What's the point in using electronic machines at that point? There will always be "some doubt" about the electronic results. Just count the paper ballots manually like the UK does.
What you morons don't understand is that even if Trump lied about 90% of his promises he'd STILL be better than Clinton. Trump voters are not gonna be disappointed that they didn't vote for her.
And now there is. In fact for a lot longer than 5 to 10 years, the BBC have been far-left regressives and pro-government shills. Nowadays they've gone so far off the deep end that more and more people are finding it impossible to ignore. The lesson is: don't assume that a licence-funded broadcaster is more impartial than a commercial one.
Lots of Muslim terrorists originate from Britain. That's what you get for allowing tons of Muslim immigration with little-to-no vetting, and demonizing anyone who disagrees.
Clinton has been building up to this election over the last 30 years, and had Bubba as her advisor, a charismatic dude who won two presidential elections... and raped a bunch of women.
Comey is the guy who's come out and said Hillary Clinton is basically innocent of any criminal wrongdoing. You'll forgive me if I don't have too much faith in his opinion.
I accept what the head of the FBI told Congress (under oath), that Secretary Clinton is too stupid to understand what she was doing was illegal. OK, fine.
Why the fuck would you accept that?
Hillary Clinton is a seasoned politician. The idea that she didn't know what she was doing was illegal is utterly farcical.
Care to name a few? I wouldn't mind using one of them it is was decently maintained. Google has been getting pretty arrogant lately. Oh, it would be really nice if the fork allowed disabling the per-tab close buttons, which Google refuses to do in Chrome.
Isn't it a bit stupid to support HTTP for domain validation? The whole point of HTTPS is that you can't trust the identity of HTTP as it's vulnerable to a MITM attack yet it's just fine for getting an automated cert.
People who use W10 are so locked in to MS, I honestly wonder whether they'd stop using it even MS mandated that everyone's lockscreen be goat.cx or something, or whether they'd find a way to like it.
That's an argument for offering shorter cert lifetimes, offering automation, and defaulting to it. It is not an argument against offering year-long certs for those of us who prefer them. And frankly I consider integrating their software into my existing website to be a royal pain, so much so that I will be paying Comodo for a yearly cert instead just to avoid it. I'm fine with manually replacing my certs every year. I basically have to replace a few files on my system and reboot a few services.
Yes I've heard those arguments, and no doubt OCSP will work for some people. However in my view they are taking a very preachy approach by flat-out refusing to issue 1-year certs, rather than just recommending the shorter-length ones. It's the kind of "our way or the highway" that the UX people at Google and Mozilla take with respect to their browser interfaces, and I consider it the height of arrogance. It turns me off the whole damn organization.
Let's Encrypt could easily have offered a 1 year option. It's no real skin off their nose. They could even warn that "these may be 0.0001% more of a problem because when you (virtually never) need to revoke them it is harder). But they shove their ideology of short cert lifespans down your throat despite MANY requests from users to do otherwise.
So yeah, screw them. I would indeed prefer to pay for a year's cert. It is a great shame that LE had to be so intransigent.
It still doesn't mean they have to PERMANENTLY stop trusting them. They could have given a path back to being trusted rather than robbing us of free year-long SSL certs.
Slashdot Mirror
many laptops have built-in speakers that you can't easily disconnect
Don't they usually come with a MIC you can't easily disconnect?
Given that we know the DNC and Hillary conspired to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders, I think she's rather less trustworthy.
What's the point in using electronic machines at that point? There will always be "some doubt" about the electronic results. Just count the paper ballots manually like the UK does.
Or maybe you think that Trump's self-interest is still less disastrous than Hillary's cold, calculating ruthlessness.
But no, just dismiss anyone you disagree with as "stupid".
What you morons don't understand is that even if Trump lied about 90% of his promises he'd STILL be better than Clinton. Trump voters are not gonna be disappointed that they didn't vote for her.
Apparently it's the Chinese. They've suddenly taken a great interest in Westerners knowing what is "valid" news.
lol, one of the major reasons I want to use Linux is because it ISN'T Windows 10. The UI is far worse than Windows 7, for desktop PCs.
I fully supported Trump's ban on Muslims, actually. It's a shame he won't go ahead with it. Go ahead and test me for being Muslim. I'm not.
And now there is. In fact for a lot longer than 5 to 10 years, the BBC have been far-left regressives and pro-government shills. Nowadays they've gone so far off the deep end that more and more people are finding it impossible to ignore. The lesson is: don't assume that a licence-funded broadcaster is more impartial than a commercial one.
Ummm, The Guardian is one of the most biased far-left feminazi piles of shit ever known to print media.
Lots of Muslim terrorists originate from Britain. That's what you get for allowing tons of Muslim immigration with little-to-no vetting, and demonizing anyone who disagrees.
Disclaimer: I'm British.
political discourse in this country is that it has for too long deteriorated into something that is sad, deplorable
How ironic that it's actually some of the Clinton supporters who are being deplorable.
Clinton has been building up to this election over the last 30 years, and had Bubba as her advisor, a charismatic dude who won two presidential elections ... and raped a bunch of women.
Comey is the guy who's come out and said Hillary Clinton is basically innocent of any criminal wrongdoing. You'll forgive me if I don't have too much faith in his opinion.
I accept what the head of the FBI told Congress (under oath), that Secretary Clinton is too stupid to understand what she was doing was illegal. OK, fine.
Why the fuck would you accept that?
Hillary Clinton is a seasoned politician. The idea that she didn't know what she was doing was illegal is utterly farcical.
Care to name a few? I wouldn't mind using one of them it is was decently maintained. Google has been getting pretty arrogant lately. Oh, it would be really nice if the fork allowed disabling the per-tab close buttons, which Google refuses to do in Chrome.
Isn't it a bit stupid to support HTTP for domain validation? The whole point of HTTPS is that you can't trust the identity of HTTP as it's vulnerable to a MITM attack yet it's just fine for getting an automated cert.
... it's a racket for SSL authorities who charge for their certs. Unless you want to install onerous ACME software on your server. Suckage.
But when you edit stuff in Office online, you're unshackled from Windows. Which is nice.
Give it to me.
People who use W10 are so locked in to MS, I honestly wonder whether they'd stop using it even MS mandated that everyone's lockscreen be goat.cx or something, or whether they'd find a way to like it.
That's an argument for offering shorter cert lifetimes, offering automation, and defaulting to it. It is not an argument against offering year-long certs for those of us who prefer them. And frankly I consider integrating their software into my existing website to be a royal pain, so much so that I will be paying Comodo for a yearly cert instead just to avoid it. I'm fine with manually replacing my certs every year. I basically have to replace a few files on my system and reboot a few services.
Gah, I didn't mean OCSP above, I meant ACME.
Yes I've heard those arguments, and no doubt OCSP will work for some people. However in my view they are taking a very preachy approach by flat-out refusing to issue 1-year certs, rather than just recommending the shorter-length ones. It's the kind of "our way or the highway" that the UX people at Google and Mozilla take with respect to their browser interfaces, and I consider it the height of arrogance. It turns me off the whole damn organization.
Let's Encrypt could easily have offered a 1 year option. It's no real skin off their nose. They could even warn that "these may be 0.0001% more of a problem because when you (virtually never) need to revoke them it is harder). But they shove their ideology of short cert lifespans down your throat despite MANY requests from users to do otherwise.
So yeah, screw them. I would indeed prefer to pay for a year's cert. It is a great shame that LE had to be so intransigent.
It still doesn't mean they have to PERMANENTLY stop trusting them. They could have given a path back to being trusted rather than robbing us of free year-long SSL certs.