It's all the same evidence that supported the leave vote. Didn't you see it? It's around here somewhere...hang on a sec...
Because so many eldery English people voted Leave and we all know how much they contribute to the British economy! With the support of the 55 and up crowd the British economy will flourish as never before.
Why, soon all those old people will be out working in fields and factories to turn the British economy back to a production economy!
She was elected to Parliament by the voters of Maidenhead and subsequently elected as party leader by the Conservatives. Under the Westminster system, that's as elected as it gets.
Ummm I don't think she was exactly elected as party leader; all her competitors just dropped out. Probably because they were terrified of Big Sister. She has the dirt on everyone, she can destroy anyone in British politics. Who would be stupid enough to stand against her?
Britain is the name of a country. Someone from Britain is a Briton. Look it up.
'Great Britain' is the name of an Island. 'The United Kingdom' is the name of a country (actually its an abbreviated name of a country).
A 'Briton' is (was) a Celt from the island of Britain. They largely don't exist any more, but many people descended from Angles and Saxons (*spit*) like to refer to themselves as 'Britons' while referring to the Cymru (meaning 'comrades') as foreigners and 'Wales' comes from a Saxon word for foreigner. The 'Welsh' are actually the closest thing that survives today to British people or 'Britons'.
By telling them that the EU is planning to send 28 million Polacks, gyppos & other assorted wogs to steal their women and jobs.
And this is exactly what elderly English people earnestly believe and fear. Thats why the Leave vote was mostly elderly English people and the younger generation voted to stay. But as England is an aging population, Leave won by a very small margin.
The Mandate for naming the RSS Boaty McBoatface was clear. The mandate for leaving the EU is not. Guess which we're doing!
It indicates to me that the British don't take such votes very seriously. But yes, I can see how a nation that would vote to name a royal ship "Boaty McBoatface" would also vote to leave the EU. It's all just a joke after all.
'Boaty McBoatface' was the least offensive option; the names that actually won the most votes were "Fuckface" and "Poopybum" but they got censored out. You might be able to tell from this that the British have a juvenile sense of humor but are too prudish to admit it and therefore hate themselves. Thats why they voted 'Leave'; because they hate themselves, and they especially hate young people (who will be the ones who have to grow up with the results of this fiasco).
All that said, he could have stayed as long as the Conservative party wanted him, but it's reasonable for him to step down after losing.
Cameron was cutting his losses. Being PM is now a poison chalice. He knew that whoever was in the job would have to oversee an economic disaster and the break up of the UK as Scotland and perhaps even Gibraltar and Northern Ireland become independent. It's bad enough that he set up the referendum causing it; he didn't want his legacy to be overseeing it too.
The referendum itself gives May very little mandate. Okay, there was a narrow majority to come out of the EU, but it said nothing about the single market or freedom of movement or any number of other issues.
British democracy is now well and truly broken. May can rule, totally unelected and with no mandate, for another four years. That's long enough to leave the EU and set up deals with no say from the electorate, and by the time the next election comes around it will be too late to undo it. It's not like we can just re-join the EU or the single market. She seems to be planning to implement the wishes of a hard core minority of voters, against popular opinion and without a mandate.
Indeed, its clear why all the 'Leave' campaigners ran away as soon as they won; they knew what a mess they had created and have distanced themselves from it. All I can think is that the likes of Boris, Farage and Gove hate Britain and would like to see it broken up.
Unfortunately, they built it on a fairly new OS, making it impossible to run on many still supported (and systemd free) distros, despite there being nothing that's really needed that only the newer distros provide.
Yes, if you share a printer using Samba you can optionally create the print$ share that windows will use when trying to download the drivers.
Interesting.
So bad guys don't even have to hack a printer to exploit this bug. They can just host a Samba print server (maybe even without a printer attached) with the nasty driver in its database. Anyone who tries to print on that "printer" from a Windows machine gets pwned.
Ought to fit in a BeagleBone, Raspberry, Shiva Plug, etc., or something even smaller, just fine. Plug it into an Ethernet LAN, or just plug in a USB WiFi dongle and it can advertise on the air like any other WiFi-connectable printer.
Add a battery, good for a few days, and they have a pocket-sized exploiter that they can carry or drop within radio range of an office, or bury in the packing material of something they mail to the victim.
If it can detect a local printer and masquerade as it, forwarding the print jobs to it, there might be no obvious sign that anything unusual was happening.
And call the fake printer something like "Expensive color printer, only use for serious stuff"
True but I'm addressing the common and dangerous "NAT is security via obscurity therefor IPv6 should be avoided even though it can do NAT if you really want" myth. The bad guys can get through NAT easier than we would hope.
I know so many people who are otherwise quite technically competent who are terrified of IPv6 for this very reason and refuse to look into it, refuse to learn about it, refuse to check it out.
Decrypting data doesn't alter evidence anymore than sequencing DNA evidence alters a blood sample, or sorting a bank transactions into deposits and withdrawls alters a bank statement used for evidence.
A friend and I once toyed with the concept of software which would 'decrypt' anything you gave it into porn.
I was just thinking this. Whats next? Forcing systemd on the Windows world?? WTF.
They take the worst UI for Linux and make it available to Windows and thats supposed to be an improvement? The default UI in Windows 10 is WAY more usable than Unity.
I guess you're joking? Gene Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek was always aggressively liberal and more inclusive than society would accept. He tried to have a woman first officer in The Cage but that wouldn't fly. According to Takei, Roddenberry would've liked to have a GLBT character when Takei approached him about iit in the 60s but felt it was too risky since the interracial kiss had tanked ratings already.
In the first episode of Next Generation theres a guy in a dress.
Posting ANYTHING negative, or even non-complementary, about Apple on slashdot is guaranteed to get you modded to oblivion, so I figure hey what the hell! I may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb!
Well, according to my local Apple fanboy, it can't possibly Apples fault as they are infallible in matters of security nor Mac users as they are beyond reproach and have better things to do with their time than play games or frivolously go to websites.
Must be false reporting.
(and modded -5 in 5.. 4... 3... 2... 1... see ya!)
Why can Facebook decide to pull a video but a baker can't decide not to bake a cake?
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
If Facebook was pulling videos based upon the poster's expressed sexual preference he might have a good point. But as far as I can tell, they don't, so he doesn't.
Hey what if the violent video gets them off sexually? Now does Facebook have no right to pull the video?
Not sure what you're getting at. What does sexual stimulation have to do with it again?
Maybe its a sexual orientation, so that would make this discrimination on the basis of sexuality.
You are free to discriminate against hats in the US, or even against people who you believe to have ever worn the sort of hat you have a problem with.
If it becomes a widespread problem, our society will debate through various forums if we should add hats to the list of protected attributes. Currently, it is considered that choice of hat is purely personal choice, and not rising to the important level of religion, so it is only protected from government interference. The government can regulate if it is allowed to wear hats in a location, or require the wearing of hats in a location, but it cannot regulate the style of hat. (though it can and does regulate the function of hats in certain situations) But a private business is free to discriminate based on content, outside of the things protected. A business can put up a sign, "no hippies" or "no rednecks" and that is totally legal.
As long as facebook isn't discriminating based on membership in a protected group, they can ban/filter/hide/remove whatever videos they want. If they were the government, they would have requirements of being content-neutral. But they're not the government.
Yeah but what if the hat is a religious observance? And someone, who happens to want to discriminate against that religion, has a sign up saying "Anyone wearing a hat will not be served." They aren't stating that they are discriminating against that religion, they might never have made their feelings public. So whats someone who happens to be a member of "obligatory hat wearing faith" supposed to do?
You can't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual preference. You can discriminate based on whether or not somebody decides to wear a shirt. This is the way it is because at large, we deem it to be fair and prevent people from being discriminated against based on characteristics that are fundamental to living as they want or were born.
We don't deem being able to live your entire life without wearing a shirt to be fundamental to living your life freely. Pretty fucking simple.
yeah he is obviously blaming those fundamentalist muslims who were early settlers in North America. I think they are called 'Puritans'.
Or wait, were they Christians? I have a fucking lot of difficulty telling your religions apart sometimes; Christians, Jews, Muslims, all the same to me. I don't even know how you tell each other apart.
Why can Facebook decide to pull a video but a baker can't decide not to bake a cake?
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
If Facebook was pulling videos based upon the poster's expressed sexual preference he might have a good point. But as far as I can tell, they don't, so he doesn't.
Hey what if the violent video gets them off sexually? Now does Facebook have no right to pull the video?
Slashdot Mirror
It's all the same evidence that supported the leave vote. Didn't you see it? It's around here somewhere...hang on a sec...
Because so many eldery English people voted Leave and we all know how much they contribute to the British economy! With the support of the 55 and up crowd the British economy will flourish as never before.
Why, soon all those old people will be out working in fields and factories to turn the British economy back to a production economy!
Wrong.
She was elected to Parliament by the voters of Maidenhead and subsequently elected as party leader by the Conservatives. Under the Westminster system, that's as elected as it gets.
Ummm I don't think she was exactly elected as party leader; all her competitors just dropped out. Probably because they were terrified of Big Sister. She has the dirt on everyone, she can destroy anyone in British politics. Who would be stupid enough to stand against her?
May has the dirt on EVERYONE. Thats how she became PM; everyone is too scared to stand against her.
(Hi, Theresa! I know you watch everything!)
We really shouldn't have let Dave do that.
After the Brexit poll there was probably a creepy computerised voice in his office saying "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Britain is the name of a country. Someone from Britain is a Briton. Look it up.
'Great Britain' is the name of an Island. 'The United Kingdom' is the name of a country (actually its an abbreviated name of a country).
A 'Briton' is (was) a Celt from the island of Britain. They largely don't exist any more, but many people descended from Angles and Saxons (*spit*) like to refer to themselves as 'Britons' while referring to the Cymru (meaning 'comrades') as foreigners and 'Wales' comes from a Saxon word for foreigner. The 'Welsh' are actually the closest thing that survives today to British people or 'Britons'.
Confused much?
By telling them that the EU is planning to send 28 million Polacks, gyppos & other assorted wogs to steal their women and jobs.
And this is exactly what elderly English people earnestly believe and fear. Thats why the Leave vote was mostly elderly English people and the younger generation voted to stay. But as England is an aging population, Leave won by a very small margin.
The Mandate for naming the RSS Boaty McBoatface was clear. The mandate for leaving the EU is not. Guess which we're doing!
It indicates to me that the British don't take such votes very seriously. But yes, I can see how a nation that would vote to name a royal ship "Boaty McBoatface" would also vote to leave the EU. It's all just a joke after all.
'Boaty McBoatface' was the least offensive option; the names that actually won the most votes were "Fuckface" and "Poopybum" but they got censored out. You might be able to tell from this that the British have a juvenile sense of humor but are too prudish to admit it and therefore hate themselves. Thats why they voted 'Leave'; because they hate themselves, and they especially hate young people (who will be the ones who have to grow up with the results of this fiasco).
All that said, he could have stayed as long as the Conservative party wanted him, but it's reasonable for him to step down after losing.
Cameron was cutting his losses. Being PM is now a poison chalice. He knew that whoever was in the job would have to oversee an economic disaster and the break up of the UK as Scotland and perhaps even Gibraltar and Northern Ireland become independent. It's bad enough that he set up the referendum causing it; he didn't want his legacy to be overseeing it too.
The referendum itself gives May very little mandate. Okay, there was a narrow majority to come out of the EU, but it said nothing about the single market or freedom of movement or any number of other issues.
British democracy is now well and truly broken. May can rule, totally unelected and with no mandate, for another four years. That's long enough to leave the EU and set up deals with no say from the electorate, and by the time the next election comes around it will be too late to undo it. It's not like we can just re-join the EU or the single market. She seems to be planning to implement the wishes of a hard core minority of voters, against popular opinion and without a mandate.
Indeed, its clear why all the 'Leave' campaigners ran away as soon as they won; they knew what a mess they had created and have distanced themselves from it. All I can think is that the likes of Boris, Farage and Gove hate Britain and would like to see it broken up.
Actually, they tried it on with 'app store' and failed.
I'm shocked because obviously 'app' is a contraction of 'Apple'!!!!11111
Unfortunately, they built it on a fairly new OS, making it impossible to run on many still supported (and systemd free) distros, despite there being nothing that's really needed that only the newer distros provide.
Error: Package: skypeforlinux-1.1.0.21-1.x86_64 (/skypeforlinux-64-alpha)
Requires: libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.15)(64bit)
Error: Package: skypeforlinux-1.1.0.21-1.x86_64 (/skypeforlinux-64-alpha)
Requires: libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
Have you tried it on a systemd-free install of Debian 8?
http://without-systemd.org/wik...
People were shortening 'application' to 'app' long before the first iPhone, so that's also technically correct, just not as common anymore.
I'm surprised Apple haven't trademarked 'app'
Yes, if you share a printer using Samba you can optionally create the print$ share that windows will use when trying to download the drivers.
Interesting.
So bad guys don't even have to hack a printer to exploit this bug. They can just host a Samba print server (maybe even without a printer attached) with the nasty driver in its database. Anyone who tries to print on that "printer" from a Windows machine gets pwned.
Ought to fit in a BeagleBone, Raspberry, Shiva Plug, etc., or something even smaller, just fine. Plug it into an Ethernet LAN, or just plug in a USB WiFi dongle and it can advertise on the air like any other WiFi-connectable printer.
Add a battery, good for a few days, and they have a pocket-sized exploiter that they can carry or drop within radio range of an office, or bury in the packing material of something they mail to the victim.
If it can detect a local printer and masquerade as it, forwarding the print jobs to it, there might be no obvious sign that anything unusual was happening.
And call the fake printer something like "Expensive color printer, only use for serious stuff"
True but I'm addressing the common and dangerous "NAT is security via obscurity therefor IPv6 should be avoided even though it can do NAT if you really want" myth. The bad guys can get through NAT easier than we would hope.
I know so many people who are otherwise quite technically competent who are terrified of IPv6 for this very reason and refuse to look into it, refuse to learn about it, refuse to check it out.
Decrypting data doesn't alter evidence anymore than sequencing DNA evidence alters a blood sample, or sorting a bank transactions into deposits and withdrawls alters a bank statement used for evidence.
A friend and I once toyed with the concept of software which would 'decrypt' anything you gave it into porn.
Now lets give them systemd
I was just thinking this. Whats next? Forcing systemd on the Windows world?? WTF.
They take the worst UI for Linux and make it available to Windows and thats supposed to be an improvement? The default UI in Windows 10 is WAY more usable than Unity.
I guess you're joking? Gene Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek was always aggressively liberal and more inclusive than society would accept. He tried to have a woman first officer in The Cage but that wouldn't fly. According to Takei, Roddenberry would've liked to have a GLBT character when Takei approached him about iit in the 60s but felt it was too risky since the interracial kiss had tanked ratings already.
In the first episode of Next Generation theres a guy in a dress.
(and modded -5 in 5.. 4... 3... 2... 1... see ya!)
Posted at 1:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time; it is now 2:21 PM Pacific Daylight time, and its current score is 2.
So either it was modded -5 and then un-modded, or it wasn't modded -5 at all.
I am shocked. SHOCKED. Where are all the fanboys??? Oh maybe all their slashdot accounts got hacked too! :D
Posting ANYTHING negative, or even non-complementary, about Apple on slashdot is guaranteed to get you modded to oblivion, so I figure hey what the hell! I may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb!
using the word "fanboy" confirms you're gay
That would be 'fanboipussy'
Who is responsible for devices getting hijacked?
Well, according to my local Apple fanboy, it can't possibly Apples fault as they are infallible in matters of security nor Mac users as they are beyond reproach and have better things to do with their time than play games or frivolously go to websites.
Must be false reporting.
(and modded -5 in 5.. 4... 3... 2... 1... see ya!)
Why can Facebook decide to pull a video but a baker can't decide not to bake a cake?
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
If Facebook was pulling videos based upon the poster's expressed sexual preference he might have a good point. But as far as I can tell, they don't, so he doesn't.
Hey what if the violent video gets them off sexually? Now does Facebook have no right to pull the video?
Not sure what you're getting at. What does sexual stimulation have to do with it again?
Maybe its a sexual orientation, so that would make this discrimination on the basis of sexuality.
You are free to discriminate against hats in the US, or even against people who you believe to have ever worn the sort of hat you have a problem with.
If it becomes a widespread problem, our society will debate through various forums if we should add hats to the list of protected attributes. Currently, it is considered that choice of hat is purely personal choice, and not rising to the important level of religion, so it is only protected from government interference. The government can regulate if it is allowed to wear hats in a location, or require the wearing of hats in a location, but it cannot regulate the style of hat. (though it can and does regulate the function of hats in certain situations) But a private business is free to discriminate based on content, outside of the things protected. A business can put up a sign, "no hippies" or "no rednecks" and that is totally legal.
As long as facebook isn't discriminating based on membership in a protected group, they can ban/filter/hide/remove whatever videos they want. If they were the government, they would have requirements of being content-neutral. But they're not the government.
Yeah but what if the hat is a religious observance? And someone, who happens to want to discriminate against that religion, has a sign up saying "Anyone wearing a hat will not be served." They aren't stating that they are discriminating against that religion, they might never have made their feelings public. So whats someone who happens to be a member of "obligatory hat wearing faith" supposed to do?
You can't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual preference. You can discriminate based on whether or not somebody decides to wear a shirt. This is the way it is because at large, we deem it to be fair and prevent people from being discriminated against based on characteristics that are fundamental to living as they want or were born.
We don't deem being able to live your entire life without wearing a shirt to be fundamental to living your life freely. Pretty fucking simple.
How about a hat?
Islamophobe much?
yeah he is obviously blaming those fundamentalist muslims who were early settlers in North America. I think they are called 'Puritans'.
Or wait, were they Christians? I have a fucking lot of difficulty telling your religions apart sometimes; Christians, Jews, Muslims, all the same to me. I don't even know how you tell each other apart.
Why can Facebook decide to pull a video but a baker can't decide not to bake a cake?
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
If Facebook was pulling videos based upon the poster's expressed sexual preference he might have a good point. But as far as I can tell, they don't, so he doesn't.
Hey what if the violent video gets them off sexually? Now does Facebook have no right to pull the video?