I mark this the first of many "Microsoft have shit security durhurhur" comments. Probably no point reading the rest of the comments for this one, there's going to be very little useful commentary in amongst the complete fucking dross.
There's a reason for the sarcastic comments... and it's that it's extremely hypocritical of Microsoft to dismiss OpenGL due to security flaws, when they usually promote much unsafer technologies.
But I'm sure there are people who'll be worried (fear), because they can't be sure there's not something to the criticism (uncertainty), and maybe decide it's safest to not use OpenGL after all (doubt).
Why is the article treating this guy like some sort of innocent?
Because it's more likely the NSA trumped up the charges as revenge for Drake ratting them out to Congress, than there being some sort of substance to them?
I agree with you in principle - someone can be guilty even if they're not proven guilty in a court of law.
But we must ask ourselves: is there any reason to believe Drake was guilty in this case? The charges were apparently brought forth by the NSA as revenge for Drake's (legal) leaks to congress. It seems at least as likely the charges are completely unsubstantiated, as there being some sort of substance to them.
OP is about how some college educations may be pointless from an economic point of view (for those who view education as a way to get a better job, and want the education to pay itself back in dollars and cents).
That's why the OP brings up web design degrees - it's an education which is irrelevant, because there's not much of a market for it in real life. He also brings up English degrees with unambitious students who just sit through classes, which the OP believes don't lead to improved job chances.
English degrees on a higher level may have a much better turn-out, although I believe it has more to do with the background and motivation of the students who go there than with the education itself. I believe the same is true for most educations, not just English.
You know you can provide your own citation to prove the Wikipedia citation wrong... or could, if the Wikipedia section wasn't fact-checked and backed up by citations itself.
Yes, that's exactly the reasoning behind it here. The system's drawn criticism from some sex workers, though - they think they have a perfectly valid business model, believe themselves safe when they receive clients in their own homes, and don't like their clients being scared away by the police.
There's a service called Voddler which streams legally licensed films and TV shows over BitTorrent, but the content is still very meager compared to a pirate site.
Such taxes are however never "compensations for losses incurred via illegal acts". Either something is legal and you can tax it, or something is illegal and you cannot tax it (but you can prosecute it).
Sorry for being off-topic, but I have to mention that Sweden has a very amusing spin on this. In Sweden, it's illegal to buy the services of a prostitute. It is, however, legal to solicit sexual services. That means prostitutes need to declare income and pay taxes for the services they sell, even though they are illegal to buy!
I don't think people expect the USA to be a bad place to live in. Here in Europe, the USA is often called "the motor of the western economy". It's well-known that it's a rich industrialised nation, comparable to Germany, France and northern Europe. It's well-known that millions of Mexican immigrants live illegally in the USA for economic reasons. Most political and economic trends start in the USA and spread over to Europe after a few years. It's well-known that most of the inventions that have changed modern life during the last few decades have originated in, or been commercialised through, the USA. Most films and tv shows shown here are imported from the USA. A lot of Europeans visit the USA to work for a US firm, for conferences, or for vacations.
The most important reason for the USA:s impopularity is probably its foreign policy: It's the most interventionist nation in the world, with a "my way or the highway" attitude towards other nations.
Hmmm, if your wife ask you if she looks fat in that particular outfit, do you answer her "open and honestly"?
I answer politely and honestly. She can see through when I'm lying, since she has no illusions about herself, and only by being honest can I make her believe me when I give her compliments.
The government should be happy about leaks which expose corruption and lawbreaking - it means the leaker is basically doing the job the police would have done if they could. And for free!
If invading Iraq was the safest course of action, why did the Bush government have to mislead Congress with outrageous claims about an army of unmanned drones ready to strike against America?
In October 2002, a few days before the US Senate vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, about 75 senators were told in closed session that the Iraqi government had the means of delivering biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drones that could be launched from ships off the US' Atlantic coast to attack US eastern seaboard cities. Colin Powell suggested in his presentation to the United Nations that UAVs were transported out of Iraq and could be launched against the United States. In fact, Iraq had no offensive UAV fleet or any capability of putting UAVs on ships.[90] Iraq's UAV fleet consisted of less than a handful of outdated Czech training drones.[91] At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the intelligence community whether the CIA's conclusions about Iraq's UAV fleet were accurate. The US Air Force agency denied outright that Iraq possessed any offensive UAV capability.[92]
It's not just in hindsight the government's course of action looks insane; even back then, a lot of people pointed out how they systematically picked and chose intelligence reports to support their pre-determined conclusion.
Nobody has leaked the positions of nuclear subs to the public, though. The leaks mostly pertain to things like incompetence, shady back-door dealings and civilian casualties. Many of the leaked documents contain strategic information too, but so far, the strategic importance seems to have been very minor. That damage has mostly consisted of embarrassment for the military and the politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but most systems are not configured in such a restrictive way.
I mark this the first of many "Microsoft have shit security durhurhur" comments. Probably no point reading the rest of the comments for this one, there's going to be very little useful commentary in amongst the complete fucking dross.
There's a reason for the sarcastic comments... and it's that it's extremely hypocritical of Microsoft to dismiss OpenGL due to security flaws, when they usually promote much unsafer technologies.
But I'm sure there are people who'll be worried (fear), because they can't be sure there's not something to the criticism (uncertainty), and maybe decide it's safest to not use OpenGL after all (doubt).
I bet you're sorry now you spent all that money and effort on battling global warming.
Perhaps they just simplify when they're talking to the public?
Why is the article treating this guy like some sort of innocent?
Because it's more likely the NSA trumped up the charges as revenge for Drake ratting them out to Congress, than there being some sort of substance to them?
I agree with you in principle - someone can be guilty even if they're not proven guilty in a court of law.
But we must ask ourselves: is there any reason to believe Drake was guilty in this case? The charges were apparently brought forth by the NSA as revenge for Drake's (legal) leaks to congress. It seems at least as likely the charges are completely unsubstantiated, as there being some sort of substance to them.
Or the Wikipedia editors just read a misleading newspaper article.
TBH, I don't care if he's innocent according to the letter of the law, since he did the right thing.
OP is about how some college educations may be pointless from an economic point of view (for those who view education as a way to get a better job, and want the education to pay itself back in dollars and cents).
That's why the OP brings up web design degrees - it's an education which is irrelevant, because there's not much of a market for it in real life. He also brings up English degrees with unambitious students who just sit through classes, which the OP believes don't lead to improved job chances.
English degrees on a higher level may have a much better turn-out, although I believe it has more to do with the background and motivation of the students who go there than with the education itself. I believe the same is true for most educations, not just English.
Why do they need a PSA video in the first place? Doesn't a page with legal information suffice?
You know you can provide your own citation to prove the Wikipedia citation wrong... or could, if the Wikipedia section wasn't fact-checked and backed up by citations itself.
Yes, that's exactly the reasoning behind it here. The system's drawn criticism from some sex workers, though - they think they have a perfectly valid business model, believe themselves safe when they receive clients in their own homes, and don't like their clients being scared away by the police.
It does apply to selling distillation equipment to private persons, though. It's almost exclusively used for making spirits illegally.
There's a service called Voddler which streams legally licensed films and TV shows over BitTorrent, but the content is still very meager compared to a pirate site.
Here in Sweden, the CD/DVD tax will probably be extended to include external hard drives and thumb drives this fall.
Such taxes are however never "compensations for losses incurred via illegal acts". Either something is legal and you can tax it, or something is illegal and you cannot tax it (but you can prosecute it).
Sorry for being off-topic, but I have to mention that Sweden has a very amusing spin on this. In Sweden, it's illegal to buy the services of a prostitute. It is, however, legal to solicit sexual services. That means prostitutes need to declare income and pay taxes for the services they sell, even though they are illegal to buy!
It's definitely legal to listen to pirate radio and pirate streams on the Internet here in Sweden. Don't know about other EU countries.
I don't think people expect the USA to be a bad place to live in. Here in Europe, the USA is often called "the motor of the western economy". It's well-known that it's a rich industrialised nation, comparable to Germany, France and northern Europe. It's well-known that millions of Mexican immigrants live illegally in the USA for economic reasons. Most political and economic trends start in the USA and spread over to Europe after a few years. It's well-known that most of the inventions that have changed modern life during the last few decades have originated in, or been commercialised through, the USA. Most films and tv shows shown here are imported from the USA. A lot of Europeans visit the USA to work for a US firm, for conferences, or for vacations.
The most important reason for the USA:s impopularity is probably its foreign policy: It's the most interventionist nation in the world, with a "my way or the highway" attitude towards other nations.
I'm guessing the repressive government is Saudi Arabia. Don't know who the democratically-elected president is.
Hmmm, if your wife ask you if she looks fat in that particular outfit, do you answer her "open and honestly"?
I answer politely and honestly. She can see through when I'm lying, since she has no illusions about herself, and only by being honest can I make her believe me when I give her compliments.
The government should be happy about leaks which expose corruption and lawbreaking - it means the leaker is basically doing the job the police would have done if they could. And for free!
What makes you think you deserve to be told the truth? That's a huge assumption in itself.
Because the government works for me, and is paid for by my money.
What makes you think you deserve to be told the truth? That's a huge assumption in itself.
Because the government works for me, and is paid for by my money?
If invading Iraq was the safest course of action, why did the Bush government have to mislead Congress with outrageous claims about an army of unmanned drones ready to strike against America?
From Wikipedia:
In October 2002, a few days before the US Senate vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, about 75 senators were told in closed session that the Iraqi government had the means of delivering biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drones that could be launched from ships off the US' Atlantic coast to attack US eastern seaboard cities. Colin Powell suggested in his presentation to the United Nations that UAVs were transported out of Iraq and could be launched against the United States. In fact, Iraq had no offensive UAV fleet or any capability of putting UAVs on ships.[90] Iraq's UAV fleet consisted of less than a handful of outdated Czech training drones.[91] At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the intelligence community whether the CIA's conclusions about Iraq's UAV fleet were accurate. The US Air Force agency denied outright that Iraq possessed any offensive UAV capability.[92]
It's not just in hindsight the government's course of action looks insane; even back then, a lot of people pointed out how they systematically picked and chose intelligence reports to support their pre-determined conclusion.
Nobody has leaked the positions of nuclear subs to the public, though. The leaks mostly pertain to things like incompetence, shady back-door dealings and civilian casualties. Many of the leaked documents contain strategic information too, but so far, the strategic importance seems to have been very minor. That damage has mostly consisted of embarrassment for the military and the politicians.