The whole point of higher education is that you are getting educated from a reliable source, and that the tuition you pay justifies it. If colleges are just going to tell you to read Wikipedia for four years then why bother going?
Most college courses teach from textbooks, too!
Why go to college if you could just buy and read the textbooks?
The measure, SB-1001 [...] also doesn't mandate that tech companies enforce the regulation.
This is a ridiculous proposal, along the lines of DMCA requests where there is no penalty for filing a false claim.
Rather than have senators note a problem and legislate the first thing that pops into their head, how about we get one or two of the big players on board, get several proposed solutions, identify a method to measure success, and try each of those solutions?
Specifically on the subject of bots, note that CAPTCHAS have evolved over the years with several rounds of implementation. The original implementation ("enter the letters shown") can now be cracked by programs at the human level - so much so that making it more difficult than the algorithms can handle makes it more difficult than *humans* can handle.
The proposed law will only lead to more false-positive banning of real humans, which can be a) tuned to a political ideology, and b) for the human to give up privacy to regain their account. ("Send us a copy of your ID and we'll reinstate your account", or "Send us your phone number and we'll make you more secure.")
California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.
Has anyone else noticed that 80%+ of slashdot posts seem to be trying to push some narrative that has nothing to do with the topic at hand?
I'm wondering how many people now read slashdot that are not paid to do so. I'm also considering the possibility of setting up a fake social networking site that caters to paid trolls, and providing special troll access for a fee. I really doubt most of the paid trolls would notice.
There are definitely a lot of those posts.
Starting from about 3 months before the 2016 election, Slashdot started posting political articles, some of which are completely non-technical. People complain when random political news that they can get on CNN gets posted here, but it still happens.
Then there are the technical articles with a political aspect, such as things having to do with Net Neutrality, "Your Rights Online", and so on. Although technical, they do seem to attract a number of partisan sides.
Then there are technical articles with a political aspect that are framed one way or another. Recently they all appear to be framed *against* the current administration - I haven't seen one article that showed Trump or his administration in a congratulatory or supportive manner.
(Those same people said that Trump's tweet war with North Korea would start a nuclear war, when in fact it resulted in the opposite. Now they're saying the meeting was worthless and nothing will come from it, as if anyone can tell at this early date.)
If something is negative, it's always "Trump adminstration" or "Trump officials" that are doing it. If something is benign or positive, it's always the "federal government" or "US government" that's doing it.
The editors set the stage for political bickering.
In contrast, Hackaday.com has a strict policy *against* political articles, and has remained relatively sane in the same time period.
In 2013, Slashdot's global ranking was about 2000. Right now it's between 6000 - 7000. We've lost a lot of readers because the site is considerably more toxic.
Whipslash has stated that he doesn't care about rankings or traffic, he runs the site for other reasons.
I am less concerned about a mobile phone monopoly than I am about collusion amongst cable delivery companies. The fact that the large cable companies won't even try and compete with each other and openly acknowledge such a strategy is a far greater threat to my mind than a possible mobile carrier monopoly. I feel like 3 companies with a healthy churning market is better than a locked in cable market that exists today in a large portion of the North American market.
Anybody else expecting this to be used to punish people who raise facts that the 'dear leader' (of whatever country) finds distasteful?
First we get powerful people using fake news to bend the minds of voters into idiot sheep
Next we get powerful people using the fear of fake news to charge and persecute people who disagree with them, even if they do so using facts
Does anybody else feel that we are moving backwards in time and will soon be serfs to our lairds?
We do the same thing in the US, except it isn't the government doing it. Facebook, Google, Twitter - everyone wants to have their hand in what is right and proper for the general public to view, they all have political bias, and have wildly publicized failures.
I should point out that the InfoWars article on spirit cooking turned out to be correct in all its particulars - that specific article is not in any way fake news.
That's a pretty clear philosophical point to make: do you censor sites or individual articles? At what point does a site get censored as being predominately fake news?
That specific article was politically inconvenient for the anointed hero of many people, so in that particular instance do you think any sort of "social consensus" could be reached as to whether or not it's fake?
Youtube articles on the subject of guns have now been marginalized removed from ad income and blocked... on what appears to be a social whim: outrage whipped up by some teenagers in a highly-publicizes shooting. Those articles used to be, and still are, completely legal and not offensively violent or lewd. Is the "fake news" system being used to force a political agenda?
Everyone seems to find it their duty to correct our invalid thinking and gently guide us to the correct groupthink.
It's not just the middle east that's moving to restrict speech, it's all the big players.
(For reference, dig into today's controversy about [Papa John's founder] John Schnatter using the "n-word" on a corporate phone call. It's readily apparent form the evidence what really happened - see if you think there's any real controversy there. Much of what's being reported is completely fake.)
"[Bill Browder partners] sent a huge amount of money, over 400 million, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton," [Putin] said. "Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal."
Looks to me like Clinton was the traitor, not Trump.
$700 million is a lot of money for the campaign.
I wonder what she had to promise in return for it?
I don't think anybody can argue otherwise, Trump proved himself a compromised traitor today on television for the world to see.
I can argue that.
Treason has a specific meaning in the constitution, and meeting with a foreign leader is not described as treasonous.
He's only being "unsupported" by RINOs like John McCain, and corrupt ex-officials like John Brennan. No one in power is paying any attention to cry babies in the media. You still lost, it's 18 months later, and no one cares when Chuck Schumer cries any more.
But if you are right, you should field strong leaders who win the minds and hearts of voters. You have 4 months left, you should get cracking.
I'd buy everyone on Earth a beer. Well, if they were of age. And not recovering alcoholics. And didn't vote for Trump. Screw it, this is too hard.
I'd buy a bunch of Senators and institute a one night Purge just like the movie.
If I had that money I'd open up 150,000 index funds with $1 million each, and then hold a lottery.
Lottery winners would be entitled to the annual profit from the index fund, up to a maximum of $50,000. Assuming the market goes up on average, this would be enough to keep the fund going in perpetuity. (Averaged over 20 years, the market is actually a good investment and the funds would accrue value faster than inflation. On average.)
This would remove 150,000 people from the US workforce, making wages go up for the rest of us.
Over 20 years, the extra value could be used to fund more lotteries.
It's going to take the next administration (if there is one) years to fix all the things that the trumpies have laid to waste, if they can be fixed at all.
Thank god!
I don't think America could have survived four more years of democratic "fixing".
I've been wondering lately whether I'm the subject of cognitive dissonance.
If you follow Scott Adams, he talks about cognitive dissonance as two people watching the same movie and seeing different plots. When called to describe the plots, the two views are wildly different, sometimes polar opposite.
And so for many people Trump is a racist, blowing a dog whistle that racists and liberals can hear clearly. For others, Trump is a practical leader doing what's best for the nation.
Which is the correct view? At this point, probably no one knows - there's no unbiased source of information. Best we can do is get unbiased statistics and raw facts (such as immigration numbers, unemployment, reputable polling) and come to our own conclusions.
Which brings me to the Mueller investigation, which I have always believed to be based on nothing. It seems perfectly obvious that the *amount* of Russian involvement in the election is well into the noise - to the tune of something like $13 million over several months, compared to $3 billion (-ish, depends on what you count) spent by Clinton and Trump.
Am I (and half the country) dismissing something important because of cognitive dissonance?
We might just find out.
The Mueller indictments will be based on evidence which can be examined, and accuses specific Russians of hacking and leaking the DNC through wikileaks.
On the other side, Julian Assange has stated several times that the leaks didn't come from Russia. Julian never identified the actual leaks, speculation has it that it was Seth Rich.
Julian Assange is a sufficiently trustworthy source not to be dismissed out of hand, and the US justice system should allow the evidence to be combed through by the media.
This could turn out to be a good touch-stone for validating one side of the cognitive dissonance claim.
I look forward to the public investigations of the evidence.
It will be good to finally see which movie we're actually watching.
If you don't mind it exploding in your hand when you target practice. I can think of a million better/more useful things to make with a 3D printer than an unreliable, dangerous, inaccurate, single-shot, plastic "gun".
Also, just because you can make it yourself doesn't mean it is legal to do so, or possess it, or carry it, or use it.
One pleasant surprise from the last election is that gun rights are now safe for decades to come - by some estimates, 25 to 40 years.
Also, it was pointed out that gun rights lobbies have not pressed gun ownership issues to the supreme court in recent decades because it would have resulted in a tossup decision (making precedent that would be very hard to overturn). Now that we have seated actual constitutionalists, the expectation is that after Ruth Bader Ginsburg(*) retires and Trump appoints the next justice, we will see some push back on gun control that gets settled by the supremes, making precedent that will be hard to overturn in the future.
And lest there be wailing and gnashing-of-teeth from the Left and/or Democrats about this, note that supreme court picks were floated as the most important issue in the last election, said issue going largely unheard amid the torrent of character assassination.
And also, in the first months of 2016, the Democratic Party moved $60 million from down-ballot races to the Clinton campaign to combat Bernie Sanders in the primary, Bernie having raised $40 million to Clinton's $20 million(**). That action did three things:
1) It gave the election to Republicans, because Bernie would have won against Trump 2) It alienated the Bernie supporters, many of whom stayed home or voted against the party candidate 3) It impoverished all the down-ballot races, which allowed Republicans to take those races/seats as well
So we're back to "you are responsible for your own distress", and "if you don't like it, field and vote for effective leaders that a majority of Americans can get behind", and "otherwise shut the fuck up because we're tired of all your shit!".
It's not like you didn't have a fair and equal chance of getting your way the first time.
(*) Who I personally admire, and respect her views on human rights (**) How this is not a violation of FEC rules I don't know. At the time everyone was saying "It's a private organization, they can do whatever they want".
Why would anyone store their passwords in the cloud? Color me stupid, paranoid, whatever, I don't get it.
Keepass for the win,
Just as relevant, why would anyone store their passwords on their computer? (Which could be compromised, malware could follow you unlocking your password vault and replay that action later.)
What we need is dedicated hardware, a password vault that we could take with us in the form factor of a small USB dongle, where the processing is done in the dongle and not on the computer. Inexpensive, with a way to make secure backups and reload our passwords to a newly purchased dongle when lost or stolen. The device needs a PIN that's entered on the device, and not on the computer.
(Or in the form of a credit card, a NFC or BLE device that you can just place near your computer. The form factor of a credit-card calculator would work - small solar panel for power, keypad for entering the PIN, and LCD display for feedback.)
Mooltipass comes close, it's got the right functionality but it's big and is an "add-on" to most software.
If anyone read the summary and is wondering why Slack is mentioned as an authority here, Slack is the last name of one of the doctors involved, not a crappy IRC replacement.
That didn't bother me as much as reducing 80 sessions down to 30 minutes: How to compare two numbers when they measure different things?
Slashdot is apparently not a tech-oriented website.
As someone who needs surgery in the deranged health care system in Quebec, anything that can remove these arrogant human doctors from the loop and make surgery perhaps a nurse-practitioner thing is GOOD.
Whatever anthro cartoon character existed first, either animated or in a comic or book of some sort (ie. Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse) is the first. No idea who it was...
Probably ancient cave drawings started the idea or Egyptians if you want to sound really smart about the subject.
It depends on how you define cartoon and animated, and first.
I have a book documenting a type of Roman werewolf-ism dating from about 0 BC. The minotaur was part man, part bull. The bible talks about a snake person tempting Eve to eat the apple, and Navajo have stories about skin walkers that probably go back 10,000 years. Rakshasa from the Rigveda is 1200 BC and might qualify.
But the people have spoken, they'd prefer an demagoguery over consumer protection. We have a broadly supported pro-oligarchy contingent that works hard to paint the opposing centrists are far-left Marxists. Propaganda obscures truth, and a culture of identity politics thwarts reason.
We're making our bed and we will soon lie in it.
It wasn't consumer protection, it was citizen protection.
Don't forget that NN wasn't repealed because of its technical merits - everyone largely agreed that NN was a good thing to have.
You can hypothesize and opine about peoples' motivations and thought processes, but in the final analysis it was protecting citizens from runaway government agencies making up law out of whole cloth.
It has been proposed several times that congress should pass a net neutrality law, and it has been proposed that tech companies could come up with a draft bill (*) to submit to congress, and it has been proposed that whining and moaning efforts could be better spent by taking these simple actions.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the the other big players are four-square on board with Net Neutrality.
Where is their proposed solution?
(*) Many companies make draft bills that are introduced into congress, it's not at all uncommon.
In the previous article reporting on the downfall of the internet, I asked a simple question: Would the Net Neutrality rules in place before the recent rollback have prevented this?
I got both "yes" and "no" (*) answers.
So let me ask the question once again: would the Net Neutrality rules put in place during the Obama administration have prevented this?
Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.
All apart of the plan.
Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.
All apart of the plan.
Yeah, right. About that...
It would appear that unrestricted immigration and taking refugees is something the people don't want, both in the EU and here in the US.
In the US we allow about 1.1 million legal immigrants per year, which is generous in comparison to any other country. That's enough to skew the economy, make jobs hard to get, and puts a burden on the infrastructure. Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.
Non-citizens can apparently vote, and there's a big push in CA to force the census bureau to remove the citizenship question in the next census.
After the census is tallied, it means that CA gets 3 [US House] more representatives due to non-citizens, and for all states non-citizens total about 7 house representatives.
(Question: Is giving non-citizens legislative power like that insane? Asking for a friend...)
I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees. Refugees are causing a lot of problems, it's clearly something the member states don't want, and there's apparently no end in sight. The whole refugee thing started because of Arab Spring (remember that?), which was 8 years ago!
My best guess is that being called "nazi" is still a big thing in Europe, and they'll do anything to save face and avoid being called that name. Trash their own country by virtue signalling.
Anyway...
The basic problem is that the people really don't want unrestricted immigration. It's something that people can readily see, and that affects them directly. Trump's approval rating actually went *up* during the recent protests.
When the government does something the people *really* don't like, it's the government that has to change.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of higher education is that you are getting educated from a reliable source, and that the tuition you pay justifies it. If colleges are just going to tell you to read Wikipedia for four years then why bother going?
Most college courses teach from textbooks, too!
Why go to college if you could just buy and read the textbooks?
College is such a ripoff...
Note the line in the OP:
The measure, SB-1001 [...] also doesn't mandate that tech companies enforce the regulation.
This is a ridiculous proposal, along the lines of DMCA requests where there is no penalty for filing a false claim.
Rather than have senators note a problem and legislate the first thing that pops into their head, how about we get one or two of the big players on board, get several proposed solutions, identify a method to measure success, and try each of those solutions?
Specifically on the subject of bots, note that CAPTCHAS have evolved over the years with several rounds of implementation. The original implementation ("enter the letters shown") can now be cracked by programs at the human level - so much so that making it more difficult than the algorithms can handle makes it more difficult than *humans* can handle.
The proposed law will only lead to more false-positive banning of real humans, which can be a) tuned to a political ideology, and b) for the human to give up privacy to regain their account. ("Send us a copy of your ID and we'll reinstate your account", or "Send us your phone number and we'll make you more secure.")
California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.
What war crimes? Bad and terrible and regretful things happened, but what war crimes?
Specifically, the "collateral murder" video, which shows the US indiscriminately murdering a dozen people, including two Reuters staff.
That's my fault, I think.
The eds corrected it in the summary, but used my submitted title verbatim.
Sorry about that. I sometimes get word confusion from studying various languages. And yes, I did study *that* language for awhile.
(For comparison, is it Brazil or Brasil?)
Has anyone else noticed that 80%+ of slashdot posts seem to be trying to push some narrative that has nothing to do with the topic at hand?
I'm wondering how many people now read slashdot that are not paid to do so. I'm also considering the possibility of setting up a fake social networking site that caters to paid trolls, and providing special troll access for a fee. I really doubt most of the paid trolls would notice.
There are definitely a lot of those posts.
Starting from about 3 months before the 2016 election, Slashdot started posting political articles, some of which are completely non-technical. People complain when random political news that they can get on CNN gets posted here, but it still happens.
Then there are the technical articles with a political aspect, such as things having to do with Net Neutrality, "Your Rights Online", and so on. Although technical, they do seem to attract a number of partisan sides.
Then there are technical articles with a political aspect that are framed one way or another. Recently they all appear to be framed *against* the current administration - I haven't seen one article that showed Trump or his administration in a congratulatory or supportive manner.
For a framing example, consider: In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice, because Trump met with Kim Jong-il without a nuclear expert in the room, and didn't take advice from anyone on how to handle the meeting.
(Those same people said that Trump's tweet war with North Korea would start a nuclear war, when in fact it resulted in the opposite. Now they're saying the meeting was worthless and nothing will come from it, as if anyone can tell at this early date.)
If something is negative, it's always "Trump adminstration" or "Trump officials" that are doing it. If something is benign or positive, it's always the "federal government" or "US government" that's doing it.
The editors set the stage for political bickering.
In contrast, Hackaday.com has a strict policy *against* political articles, and has remained relatively sane in the same time period.
In 2013, Slashdot's global ranking was about 2000. Right now it's between 6000 - 7000. We've lost a lot of readers because the site is considerably more toxic.
Whipslash has stated that he doesn't care about rankings or traffic, he runs the site for other reasons.
I am less concerned about a mobile phone monopoly than I am about collusion amongst cable delivery companies. The fact that the large cable companies won't even try and compete with each other and openly acknowledge such a strategy is a far greater threat to my mind than a possible mobile carrier monopoly. I feel like 3 companies with a healthy churning market is better than a locked in cable market that exists today in a large portion of the North American market.
http://fortune.com/2015/05/19/...
https://muninetworks.org/conte...
For the record, I am more concerned with unregulated illegal immigration than I am with this proposed merger.
Should I then ignore this because there are more important issues?
Anybody else expecting this to be used to punish people who raise facts that the 'dear leader' (of whatever country) finds distasteful?
First we get powerful people using fake news to bend the minds of voters into idiot sheep
Next we get powerful people using the fear of fake news to charge and persecute people who disagree with them, even if they do so using facts
Does anybody else feel that we are moving backwards in time and will soon be serfs to our lairds?
We do the same thing in the US, except it isn't the government doing it. Facebook, Google, Twitter - everyone wants to have their hand in what is right and proper for the general public to view, they all have political bias, and have wildly publicized failures.
I should point out that the InfoWars article on spirit cooking turned out to be correct in all its particulars - that specific article is not in any way fake news.
That's a pretty clear philosophical point to make: do you censor sites or individual articles? At what point does a site get censored as being predominately fake news?
That specific article was politically inconvenient for the anointed hero of many people, so in that particular instance do you think any sort of "social consensus" could be reached as to whether or not it's fake?
ABC news reported that Paul Manafort pleaded guilty to 5 charges of manslaughter, which is pretty specific, damaging, and completely fake. Is ABC news a "fake news" site?
Youtube articles on the subject of guns have now been marginalized removed from ad income and blocked... on what appears to be a social whim: outrage whipped up by some teenagers in a highly-publicizes shooting. Those articles used to be, and still are, completely legal and not offensively violent or lewd. Is the "fake news" system being used to force a political agenda?
Everyone seems to find it their duty to correct our invalid thinking and gently guide us to the correct groupthink.
It's not just the middle east that's moving to restrict speech, it's all the big players.
(For reference, dig into today's controversy about [Papa John's founder] John Schnatter using the "n-word" on a corporate phone call. It's readily apparent form the evidence what really happened - see if you think there's any real controversy there. Much of what's being reported is completely fake.)
His fan club here will support him, Archangel Mike, Frosty Piss Lynwood Rooster, Okian warrior.
Lock him up!
Easy to do when you can cite facts - all your side has is hate.
Hate hate hate... one unemployment statistic counters all that hate.
What did Obama say about unemployment? Oh, yeah, it was "those jobs aren't coming back".
Hate hate hate. Keep giving us hatred, because that's the way you win back the country!
Direct quote from Putin:
"[Bill Browder partners] sent a huge amount of money, over 400 million, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton," [Putin] said. "Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal."
Looks to me like Clinton was the traitor, not Trump.
$700 million is a lot of money for the campaign.
I wonder what she had to promise in return for it?
I don't think anybody can argue otherwise, Trump proved himself a compromised traitor today on television for the world to see.
I can argue that.
Treason has a specific meaning in the constitution, and meeting with a foreign leader is not described as treasonous.
He's only being "unsupported" by RINOs like John McCain, and corrupt ex-officials like John Brennan. No one in power is paying any attention to cry babies in the media. You still lost, it's 18 months later, and no one cares when Chuck Schumer cries any more.
But if you are right, you should field strong leaders who win the minds and hearts of voters. You have 4 months left, you should get cracking.
That "blue wave" ain't gonna wave itself...
I'd buy everyone on Earth a beer. Well, if they were of age. And not recovering alcoholics. And didn't vote for Trump. Screw it, this is too hard.
I'd buy a bunch of Senators and institute a one night Purge just like the movie.
If I had that money I'd open up 150,000 index funds with $1 million each, and then hold a lottery.
Lottery winners would be entitled to the annual profit from the index fund, up to a maximum of $50,000. Assuming the market goes up on average, this would be enough to keep the fund going in perpetuity. (Averaged over 20 years, the market is actually a good investment and the funds would accrue value faster than inflation. On average.)
This would remove 150,000 people from the US workforce, making wages go up for the rest of us.
Over 20 years, the extra value could be used to fund more lotteries.
It would also start us on the path to UBI.
It's going to take the next administration (if there is one) years to fix all the things that the trumpies have laid to waste, if they can be fixed at all.
Thank god!
I don't think America could have survived four more years of democratic "fixing".
and anti-science administration. I'm not saying this to troll. We (or the 45% who voter for him) knew exactly what they were getting.
And the alternative was...?
Are you a Russian spy?
Absolutely.
I've been wondering lately whether I'm the subject of cognitive dissonance.
If you follow Scott Adams, he talks about cognitive dissonance as two people watching the same movie and seeing different plots. When called to describe the plots, the two views are wildly different, sometimes polar opposite.
And so for many people Trump is a racist, blowing a dog whistle that racists and liberals can hear clearly. For others, Trump is a practical leader doing what's best for the nation.
Which is the correct view? At this point, probably no one knows - there's no unbiased source of information. Best we can do is get unbiased statistics and raw facts (such as immigration numbers, unemployment, reputable polling) and come to our own conclusions.
Which brings me to the Mueller investigation, which I have always believed to be based on nothing. It seems perfectly obvious that the *amount* of Russian involvement in the election is well into the noise - to the tune of something like $13 million over several months, compared to $3 billion (-ish, depends on what you count) spent by Clinton and Trump.
Am I (and half the country) dismissing something important because of cognitive dissonance?
We might just find out.
The Mueller indictments will be based on evidence which can be examined, and accuses specific Russians of hacking and leaking the DNC through wikileaks.
On the other side, Julian Assange has stated several times that the leaks didn't come from Russia. Julian never identified the actual leaks, speculation has it that it was Seth Rich.
Julian Assange is a sufficiently trustworthy source not to be dismissed out of hand, and the US justice system should allow the evidence to be combed through by the media.
This could turn out to be a good touch-stone for validating one side of the cognitive dissonance claim.
I look forward to the public investigations of the evidence.
It will be good to finally see which movie we're actually watching.
If you don't mind it exploding in your hand when you target practice. I can think of a million better/more useful things to make with a 3D printer than an unreliable, dangerous, inaccurate, single-shot, plastic "gun".
Also, just because you can make it yourself doesn't mean it is legal to do so, or possess it, or carry it, or use it.
One pleasant surprise from the last election is that gun rights are now safe for decades to come - by some estimates, 25 to 40 years.
Also, it was pointed out that gun rights lobbies have not pressed gun ownership issues to the supreme court in recent decades because it would have resulted in a tossup decision (making precedent that would be very hard to overturn). Now that we have seated actual constitutionalists, the expectation is that after Ruth Bader Ginsburg(*) retires and Trump appoints the next justice, we will see some push back on gun control that gets settled by the supremes, making precedent that will be hard to overturn in the future.
And lest there be wailing and gnashing-of-teeth from the Left and/or Democrats about this, note that supreme court picks were floated as the most important issue in the last election, said issue going largely unheard amid the torrent of character assassination.
And also, in the first months of 2016, the Democratic Party moved $60 million from down-ballot races to the Clinton campaign to combat Bernie Sanders in the primary, Bernie having raised $40 million to Clinton's $20 million(**). That action did three things:
1) It gave the election to Republicans, because Bernie would have won against Trump
2) It alienated the Bernie supporters, many of whom stayed home or voted against the party candidate
3) It impoverished all the down-ballot races, which allowed Republicans to take those races/seats as well
So we're back to "you are responsible for your own distress", and "if you don't like it, field and vote for effective leaders that a majority of Americans can get behind", and "otherwise shut the fuck up because we're tired of all your shit!".
It's not like you didn't have a fair and equal chance of getting your way the first time.
(*) Who I personally admire, and respect her views on human rights
(**) How this is not a violation of FEC rules I don't know. At the time everyone was saying "It's a private organization, they can do whatever they want".
Why would anyone store their passwords in the cloud? Color me stupid, paranoid, whatever, I don't get it.
Keepass for the win,
Just as relevant, why would anyone store their passwords on their computer? (Which could be compromised, malware could follow you unlocking your password vault and replay that action later.)
What we need is dedicated hardware, a password vault that we could take with us in the form factor of a small USB dongle, where the processing is done in the dongle and not on the computer. Inexpensive, with a way to make secure backups and reload our passwords to a newly purchased dongle when lost or stolen. The device needs a PIN that's entered on the device, and not on the computer.
(Or in the form of a credit card, a NFC or BLE device that you can just place near your computer. The form factor of a credit-card calculator would work - small solar panel for power, keypad for entering the PIN, and LCD display for feedback.)
Mooltipass comes close, it's got the right functionality but it's big and is an "add-on" to most software.
If anyone read the summary and is wondering why Slack is mentioned as an authority here, Slack is the last name of one of the doctors involved, not a crappy IRC replacement.
That didn't bother me as much as reducing 80 sessions down to 30 minutes: How to compare two numbers when they measure different things?
Slashdot is apparently not a tech-oriented website.
As someone who needs surgery in the deranged health care system in Quebec, anything that can remove these arrogant human doctors from the loop and make surgery perhaps a nurse-practitioner thing is GOOD.
You had a healthcare system?
We used to *dream* of having a healthcare system!
(Still do, actually...)
Can't help but think of this comic from Oglaf.
(*) Possibly NSFW. This one is actually OK if you're not a SJW, but other comics in the series are definitely NSFW.
Whatever anthro cartoon character existed first, either animated or in a comic or book of some sort (ie. Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse) is the first. No idea who it was...
Probably ancient cave drawings started the idea or Egyptians if you want to sound really smart about the subject.
It depends on how you define cartoon and animated, and first.
I have a book documenting a type of Roman werewolf-ism dating from about 0 BC. The minotaur was part man, part bull. The bible talks about a snake person tempting Eve to eat the apple, and Navajo have stories about skin walkers that probably go back 10,000 years. Rakshasa from the Rigveda is 1200 BC and might qualify.
Would [Trump] kill Americans to serve is foreign master?
Obama killed Americans without due process - what about it?
I mean - where was your outrage when your side was doing it?
But the people have spoken, they'd prefer an demagoguery over consumer protection. We have a broadly supported pro-oligarchy contingent that works hard to paint the opposing centrists are far-left Marxists. Propaganda obscures truth, and a culture of identity politics thwarts reason.
We're making our bed and we will soon lie in it.
It wasn't consumer protection, it was citizen protection.
Don't forget that NN wasn't repealed because of its technical merits - everyone largely agreed that NN was a good thing to have.
You can hypothesize and opine about peoples' motivations and thought processes, but in the final analysis it was protecting citizens from runaway government agencies making up law out of whole cloth.
It has been proposed several times that congress should pass a net neutrality law, and it has been proposed that tech companies could come up with a draft bill (*) to submit to congress, and it has been proposed that whining and moaning efforts could be better spent by taking these simple actions.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the the other big players are four-square on board with Net Neutrality.
Where is their proposed solution?
(*) Many companies make draft bills that are introduced into congress, it's not at all uncommon.
In the previous article reporting on the downfall of the internet, I asked a simple question: Would the Net Neutrality rules in place before the recent rollback have prevented this?
I got both "yes" and "no" (*) answers.
So let me ask the question once again: would the Net Neutrality rules put in place during the Obama administration have prevented this?
(*) Answer phrased as "probably not"
Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.
All apart of the plan.
Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.
All apart of the plan.
Yeah, right. About that...
It would appear that unrestricted immigration and taking refugees is something the people don't want, both in the EU and here in the US.
In the US we allow about 1.1 million legal immigrants per year, which is generous in comparison to any other country. That's enough to skew the economy, make jobs hard to get, and puts a burden on the infrastructure. Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.
Non-citizens can apparently vote, and there's a big push in CA to force the census bureau to remove the citizenship question in the next census.
After the census is tallied, it means that CA gets 3 [US House] more representatives due to non-citizens, and for all states non-citizens total about 7 house representatives.
(Question: Is giving non-citizens legislative power like that insane? Asking for a friend...)
I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees. Refugees are causing a lot of problems, it's clearly something the member states don't want, and there's apparently no end in sight. The whole refugee thing started because of Arab Spring (remember that?), which was 8 years ago!
My best guess is that being called "nazi" is still a big thing in Europe, and they'll do anything to save face and avoid being called that name. Trash their own country by virtue signalling.
Anyway...
The basic problem is that the people really don't want unrestricted immigration. It's something that people can readily see, and that affects them directly. Trump's approval rating actually went *up* during the recent protests.
When the government does something the people *really* don't like, it's the government that has to change.