As it turns out, yes, that is difficult. When it comes to the Congress, everyone seems to think it is all the other Congressmen and Senators that are the problem - my representative / senator is awesome! It's the other 434 representatives / 98 senators that need to be shown the door!
Plus, when someone has been sent to Congress from a district / state two or three times in a row, it's hard to find anyone with a pulse to run against them, so you get weak shit candidates that can't hold a coherent message through the campaign, or some retread hack that already lost his position at the government trough and wants to try again against a seasoned sitting politician that tears them to pieces.
Thus the massively overwhelming statistics on incumbent re-election.
Example: Senate seat re-election in Ohio, where you have a sitting senator (Rob Portman-R) running against a guy who roundly lost his bid on re-elect as Governor to John Kasich (Ted Strickland). There's been practically zero campaining done by the sitting Senator, and Strickland has nothing to do BUT campaign, and every poll still has him down by one point, where he was up by as much as 9 in the spring. At the rate of this slide, he'll lose this thing 70/30 in November.
I think that's perfectly legit though - they brought up the things they said they would in the "Contract" in the first 100 (or so) days of that Congress. If the votes weren't there, the votes weren't there - anyone promising to pass legislation in a campaign is lying to you.
There are so many things that can derail a piece of legislation that it's amazing anything ever passes. People that hold a grudge hang poison pill amendments on it. The opposition party will try to amend it to nullify key points of it. Spending bills are like Christmas trees where everyone wants to hang their favorite ornament on it, ballooning the total to the point where the deficit hawks vote against it. And then there's just the regular partisan rancor, and the generally uneasy relationship between House and Senate where things get completely twisted in the other chamber, and have to get sorted out in a conference committee, and usually come out with the same name on the bill, but completely different substance.
If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' then Congress is the opposite of Progress.
I think it's because she took so long to support it, well after many other prominent Democrats were publicly in favor. Also, she had an almost 20 year public record of being against gay marriage when she was First Lady and Senator Clinton. And, she has shown an amazing record of telling specific audiences what they want to hear in order to further her own goals:
Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said that the first lady, like her husband, supported legislation passed by Congress in 1996 that effectively banned gay marriages.
2000: Speaking in White Plains, NY:
Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.
Also 2000: She supports rights equality with gay civil unions:
"I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont,"
2004: Senate floor speech where she was against a Federal amendment banning same-sex marriage. She still opposed gay marriage in the 2004 speech, but was against enshrining it into the Constitution. 2006: Tells group of gay politicians that and she wouldn't block it if New York passed a law allowing it. Never mind that she couldn't under the 10th Amendment. 2007 - 2008 Presidential Primary: Asked about her opposition on gay marriage by a gay-oriented television network, she gives this:
"Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."
2013: Full throated support of gay marriage now that DOMA is about to be shot to sunshine by the Supreme Court 2014: During her book tour, she interviews on NPR's "Fresh Air" where Terry Gross asks her about her past positions on gay marriage, and Hillary gets a little pissy about it, throwing out the "playing with my words" accusation. About 1/3 of the way through the transcript is where the exchange takes place.
Only now that the majority of the electorate supports gay marriage does she support it. Flip flop on an issue that is religious / moral with a nice sprinkling of civil rights when the polls say to? That's how you define leadership!
(For the record, I'm fine with gay marriage, so don't get up in my business as being some homophobic whatever.)
You do know that the balanced budget was because of the first Republican controlled Congress in 40 years, right? Clinton was along for the ride after the 1994 midterm when it came to budgeting - he could Veto and look like a complete ass, or negotiate and sign the appropriations bills Congress sent him, which is what he did. Wisely.
That's the difference between the Clinton years and the last 6 years - the parties worked together and this country boomed. During the Obama presidency, both parties have had the "our way or GTFO" attitude and we've gone nowhere.
Divided government can work, and in fact has worked to create the two most robust economies we've seen in the modern period - the Reagan 80s and the Clinton 90s. But the parties have to work together.
No, we just hate smug people that can't wait to tell us they don't watch television, and how they're so glad they don't watch television, and how much better they are because they don't watch television.
Watch it or don't, I don't care. But don't preach about it, because doing so just makes you a smug asshat.
Please point out the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" that Trump has committed, which would get the US House of Representatives to vote on Articles of Impeachment on "day one."
Yeah, I didn't think so. He may be an asshole, and you may not like him - that's perfectly fine. But don't throw around terms and processes that have actual legal meaning that you don't understand.
Naval nuclear reactors are fairly serious business, to the point that when the US Navy started using them, Admiral Rickover would interview and give personal approval to every single officer serving on a ship with a reactor for 30 years. He wanted to make sure that every single person in charge had their head out of their ass and could manage any potential crisis that could come up. This is one of the factors that has led to the US Navy having exactly zero incidents of radioactive discharge from the over 200 reactors they've operated over history.
There is just no way you'd get that safety record from any operation that couldn't exercise that kind of control.
There's several reasons. Some of them are going away, but others still exist. For example, many jurisdictions have legal issues with regard to 3rd party owned panels, which makes leasing and power-purchase agreements a non-starter.
Get those rules / laws changed, and you may start to see faster solar uptake.
Well, be honest - We've actually been pretty good at controlling the nuclear reactions when a profit motive is removed. The US Navy has a stellar operations record on hundreds of reactors over the years.
Well, there's considerations that you may not have thought of. Yes, if you're the tallest building in the area, then putting some panels on the roof is probably a good idea. However, there's other equipment up there (the HVAC systems, usually) as well as the need to get to them in order to maintenance them, so you're not going to be able to use the whole roof.
If you're not the tallest building in the area, there's a chance that whoever IS in the tallest building may cast shadow on your building during the day, in which case you lose more area that could be used.
You'd probably be surprised at the number of Wal-mart locations that already have solar on their rooftops.
You're right. Let's not even bother with the election because absolutely nothing can change between a poll taken in June, and an election in November. Let's just crown Hillary now!
Wait, who's the idiot again? I'm thinking it's you.
Ok good - they can provision AMT and vPro on your PC. They still can't remote observe without you knowing about it, because of big flashing yellow and red bars on the sides of the screen. Or, if you're using a non-Intel GPU, it just doesn't work.
The only possible way to get this to remotely execute code is to mount a bootable ISO as an optical disk, force a reboot to it, and have your ISO do things. But that's an incredibly convoluted (and obvious) way to "exploiting" a system when there's 100 easier ways through known software flaws. And, completely useless if you've done something very mundane, like encrypt the disk.
In order to use vPro as an attack vector, you'd have to stack up a ridiculous amount of flaws and attacks, that it's just not worth the time and effort.
That's because the design considerations for a console are very different from a desktop PC.
Price is far more of a factor when you are selling the hardware at a loss, and it's undisputed that AMD products are inexpensive in comparison to Intel.
This is such overblown pap - the only way to provision Intel AMT / vPro is to either have physical access to the keyboard during reboot, or to have a certificate signed by a trusted provider specifically for provisioning AMT / vPro if you would like to do it over the network. And no, you can't add in your own self-signed nonsense because the CAs that can do this are in the AMT firmware. If you don't get a cert from Verisign / Comodo / etc., the firmware tells you to stick it up your ass and refuses to provision.
Having done manual provisioning, scripted provisioning, and network provisioning in a technology trial for using vPro on a network with ~55,000 PCs spread across the continent, I can say that Intel thought about this "back door" and made it so that you have to go through some extraordinary work in order to use it. And, even then, unless you paid for full-blown vPro on each and every PC, you get access to basically what you could have done with Wake-on-LAN back in the day, with a few extras. With vPro you can do remote control and remote virtual disk mounts, but doing so causes big flashing red and yellow bars on the border of the screen letting a local user know someone's doing it.
Moreover, Intel has been actively marketing this functionality for over 5 years to big business as a way to cut software costs for costly (and shitty) remote control solutions that don't work when the OS is fucked. To think that this is some super secret clandestine operation is complete horseshit.
What an overblown piece of trash this 'article' is.
Slashdot Mirror
As it turns out, yes, that is difficult. When it comes to the Congress, everyone seems to think it is all the other Congressmen and Senators that are the problem - my representative / senator is awesome! It's the other 434 representatives / 98 senators that need to be shown the door!
Plus, when someone has been sent to Congress from a district / state two or three times in a row, it's hard to find anyone with a pulse to run against them, so you get weak shit candidates that can't hold a coherent message through the campaign, or some retread hack that already lost his position at the government trough and wants to try again against a seasoned sitting politician that tears them to pieces.
Thus the massively overwhelming statistics on incumbent re-election.
Example: Senate seat re-election in Ohio, where you have a sitting senator (Rob Portman-R) running against a guy who roundly lost his bid on re-elect as Governor to John Kasich (Ted Strickland). There's been practically zero campaining done by the sitting Senator, and Strickland has nothing to do BUT campaign, and every poll still has him down by one point, where he was up by as much as 9 in the spring. At the rate of this slide, he'll lose this thing 70/30 in November.
I think that's perfectly legit though - they brought up the things they said they would in the "Contract" in the first 100 (or so) days of that Congress. If the votes weren't there, the votes weren't there - anyone promising to pass legislation in a campaign is lying to you.
There are so many things that can derail a piece of legislation that it's amazing anything ever passes. People that hold a grudge hang poison pill amendments on it. The opposition party will try to amend it to nullify key points of it. Spending bills are like Christmas trees where everyone wants to hang their favorite ornament on it, ballooning the total to the point where the deficit hawks vote against it. And then there's just the regular partisan rancor, and the generally uneasy relationship between House and Senate where things get completely twisted in the other chamber, and have to get sorted out in a conference committee, and usually come out with the same name on the bill, but completely different substance.
If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' then Congress is the opposite of Progress.
To be fair, the State of New York voted for her to be a Senator twice. Once as a carpet bagger in 2000, and again in 2006.
Best way to not be replaced by a young person with a fresher skill set? Don't let yours get stale.
If the skill set is equal, experience wins every time in fair hiring practices.
Or, it's because it's offtopic, and offtopic is a -1 mod.
I think it's because she took so long to support it, well after many other prominent Democrats were publicly in favor. Also, she had an almost 20 year public record of being against gay marriage when she was First Lady and Senator Clinton. And, she has shown an amazing record of telling specific audiences what they want to hear in order to further her own goals:
1996: President clinton signs DOMA. I'm sure she didn't have anything to say about that at the time.
1999: When running for Senate, she tells a gay audience that she was against her husband's "Don't ask / Don't tell" policy. Another line the same article clarifies her views on gay marriage and DOMA:
Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said that the first lady, like her husband, supported legislation passed by Congress in 1996 that effectively banned gay marriages.
2000: Speaking in White Plains, NY:
Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.
Also 2000: She supports rights equality with gay civil unions:
"I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont,"
2004: Senate floor speech where she was against a Federal amendment banning same-sex marriage. She still opposed gay marriage in the 2004 speech, but was against enshrining it into the Constitution.
2006: Tells group of gay politicians that and she wouldn't block it if New York passed a law allowing it. Never mind that she couldn't under the 10th Amendment.
2007 - 2008 Presidential Primary: Asked about her opposition on gay marriage by a gay-oriented television network, she gives this:
"Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."
2013: Full throated support of gay marriage now that DOMA is about to be shot to sunshine by the Supreme Court
2014: During her book tour, she interviews on NPR's "Fresh Air" where Terry Gross asks her about her past positions on gay marriage, and Hillary gets a little pissy about it, throwing out the "playing with my words" accusation. About 1/3 of the way through the transcript is where the exchange takes place.
Only now that the majority of the electorate supports gay marriage does she support it. Flip flop on an issue that is religious / moral with a nice sprinkling of civil rights when the polls say to? That's how you define leadership!
(For the record, I'm fine with gay marriage, so don't get up in my business as being some homophobic whatever.)
You mean, in between his depositions and grand jury testimony?
You do know that the balanced budget was because of the first Republican controlled Congress in 40 years, right? Clinton was along for the ride after the 1994 midterm when it came to budgeting - he could Veto and look like a complete ass, or negotiate and sign the appropriations bills Congress sent him, which is what he did. Wisely.
That's the difference between the Clinton years and the last 6 years - the parties worked together and this country boomed. During the Obama presidency, both parties have had the "our way or GTFO" attitude and we've gone nowhere.
Divided government can work, and in fact has worked to create the two most robust economies we've seen in the modern period - the Reagan 80s and the Clinton 90s. But the parties have to work together.
So the question becomes: Did one copy the other, or are they both copied from the same source, being features of military weapons that actually exist.
If it's the first, good luck proving it. If it's the second, Activision's lawyers can go shove an assault rifle up their asses.
No, we just hate smug people that can't wait to tell us they don't watch television, and how they're so glad they don't watch television, and how much better they are because they don't watch television.
Watch it or don't, I don't care. But don't preach about it, because doing so just makes you a smug asshat.
Please point out the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" that Trump has committed, which would get the US House of Representatives to vote on Articles of Impeachment on "day one."
Yeah, I didn't think so. He may be an asshole, and you may not like him - that's perfectly fine. But don't throw around terms and processes that have actual legal meaning that you don't understand.
Yeah, or I'll wait for the inevitable reverse engineering by a low cost manufacturer and buy the dumbass unneeded adapter for $6 on eBay.
Or, not buy the stupid phone to begin with.
Naval nuclear reactors are fairly serious business, to the point that when the US Navy started using them, Admiral Rickover would interview and give personal approval to every single officer serving on a ship with a reactor for 30 years. He wanted to make sure that every single person in charge had their head out of their ass and could manage any potential crisis that could come up. This is one of the factors that has led to the US Navy having exactly zero incidents of radioactive discharge from the over 200 reactors they've operated over history.
There is just no way you'd get that safety record from any operation that couldn't exercise that kind of control.
Yeah, because clearly government is an all-or-nothing proposal.
You kicked the shit out of that straw man!
There's several reasons. Some of them are going away, but others still exist. For example, many jurisdictions have legal issues with regard to 3rd party owned panels, which makes leasing and power-purchase agreements a non-starter.
Get those rules / laws changed, and you may start to see faster solar uptake.
Well, be honest - We've actually been pretty good at controlling the nuclear reactions when a profit motive is removed. The US Navy has a stellar operations record on hundreds of reactors over the years.
Well, there's considerations that you may not have thought of. Yes, if you're the tallest building in the area, then putting some panels on the roof is probably a good idea. However, there's other equipment up there (the HVAC systems, usually) as well as the need to get to them in order to maintenance them, so you're not going to be able to use the whole roof.
If you're not the tallest building in the area, there's a chance that whoever IS in the tallest building may cast shadow on your building during the day, in which case you lose more area that could be used.
You'd probably be surprised at the number of Wal-mart locations that already have solar on their rooftops.
Largest PV solar panel factory in the western hemisphere is opening in upstate New York later this year.
So, yes, even in the USA.
You're right. Let's not even bother with the election because absolutely nothing can change between a poll taken in June, and an election in November. Let's just crown Hillary now!
Wait, who's the idiot again? I'm thinking it's you.
Ok good - they can provision AMT and vPro on your PC. They still can't remote observe without you knowing about it, because of big flashing yellow and red bars on the sides of the screen. Or, if you're using a non-Intel GPU, it just doesn't work.
The only possible way to get this to remotely execute code is to mount a bootable ISO as an optical disk, force a reboot to it, and have your ISO do things. But that's an incredibly convoluted (and obvious) way to "exploiting" a system when there's 100 easier ways through known software flaws. And, completely useless if you've done something very mundane, like encrypt the disk.
In order to use vPro as an attack vector, you'd have to stack up a ridiculous amount of flaws and attacks, that it's just not worth the time and effort.
That's because the design considerations for a console are very different from a desktop PC.
Price is far more of a factor when you are selling the hardware at a loss, and it's undisputed that AMD products are inexpensive in comparison to Intel.
Well, for one thing, Intel purchased the remnants of Digital, so any ALPHA come-back would be under Chipzilla.
Yeah, because as I look over the Amazon EC2 instance types, I see so many that are backed by AMD CPUs.
No wait, they're 100% Intel Xeon.
This is such overblown pap - the only way to provision Intel AMT / vPro is to either have physical access to the keyboard during reboot, or to have a certificate signed by a trusted provider specifically for provisioning AMT / vPro if you would like to do it over the network. And no, you can't add in your own self-signed nonsense because the CAs that can do this are in the AMT firmware. If you don't get a cert from Verisign / Comodo / etc., the firmware tells you to stick it up your ass and refuses to provision.
Having done manual provisioning, scripted provisioning, and network provisioning in a technology trial for using vPro on a network with ~55,000 PCs spread across the continent, I can say that Intel thought about this "back door" and made it so that you have to go through some extraordinary work in order to use it. And, even then, unless you paid for full-blown vPro on each and every PC, you get access to basically what you could have done with Wake-on-LAN back in the day, with a few extras. With vPro you can do remote control and remote virtual disk mounts, but doing so causes big flashing red and yellow bars on the border of the screen letting a local user know someone's doing it.
Moreover, Intel has been actively marketing this functionality for over 5 years to big business as a way to cut software costs for costly (and shitty) remote control solutions that don't work when the OS is fucked. To think that this is some super secret clandestine operation is complete horseshit.
What an overblown piece of trash this 'article' is.
Are you really this stupid, or did Verizon pay you to spew this nonsense?