The green fund would have been another transfer of American wealth via foreign aide. Now you as you say there would be no direct consequence for not contributing what we said we would, other than it would make it look like we don't keep our word.
The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.
Where the 'vast majority' describes a 2.1% margin. Seriously #fakenews
It was virtually a dead heat, and the "Vast majority" to lift your language of Clinton's votes over Trump came from a couple of bicoastal metropolises that have drastically different political make up and narrow interests than the rest of the nation.
Lets not get into where the "vast majority" of likely illegal alien votes were cast either.
Yes Trump's claim to have won the popular vote, but for the illegals and rigging in silly. However if you do remove those things than her already very small popular vote margin is even smaller. I would argue that allowing NY and CA to effectively dictate presidential outcomes would be very bad for the country as they don't represent same interests. Its why the electoral college exists. Its a good design, and statistically benefits democrats most of the time, to boot.
Take a look a Brexit, the most opposition was in a couple big cities that are heavily tied to international finance. Same thing with CA and NY here. If the rest of us had and real sense we'd find a way to not let them vote at all.
BAHAHA -- Come on don't insult our intelligence. If liberal groups somehow are successful in removing Trump, the first thing they will do is try and tie Pence to the scandal and remove him as well because that is the best hope. Two things are true,
1) the general public will probably like Pence if he ever gets to do much talking that isn't just apologizing and spin for Donald. Pence is a practiced polished politician who appeals to family values minded voters, even if they are not particularly religious. They may not flash their conservative credentials in public but in ballot box they are at least swing votes. You can whine the House is rigged by the Congressional district system but you can't make the same claim for the Senate, which leans narrowly right, and has a more centerist democratic caucus overall, a few firebrands excluded. Attempts to label Pence a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe which is what the DNC partly leadership sees in him won't sell to Joe public quite so easily. They might decided Pence is wrong about his positions on gay 'marriage' but they will forgive him for his sincerity and will laugh off the other ridiculous accusations. You are even starting to do in your own post. The last thing the liberal agenda wing of the party will want to allow is a politically effective conservative president. Plenty of DNC pundents have already stated as much, Trump as much as they hate him is doing less damage to their agenda than Mike Pence likely could and would.
2) They will do everything they can to invent a new scandal, and create imaginary problems with Pence. They will do it right away. Their entire agenda has been hollowed out, its simply !(Trump). They can't and don't agree on anything else. Centrists are tiered of the victim hierarchy identity politics BS. Their traditional rust belt voters are not having it. They might not vote R again after Trump, but they won't turn out in large numbers for a Lizzy Warren type democratic candidate either. At the same time the Bernie Bros won't accept anything yes. Trump won because there was real palpable hatred of all hings Clinton out there. There was general distrust even from folks who did not hate her. If you can't unite the party than the next best thing is run negative. Run against the other guy. The DNC saw how and why Trump won. They are going to try everything they can to clone the formula. Which is why the new DNC chair is out using as many curse words and sounding as Trumpish as possible. Its about trabialism now, and they need to keep the tribe stirred. They need scandal.
The FBI is an executive agency. ALL OF THE FBIs authority flows entirely from the Constitutional powers granted to the president.
No the president is not above the law but it is in appropriate for any part of the executive branch to be doing anything other than supporting the president. If there is a problem Congress needs to investigate and deal with it.
Executive branch employees who cannot toe the line should fired, with cause.
The ONLY 'Constitutional Crisis' has been over the travel restrictions. That is only a crisis because of activist judges. Judges who in even recent times would have been hound (rightly so) from the bench for even suggesting that the President's personal prejudices should have any bearing whatsoever on the plain meaning of the law.
Literally its the left and their sympathizers that are seeking to undermine the very concept of codified law simply because they disagree with the agenda. Once every law is flat and subject to the whim of the mob, there will be nothing and nobody left to protect any of the few freedoms us CITIZENS let alone anyone else still enjoy.
At not time in modern history has there been such a vicious effort to undermine and remove a lawfully elected sitting president. The people behind it are human garbage who hate America and hate real freedom, even if you don't like Trump and don't support his policy. The mob that is going along with it are useful idiots.
In that sense the universality of it will be its own undoing. Those same red state voters who vote for politicians wanting to cut public assistance programs were out there protesting the ACA (A terrible law that should have been and should continue to protested by for logical reasons) with signs that said "Hands off my medicare!"
Most of them (and the majority on the left is just large) only listen to a few short sound bytes. They think their problems are largely due to someone else (which might be true in some cases and respects) and they think those politicians are going to take something away from those someone else types and either give it or leave it for them. So they vote for them. I have actually heard someone say "I am on SNAP not welfare." Arguable this is actually the lefts fault in their zeal to protect everyone's precious feelings we don't even tell welfare recipients they are on the dole any more. How many people who are getting subsides for ACA Exchange medical coverage, recognize they are welfare recipients.
Ah but you see with UBI, people might just eventually figure-out how universal it is. They will start to question it. "Hey the government could give me more if they did not give it to those guys with jobs that don't need it." "Well its not unfair to my neighbors if we raise the UBI because they will also get it." Chopped into our political dialog of 20 second sound bytes, those kind of unthinking uncritical arguments and reasoning will win the day.
Look at Maduro getting himself re-elected by the Chavistas despite plenty of evidence things were getting worse and were not going to get better. That is what propaganda can do. Even now that the stores are empty and people are starving he still has loyal followers that think his economic arguments describe a society that is functional and desirable.
I'll grant you UBI would be an improvement over our current welfare + graduated income tax system. I am assuming UBI itself would be un-taxed and that would provide the progressiveness in an otherwise flat income tax.
What I am trying to get at is that I don't see the problem of wealth distribution as the issue. That we have to spend so much time addressing it is a symptom not the disease. As cliche as it sounds its "Jobs!"
We have an expanding segment of society who cannot do any sort of labor for which sufficient demand exists that they can find any work or command a price which allows them satisfy needs and obtain some wants. They can't do this in many case no matter how many hours they are willing to work. Again either because there is no work or the market value of their labor is simply to low.
This isn't an argument against UBI, really. I am simply stating that the welfare system we have for all its warts more or less serves its purpose. UBI could do it better but it does not address the broader social problem. We have increasing numbers of people ending up on some sort of state aide; that's the problem, that they cannot be self sufficient and their number are growing.
UBI will create two classes the first with some stratification.
1) Workers, get their UBI and have a job beyond that. As a consequence they have discretionary income to use for things UBI won't support alone. Some more than others depending on the type of job they have and how much of it they do.
2) Non-workers. A few voluntarily unemployed, maybe that are happy to sit in a park eating tuna sandwiches most days thinking about philosophy or something. Most probably wanting a new X-Box-720 and a faster car to drive to gamestop with. The problem is they have path to get their by working, no jobs. The only thing that's open to them is lobbying for a bigger UBI handout. Which will prove inflationary and discourage others from working.
Yes we may need a social safety net and UBI might be a good one but lets not pretend its addressing the structural problem our society is facing.
I understand what universal means. The problem we face is that the economy creating worth while jobs for some segments of the population.
UBI will feed them but it won't put them to work. So you have Tom who earns a nice wage + UBI and owns and boat. You have Bob who can't get a job and has nothing to do but sit around and come up with reasons why he deserves a boat like Tom anyway.
Which is exactly why Democrats need to just stop lying. With medical care already 1/6 of the economy its simply not practical to do single payer.
The only way it could be done is with price controls and that means 2 things.
1) the level of service the majority of people (anyone not paying extra for private care) gets will decline dramatically.
2) the era the US leadership in medical technology development ends. In order to keep everyone's tax burden manageable all the profit will have to be taken out of medical/pharmacy industry. That means no new treatments, no new drugs.
I am not a fan of this as a small government guy don't get me wrong.
One I have not understood is why most guys doing the 1099 thing in the way you speak of it don't set themselves up an LLC or even just an S-Corp. It takes no time and can offer some pretty significant legal advantages in terms of liability. If you are the owner and the only employee, than you will be doing basically all the extact same things you'd do as someone taking 1099 work.
It might be better welfare than welfare but its not a solution to the more basic problems of employment and human behavior.
Once you have a class of folks who subsist on basic income they will be jealous of the things those who have profitable work have, and resentful they have no path the get them. One of two outcomes follows:
1) They vote themselves more income. Eventually walls are run up against. Maybe its the limits of productivity by the still productive + automation. Society simple does produce enough wealth to distribute even if workers don't quit first. Alternatively simple physics gets in the way, and we destroy the planet because we can't come up with a social rational why every tom dick and hary isn't entitled to super sonic flights to anywhere on the globe every weekend.
2) The idea of democracy is killed in its entirely. The folks the subsist on UBI are de-voiced and told to be happy in their apartment blocks and satisfied buying price controlled cheese. Eventually the capital owners or political rules start to ask themselves why put up with the rabble at all, and something much uglier happens.
I don't know the answer is but I know it isn't ubi
1) You have webserver with say a JBoss deserialization vulnerability.
2) I get remote code execution and set myself up some persistence but otherwise leave your site alone, you don't know anything is wrong.
3) I use your system as pivot to attack Bob's network. I break into Bob's systems and start dumping data.
4) Bob spots the attack and sees its coming from you. Oh did I mention outbound connections from the server I compromised don't leave from the same IP that servers inbound ones to the site, they go out thru your NAT pool. So Bob sees this coming from your main corporate firewall.
5) Bob decides he is going to pop your network and look for his data. He phishs some of your employees to get a internal host compromised and a reverse shell out. He proceededs to paw thru your entire internal network looking for his data.... Maybe he eventually discovers me, maybe not.
Is this okay?
Ethical issues aside, law enforcement and jurisdiction challenges aside, I see this as increasing the incentive the total number of threat actors.
Going back to my example above, lets say you really were my target. Lets say after compromising your web server I never got any privilege escalation, was stuck with a process running as www-data on your system, could not move laterally into your network or get out of the DMZ. I know though that Bob has a capable response team. So now all I have to do is execute a sloppy attack on Bob and suddenly he is helping me to destroy you!
The sooner we can just admit that humans are naturally xenophobes and respond accordingly the better. The problem isn't encryption is communication in general. A smaller world really does not mean better understanding it just means we are all at each others throats.
The real problem is the Internet *NEEDS* national boarders. We need heavy restrictions on any kind of real-time cross boarder communication.
So you saying its alright for government to break the law as long as they don't do it to much? What would be to much 10 a month, 100 a month, 1000?
This is exactly why the right apposes background checks and such for weapons. That produces a paper trail, that trail was not supposed to be retained. The FBI was caught doing so!
If you let government collect data it will at some point be used for a different purpose than advertised legal or otherwise. It should be plain to everyone that allowing government to know any more about us than strictly necessary isn't a good idea, it never was and much more so now in the era of big data and powerful computer correlation that can de-anonomize almost anyone.
I really with the Trump admin would use the DACA records to prioritize deportation! Not because I think DACA applicants should be a priority but because we have a law they are in violation and it should be applied; but mostly because it would be a good object lesson for the rest of the public as to why allowing government to have data isn't smart. Once someone you don't like comes to power it will be used to hurt you!
But who is the totalitarian government? China or the United States?
China obviously, to suggest otherwise makes we weep for our future. You apparently have no understanding of Totalitarian means or your blind rage at the abuses of our government has cause you to loose perspective entirely. Totalitarianism is more about breadth of government than structure or power. In theory you can have totalitarian republic, in practice I am sure eventually people would get tired of it and no matter how propagandized would start to vote for people seeking to relax the rules. When totalitarianism is really scary is when its combined with Authoritarianism ( a small ruling party or individual that isn't accountable to the governed ) as is the case in China.
Even the monarchies of old Europe were not totalitarian. A totalitarian government says, jellomizer you shall be a rice farmer, because we say so, that you don't want to be a rice farmer does matter. It says your wife will have your child ripped from her womb because you can't pay the taxes required to have more than two children. It says a highway is going to be put thru here, we are paving over your ancestral home and you may or may not be compensated it depends on how the local government feels about your loyalty this week. That is the kind of stuff totalitarian governments do! That is the kind of thing that happens in China!
Our relationship with China is one of our societies greatest moral depravities. That we should enable an support that government through trade is an out rage. That we allowed the evil UN to give recognition of China to the PRC over the legitimate democratic ROC is a tragedy. We should should have refused to sit with them on the Security council we should have told the rest of the UN its China or US as a member not both! We walk if you let the RPC represent China. We should recognize Taipei as the lawful capital of China.
I did not say nothing of value came from there. I suggested little more of economic value will come out of there. When was the last time you bought a wheel, agricultural product, irrigation system etc from Syria.
Go ahead check all your receipts, I'll wait.
The point is that in no way will that region if carved out into its own state be able to support itself. Literally the MOST you can hope for is sub-subsistence productivity with a small enough gap that international charities and UN could fill the hole.
The obvious solution is a partition. The Syrian Kurds can join with the Iraqi Kurds in an independent Kurdistan.
Which Turkey will never tolerate along its boarder. Resulting in another probably inevitable war, but this time with a NATO member involved, which will tie the hands of both American and much of the EU.
The Sunnis can form their own statelet or join up with the Iraqi Sunnis.
Which sounds nice but won't be economically viable, land locked and we all know the future of mid east oil revenue isn't good, and that isn't the most productive area of region to start with. What else of value can come out of there.....
The Alawites can keep Assad and the land along the coast and the Lebanon border.
Sure right up until the Sunni groups decide to invade.
As nasty as it sounds this is a case where the devil we know was probably the best. We should have just kept our hands clean, and let Assad crush the rebels. This thing would be over by now. thousands would be dead or displaced rather than millions.
well sandbox games with lots and lots of NPCs are one of the few consumer work loads that simply can't get enough threads and really enjoy hardware with full cores and shared memory.
I guess the definition of server is important here. For example. I don't think there is any hardware left in our VMWare clusters at work with only 4 cores.
On the other hand I don't think there are more than a two or three database server VMs that have more than 4 virtual cores. Most VMs have two or four cores, even Exchange.
So if server is a logical host, than I bet the GPP is correct most have only 4 cores or fewer. If server means the metal and glass, not so much
For people on low capped 30 - 60gig cellular and satellite connection, Windows updates are often simply unworkable.
You can't demand I use a day's worth of internet activity to install a updates. Sorry does not work that way. If M$ won't make individual updates available so people on the meter can pick just the critical, that affect them, people will continue to disable updates.
It was a completely different architecture so adding native i386 support would have required to add a complete i386 compute core to the chips.
I am not a chip designer so I don't know for certain but I don't think this is quite true. i386 has for a long time been implemented on top of a micro architecture. That is there is an instruction decoder that translates x86 instructions to one or more micro instructions that are then decoded and dispatched to the underlying execution hardware, Adders, program counters, arithmetic logic units, etc.
There would have needed to be a separate x86 decoder but probably not what we think of as an additional 'core' more like 'hyper threading' was where there was two decoders on top of a shared set of compute logic. You'd also need some way to switch between x86 and ia64 modes. Which would probably require some special instructions or something. Given the different register layouts and what no it probably would mean invalidating the entire cache and register states. So on the fly switching or running both x86 or ia64 code side by side at the same time might have been pretty difficult to implement.
I would argue that refusing to allow something to win novel of the year because it was only distributed electronicly would be silly. The medium is text, its not and has never been about the type face or format. If it were authors would scream about how large print and paper back additions clearly destroy the integrity of their work. I have never heard such claims.
A novel is a fictional or dramatized historical narrative in text. That is what defines it.
A movie is a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images. Because it has a visual component I think its legitimate for a director to argue that there is an intended distribution media and display format. If the intent is direct to netflix, than perhaps Cannes should have viewers watch those films on a typical sized television set and a usual viewing distance, say 46" from 7 feet; or even on a tablet or smart phone.
To bar such films however says they are not about jurying art, they are about dictating it.
Slashdot Mirror
#false
The green fund would have been another transfer of American wealth via foreign aide. Now you as you say there would be no direct consequence for not contributing what we said we would, other than it would make it look like we don't keep our word.
Boo hoo, I can't compete in the market place with a terrible product by taking advantage of the customers inferior access to information about it.
Damn internet. Its so unfair
The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.
Where the 'vast majority' describes a 2.1% margin. Seriously #fakenews
It was virtually a dead heat, and the "Vast majority" to lift your language of Clinton's votes over Trump came from a couple of bicoastal metropolises that have drastically different political make up and narrow interests than the rest of the nation.
Lets not get into where the "vast majority" of likely illegal alien votes were cast either.
Yes Trump's claim to have won the popular vote, but for the illegals and rigging in silly. However if you do remove those things than her already very small popular vote margin is even smaller. I would argue that allowing NY and CA to effectively dictate presidential outcomes would be very bad for the country as they don't represent same interests. Its why the electoral college exists. Its a good design, and statistically benefits democrats most of the time, to boot.
Take a look a Brexit, the most opposition was in a couple big cities that are heavily tied to international finance. Same thing with CA and NY here. If the rest of us had and real sense we'd find a way to not let them vote at all.
BAHAHA -- Come on don't insult our intelligence. If liberal groups somehow are successful in removing Trump, the first thing they will do is try and tie Pence to the scandal and remove him as well because that is the best hope. Two things are true,
1) the general public will probably like Pence if he ever gets to do much talking that isn't just apologizing and spin for Donald. Pence is a practiced polished politician who appeals to family values minded voters, even if they are not particularly religious. They may not flash their conservative credentials in public but in ballot box they are at least swing votes. You can whine the House is rigged by the Congressional district system but you can't make the same claim for the Senate, which leans narrowly right, and has a more centerist democratic caucus overall, a few firebrands excluded. Attempts to label Pence a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe which is what the DNC partly leadership sees in him won't sell to Joe public quite so easily. They might decided Pence is wrong about his positions on gay 'marriage' but they will forgive him for his sincerity and will laugh off the other ridiculous accusations. You are even starting to do in your own post. The last thing the liberal agenda wing of the party will want to allow is a politically effective conservative president. Plenty of DNC pundents have already stated as much, Trump as much as they hate him is doing less damage to their agenda than Mike Pence likely could and would.
2) They will do everything they can to invent a new scandal, and create imaginary problems with Pence. They will do it right away. Their entire agenda has been hollowed out, its simply !(Trump). They can't and don't agree on anything else. Centrists are tiered of the victim hierarchy identity politics BS. Their traditional rust belt voters are not having it. They might not vote R again after Trump, but they won't turn out in large numbers for a Lizzy Warren type democratic candidate either. At the same time the Bernie Bros won't accept anything yes. Trump won because there was real palpable hatred of all hings Clinton out there. There was general distrust even from folks who did not hate her. If you can't unite the party than the next best thing is run negative. Run against the other guy. The DNC saw how and why Trump won. They are going to try everything they can to clone the formula. Which is why the new DNC chair is out using as many curse words and sounding as Trumpish as possible. Its about trabialism now, and they need to keep the tribe stirred. They need scandal.
The FBI is an executive agency. ALL OF THE FBIs authority flows entirely from the Constitutional powers granted to the president.
No the president is not above the law but it is in appropriate for any part of the executive branch to be doing anything other than supporting the president. If there is a problem Congress needs to investigate and deal with it.
Executive branch employees who cannot toe the line should fired, with cause.
The ONLY 'Constitutional Crisis' has been over the travel restrictions. That is only a crisis because of activist judges. Judges who in even recent times would have been hound (rightly so) from the bench for even suggesting that the President's personal prejudices should have any bearing whatsoever on the plain meaning of the law.
Literally its the left and their sympathizers that are seeking to undermine the very concept of codified law simply because they disagree with the agenda. Once every law is flat and subject to the whim of the mob, there will be nothing and nobody left to protect any of the few freedoms us CITIZENS let alone anyone else still enjoy.
At not time in modern history has there been such a vicious effort to undermine and remove a lawfully elected sitting president. The people behind it are human garbage who hate America and hate real freedom, even if you don't like Trump and don't support his policy. The mob that is going along with it are useful idiots.
In that sense the universality of it will be its own undoing. Those same red state voters who vote for politicians wanting to cut public assistance programs were out there protesting the ACA (A terrible law that should have been and should continue to protested by for logical reasons) with signs that said "Hands off my medicare!"
Most of them (and the majority on the left is just large) only listen to a few short sound bytes. They think their problems are largely due to someone else (which might be true in some cases and respects) and they think those politicians are going to take something away from those someone else types and either give it or leave it for them. So they vote for them. I have actually heard someone say "I am on SNAP not welfare." Arguable this is actually the lefts fault in their zeal to protect everyone's precious feelings we don't even tell welfare recipients they are on the dole any more. How many people who are getting subsides for ACA Exchange medical coverage, recognize they are welfare recipients.
Ah but you see with UBI, people might just eventually figure-out how universal it is. They will start to question it. "Hey the government could give me more if they did not give it to those guys with jobs that don't need it." "Well its not unfair to my neighbors if we raise the UBI because they will also get it." Chopped into our political dialog of 20 second sound bytes, those kind of unthinking uncritical arguments and reasoning will win the day.
Look at Maduro getting himself re-elected by the Chavistas despite plenty of evidence things were getting worse and were not going to get better. That is what propaganda can do. Even now that the stores are empty and people are starving he still has loyal followers that think his economic arguments describe a society that is functional and desirable.
I'll grant you UBI would be an improvement over our current welfare + graduated income tax system. I am assuming UBI itself would be un-taxed and that would provide the progressiveness in an otherwise flat income tax.
What I am trying to get at is that I don't see the problem of wealth distribution as the issue. That we have to spend so much time addressing it is a symptom not the disease. As cliche as it sounds its "Jobs!"
We have an expanding segment of society who cannot do any sort of labor for which sufficient demand exists that they can find any work or command a price which allows them satisfy needs and obtain some wants. They can't do this in many case no matter how many hours they are willing to work. Again either because there is no work or the market value of their labor is simply to low.
This isn't an argument against UBI, really. I am simply stating that the welfare system we have for all its warts more or less serves its purpose. UBI could do it better but it does not address the broader social problem. We have increasing numbers of people ending up on some sort of state aide; that's the problem, that they cannot be self sufficient and their number are growing.
UBI will create two classes the first with some stratification.
1) Workers, get their UBI and have a job beyond that. As a consequence they have discretionary income to use for things UBI won't support alone. Some more than others depending on the type of job they have and how much of it they do.
2) Non-workers. A few voluntarily unemployed, maybe that are happy to sit in a park eating tuna sandwiches most days thinking about philosophy or something. Most probably wanting a new X-Box-720 and a faster car to drive to gamestop with. The problem is they have path to get their by working, no jobs. The only thing that's open to them is lobbying for a bigger UBI handout. Which will prove inflationary and discourage others from working.
Yes we may need a social safety net and UBI might be a good one but lets not pretend its addressing the structural problem our society is facing.
I understand what universal means. The problem we face is that the economy creating worth while jobs for some segments of the population.
UBI will feed them but it won't put them to work. So you have Tom who earns a nice wage + UBI and owns and boat. You have Bob who can't get a job and has nothing to do but sit around and come up with reasons why he deserves a boat like Tom anyway.
Which is exactly why Democrats need to just stop lying. With medical care already 1/6 of the economy its simply not practical to do single payer.
The only way it could be done is with price controls and that means 2 things.
1) the level of service the majority of people (anyone not paying extra for private care) gets will decline dramatically.
2) the era the US leadership in medical technology development ends. In order to keep everyone's tax burden manageable all the profit will have to be taken out of medical/pharmacy industry. That means no new treatments, no new drugs.
If you support single payer Cancer wins!
I am not a fan of this as a small government guy don't get me wrong.
One I have not understood is why most guys doing the 1099 thing in the way you speak of it don't set themselves up an LLC or even just an S-Corp. It takes no time and can offer some pretty significant legal advantages in terms of liability. If you are the owner and the only employee, than you will be doing basically all the extact same things you'd do as someone taking 1099 work.
UBI solves entirely the wrong problem.
It might be better welfare than welfare but its not a solution to the more basic problems of employment and human behavior.
Once you have a class of folks who subsist on basic income they will be jealous of the things those who have profitable work have, and resentful they have no path the get them. One of two outcomes follows:
1) They vote themselves more income. Eventually walls are run up against. Maybe its the limits of productivity by the still productive + automation. Society simple does produce enough wealth to distribute even if workers don't quit first. Alternatively simple physics gets in the way, and we destroy the planet because we can't come up with a social rational why every tom dick and hary isn't entitled to super sonic flights to anywhere on the globe every weekend.
2) The idea of democracy is killed in its entirely. The folks the subsist on UBI are de-voiced and told to be happy in their apartment blocks and satisfied buying price controlled cheese. Eventually the capital owners or political rules start to ask themselves why put up with the rabble at all, and something much uglier happens.
I don't know the answer is but I know it isn't ubi
Alright, lets play pretend.
1) You have webserver with say a JBoss deserialization vulnerability.
2) I get remote code execution and set myself up some persistence but otherwise leave your site alone, you don't know anything is wrong.
3) I use your system as pivot to attack Bob's network. I break into Bob's systems and start dumping data.
4) Bob spots the attack and sees its coming from you. Oh did I mention outbound connections from the server I compromised don't leave from the same IP that servers inbound ones to the site, they go out thru your NAT pool. So Bob sees this coming from your main corporate firewall.
5) Bob decides he is going to pop your network and look for his data. He phishs some of your employees to get a internal host compromised and a reverse shell out. He proceededs to paw thru your entire internal network looking for his data.... Maybe he eventually discovers me, maybe not.
Is this okay?
Ethical issues aside, law enforcement and jurisdiction challenges aside, I see this as increasing the incentive the total number of threat actors.
Going back to my example above, lets say you really were my target. Lets say after compromising your web server I never got any privilege escalation, was stuck with a process running as www-data on your system, could not move laterally into your network or get out of the DMZ. I know though that Bob has a capable response team. So now all I have to do is execute a sloppy attack on Bob and suddenly he is helping me to destroy you!
The sooner we can just admit that humans are naturally xenophobes and respond accordingly the better. The problem isn't encryption is communication in general. A smaller world really does not mean better understanding it just means we are all at each others throats.
The real problem is the Internet *NEEDS* national boarders. We need heavy restrictions on any kind of real-time cross boarder communication.
So you saying its alright for government to break the law as long as they don't do it to much? What would be to much 10 a month, 100 a month, 1000?
This is exactly why the right apposes background checks and such for weapons. That produces a paper trail, that trail was not supposed to be retained. The FBI was caught doing so!
If you let government collect data it will at some point be used for a different purpose than advertised legal or otherwise. It should be plain to everyone that allowing government to know any more about us than strictly necessary isn't a good idea, it never was and much more so now in the era of big data and powerful computer correlation that can de-anonomize almost anyone.
I really with the Trump admin would use the DACA records to prioritize deportation! Not because I think DACA applicants should be a priority but because we have a law they are in violation and it should be applied; but mostly because it would be a good object lesson for the rest of the public as to why allowing government to have data isn't smart. Once someone you don't like comes to power it will be used to hurt you!
and the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all...
But who is the totalitarian government? China or the United States?
China obviously, to suggest otherwise makes we weep for our future. You apparently have no understanding of Totalitarian means or your blind rage at the abuses of our government has cause you to loose perspective entirely. Totalitarianism is more about breadth of government than structure or power. In theory you can have totalitarian republic, in practice I am sure eventually people would get tired of it and no matter how propagandized would start to vote for people seeking to relax the rules. When totalitarianism is really scary is when its combined with Authoritarianism ( a small ruling party or individual that isn't accountable to the governed ) as is the case in China.
Even the monarchies of old Europe were not totalitarian. A totalitarian government says, jellomizer you shall be a rice farmer, because we say so, that you don't want to be a rice farmer does matter. It says your wife will have your child ripped from her womb because you can't pay the taxes required to have more than two children. It says a highway is going to be put thru here, we are paving over your ancestral home and you may or may not be compensated it depends on how the local government feels about your loyalty this week. That is the kind of stuff totalitarian governments do! That is the kind of thing that happens in China!
Our relationship with China is one of our societies greatest moral depravities. That we should enable an support that government through trade is an out rage. That we allowed the evil UN to give recognition of China to the PRC over the legitimate democratic ROC is a tragedy. We should should have refused to sit with them on the Security council we should have told the rest of the UN its China or US as a member not both! We walk if you let the RPC represent China. We should recognize Taipei as the lawful capital of China.
There is nothing FREE MARKET about US healthcare.
Its the most heavily regulated industry their is. Don't blame the market for problems almost certainly attributable to government induced distortions.
I did not say nothing of value came from there. I suggested little more of economic value will come out of there. When was the last time you bought a wheel, agricultural product, irrigation system etc from Syria.
Go ahead check all your receipts, I'll wait.
The point is that in no way will that region if carved out into its own state be able to support itself. Literally the MOST you can hope for is sub-subsistence productivity with a small enough gap that international charities and UN could fill the hole.
I agree fully with your statements on our policy.
The obvious solution is a partition. The Syrian Kurds can join with the Iraqi Kurds in an independent Kurdistan.
Which Turkey will never tolerate along its boarder. Resulting in another probably inevitable war, but this time with a NATO member involved, which will tie the hands of both American and much of the EU.
The Sunnis can form their own statelet or join up with the Iraqi Sunnis.
Which sounds nice but won't be economically viable, land locked and we all know the future of mid east oil revenue isn't good, and that isn't the most productive area of region to start with. What else of value can come out of there.....
The Alawites can keep Assad and the land along the coast and the Lebanon border.
Sure right up until the Sunni groups decide to invade.
As nasty as it sounds this is a case where the devil we know was probably the best. We should have just kept our hands clean, and let Assad crush the rebels. This thing would be over by now. thousands would be dead or displaced rather than millions.
well sandbox games with lots and lots of NPCs are one of the few consumer work loads that simply can't get enough threads and really enjoy hardware with full cores and shared memory.
I guess the definition of server is important here. For example. I don't think there is any hardware left in our VMWare clusters at work with only 4 cores.
On the other hand I don't think there are more than a two or three database server VMs that have more than 4 virtual cores. Most VMs have two or four cores, even Exchange.
So if server is a logical host, than I bet the GPP is correct most have only 4 cores or fewer. If server means the metal and glass, not so much
For people on low capped 30 - 60gig cellular and satellite connection, Windows updates are often simply unworkable.
You can't demand I use a day's worth of internet activity to install a updates. Sorry does not work that way. If M$ won't make individual updates available so people on the meter can pick just the critical, that affect them, people will continue to disable updates.
It was a completely different architecture so adding native i386 support would have required to add a complete i386 compute core to the chips.
I am not a chip designer so I don't know for certain but I don't think this is quite true. i386 has for a long time been implemented on top of a micro architecture. That is there is an instruction decoder that translates x86 instructions to one or more micro instructions that are then decoded and dispatched to the underlying execution hardware, Adders, program counters, arithmetic logic units, etc.
There would have needed to be a separate x86 decoder but probably not what we think of as an additional 'core' more like 'hyper threading' was where there was two decoders on top of a shared set of compute logic. You'd also need some way to switch between x86 and ia64 modes. Which would probably require some special instructions or something. Given the different register layouts and what no it probably would mean invalidating the entire cache and register states. So on the fly switching or running both x86 or ia64 code side by side at the same time might have been pretty difficult to implement.
I would argue that refusing to allow something to win novel of the year because it was only distributed electronicly would be silly. The medium is text, its not and has never been about the type face or format. If it were authors would scream about how large print and paper back additions clearly destroy the integrity of their work. I have never heard such claims.
A novel is a fictional or dramatized historical narrative in text. That is what defines it.
A movie is a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images. Because it has a visual component I think its legitimate for a director to argue that there is an intended distribution media and display format. If the intent is direct to netflix, than perhaps Cannes should have viewers watch those films on a typical sized television set and a usual viewing distance, say 46" from 7 feet; or even on a tablet or smart phone.
To bar such films however says they are not about jurying art, they are about dictating it.