seriously wonder at the sense of telling people you are going to do something - this just forewarns them
Perhaps its about actually stopping leaks rather than finding more folks to toss into the clink. The only reason to punish leakers in the first place is to send the message to other would be leakers that its not acceptable. If you can scare the would be leakers into not leaking things in the first place, that is a win. Documents don't get out and you don't have to do damage control.
Would you sacrifice the few? The few who are the best? Deny the best its right to the top - and you have no best left. What are masses but millions of dull, stagnant souls with no thoughts of their own, now dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew, helplessly at the words other have put into their brains?... I know no greater injustice than the giving of the undeserved. Men are not equal in ability and one can't treat them as if they were.
The US is for all useful measures older than China. China as we know it today started under Mao. Regardless of their own claims to the contrary the Chinese state is just pup compared to us.
Lower carbon foot print does not always equate to less pollution. Nor does tons of waste.
Led in your drinking water is a much more immediate problem than more C02 in your atmosphere or a big landfill stuffed mostly with fairly inert plastics.
You are making a big assumption this will stop them. Lost of people go around having unprotected sex with multiple partners. They should therefore get tested for a variety of STDs regularly so as not to put others at risk but they don't.
These are people to embarrassed to ask a medical professional for an HIV test or to narcissistic to bother. Do you really think they are going to either start telling partners, sorry I am HIV positive we should use protection, or change their life style for more than a few weeks just because they get the bad news?
1) Slip some GHB into your partners drink at the bar. 2) Take them home 3) Test for HIV while they are still unconscious 4) If they test negative, rape
I am aware of that history, and I understand why they did what they did. The thing is codified law overrides precedent and common law. The first amendment does not say except when speech is "incitement of illegal actions, libel, slander and obscenity."
The Constitution is a law code I think it should be treated as such. If something is unworkable, then there is an amendment process. There are phrases in the Constitution that allow wiggle room like "due process of law", so congress, or a judge using common law can decide what that means. There are other lines like "Congress shall make no law" that are pretty darn specific. I think we should either respect those phrases or use the amendment process to remove them if as a society we can't respect them or no longer want to.
What we should not do is let 9 justices just get creative.
Yes, but you push your own root certificate form your own CA. Then you generate the remote server certificates using that or a subordinate CA. What you don't do is use some certificate that came on your SSL intercept box, because if you do the private key is um, not private. If your SSL intercept solution does not allow you to setup your own trusted root find a new one.
This is whole problem is one born of simple incompetence.
The court never had the rights to decide what is constitutional and what is not anyway. I think it's clear over the past two hundred years it's done a piss poor job of protecting our rights. I think its high time we stop letting the court have that authority.
I doubt it. I would say an exploitable bug in SSH is like to effect multiple platforms. Its highly unlikely and shell code will be cross platform. Which might save you from the script kiddies running metasploit, but not from anyone who knows a little C.
No its more like I am headed off the cliff and even if the breaks did work I could never stop in time. So do I spend my last seconds sitting here like an fool pumping the break or look for some other solution.
The simple fact is that cutting emissions is stupid. Most of the science suggests that we are already on a path that is sure to exceed the point where the oceans will become loaded with enough hydrogen sulfide to completely destroy our ecosystem. Possibly within a few hundred years and that IF we cut emissions beyond anyone's realistic expectations. Essentially if the only measures we take are passive, reducing emissions, and the science is right we are already dead. That's if
In either case cutting emissions is economically harmful in developed nations and likely impossible in the developing world. Either the science is right and its already to late, or the science is wrong and elevated CO2 won't do these terrible things to our planet. The focus needs to move toward active controls on the temperature and chemical make up of the oceans. Its the only way.
Well there is a legitimate argument to be made that no place does it say the government is empowered to prevent you from being an idot either. The First Amendment does not say anything about disorderly conduct. The whole "fire in a crowded theater" argument is entirely the invention of the Supreme Court, as its its own power to decide Constitutional questions at all for that matter.
I know the court disagrees but in my reading of the first Amendment I see nothing but pretty absolute language and no real room for exceptions. I don't think the government under our Constitution actually does have the right to prevent anyone for advocating for Violence or even creating dangerous chaos like yelling fire in crowded theater.
Which dose make it all about personal responsibility. It make its incumbent upon the rest of us to maintain the threat you will be treated like a pariah if you do decide to act irresponsibly. That is a social matter though not one for law enforcement.
Ironically CFCs have been replaced with chemicals that by some estimates have one hundred times the green house effect when they do get released. So in saving the Ozone we have made AGW worse.
The simple fact is that cutting emissions is stupid. Most of the science suggests that we are already on a path that is sure to exceed the point where the oceans will become loaded with enough hydrogen sulfide to completely destroy our ecosystem. Possibly within a few hundred years and that IF we cut emissions beyond anyone's realistic expectations. Essentially if the only measures we take are passive, reducing emissions, and the science is right we are already dead.
The way I see it there are basically two choices open to western society possibly the human race if we want to survive. We could
A) Nuke the major population centers in China, and India. There by reducing the worlds population sufficiently that we can get emissions under control. Obviously that would be evil.
B) We can look into active methods. Figure out how to chemically, mechanically, or otherwise reduce the amount of loose green house gasses and bring down the planets temperature. That is certain to have its own unintended consequences because its messing with things we don't fully understand. However its better than waiting to die, and living miserable lives trying to reduce our carbon footprint when the end will be the same anyway.
Don't tell try lump everyone into a group like "consumers." Figure out what the market is actually interested in then make available an array of options that makes sense.
It might be true that most consumers don't want a product that needs a command line. They don't need the flexibility and the usability gains are a good trade for it. Others have more complex needs and are willing to invest some time in learning more capable (not automatically better) tools.
This is like saying we should only market circular saws to consumers because only a professional carpenter would ever want to deal with something that gives them more options. A hammer and circular is all you need tackle some small projects around the house, and is great for many perhaps most people but some want something more.
I don't know where this idea that the consumer should *never* need to know anything about a tool to use it came from. Simple options that require nearly knowledge are good. They don't typically handle unusual use cases well however. As developer, don't assume the only thing anyone will ever want to use your product for is something you can imagine.
Well i think you find out it starts crashing ahead of time in the test environment, and determine why. Then you fix that 'why' and test again. This just is not a valid argument today. Its not 1970 any more. Out side a few really really unusual corner cases if you are operating a computer system that really needs 99.999% up time you either have a test environment or you don't *really* need five nines.
Antivirus software is the wrong approach. To be frank as a security profession AV software alone is worth nothing. Its reactive in terms of signatures and Flame pretty much proves the heuristics don't work. Spend just a few moments slightly modifying any of the common packers so its not quite strait off the net and you still get meterpreter past all the majors.
AV is there to hopefully with lots of dumb luck catch you if your dropped the ball some place else.
Nope its going to further disconnect people from the real cost of health care. You won't pay less you or someone else will consume more.
This law is not about using market economics to save money. Its about trying thwart market economics. Like all legislation that tries to violate natural law it fail to accomplish what its purported to do and lead to either unintended consequences or very much intended consequences depending on how cynical you are.
Exactly right! Which is why as soon as benefits elections come around for 2014 at my job. I plan on canceling my plan. I think the tax is likely to cost me more like 3K but my plan now costs almost 5 so its no brainier.
I have always pulled my own weight but frankly this massive expansion of federal power does fit inside the social contract as I ever understood it. So as far as I am concerned I have no responsibility any longer but to look out for me. Find me a societal obligation and if its to my advantage look for me to shirk it. Rand predicted this how hardworking folks like me would react and I'll prove her right.
No turning every other man, woman, and child in our nation from a free citizen into an eternal slave that now must pay a tax simply for being alive is the most selfish idea that has ever been floated in this nation since around1865.
What you are is not better than guy checking some poor slaves teeth right off the boat.
I can see the argument for smaller businesses needed h1b workers. Perhaps there should be cap like if you already have X number of employees you are not eligible to hire non citizens. Work in domestic facilities.
There is no reason a big firm like Microsoft can't select the best of their own internal talent and develop it. Either by sending them down a traditional accredited academic track or some other means to get them the knowledge they need. A company like Microsoft absolutely could afford to send their better performing employes to classes 20 hours a week.
Our lack of domestic STEM educated people is because of the imported labor and the rather nutty idea that the only time anyone can go to college is right outa high school.
I agree, we should do away with the capital gains and income tax system entirely. We should create a national sales tax. The tax should apply to all transactions no exceptions, on the purchase side no exceptions. This would include currency exchanges and stock transactions. We would create a system where the only filing you would do is for some re-reimbursable credits like heat for primary residence, transportation expenses to your place of employment, and some others so its not entirely regressive.
In the case of equities you'd pay sales tax on the full amount of the purchase price. You pay nothing on the sale. The appreciation belongs to you entirely, but the buyer is going to pay tax on the new market value. This would KILL HFT. The more often you trade the more taxes you pay.
That statement is crazy, stops are the only safe way a retail investor can trade. If you not placing trades for measurable percentages of the shares outstanding for a given equity; you are always better off using stops.
Slashdot Mirror
seriously wonder at the sense of telling people you are going to do something - this just forewarns them
Perhaps its about actually stopping leaks rather than finding more folks to toss into the clink. The only reason to punish leakers in the first place is to send the message to other would be leakers that its not acceptable. If you can scare the would be leakers into not leaking things in the first place, that is a win. Documents don't get out and you don't have to do damage control.
Would you sacrifice the few? The few who are the best? Deny the best its right to the top - and you have no best left. What are masses but millions of dull, stagnant souls with no thoughts of their own, now dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew, helplessly at the words other have put into their brains? ... I know no greater injustice than the giving of the undeserved. Men are not equal in ability and one can't treat them as if they were.
The US is for all useful measures older than China. China as we know it today started under Mao. Regardless of their own claims to the contrary the Chinese state is just pup compared to us.
Lower carbon foot print does not always equate to less pollution. Nor does tons of waste.
Led in your drinking water is a much more immediate problem than more C02 in your atmosphere or a big landfill stuffed mostly with fairly inert plastics.
You are making a big assumption this will stop them. Lost of people go around having unprotected sex with multiple partners. They should therefore get tested for a variety of STDs regularly so as not to put others at risk but they don't.
These are people to embarrassed to ask a medical professional for an HIV test or to narcissistic to bother. Do you really think they are going to either start telling partners, sorry I am HIV positive we should use protection, or change their life style for more than a few weeks just because they get the bad news?
1) Slip some GHB into your partners drink at the bar.
2) Take them home
3) Test for HIV while they are still unconscious
4) If they test negative, rape
Might not stay that way thought. I heard on the radio there is an extremely antibiotic resistant clap from Japan making its way to the west coast.
I am aware of that history, and I understand why they did what they did. The thing is codified law overrides precedent and common law. The first amendment does not say except when speech is "incitement of illegal actions, libel, slander and obscenity."
The Constitution is a law code I think it should be treated as such. If something is unworkable, then there is an amendment process. There are phrases in the Constitution that allow wiggle room like "due process of law", so congress, or a judge using common law can decide what that means. There are other lines like "Congress shall make no law" that are pretty darn specific. I think we should either respect those phrases or use the amendment process to remove them if as a society we can't respect them or no longer want to.
What we should not do is let 9 justices just get creative.
Yes, but you push your own root certificate form your own CA. Then you generate the remote server certificates using that or a subordinate CA. What you don't do is use some certificate that came on your SSL intercept box, because if you do the private key is um, not private. If your SSL intercept solution does not allow you to setup your own trusted root find a new one.
This is whole problem is one born of simple incompetence.
The court never had the rights to decide what is constitutional and what is not anyway. I think it's clear over the past two hundred years it's done a piss poor job of protecting our rights. I think its high time we stop letting the court have that authority.
I doubt it. I would say an exploitable bug in SSH is like to effect multiple platforms. Its highly unlikely and shell code will be cross platform. Which might save you from the script kiddies running metasploit, but not from anyone who knows a little C.
No its more like I am headed off the cliff and even if the breaks did work I could never stop in time. So do I spend my last seconds sitting here like an fool pumping the break or look for some other solution.
The simple fact is that cutting emissions is stupid. Most of the science suggests that we are already on a path that is sure to exceed the point where the oceans will become loaded with enough hydrogen sulfide to completely destroy our ecosystem. Possibly within a few hundred years and that IF we cut emissions beyond anyone's realistic expectations. Essentially if the only measures we take are passive, reducing emissions, and the science is right we are already dead. That's if
In either case cutting emissions is economically harmful in developed nations and likely impossible in the developing world. Either the science is right and its already to late, or the science is wrong and elevated CO2 won't do these terrible things to our planet. The focus needs to move toward active controls on the temperature and chemical make up of the oceans. Its the only way.
Well there is a legitimate argument to be made that no place does it say the government is empowered to prevent you from being an idot either. The First Amendment does not say anything about disorderly conduct. The whole "fire in a crowded theater" argument is entirely the invention of the Supreme Court, as its its own power to decide Constitutional questions at all for that matter.
I know the court disagrees but in my reading of the first Amendment I see nothing but pretty absolute language and no real room for exceptions. I don't think the government under our Constitution actually does have the right to prevent anyone for advocating for Violence or even creating dangerous chaos like yelling fire in crowded theater.
Which dose make it all about personal responsibility. It make its incumbent upon the rest of us to maintain the threat you will be treated like a pariah if you do decide to act irresponsibly. That is a social matter though not one for law enforcement.
Ironically CFCs have been replaced with chemicals that by some estimates have one hundred times the green house effect when they do get released. So in saving the Ozone we have made AGW worse.
The simple fact is that cutting emissions is stupid. Most of the science suggests that we are already on a path that is sure to exceed the point where the oceans will become loaded with enough hydrogen sulfide to completely destroy our ecosystem. Possibly within a few hundred years and that IF we cut emissions beyond anyone's realistic expectations. Essentially if the only measures we take are passive, reducing emissions, and the science is right we are already dead.
The way I see it there are basically two choices open to western society possibly the human race if we want to survive. We could
A) Nuke the major population centers in China, and India. There by reducing the worlds population sufficiently that we can get emissions under control. Obviously that would be evil.
B) We can look into active methods. Figure out how to chemically, mechanically, or otherwise reduce the amount of loose green house gasses and bring down the planets temperature. That is certain to have its own unintended consequences because its messing with things we don't fully understand. However its better than waiting to die, and living miserable lives trying to reduce our carbon footprint when the end will be the same anyway.
Don't tell try lump everyone into a group like "consumers." Figure out what the market is actually interested in then make available an array of options that makes sense.
It might be true that most consumers don't want a product that needs a command line. They don't need the flexibility and the usability gains are a good trade for it. Others have more complex needs and are willing to invest some time in learning more capable (not automatically better) tools.
This is like saying we should only market circular saws to consumers because only a professional carpenter would ever want to deal with something that gives them more options. A hammer and circular is all you need tackle some small projects around the house, and is great for many perhaps most people but some want something more.
I don't know where this idea that the consumer should *never* need to know anything about a tool to use it came from. Simple options that require nearly knowledge are good. They don't typically handle unusual use cases well however. As developer, don't assume the only thing anyone will ever want to use your product for is something you can imagine.
Well i think you find out it starts crashing ahead of time in the test environment, and determine why. Then you fix that 'why' and test again. This just is not a valid argument today. Its not 1970 any more. Out side a few really really unusual corner cases if you are operating a computer system that really needs 99.999% up time you either have a test environment or you don't *really* need five nines.
Antivirus software is the wrong approach. To be frank as a security profession AV software alone is worth nothing. Its reactive in terms of signatures and Flame pretty much proves the heuristics don't work. Spend just a few moments slightly modifying any of the common packers so its not quite strait off the net and you still get meterpreter past all the majors.
AV is there to hopefully with lots of dumb luck catch you if your dropped the ball some place else.
Yes its how they react. My responce to this gross injustice is going to be to become "lazy and entitled"
Nope its going to further disconnect people from the real cost of health care. You won't pay less you or someone else will consume more.
This law is not about using market economics to save money. Its about trying thwart market economics. Like all legislation that tries to violate natural law it fail to accomplish what its purported to do and lead to either unintended consequences or very much intended consequences depending on how cynical you are.
Exactly right! Which is why as soon as benefits elections come around for 2014 at my job. I plan on canceling my plan. I think the tax is likely to cost me more like 3K but my plan now costs almost 5 so its no brainier.
I have always pulled my own weight but frankly this massive expansion of federal power does fit inside the social contract as I ever understood it. So as far as I am concerned I have no responsibility any longer but to look out for me. Find me a societal obligation and if its to my advantage look for me to shirk it. Rand predicted this how hardworking folks like me would react and I'll prove her right.
No turning every other man, woman, and child in our nation from a free citizen into an eternal slave that now must pay a tax simply for being alive is the most selfish idea that has ever been floated in this nation since around1865.
What you are is not better than guy checking some poor slaves teeth right off the boat.
I can see the argument for smaller businesses needed h1b workers. Perhaps there should be cap like if you already have X number of employees you are not eligible to hire non citizens. Work in domestic facilities.
There is no reason a big firm like Microsoft can't select the best of their own internal talent and develop it. Either by sending them down a traditional accredited academic track or some other means to get them the knowledge they need. A company like Microsoft absolutely could afford to send their better performing employes to classes 20 hours a week.
Our lack of domestic STEM educated people is because of the imported labor and the rather nutty idea that the only time anyone can go to college is right outa high school.
I agree, we should do away with the capital gains and income tax system entirely. We should create a national sales tax. The tax should apply to all transactions no exceptions, on the purchase side no exceptions. This would include currency exchanges and stock transactions. We would create a system where the only filing you would do is for some re-reimbursable credits like heat for primary residence, transportation expenses to your place of employment, and some others so its not entirely regressive.
In the case of equities you'd pay sales tax on the full amount of the purchase price. You pay nothing on the sale. The appreciation belongs to you entirely, but the buyer is going to pay tax on the new market value. This would KILL HFT. The more often you trade the more taxes you pay.
That statement is crazy, stops are the only safe way a retail investor can trade. If you not placing trades for measurable percentages of the shares outstanding for a given equity; you are always better off using stops.