Barracuda, or MXLogic? Seriously: Get a life. Reporting each spam individually is the least efficient way to fight the problem. What makes it worse is when you tell these Don Quixote types that they're wasting their lives they accuse YOU of being a spammer!
This seems like the relevant, interesting/crazy part. Whether it's the right choice or not, I leave to more seasons database professionals than myself.
There has got to be some reason that this DB that ive never even heard of (and i work with DBs, its not my main point of work but I know my way around DBs) got the gig over the more established players.
or, perhaps they went with it because it is less known and therefore reduce the risk of known attacks in other DB systems?
Perhaps either is the case: Obscurity or donations... A third option is that it provides some feature that doesn't exist in Oracle/SQL Server/Cassandra. However in digging into their web-site it looks like it is some sort of wrapper/hybridized product that mates to Hadoop, which would make sense given the vast volume of data you're talking about managing for the Federal exchange, which I believe services 36 states.
But with that said, I've never heard of it either.
You sir are incapable of following rather simple directions.
With that out of the way, why would i even want to debate your inaccuracies and complete misunderstanding of what happened, and why? ( And apparently an inability to read as well. Or at least comprehend simple sentences )
I'm under no obligation to follow your directions....But like all petty cowards, you continue to attack the messenger without defending the ludicrous assertion (that Booth was a patriot.) I say he wasn't: If you fail to respond directly to the argument you've both lost the debate and proven yourself a coward in the mix. It was slavery--100% slavery. None of those "other issues" could exist without the slavery issue. "State's rights" is a code-phrase for the "states' right to have slavery." If you think something different happened the obligation is 100% yours to demonstrate it to us.
---- Booth was a patriot ---- If you dont agree with me, dont bother replying as i dont care what you have to say ----
Booth was a murderer, a coward, and a traitor. "The South" was not populated by patriots--or at least, not American patriots--it was populated by traitors who wanted to keep human beings as property, and were willing to murder as many people as they had to in order to protect their unconscionably evil economic system operating.
For that matter, you're a coward for posting something so ridiculous and then preemptively telling us you "won't respond."
There's a theory out there that states that because most of what we do in the so-called Information Age is stored is somewhat fragile digital storage systems (as opposed to, for example, parchment) historians in the future will have very little to base their research on about our age, as most of the info will be permanently lost. Well, hundreds of thousands of posts on BBS systems from the 80's and 90's are already gone, delete the Internet Archive and the Web is gone too, any thoughts?
An archive of the archive, operated in near-secret and kept in a Datacenter built into the side of a hollowed-out, dormant volcano... Or maybe TWO dormant volcanoes... You know, for redundancy.
Sharks with lasers on their heads optional, but recommended. Once "the last place" for evidence to be found becomes this place a great many people (including likely several large, powerful governments) will want to take control of it.
Using HTTPS is not the solution when the only thing people see is that some trusted certificate was used. If a trusted Certificate Authority was compromised or issued `fake' certificates for government spy agencies, the target wouldn't know that a MITM attack has occurred because the little green icon is showing just fine.
However, if we had something like a GPG content encoding, if the site hasn't already been trusted by the user, red flags will immediately be showing.
Like as like not, with the proliferation of CAs which exist, MITM attacks are easier than ever because people have been conditioned to trust HTTPS.
Although I like where your head is, wouldn't the CPU power required to do on-the-fly GPG decoding of content be prohibitive? Or am I misunderstanding the proposed solution?
Oh please. They are staggering the releases to do maximum harm to the U.S. and to keep their own names in the news longer. It's showing their blatant anti-us bias more than anything.
I'm pretty sure that reporting the evil acts of the United States government and exposing the hypocrisy of our security state isn't "bias." A better term would be "doing their jobs as journalists." And thank goodness--the press isn't yet completely in sway of an elite, wealthy class of oligarchs hell-bent for leather on wiping out democracy.
If we had the open, transparent, and bipartisan (seats at the table for Republicans) process promised then things would have gone quite different.
Now who's being revisionist? We tried that: Every time the GOP was invited to participate they howled about death panels. Every time they were asked for an alternate plan they babbled incoherently about a "Free market system" without illuminating us as to how to implement such a thing in real life. I'm not sure how many opportunities they should have been extended.
You are ignoring time frames. I referred to the first week or two of the administration. You are referring to events that came much later. In the first week or two the democratic party leadership killed any chance at bipartisanship and the White House let it happen. You merely narrate how the Republicans responded to this f-em-we-have-the-votes attitude of the democratic leadership.
The most important time-frame of all is the meeting the GOP held the day after inauguration where they decided they would stymie absolutely everything the President proposed, regardless of what it was, unless they 1) Had complete control of the bill (wrote it themselves, with zero Democratic amendments) or 2) A bill came to the floor with language similar-enough to what they wanted it was effectively the same as #1. Their intention was to negate the 2008 election by usurping as much power as they could from the majority, and from the executive.
Every event we've talked about here (including the time frame you'd like to discuss) comes after that meeting. Any claim from the GOP that Democrats "locked them out" of writing this law is utter self-serving bullshit. They decided to stymie--that was their sole goal. Stymie everything, drag the economy and make Obama a "one-term president," and the method they chose was "non-participation" and "the spewing of the bullshit" regarding death panels and the like. They made this decision before the inauguration party hangovers had even faded into memory, long before the ACA was written, long before any parliamentary manuevers that the GOP used as their excuse for trying to monkey-wrench the government.
In short, they behaved like spoiled children (rich businesspeople are not, after all, used to being told "no!") and pouted and tried to take their ball and go home. The game proceeded without them (they were superfluous, it turns out) and now they want to complain about the bill that was produced while they were busy pouting in their rooms?
I think not. If they don't like this bill they have only themselves to blame: The President and the majority as near to bent-over-backwards to satisfy the GOP as they could and got zero votes for their trouble from a party that had pre-decided to go lockstep against anything Obama put on the table.
Since when do we consider partially installed applications "shite code". All software, except some viruses, breaks when only parts of the executable are installed.
Normally we wouldn't. But that's not the "shite code" I refer to, but to the installer that clearly isn't ready-for-primetime if it is failing the same way on many hundreds of thousands (or millions) of phones the same exact way... and if the installer puts so much stress on the hardware that it is permanently broken (check down the thread a bit) that's a problem, too.
This. What did Lessig actually say in his post? If it was part of a thread saying that the software update had physically damaged the hardware, I can see why Apple would delete a thread full of erroneous advice or outright misinformation.
It looks like he reposted another user's comment that encouraged users to take their phones back to their place of purchase and demand a new iPhone in exchange. It also looks like most people with this wifi glitch are suffering from incomplete installations of iOS7 that can be remedied simply by backing up the iPhone, restoring the iPhone software from a clean image (i.e. "factory reset"), and then restoring the backup data to the phone. My guess is that Apple would rather people do the latter, which actually solves a software issue, than the former, which is wasteful not only in terms of iPhone hardware but time, since it's faster to restore phone than return it to a store and deal with clerks.
The purpose of a "mass-warranty-claim" isn't to "solve the problem," it's to discourage Apple from shipping shite code in the future, and maybe do a little QA in the future...
If we had the open, transparent, and bipartisan (seats at the table for Republicans) process promised then things would have gone quite different.
Now who's being revisionist? We tried that: Every time the GOP was invited to participate they howled about death panels. Every time they were asked for an alternate plan they babbled incoherently about a "Free market system" without illuminating us as to how to implement such a thing in real life. I'm not sure how many opportunities they should have been extended.
It's easy to say they "should have been included," and, indeed, they should have been, but their non-involvement comes from their own choices, though. In effect they essentially eliminated themselves from the serious conversation by saying such radical and easily disproven nonsense, and are now whining about not being included even though they excluded themselves from the proceedings.
I count at least three, maybe four (depending on semantics) major pushes to get GOP support for this law. Two of them were the "Olympia Snowe-job" and the "Grassley Gambit," wherein the named senators entered (in bad faith) into talks about writing a healthcare reform law for the purpose of dragging out the proceedings even-longer-than-they'd-already-gone-on because they knew full-well they 1) Weren't going to vote for anything Obama supported and 2) They also knew the democrats were desperate to get even one Republican to sign-on and take part, and the democrats (somehow, despite being slapped in the face with evidence daily for months) still hadn't figured out that the GOP had no intention of "governing" by reforming healthcare, but every intention of "stymieing" Obama, whatever idea he brought to the table.
There was also the summit, where the GOP basically said "free-market, rah rah!" but didn't offer any plan. Hey, a free market is a lovely idea: How about some concrete suggestions on having it 1) Actually exist int he real world (i.e. "How to get there from here,") without 2) Taking us through a radical "shakeout" period where "the market" decides the best answer to the question "How much does life-saving treatment cost?" is "How much you got?" and 3) Do both #1 and #2 without locking out millions of poor people from access to care.
And, of course, the main evidence that suggests the GOP would have adamantly, vehemently opposed anything the President proposed is their own words, the day after the inauguration. They'd already decided on this course before there was an ACA--they already decided they would lock-step oppose anything the Obama administration tried to accomplish--short of him changing over to the GOP mid-term, anyway.
to clarify my remarks, the "opposition to the ACA" predated the existence of the ACA, or, indeed, the decision to pursue health care reform. The GOP held a meeting a day after the inauguration, before any of this was decided, and announced afterward their goals of "making this a one-term presidency" and "breaking" Obama.
I do see that I omitted the part about "predating the ACA"--my point was the opposition was ginned up with an eye on attacking whatever Obama brought to the table--it was built around the ACA once the ACA existed, but they would have attacked anything he presented just as vociferously.
ACA was passed by Democrats without a single vote from the Republicans which has politically doomed it from the start. Other large government programs were passed with significant bi-partisan majorities, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The ACA was passed without any Republican support and with lots of back room deals as well as the famous use of "reconciliation" to get it passed in the Senate after Massachusetts voted in someone to the Senate who opposed it and upset the filibuster proof majority.
In that light, why would you be surprised that there was a lot of political fallout?
Other large government programs were passed with bipartisan majorities, yes, but that was back when we had two functioning political parties that both had an interest in governing effectively. The GOP is now a reactionary, neo-confederate interest, seeking to monkey-wrench the government and hasten its failure. Why should the rest of us be hostage to their insane whims? The ACA isn't a great bill, but it was the only game in town, and it is marginally better than what we had. There are plenty of better systems we can point to, but critically, our "loyal opposition" didn't point to any of them during the debate, instead choosing to howl incessantly about non-existent death panels. Instead of "leading" when the, as they continually jabber, the President "failed to lead" they merely put out talking points about leadership failures in others while failing to recognize the blemish on their own face.
And here we are.
It would be a stronger argument you were making if any Republican had shown any interest in governing during the debate of this law, but the only thing even remotely approaching genuine participation turned out to be strategic stonewalling by "moderates" who were so terrified of being "primaried" they simply backed away from talks with the Democrats. So the bill is 100% Democrats-written. Whose fault is that? The GOP offered no workable solution of any kind that I know of. We heard platitudes about "free market solutions," but when you try to nail down what that means there was no coherent plan that could be sussed out of the responses.
But doesn't this just show that there are very many people against the bill as passed?
(And before I'm modded down for stating a personal opinion, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have healthcare reform. Quite the contrary. I'm saying that many people like me believe the ACA did little to help. And because the political atmosphere at the time was ignored, now the partisanship has been ignited like never before and we have little chance for real, good change to occur.)
Frankly, that's hogwash.
The "political atmosphere" at the time was created for the purpose of blocking this reform. It didn't "pre-date" the reform effort. The propaganda efforts kicked into high gear to "break" this Presidency--to undo the public's will by neutering a popular President so as to limit his ability to do the people's work. They started screaming he was a communist because a bill modeled largely on their own response to Hilarycare in the 90's had been proposed by a Democratic congress and administration,
And I recognize that "being against the ACA" isn't automatically a guarantee you're "against all reform," but the problem is that the brigade of dumbshits leading the charge against "Obamacare" have injected so many poisonous lies into the debate that they salted the earth for any chance of compromising on anything. They called this tyranny, and some of them called Obama "Hitler" over this: That's not the debate tactic of somebody looking to "compromise" on common ground, that's an opponent who wants to politically destroy you to prevent you from acting with a mandate the public gave you.
That may not be your personal point of view, but the wider "Anti-ACA" movement is not nearly as enlightened as you. And because the "antis" who went overboard have gone so insanely-far that they've made a compromise now into appear as if it were the same as caving to anti-government extremists. At this point there's no way he'll give in.
He contracted retribution because the so-called justice system failed him. Those cock suckers walked free from court the same day, they even smiled at him. They got off after beating his daughter for resisting their attempt to rape her.
I find no fault at all with him.
"I don't blame him" and "innocent" are two different things.
I'm not saying I might not have pursued similar course of action in the same circumstances, but he was clearly far from innocent. How would he be connected enough to the mob to ask such a favor in the first place? You don't just "show-up" uninvited at the Don's daughter's wedding...
Right because Isreal is totally the innocent undertaker, who came to the Big Bad US looking for justice that he couldn't get through normal means:)
If I was going to use a Godfather analogy I would go more for:
If Don Corleone had all the judges, and the politicians in New York, then he must share them, or let us others use them. He must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly he can present a bill for such services; after all... we are not Communists."
I never viewed the undertaker as "innocent," not in the least. I'm surprised to hear you say you did: He was a coward who wanted violence done without having to risk committing it himself--but I don't think that makes him "innocent," not in the least. He contracted for retribution from a murderous mob-boss.
This is a function of the problems of doing anything with or for the federal government. The fact that a large state like California could pull off a similar system successfully demonstrates this to be true. The problem is the federal beaurocracy.
Now the question of why Apollo was successful when a seemingly simple website is not likely boils down to time. The federal government has had a long time to get worse in the 40 or so years between Apollo and today. Plus Apollo had a longer timeline.
Eh, sort of. I'd say the problem was political, that is, the forces that are opposed to the law taking effect commanded their congress-puppets to scream bloody murder about "one penny!" being spent on "Obamacare!" before a court weighed in on constitutionality. Add to that two dozen states dragging their feet until the last minute to say "no thanks" to a Federal Exchange (to purposefully make the job more complex further down the line than it needed to be) what you have is a recipe of failure. Between stupidly kow-towing to people trying to create a failure (rather than acting despite of their complaints) and the actual active-efforts to create failure it's a small miracle it works as well as it does.
Slashdot Mirror
As a heavy caffeine user, I confirm that... hmm... erm... what was I saying?
Also, is the memory improvement from coffee powerful enough to overcome the damage done by all the weed I smoke?
You take "great pride" in attending a school you did not choose, and that you had no hand in designing, building, or maintaining? Do you also feel full after someone else eats a meal? How peculiar.
It may surprise you to learn this, but some people have not yet become cynical assholes and can appreciate being a part of something special. even if it is just in a small way.
Or ask Hibbing, Minnesota. From 1919 to 1921, the entire city moved about two miles to make way for what became the largest open-pit iron mine in the world.
I'm pretty sure the Simpsons did it, too...
Ahh yes, here we are: Trash of the Titans, S9 E22.
The surveillance revelations so far have been scary, sinister, infuriating, offensive. But this one? This is just... sad.
OK, bad guys could potentially use the in-game comms functions on X-Box live to plans their nefarious deeds, but do we really need to be paying teams of people to go into the games and play them all day long? If they really need to snoop on that shit (they don't) then couldn't they just hoover up all the conversations and analyse them offline like they do our emails, phone calls, texts etc? What additional benefit does having someone actually in the game world offer? Are they worried that somewhere out there a virtual ogre and elf controlled by kiddie-porn-terrorists are communicating in avatar sign language or something? This is fucking ridiculous.
Our government is telling us they can't afford basic shit like hospitals and education and welfare, but they can afford to pay dorks to play Xbox all fucking day. I get the feeling some very ballsy gamer put together a presentation to get paid taxpayers' money for playing CoD all day long and hit the jackpot. If there was any justice on this fucking planet we'd all be knee deep in fired "intelligence" agents months ago.
If I had mod points you'd be a god.
Woudl you settle for an "atta' boy!"?
"They have more than enough watching what real people, of all ages, do."
So if they're watching you 14 year old daughter banging her boyfriend isn't that kiddy porn? Burn the NSA and other agencies.
THIS, by a wide margin.
Once we have evidence of the NSA in possession of underage porn it's the way to pull the plug... Because if we've learned anything in America, the best way to ram something through against the wishes of whomever opposes it is to say it is "for the children." In this case it would be a white-lie in so much as it isn't "for the children" in the "preventing kiddie porn" sense, but "for the children" in the "So those children can grow up in a world where they still get to have some freedom and privacy."
In fact, it might be the first time in all of recorded history where something that was done "for the children" actually turned out to benefit actual children.
True Libertarianism would never permit such abuses by the government.
Of course, that only exists in the land of magic and make-believe, so...
You enforce it after the breach. There was a DDOS attach, they investigate, find out you were running things years out of date or whatever, then the fines kick in. Much like how it's illegal to not use a seat-belt in the US. They can't really look in every car and be sure as it's driving down the road. But if you get pulled over for something else or you get into an accident that's when you usually get a ticket for it.
Then the fine makes for good evidence in a legal case against the company by whomever was attacked.
Think about that for a moment... It's totally unenforceable because nobody is legally obligated to keep a full version-control of every setting, piece of software, or chunk of code they're running, so unless the law requires them to continue running with "vulnerabilities" in place until an investigator can record them for fine-tallying purpose then it is extremely unlikely that any fine will ever actually be assessed because in the end the sorts of shops that run open-relays and rootable DNS servers aren't likely to have good documentation practices, either.
Another cure that is worse than the disease
Ha! I've used that to describe spamhaus and their minions... Years ago I had a client who ended up getting blocked randomly because (drumroll please) spamhaus added an entire /22 to their IP blocklist! The client's /29 was inside that block, so naturally they got blocked by anybody honoring spamhaus' block list... (And to the legion of assholes that troll anybody criticizing spamhaus' slipshod work and labels them a "spammer," Fuck you! They didn't send any spam, EVER. And blocking an entire /22 (covering some of a datacenter's customers, but not others) is arbitrary to the point of negligence.
When it had all played out the /22 block was a result of (wait for it!) a disgruntled employee at the datacenter exploiting Spamhaus' notoriously weak quality-control to screw-over his former employer with an annoying, somewhat hard to identify problem... Annoying because spamhaus will keep blocking it in perpetuity until somebody figures out how to make them stop. Somewhat hard to identify because it wasn't every client having problems, and the ones having problems weren't having it with all recipients. Now, of course, we know that description of symptoms can easily be an RBL run amok... Of course then the question becomes "which one?"
I don't like spam any more than the next guy, but dealing with the shrill assholes who have made it their life's work to fight spam (hint: When somebody tells this to you, FFS, don't laugh!) is just one step less-unpleasant than repeated, unneeded root canal... The high and mighty, pompous, and arrogant attitudes (anybody who disagrees with us is stupid or a spammer!) make the low-quality of the work produced that much more glaring. Honestly, haven't you people ever heard of IronPort, Barracuda, or MXLogic? Seriously: Get a life. Reporting each spam individually is the least efficient way to fight the problem. What makes it worse is when you tell these Don Quixote types that they're wasting their lives they accuse YOU of being a spammer!
http://www.marklogic.com/what-is-marklogic/marklogic-hadoop/
This seems like the relevant, interesting/crazy part. Whether it's the right choice or not, I leave to more seasons database professionals than myself.
There has got to be some reason that this DB that ive never even heard of (and i work with DBs, its not my main point of work but I know my way around DBs) got the gig over the more established players.
or, perhaps they went with it because it is less known and therefore reduce the risk of known attacks in other DB systems?
Perhaps either is the case: Obscurity or donations... A third option is that it provides some feature that doesn't exist in Oracle/SQL Server/Cassandra. However in digging into their web-site it looks like it is some sort of wrapper/hybridized product that mates to Hadoop, which would make sense given the vast volume of data you're talking about managing for the Federal exchange, which I believe services 36 states.
But with that said, I've never heard of it either.
You sir are incapable of following rather simple directions.
With that out of the way, why would i even want to debate your inaccuracies and complete misunderstanding of what happened, and why? ( And apparently an inability to read as well. Or at least comprehend simple sentences )
I'm under no obligation to follow your directions. ...But like all petty cowards, you continue to attack the messenger without defending the ludicrous assertion (that Booth was a patriot.) I say he wasn't: If you fail to respond directly to the argument you've both lost the debate and proven yourself a coward in the mix. It was slavery--100% slavery. None of those "other issues" could exist without the slavery issue. "State's rights" is a code-phrase for the "states' right to have slavery." If you think something different happened the obligation is 100% yours to demonstrate it to us.
---- Booth was a patriot ---- If you dont agree with me, dont bother replying as i dont care what you have to say ----
Booth was a murderer, a coward, and a traitor. "The South" was not populated by patriots--or at least, not American patriots--it was populated by traitors who wanted to keep human beings as property, and were willing to murder as many people as they had to in order to protect their unconscionably evil economic system operating.
For that matter, you're a coward for posting something so ridiculous and then preemptively telling us you "won't respond."
There's a theory out there that states that because most of what we do in the so-called Information Age is stored is somewhat fragile digital storage systems (as opposed to, for example, parchment) historians in the future will have very little to base their research on about our age, as most of the info will be permanently lost.
Well, hundreds of thousands of posts on BBS systems from the 80's and 90's are already gone, delete the Internet Archive and the Web is gone too, any thoughts?
An archive of the archive, operated in near-secret and kept in a Datacenter built into the side of a hollowed-out, dormant volcano... Or maybe TWO dormant volcanoes... You know, for redundancy.
Sharks with lasers on their heads optional, but recommended. Once "the last place" for evidence to be found becomes this place a great many people (including likely several large, powerful governments) will want to take control of it.
Using HTTPS is not the solution when the only thing people see is that some trusted certificate was used. If a trusted Certificate Authority was compromised or issued `fake' certificates for government spy agencies, the target wouldn't know that a MITM attack has occurred because the little green icon is showing just fine.
However, if we had something like a GPG content encoding, if the site hasn't already been trusted by the user, red flags will immediately be showing.
Like as like not, with the proliferation of CAs which exist, MITM attacks are easier than ever because people have been conditioned to trust HTTPS.
Although I like where your head is, wouldn't the CPU power required to do on-the-fly GPG decoding of content be prohibitive? Or am I misunderstanding the proposed solution?
Oh please. They are staggering the releases to do maximum harm to the U.S. and to keep their own names in the news longer. It's showing their blatant anti-us bias more than anything.
I'm pretty sure that reporting the evil acts of the United States government and exposing the hypocrisy of our security state isn't "bias." A better term would be "doing their jobs as journalists." And thank goodness--the press isn't yet completely in sway of an elite, wealthy class of oligarchs hell-bent for leather on wiping out democracy.
But, in a few more generations...
If we had the open, transparent, and bipartisan (seats at the table for Republicans) process promised then things would have gone quite different.
Now who's being revisionist? We tried that: Every time the GOP was invited to participate they howled about death panels. Every time they were asked for an alternate plan they babbled incoherently about a "Free market system" without illuminating us as to how to implement such a thing in real life. I'm not sure how many opportunities they should have been extended.
You are ignoring time frames. I referred to the first week or two of the administration. You are referring to events that came much later. In the first week or two the democratic party leadership killed any chance at bipartisanship and the White House let it happen. You merely narrate how the Republicans responded to this f-em-we-have-the-votes attitude of the democratic leadership.
The most important time-frame of all is the meeting the GOP held the day after inauguration where they decided they would stymie absolutely everything the President proposed, regardless of what it was, unless they 1) Had complete control of the bill (wrote it themselves, with zero Democratic amendments) or 2) A bill came to the floor with language similar-enough to what they wanted it was effectively the same as #1. Their intention was to negate the 2008 election by usurping as much power as they could from the majority, and from the executive.
Every event we've talked about here (including the time frame you'd like to discuss) comes after that meeting. Any claim from the GOP that Democrats "locked them out" of writing this law is utter self-serving bullshit. They decided to stymie--that was their sole goal. Stymie everything, drag the economy and make Obama a "one-term president," and the method they chose was "non-participation" and "the spewing of the bullshit" regarding death panels and the like. They made this decision before the inauguration party hangovers had even faded into memory, long before the ACA was written, long before any parliamentary manuevers that the GOP used as their excuse for trying to monkey-wrench the government.
In short, they behaved like spoiled children (rich businesspeople are not, after all, used to being told "no!") and pouted and tried to take their ball and go home. The game proceeded without them (they were superfluous, it turns out) and now they want to complain about the bill that was produced while they were busy pouting in their rooms?
I think not. If they don't like this bill they have only themselves to blame: The President and the majority as near to bent-over-backwards to satisfy the GOP as they could and got zero votes for their trouble from a party that had pre-decided to go lockstep against anything Obama put on the table.
Since when do we consider partially installed applications "shite code". All software, except some viruses, breaks when only parts of the executable are installed.
Normally we wouldn't. But that's not the "shite code" I refer to, but to the installer that clearly isn't ready-for-primetime if it is failing the same way on many hundreds of thousands (or millions) of phones the same exact way... and if the installer puts so much stress on the hardware that it is permanently broken (check down the thread a bit) that's a problem, too.
This. What did Lessig actually say in his post? If it was part of a thread saying that the software update had physically damaged the hardware, I can see why Apple would delete a thread full of erroneous advice or outright misinformation.
It looks like he reposted another user's comment that encouraged users to take their phones back to their place of purchase and demand a new iPhone in exchange. It also looks like most people with this wifi glitch are suffering from incomplete installations of iOS7 that can be remedied simply by backing up the iPhone, restoring the iPhone software from a clean image (i.e. "factory reset"), and then restoring the backup data to the phone. My guess is that Apple would rather people do the latter, which actually solves a software issue, than the former, which is wasteful not only in terms of iPhone hardware but time, since it's faster to restore phone than return it to a store and deal with clerks.
The purpose of a "mass-warranty-claim" isn't to "solve the problem," it's to discourage Apple from shipping shite code in the future, and maybe do a little QA in the future...
If we had the open, transparent, and bipartisan (seats at the table for Republicans) process promised then things would have gone quite different.
Now who's being revisionist? We tried that: Every time the GOP was invited to participate they howled about death panels. Every time they were asked for an alternate plan they babbled incoherently about a "Free market system" without illuminating us as to how to implement such a thing in real life. I'm not sure how many opportunities they should have been extended.
It's easy to say they "should have been included," and, indeed, they should have been, but their non-involvement comes from their own choices, though. In effect they essentially eliminated themselves from the serious conversation by saying such radical and easily disproven nonsense, and are now whining about not being included even though they excluded themselves from the proceedings.
I count at least three, maybe four (depending on semantics) major pushes to get GOP support for this law. Two of them were the "Olympia Snowe-job" and the "Grassley Gambit," wherein the named senators entered (in bad faith) into talks about writing a healthcare reform law for the purpose of dragging out the proceedings even-longer-than-they'd-already-gone-on because they knew full-well they 1) Weren't going to vote for anything Obama supported and 2) They also knew the democrats were desperate to get even one Republican to sign-on and take part, and the democrats (somehow, despite being slapped in the face with evidence daily for months) still hadn't figured out that the GOP had no intention of "governing" by reforming healthcare, but every intention of "stymieing" Obama, whatever idea he brought to the table.
There was also the summit, where the GOP basically said "free-market, rah rah!" but didn't offer any plan. Hey, a free market is a lovely idea: How about some concrete suggestions on having it 1) Actually exist int he real world (i.e. "How to get there from here,") without 2) Taking us through a radical "shakeout" period where "the market" decides the best answer to the question "How much does life-saving treatment cost?" is "How much you got?" and 3) Do both #1 and #2 without locking out millions of poor people from access to care.
And, of course, the main evidence that suggests the GOP would have adamantly, vehemently opposed anything the President proposed is their own words, the day after the inauguration. They'd already decided on this course before there was an ACA--they already decided they would lock-step oppose anything the Obama administration tried to accomplish--short of him changing over to the GOP mid-term, anyway.
There was a political atmosphere against the ACA,
to clarify my remarks, the "opposition to the ACA" predated the existence of the ACA, or, indeed, the decision to pursue health care reform. The GOP held a meeting a day after the inauguration, before any of this was decided, and announced afterward their goals of "making this a one-term presidency" and "breaking" Obama.
I do see that I omitted the part about "predating the ACA"--my point was the opposition was ginned up with an eye on attacking whatever Obama brought to the table--it was built around the ACA once the ACA existed, but they would have attacked anything he presented just as vociferously.
ACA was passed by Democrats without a single vote from the Republicans which has politically doomed it from the start. Other large government programs were passed with significant bi-partisan majorities, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The ACA was passed without any Republican support and with lots of back room deals as well as the famous use of "reconciliation" to get it passed in the Senate after Massachusetts voted in someone to the Senate who opposed it and upset the filibuster proof majority.
In that light, why would you be surprised that there was a lot of political fallout?
Other large government programs were passed with bipartisan majorities, yes, but that was back when we had two functioning political parties that both had an interest in governing effectively. The GOP is now a reactionary, neo-confederate interest, seeking to monkey-wrench the government and hasten its failure. Why should the rest of us be hostage to their insane whims? The ACA isn't a great bill, but it was the only game in town, and it is marginally better than what we had. There are plenty of better systems we can point to, but critically, our "loyal opposition" didn't point to any of them during the debate, instead choosing to howl incessantly about non-existent death panels. Instead of "leading" when the, as they continually jabber, the President "failed to lead" they merely put out talking points about leadership failures in others while failing to recognize the blemish on their own face.
And here we are.
It would be a stronger argument you were making if any Republican had shown any interest in governing during the debate of this law, but the only thing even remotely approaching genuine participation turned out to be strategic stonewalling by "moderates" who were so terrified of being "primaried" they simply backed away from talks with the Democrats. So the bill is 100% Democrats-written. Whose fault is that? The GOP offered no workable solution of any kind that I know of. We heard platitudes about "free market solutions," but when you try to nail down what that means there was no coherent plan that could be sussed out of the responses.
But doesn't this just show that there are very many people against the bill as passed?
(And before I'm modded down for stating a personal opinion, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have healthcare reform. Quite the contrary. I'm saying that many people like me believe the ACA did little to help. And because the political atmosphere at the time was ignored, now the partisanship has been ignited like never before and we have little chance for real, good change to occur.)
Frankly, that's hogwash.
The "political atmosphere" at the time was created for the purpose of blocking this reform. It didn't "pre-date" the reform effort. The propaganda efforts kicked into high gear to "break" this Presidency--to undo the public's will by neutering a popular President so as to limit his ability to do the people's work. They started screaming he was a communist because a bill modeled largely on their own response to Hilarycare in the 90's had been proposed by a Democratic congress and administration,
And I recognize that "being against the ACA" isn't automatically a guarantee you're "against all reform," but the problem is that the brigade of dumbshits leading the charge against "Obamacare" have injected so many poisonous lies into the debate that they salted the earth for any chance of compromising on anything. They called this tyranny, and some of them called Obama "Hitler" over this: That's not the debate tactic of somebody looking to "compromise" on common ground, that's an opponent who wants to politically destroy you to prevent you from acting with a mandate the public gave you.
That may not be your personal point of view, but the wider "Anti-ACA" movement is not nearly as enlightened as you. And because the "antis" who went overboard have gone so insanely-far that they've made a compromise now into appear as if it were the same as caving to anti-government extremists. At this point there's no way he'll give in.
He contracted retribution because the so-called justice system failed him. Those cock suckers walked free from court the same day, they even smiled at him. They got off after beating his daughter for resisting their attempt to rape her.
I find no fault at all with him.
"I don't blame him" and "innocent" are two different things.
I'm not saying I might not have pursued similar course of action in the same circumstances, but he was clearly far from innocent. How would he be connected enough to the mob to ask such a favor in the first place? You don't just "show-up" uninvited at the Don's daughter's wedding...
Right because Isreal is totally the innocent undertaker, who came to the Big Bad US looking for justice that he couldn't get through normal means :)
If I was going to use a Godfather analogy I would go more for:
I never viewed the undertaker as "innocent," not in the least. I'm surprised to hear you say you did: He was a coward who wanted violence done without having to risk committing it himself--but I don't think that makes him "innocent," not in the least. He contracted for retribution from a murderous mob-boss.
This is a function of the problems of doing anything with or for the federal government. The fact that a large state like California could pull off a similar system successfully demonstrates this to be true. The problem is the federal beaurocracy.
Now the question of why Apollo was successful when a seemingly simple website is not likely boils down to time. The federal government has had a long time to get worse in the 40 or so years between Apollo and today. Plus Apollo had a longer timeline.
Eh, sort of. I'd say the problem was political, that is, the forces that are opposed to the law taking effect commanded their congress-puppets to scream bloody murder about "one penny!" being spent on "Obamacare!" before a court weighed in on constitutionality. Add to that two dozen states dragging their feet until the last minute to say "no thanks" to a Federal Exchange (to purposefully make the job more complex further down the line than it needed to be) what you have is a recipe of failure. Between stupidly kow-towing to people trying to create a failure (rather than acting despite of their complaints) and the actual active-efforts to create failure it's a small miracle it works as well as it does.