>> "The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems" Translation: Its actually running on a box that is physically located in our server farm and hardwired right into our backbone, but the NSA owns the hardware.
*Bill Clinton voice* Could you please define what the word "on" means? Heh
Presentations of things and deliveries of them are not the same, especially if there is government interest. Call me a conspiracy theorist, I don't mind a bit, but I don't trust anything that's taken a hit (government seizing control of "Tor'ed" servers to pick prey) being different in the future, and that's just the tip of the iceberg; since someone did it, others have the idea that it's a great way to use it for that purpose.
Look, spammers don't follow RFC standards when they set up custom-coded SMTP servers to perform their work. That's the easiest and first example that pops right into my head. When encryption and specifics of encryption are introduced, it presents more of a psychological "challenge" to those who want to prove they can break it. In the process there can be more holes or bugs found, used, and/or tailored specially to try and work around it, hence producing more crap that can be seen and used as what appears to be perfectly valid or useful software/methods (see malware/viruses). I haven't even started thinking about the possibility in this context )(Tor; extension; either) of corporate use for luring people in to something that looks wonderful only to use it as a way to deliver more advertising or malware. Standards are awesome; in an environment where there are things that are a bit edgy or (in this case) have the possibility to have falsely-presented helpful features, there's just more that can be abused. I'm not focusing on things like Linux because it's a different context; it can be abused, too, or used as an abuse tool to the average, non-CS user. It's just not there yet. Different topic.
I think from all angles when I do something (or do my best). I see ad-blocking plugins for Firefox as an awesome thing that helps me having a better web experience, but I do not in any way believe that they are not/cannot be/ing used, potentially, for other purposes. If I want to sign into my email account via web, I use a virtual machine with an old version of Firefox, no plugins. Same goes for anything else with sensitive information that can be abused (SSN/DOB/Address/phone number/etc).
I've said way too much already. The first three paragraphs say what I intended to reply with as response to your differently-angled trust of standards and reading between the lines. I have had a life and childhood that lead me away from following standards, to see things from many angles. I'm not arguing with you at all, just stating fact from my experience, which you can accept or discard (your choice, of course) that as I have grown older, I have come to the realization that wherever there is a possibility for profit, theft, abuse, etc, there is going to be an individual, individuals, or groups finding ways to use the services/methods for evil when the services/methods were intended for good. I'll end with wherever there is a possibility for someone (government is the most repeated entity that tries to hide something and have it appear later; repeat; repeat) to use services/methods for the purpose of getting ahead of others in any way, or proving their self-worth for the purpose of presentation to others OR self-assurance, OR a combination or multiple combinations of both, the possibility subject item will become a research/experimentation/testing/use item.
I'm guilty of not reading the article. I don't have to because in the summary I see "a Tor Browser extension" and stopped.
What the eff? That completely defeats the purpose of having something that's not "trackable". It could very well be an extension that phones home the activity of the user to a government entity so they can catch more of the REALLY bad guys - that being whatever's on the menu of good catch this week/month/whatever. If it were open source, it's still BS because you KNOW most people that use Tor aren't developers and aren't going to set up an environment to compile an extension to ensure every line of it is clean. Let alone what it sends to CAPTCHA to work around the problem; doing so can be used to easily identify who is using Tor to make them a target rather than the exit nodes or whatever they're called now.
I ditched mine because they said (Time Warner) they were going to be removing analog channels from the single-coax medium to free usable RF bandwidth for "up to" 300mbps data. My telco's gigabit fiber (measuring up to ~=800mbps in real use) being $65.99/mo and the 50mbps being $49.99/mo for those who have FTTN.
TW said the price for their new enhanced 300mbps service would be around $160, but it wasn't available until about 3 months or so from then. I laughed on the phone to the person I was talking to and asked if they had any idea what their competition was. They started blabbering about how their service was better because of the enhanced email and streaming channels they offer for a low price of $1.99/mo, and HBO for, like, $30/mo. I asked if they were aware that the telco has generator backup and stepped backup power delivered through the copper lines, as well as backup by battery on all equipment along the way; they said something about their service having a 99.99% uptime and few outages. I said, "Sure. I had no outages after using you for over 10 years because where I lived the power didn't fail. If it did, I would have been without service. Wait a minute, now that you mention it, I did lose service a couple of times because of loss of power in an area where your fiber backhaul ran out of backup battery power way upstream, but it was so long ago I barely remember it. What can you do for a customer of over 12 years to avoid having them (me) cancel service right now?"
The answer was "Well... uhhh.. we do have lower speeds that will be available within the next 2-6 months for a lower price."
I laughed and hung up because I really didn't have anything to say that would make sense to the minimum wage, call center, screen-reader on the phone.
They lost business that fast. I used my 'droid for data at speeds faster than theirs for 3 days until the telco ADSL via FTTN was installed.
Yahoo can and should take fiscal responsibility for any users who suffered financial hardship as a result of not being informed their details have been out in the wild for over two years, I guess in addition to any international governments who have had to pay insurance on stolen funds etc.
Heh. Prove it.
I had to put protection on all three credit "bureaus" because my information was compromised but the idiot that did it didn't know my current address. I'd like to see the argument from Y! on me storing the first 3 of my SSN in one email 10+ years ago, the last part 12+ years ago, and my then different addresses of living over the span of 15 years being a violation of their agreement for me to "not send personal information through their server(s) etc etc".
That means millions of Americans' data may have been compromised for two years.
Perhaps you and I have differing ideas of what constitutes "compromised." It seems you don't see it as compromising when the government does it - even without permission or oversight and with constant lies about it. Why is that? It's also the case that our data have been compromised for nearly two decades. Perhaps you should call for the end to the unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional spying instead - which you can actually do something about.
This isn't to absolve Yahoo! of its wrongdoing. It certainly should have been more diligent in disclosure. But to me, the differences are pretty clear. You could never have done business with Yahoo! and while it sucks a lot for the people harmed, you can not do business with Yahoo! in the future as well. Once the data's out there, the harm's pretty much been done. There's not a lot that anybody can do regardless of being notified or not. They can change their passwords and hope the effort is too much to make them interesting.
The NSA, on the other hand... you can't avoid "doing business" with them in the past or in the future, the data's been sucked up for decades (and this is going to start causing some serious shadow problems within the next 15-30 years as the previous generation(s) of lawmakers, law enforcers, and law upholders dies off - information never stopped being power and that means that the NSA has significant leverage on anyone and everyone), and no amount of anything you can personally do except go find a remote forest and forage out of it is going to protect you.
This idea that the government is going to save us from anything by forcing a company to be a bit swifter on the uptake is repugnant.
Clearly they've been doing research on the first, second, and third potential compromised states of their data, so really, there's nothing to report until the research is completed.........
I don't think I'm allowed to put enough periods at the end of that sentence.
It's only a matter of time before we rip out the internet as we know it and migrate to version 2.0.
Putin started already by creating the bugless Microsoft replacement. *cough* Looks like it's the Next Race(tm). Wait, Race sounds bad.. The Next Competitive Head-to-Head Activity Between Two Parties to See Which One's Parts Can Finish the Job First by Changing the Context Completely(sm).
I'm having trouble finding specific timelines for this, but from the sounds of it the breach began two years ago and they only recently discovered and disclosed it.
So these esteemed *barf* senators are upset that it took so long to notice the breach? Were they that upset when it was discovered the the government run OPM database had been compromised for YEARS?
Political grandstanding by a bunch of useless dipshits.
One of them probably has a yahoo address with pictures of the mistress. Did I say THE mistress? I'm so sorry.. big slip there. Heh. The first set of mistresses.
This breach is the latest in a series of data breaches that have impacted the privacy of millions of American consumers in recent years, but it is by far the largest,
No, it was actually one of the first really big breaches considering it happened two years ago rather than last week.
Wait, wait, wait a second here. Was that the one after the first one, which was the one before the second but between the complete one 4 years ago, and before the one two years ago, but after the harvesting started on the one from last week? Or was it the last week before the one two years ago which was after 4 years ago? Gee, all of this information has got me confused. I guess I'll just go watch some more videos on th... ooooooooh shiny.
Although my Y! account hasn't been in use for years and that would pose zero threat to me... I still asked the same question when I heard about the breach.... Why would such a large corporation do such a stupid thing? Now that they've been able to keep it under secrecy for two years, why announce it now?
Did Marissa think enforcing the password change now will some how fix something? The hackers had two years to go through every single piece of data... It doesn't matter if they enforce a password change now... the only difference this makes is that the entire upper management and the board look so stupid that after Y! goes bankrupt, none of them will ever get a management job anywhere else!!!
If the company goes bankrupt, it's one less pain in the ass for her to deal with, cuz, ya know, no one else wants to buy it. She's already got the money she needs from it saved up, laundered, off-shored, dried, pressed, laundered again, swabbed, and put into a bank account in a tree trunk in the Amazon. *zip*
So we have a company that has made it known that they scan and use anything and everything that their members submit.. and now they expect to attract businesses? I guess if you are a business that doesn't have anything confidential going on you might be interested, but it doesn't seem like a very good strategy to give all your critical information to Facebook.
It will say in their 70-something agreements that the information is always confidential and never shared with anyone or any entity. C'mon, you know that, and you also know companies always follow the standards of their agreements.
If I don't use Facebook personally, why would I use Facebook for business?
I smell the next lower-cost WebEx equivalent in the future... Maybe the new Delete-Your-Files-Here-Instantly(tm) service. Wait, I mean STORE your files here.. not delete.. hehe.. little slip there.
Hey, I'd be all Zuckerberged out if I had meeting details between large companies whenever I wanted to feel the narcissism satiated, you know, as a responsible behind-the-scenes administrator.
To quote the Monty Burns character from The Simpsons: "Yesss.. Exxxcellllleeent. They're all doing my bidding now."
Just a thought. Not like an employee at a company that has access to that data would ever, ever do something like that. Heh. Heh. Ehhhhh.
Why do senior managers keep thinking that we want social networks at the office? My previous company tried to foist Jive on us, and other than an initial token gesture by senior management, they didn't use it... and guess what? It's them who already needed to improve their communication with the rest of the company. I really don't give a shit about whatever banal thing somebody's doing today, right this moment. It's just noise. I will socialise in the pub after work, or even at lunch time, where I can speak my mind if I wish. Otherwise these overpriced toys don't help me get anything done.
I guess they want it to gather information about companies and their employees' actions and connections with other companies for SALE SALE SALE to the highest spam and ad data bidders. Oops, I've said too much.
OMG. You freakin' old-style old people.. You never want to us the new stuff that comes out. You're always afraid of this and that and.. Wait, I don't have a FB account either.
Damnit! Your data is solid (electrical college was a good laugh BTW, thank you).
In these situations, it's frustrating to not have in-line and stable data sources for evaluation. I hate People. Not you, not you. Just People with a capital P.
However, solar will alter the weather and climate on the planet after a certain threshold is reached.
Citation?
Simple logic if you understand thermodynamics. Find a parking lot and a building with a white roof. Observe which one releases the most latent heat. That would be the blacktop. Panels are not reflective; they absorb the breadth of visible light frequencies and emit IR after the sub is removed. Hence latent.
I didn't say "unless she doesn't". I said, " unless she's found to have broken more laws that make it impossible, or health issues."
Read: things that make it absolutely impossible for someone to make it into office based on law, even if they receive the majority vote count.
If she doesn't have a health problem that prevents her from making it in, and she doesn't have a criminal offense that can't be covered up, she'll make it in. I don't even know why I'm responding to a troller. Because I don't, unless I do.
You think Hillary can save us? The laws don't apply to her, so we already know where this will go. Tyranny for every American, except the Clinton Crime Family.
Worse, American public is mostly impulse-driven, which leads to familiarity and inner-thoughts of popularity. Read to the end of this comment before getting pissed, because single sentences don't explain the entire picture, please, people. In other words, Clinton has a bonus with so many people because they're biased in her direction because they've seen and heard of her before, and saw her as a past political figure. Plus, many women will vote just to see a woman in office next. NO NO NO, don't flamebait mod this because I said that; I am fine with a woman making it into office, but not one that did what she did - the gender is irrelevant when it comes to her behavior. Secondly, Trump had at least one "reality show", which directly ties minds of the audience that watched the show in his direction.
People are more driven by television than reality, hence the reason advertising is structured the way it is. That taken into account, come on. Unless you're completely ADD or have bias against bias being real, it's pretty easy to predict who will make it into office next. There are people who are into reality TV and it caught their attention. A percentage of viewers were female (I don't have exact numbers but it's not that hard to figure out). Since they see Trump as a show that keeps their eyes tied to the TV, and observing the way he treats people, it adds additional weight (or totally swings it) for females to vote someone into office who is both female and, in the back of their mind, a victim of people like Trump.
She'll make it in next unless she's found to have broken more laws that make it impossible, or health issues. Bookmark this comment and reply on election day;)
BTW, Michael, I'm not picking on you. Making more of a generalized comment based on your thought train. Good one, BTW!
If you can't read and think about my information and thoughts, why should I read yours? I already know what your position is. I'd be wasting my time, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you define what the word "maybe" means IN context?
Pretty sure the IRS is PERFECTLY capable of catching and dealing with all people caught cheating with their taxes. This is a non issue.
Tidied that up a hair for ya :)
>> "The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems"
Translation:
Its actually running on a box that is physically located in our server farm and hardwired right into our backbone, but the NSA owns the hardware.
*Bill Clinton voice* Could you please define what the word "on" means?
Heh
And yet Yahoo stock was unphased by this news. In fact, it is up today.
Interesting observation! I wonder who wants to increase their investment to essentially own it when the next big announcement comes out.
I can see yahoo.com getting turned in to a YouTube equivalent or a certain beverage company's new focused domain name. Heh.
Two words: bullshit and trust.
Presentations of things and deliveries of them are not the same, especially if there is government interest. Call me a conspiracy theorist, I don't mind a bit, but I don't trust anything that's taken a hit (government seizing control of "Tor'ed" servers to pick prey) being different in the future, and that's just the tip of the iceberg; since someone did it, others have the idea that it's a great way to use it for that purpose.
Look, spammers don't follow RFC standards when they set up custom-coded SMTP servers to perform their work. That's the easiest and first example that pops right into my head. When encryption and specifics of encryption are introduced, it presents more of a psychological "challenge" to those who want to prove they can break it. In the process there can be more holes or bugs found, used, and/or tailored specially to try and work around it, hence producing more crap that can be seen and used as what appears to be perfectly valid or useful software/methods (see malware/viruses). I haven't even started thinking about the possibility in this context )(Tor; extension; either) of corporate use for luring people in to something that looks wonderful only to use it as a way to deliver more advertising or malware. Standards are awesome; in an environment where there are things that are a bit edgy or (in this case) have the possibility to have falsely-presented helpful features, there's just more that can be abused. I'm not focusing on things like Linux because it's a different context; it can be abused, too, or used as an abuse tool to the average, non-CS user. It's just not there yet. Different topic.
I think from all angles when I do something (or do my best). I see ad-blocking plugins for Firefox as an awesome thing that helps me having a better web experience, but I do not in any way believe that they are not/cannot be/ing used, potentially, for other purposes. If I want to sign into my email account via web, I use a virtual machine with an old version of Firefox, no plugins. Same goes for anything else with sensitive information that can be abused (SSN/DOB/Address/phone number/etc).
I've said way too much already. The first three paragraphs say what I intended to reply with as response to your differently-angled trust of standards and reading between the lines. I have had a life and childhood that lead me away from following standards, to see things from many angles. I'm not arguing with you at all, just stating fact from my experience, which you can accept or discard (your choice, of course) that as I have grown older, I have come to the realization that wherever there is a possibility for profit, theft, abuse, etc, there is going to be an individual, individuals, or groups finding ways to use the services/methods for evil when the services/methods were intended for good. I'll end with wherever there is a possibility for someone (government is the most repeated entity that tries to hide something and have it appear later; repeat; repeat) to use services/methods for the purpose of getting ahead of others in any way, or proving their self-worth for the purpose of presentation to others OR self-assurance, OR a combination or multiple combinations of both, the possibility subject item will become a research/experimentation/testing/use item.
Read subject of comment ^^
I'm guilty of not reading the article. I don't have to because in the summary I see "a Tor Browser extension" and stopped.
What the eff? That completely defeats the purpose of having something that's not "trackable". It could very well be an extension that phones home the activity of the user to a government entity so they can catch more of the REALLY bad guys - that being whatever's on the menu of good catch this week/month/whatever. If it were open source, it's still BS because you KNOW most people that use Tor aren't developers and aren't going to set up an environment to compile an extension to ensure every line of it is clean. Let alone what it sends to CAPTCHA to work around the problem; doing so can be used to easily identify who is using Tor to make them a target rather than the exit nodes or whatever they're called now.
I ditched mine because they said (Time Warner) they were going to be removing analog channels from the single-coax medium to free usable RF bandwidth for "up to" 300mbps data. My telco's gigabit fiber (measuring up to ~=800mbps in real use) being $65.99/mo and the 50mbps being $49.99/mo for those who have FTTN.
TW said the price for their new enhanced 300mbps service would be around $160, but it wasn't available until about 3 months or so from then. I laughed on the phone to the person I was talking to and asked if they had any idea what their competition was. They started blabbering about how their service was better because of the enhanced email and streaming channels they offer for a low price of $1.99/mo, and HBO for, like, $30/mo. I asked if they were aware that the telco has generator backup and stepped backup power delivered through the copper lines, as well as backup by battery on all equipment along the way; they said something about their service having a 99.99% uptime and few outages. I said, "Sure. I had no outages after using you for over 10 years because where I lived the power didn't fail. If it did, I would have been without service. Wait a minute, now that you mention it, I did lose service a couple of times because of loss of power in an area where your fiber backhaul ran out of backup battery power way upstream, but it was so long ago I barely remember it. What can you do for a customer of over 12 years to avoid having them (me) cancel service right now?"
The answer was "Well... uhhh.. we do have lower speeds that will be available within the next 2-6 months for a lower price."
I laughed and hung up because I really didn't have anything to say that would make sense to the minimum wage, call center, screen-reader on the phone.
They lost business that fast. I used my 'droid for data at speeds faster than theirs for 3 days until the telco ADSL via FTTN was installed.
Yahoo can and should take fiscal responsibility for any users who suffered financial hardship as a result of not being informed their details have been out in the wild for over two years, I guess in addition to any international governments who have had to pay insurance on stolen funds etc.
Heh. Prove it.
I had to put protection on all three credit "bureaus" because my information was compromised but the idiot that did it didn't know my current address. I'd like to see the argument from Y! on me storing the first 3 of my SSN in one email 10+ years ago, the last part 12+ years ago, and my then different addresses of living over the span of 15 years being a violation of their agreement for me to "not send personal information through their server(s) etc etc".
That means millions of Americans' data may have been compromised for two years.
Perhaps you and I have differing ideas of what constitutes "compromised." It seems you don't see it as compromising when the government does it - even without permission or oversight and with constant lies about it. Why is that? It's also the case that our data have been compromised for nearly two decades. Perhaps you should call for the end to the unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional spying instead - which you can actually do something about.
This isn't to absolve Yahoo! of its wrongdoing. It certainly should have been more diligent in disclosure. But to me, the differences are pretty clear. You could never have done business with Yahoo! and while it sucks a lot for the people harmed, you can not do business with Yahoo! in the future as well. Once the data's out there, the harm's pretty much been done. There's not a lot that anybody can do regardless of being notified or not. They can change their passwords and hope the effort is too much to make them interesting.
The NSA, on the other hand... you can't avoid "doing business" with them in the past or in the future, the data's been sucked up for decades (and this is going to start causing some serious shadow problems within the next 15-30 years as the previous generation(s) of lawmakers, law enforcers, and law upholders dies off - information never stopped being power and that means that the NSA has significant leverage on anyone and everyone), and no amount of anything you can personally do except go find a remote forest and forage out of it is going to protect you.
This idea that the government is going to save us from anything by forcing a company to be a bit swifter on the uptake is repugnant.
Clearly they've been doing research on the first, second, and third potential compromised states of their data, so really, there's nothing to report until the research is completed.........
I don't think I'm allowed to put enough periods at the end of that sentence.
It's only a matter of time before we rip out the internet as we know it and migrate to version 2.0.
Putin started already by creating the bugless Microsoft replacement. *cough* Looks like it's the Next Race(tm). Wait, Race sounds bad.. The Next Competitive Head-to-Head Activity Between Two Parties to See Which One's Parts Can Finish the Job First by Changing the Context Completely(sm).
Yes, that. I think.
I'm having trouble finding specific timelines for this, but from the sounds of it the breach began two years ago and they only recently discovered and disclosed it.
So these esteemed *barf* senators are upset that it took so long to notice the breach? Were they that upset when it was discovered the the government run OPM database had been compromised for YEARS?
Political grandstanding by a bunch of useless dipshits.
One of them probably has a yahoo address with pictures of the mistress. Did I say THE mistress? I'm so sorry.. big slip there. Heh. The first set of mistresses.
This breach is the latest in a series of data breaches that have impacted the privacy of millions of American consumers in recent years, but it is by far the largest,
No, it was actually one of the first really big breaches considering it happened two years ago rather than last week.
Wait, wait, wait a second here. Was that the one after the first one, which was the one before the second but between the complete one 4 years ago, and before the one two years ago, but after the harvesting started on the one from last week? Or was it the last week before the one two years ago which was after 4 years ago? Gee, all of this information has got me confused. I guess I'll just go watch some more videos on th... ooooooooh shiny.
I asked the same question.....
Although my Y! account hasn't been in use for years and that would pose zero threat to me... I still asked the same question when I heard about the breach.... Why would such a large corporation do such a stupid thing? Now that they've been able to keep it under secrecy for two years, why announce it now?
Did Marissa think enforcing the password change now will some how fix something? The hackers had two years to go through every single piece of data... It doesn't matter if they enforce a password change now... the only difference this makes is that the entire upper management and the board look so stupid that after Y! goes bankrupt, none of them will ever get a management job anywhere else!!!
If the company goes bankrupt, it's one less pain in the ass for her to deal with, cuz, ya know, no one else wants to buy it. She's already got the money she needs from it saved up, laundered, off-shored, dried, pressed, laundered again, swabbed, and put into a bank account in a tree trunk in the Amazon. *zip*
So we have a company that has made it known that they scan and use anything and everything that their members submit.. and now they expect to attract businesses? I guess if you are a business that doesn't have anything confidential going on you might be interested, but it doesn't seem like a very good strategy to give all your critical information to Facebook.
It will say in their 70-something agreements that the information is always confidential and never shared with anyone or any entity. C'mon, you know that, and you also know companies always follow the standards of their agreements.
Sorry, I barfed a little there. ;)
If I don't use Facebook personally, why would I use Facebook for business?
I smell the next lower-cost WebEx equivalent in the future... Maybe the new Delete-Your-Files-Here-Instantly(tm) service. Wait, I mean STORE your files here.. not delete.. hehe.. little slip there.
Hey, I'd be all Zuckerberged out if I had meeting details between large companies whenever I wanted to feel the narcissism satiated, you know, as a responsible behind-the-scenes administrator.
To quote the Monty Burns character from The Simpsons: "Yesss.. Exxxcellllleeent. They're all doing my bidding now."
Just a thought. Not like an employee at a company that has access to that data would ever, ever do something like that. Heh. Heh. Ehhhhh.
Why do senior managers keep thinking that we want social networks at the office? My previous company tried to foist Jive on us, and other than an initial token gesture by senior management, they didn't use it... and guess what? It's them who already needed to improve their communication with the rest of the company. I really don't give a shit about whatever banal thing somebody's doing today, right this moment. It's just noise. I will socialise in the pub after work, or even at lunch time, where I can speak my mind if I wish. Otherwise these overpriced toys don't help me get anything done.
I guess they want it to gather information about companies and their employees' actions and connections with other companies for SALE SALE SALE to the highest spam and ad data bidders. Oops, I've said too much.
I never joined Facebook as it is....
I certainly wouldn't join it at work even.
I would not like FB in a box...
I would not like FB with a fox.......
OMG. You freakin' old-style old people.. You never want to us the new stuff that comes out. You're always afraid of this and that and.. Wait, I don't have a FB account either.
Never mind. Carry on. :)
Bullcrap, I say! They are nothing but a symphony orchestra with vocals. Laa-aaaa!
Rats! There goes my scam:
http://www.yooha.com/
Nutscrape 3.0. That's awesome!
Damnit! Your data is solid (electrical college was a good laugh BTW, thank you).
In these situations, it's frustrating to not have in-line and stable data sources for evaluation. I hate People. Not you, not you. Just People with a capital P.
However, solar will alter the weather and climate on the planet after a certain threshold is reached.
Citation?
Simple logic if you understand thermodynamics. Find a parking lot and a building with a white roof. Observe which one releases the most latent heat. That would be the blacktop. Panels are not reflective; they absorb the breadth of visible light frequencies and emit IR after the sub is removed. Hence latent.
http://www.solarpoweristhefutu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Does that suffice?
I didn't say "unless she doesn't". I said, " unless she's found to have broken more laws that make it impossible, or health issues."
Read: things that make it absolutely impossible for someone to make it into office based on law, even if they receive the majority vote count.
If she doesn't have a health problem that prevents her from making it in, and she doesn't have a criminal offense that can't be covered up, she'll make it in. I don't even know why I'm responding to a troller. Because I don't, unless I do.
You think Hillary can save us? The laws don't apply to her, so we already know where this will go. Tyranny for every American, except the Clinton Crime Family.
Worse, American public is mostly impulse-driven, which leads to familiarity and inner-thoughts of popularity. Read to the end of this comment before getting pissed, because single sentences don't explain the entire picture, please, people. In other words, Clinton has a bonus with so many people because they're biased in her direction because they've seen and heard of her before, and saw her as a past political figure. Plus, many women will vote just to see a woman in office next. NO NO NO, don't flamebait mod this because I said that; I am fine with a woman making it into office, but not one that did what she did - the gender is irrelevant when it comes to her behavior.
Secondly, Trump had at least one "reality show", which directly ties minds of the audience that watched the show in his direction.
People are more driven by television than reality, hence the reason advertising is structured the way it is. That taken into account, come on. Unless you're completely ADD or have bias against bias being real, it's pretty easy to predict who will make it into office next. There are people who are into reality TV and it caught their attention. A percentage of viewers were female (I don't have exact numbers but it's not that hard to figure out). Since they see Trump as a show that keeps their eyes tied to the TV, and observing the way he treats people, it adds additional weight (or totally swings it) for females to vote someone into office who is both female and, in the back of their mind, a victim of people like Trump.
She'll make it in next unless she's found to have broken more laws that make it impossible, or health issues. Bookmark this comment and reply on election day ;)
BTW, Michael, I'm not picking on you. Making more of a generalized comment based on your thought train. Good one, BTW!
Even the turn-on dialog for Siri on the Mac says it will go through your Contacts list so Siri can 'know more about you'. Not good.
Siri has a turn-on dialog with you? I didn't know they released that feature of Siri to the public yet.
Heh
If you can't read and think about my information and thoughts, why should I read yours? I already know what your position is. I'd be wasting my time, too.