. So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.
This is the kind of ignorant rhetoric we expect from Trump's remaining supporters. Democrats have nothing to do with this.
The senior staff are all conservative appointees made by Trump himself. Some are establishment Republicans; some are not. But they are all his people, chosen for their expertise and experience.
So what is the bottom line here? It's simple, really. He cannot earn the loyalty of the people he chose.
So if Google accepts an illegitimate "official" upload, there is no way to verify. Maybe it wasn't MEGA, maybe someone compromised their account---or maybe the Chrome extension site got hacked (and Google hasn't even noticed yet). Without the developer's signature, there's no way for an outside party to be sure that they submitted an app full of malware.
Whoever signs the code owns the problem. If Google doesn't want to be held accountable, they shouldn't be signing extensions.
And instead, give them an incentive to discriminate against people who are single... nice.
I don't see where you're going with that. Note that I suggested an exception only when spouses are unable to work---this is a small subset of disabilities, as most can be accommodated in some fashion.
If a person is single and fully disabled (unable to work), that person is likely eligible for assistance already. On the other hand, if a person is single and employable, then that person should be paid a livable wage, which this law would require.
If you're arguing that this encourages employers to seek out married people with fully disabled spouses... well, it might. But there's not really a lot of people who can't work at all, so it can't realistically distort the labor market.
The problem with regular taxes is that they apply to everyone, regardless of how well they treat their employees and their clients. Normally, the good actors must pay to fix problems caused by the bad.
This targets companies specifically when their policies push employees toward poverty. With the death of unions, something needs to balance corporate power to ensure workers are treated fairly.
The law should waive the penalty when an employee has a spouse who is unable to work, however, as that contributes to poverty but is not the fault of the employer---and we don't want employers to have an incentive for discriminating against people whose partners are sick/disabled.
With the cost of degrees going up (and an economic depression in living memory), new students are focusing on education that can offer financial security and a stronger return on investment.
If anything, this is a positive sign for the future.
I think a lot of millenials got screwed by parents who suggested that any degree will work. Most teenagers need to be guided into good decision-making, and some parents failed to do that.
If you have 10 people carrying on separate conversations, you can have 5 conversations going at the same time. You end up with 5 hours of recorded conversation for every hour on the clock.
NASA didn't just record the astronauts. A lot of conversation from mission control was recorded. Two people on the ground talking to each other might not be glamorous, but it could be very important.
It's very easy to throw out data that you don't need, but it's impossible to recover details of a conversation that both sides have forgotten.
There is so much wrong in this post that it's difficult to address properly. But I will try.
net neutrality was a policy created by a government agency without the force of law
Congress has routinely delegated regulatory authority to the executive branch. The FAA, FCC, FTC, EPA, etc were all established by Congress. If Congress dislikes a regulation, they can pass a bill to fix it. The ultimate power always lies with Congress on these matters. Congress could, in theory, disband any of these agencies.
[the courts would be] enacting law from their own branch and circumventing the normal rules of how law gets enacted
Not at all. Congress gave authority to the FCC to regulate certain things. But the FCC still must regulate things in accordance with the law and established rule-making procedures. If Pai's reversal of net neutrality did not adhere to these rules, then it should be thrown out. The court is acting as a proper check on the executive branch by reviewing it for compliance with the law.
NN was *not* axed due to technical merits, it was axed because it wasn't proper law.
The original Open Internet rules were partially tossed because the court decided that the FCC could only regulate companies like that under Title II (and ISPs were classified under Title I at the time). This was Verizon v FCC 2014, and Verizon won.
The FCC responded by reviewing the ISP industry and reclassifying it under Title II. There was another legal challenge, and the court decided that the FCC has the authority to classify telecommunications services as it sees fit, and the FCC did so properly. This was Verizon v FCC 2016, and the FCC won.
So net neutrality was legal in the end. There is a specific "right way" to implement it under existing law, and Verizon basically forced the FCC to do it properly.
MITRE went from $6.7m funding with 7,370 CVEs in 2012 down to $4.0m with 14,472 CVEs in 2015. So, roughly 60% of the funding for twice the output. And that's not accounting for year-to-year fluctuations, which make budgeting nearly impossible.
Their solution is sensible:
To solve this issue, the Committee proposes that DHS officials move CVE's funding from a contract-based funding scheme into the DHS budget itself, as a PPA (Program, Project, or Activity) funding line.
A formal Program makes a great deal of sense in this case, as its work: has an important impact, will be fairly consistent over time, and has no foreseeable end date.
Like any sane person, I support net neutrality 100%. Let's maintain the open status quo that the internet grew up on. Totally support their goal, but I do have a question.
Does this have any legal legs to stand on?
I'm not a lawyer, and I couldn't find any decent opinions on the matter.
If the record doesn't reflect what you want, toss it out and supply your own "facts". Trump is mad that he's forced to face criticism and not allowed to make up his own facts.
And beyond all that, Google ranks pages essentially based on their popularity. If a lot of sites---especially popular sites---link to your content, then it gets ranked more highly regardless of how "good" or "true" it is. In that sense, Google's rankings simply reflect an unfavorable opinion of Trump.
This is more of the same attitude on the part of the President, and I scarcely see it as newsworthy. He's been at war with the media practically since his campaign started.
When you're looking for skills rather than credentials, that tells me you're more concerned with doing good work than looking good in sales proposals.
While some career-minded people might seek credentials to "demonstrate" their skills to potential employers, there are a lot of great people out there who don't bother.
And you may see less poaching of skilled employees simply because they don't have the right mix of buzzword bingo to attract the scavengers.
The rights of one party act as restrictions on others.
If I have the right to life, you are prohibited from killing me. If I control copyright on a work, you are prohibited from copying it without permission.
So they are essentially the same thing, and the initialism has always been Rights.
Your post is one good idea mixed up with a ton of luddite nonsense.
wants to jam so-called 'self driving cars' down everyones' throats now
How is this being jammed down anyone's throat? You can't even buy one right now, and no one is seriously talking about a legal mandate (which is the only way to "force" them on people).
the damned things not being anywhere near good enough now or likely ever
Google has had self-driven cars on the road for years. For legal purposes, they were required to have a person in the driver seat in some states, but that person didn't have to do anything.
So far, their self-driven cars are better than the vast majority of drivers---no at-fault accidents.
For consumer vehicles, Tesla's self-driving tech looks like a shitshow. This is the biggest problem I have with the company. But Volvo and BMW seem to have their act together---and yes, they haven't released anything to the public because it isn't quite ready yet.
What we need is better driver training, education, and TESTING, including re-testing more often
This is what I agree with. Both self-driven vehicles and well-trained drivers will make the roads safer.
As an added bonus, self-driving cars will be immensely helpful to people who can't or shouldn't drive. Life will get a little better for anyone suffering from age-related decline, disability, medication side effects, illness/fatigue, etc.
Verizon and privacy are polar opposites. Their attitude toward consumers is worse than Google or Facebook, but they're pretty terrible at actually doing anything with the data they collect.
Verizon customers, you are spared not by benevolence, but by incompetence on the part of those who would abuse you.
Slashdot Mirror
As the article explained, the long times and poor scheduling are a result of poor transit policy in America.
Other places have done much better, and American transit could rival them if we choose to invest in it appropriately.
. So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.
This is the kind of ignorant rhetoric we expect from Trump's remaining supporters. Democrats have nothing to do with this.
The senior staff are all conservative appointees made by Trump himself. Some are establishment Republicans; some are not. But they are all his people, chosen for their expertise and experience.
So what is the bottom line here? It's simple, really. He cannot earn the loyalty of the people he chose.
This is just massively stupid.
So if Google accepts an illegitimate "official" upload, there is no way to verify. Maybe it wasn't MEGA, maybe someone compromised their account---or maybe the Chrome extension site got hacked (and Google hasn't even noticed yet). Without the developer's signature, there's no way for an outside party to be sure that they submitted an app full of malware.
Whoever signs the code owns the problem. If Google doesn't want to be held accountable, they shouldn't be signing extensions.
And instead, give them an incentive to discriminate against people who are single... nice.
I don't see where you're going with that. Note that I suggested an exception only when spouses are unable to work---this is a small subset of disabilities, as most can be accommodated in some fashion.
If a person is single and fully disabled (unable to work), that person is likely eligible for assistance already. On the other hand, if a person is single and employable, then that person should be paid a livable wage, which this law would require.
If you're arguing that this encourages employers to seek out married people with fully disabled spouses... well, it might. But there's not really a lot of people who can't work at all, so it can't realistically distort the labor market.
A spokesperson for Springer Nature, which publishes more than 3,000 journals
If you hadn't engaged in blatant and absurd profiteering, this might not be happening. You've made your bed; now, be a good boy and lie in it.
The problem with regular taxes is that they apply to everyone, regardless of how well they treat their employees and their clients. Normally, the good actors must pay to fix problems caused by the bad.
This targets companies specifically when their policies push employees toward poverty. With the death of unions, something needs to balance corporate power to ensure workers are treated fairly.
The law should waive the penalty when an employee has a spouse who is unable to work, however, as that contributes to poverty but is not the fault of the employer---and we don't want employers to have an incentive for discriminating against people whose partners are sick/disabled.
With the cost of degrees going up (and an economic depression in living memory), new students are focusing on education that can offer financial security and a stronger return on investment.
If anything, this is a positive sign for the future.
I think a lot of millenials got screwed by parents who suggested that any degree will work. Most teenagers need to be guided into good decision-making, and some parents failed to do that.
If you have 10 people carrying on separate conversations, you can have 5 conversations going at the same time. You end up with 5 hours of recorded conversation for every hour on the clock.
NASA didn't just record the astronauts. A lot of conversation from mission control was recorded. Two people on the ground talking to each other might not be glamorous, but it could be very important.
It's very easy to throw out data that you don't need, but it's impossible to recover details of a conversation that both sides have forgotten.
There is so much wrong in this post that it's difficult to address properly. But I will try.
net neutrality was a policy created by a government agency without the force of law
Congress has routinely delegated regulatory authority to the executive branch. The FAA, FCC, FTC, EPA, etc were all established by Congress. If Congress dislikes a regulation, they can pass a bill to fix it. The ultimate power always lies with Congress on these matters. Congress could, in theory, disband any of these agencies.
[the courts would be] enacting law from their own branch and circumventing the normal rules of how law gets enacted
Not at all. Congress gave authority to the FCC to regulate certain things. But the FCC still must regulate things in accordance with the law and established rule-making procedures. If Pai's reversal of net neutrality did not adhere to these rules, then it should be thrown out. The court is acting as a proper check on the executive branch by reviewing it for compliance with the law.
NN was *not* axed due to technical merits, it was axed because it wasn't proper law.
The original Open Internet rules were partially tossed because the court decided that the FCC could only regulate companies like that under Title II (and ISPs were classified under Title I at the time). This was Verizon v FCC 2014, and Verizon won.
The FCC responded by reviewing the ISP industry and reclassifying it under Title II. There was another legal challenge, and the court decided that the FCC has the authority to classify telecommunications services as it sees fit, and the FCC did so properly. This was Verizon v FCC 2016, and the FCC won.
So net neutrality was legal in the end. There is a specific "right way" to implement it under existing law, and Verizon basically forced the FCC to do it properly.
Privacy protection is probably more important, and there are some murmurs about a US privacy bill.
So I had some brief hope until I thought it thru, and I expect the tech industry to ghostwrite the legislation.
I was hoping for a link to some kind of expert opinion, but now that you point it out... maybe I should have been specific.
MITRE went from $6.7m funding with 7,370 CVEs in 2012 down to $4.0m with 14,472 CVEs in 2015. So, roughly 60% of the funding for twice the output. And that's not accounting for year-to-year fluctuations, which make budgeting nearly impossible.
Their solution is sensible:
To solve this issue, the Committee proposes that DHS officials move CVE's funding from a contract-based funding scheme into the DHS budget itself, as a PPA (Program, Project, or Activity) funding line.
A formal Program makes a great deal of sense in this case, as its work: has an important impact, will be fairly consistent over time, and has no foreseeable end date.
Sure you can. Last time I checked, 2/3 branches of the federal government are not a part of the president's administration.
Zero-days announced via Twitter don't have CVEs. Someone has to submit it first.
I'd expect MITRE to add it themselves now, but CVEs are usually disclosed confidentially to MITRE and the developer before a POC is released.
Like any sane person, I support net neutrality 100%. Let's maintain the open status quo that the internet grew up on. Totally support their goal, but I do have a question.
Does this have any legal legs to stand on?
I'm not a lawyer, and I couldn't find any decent opinions on the matter.
If the record doesn't reflect what you want, toss it out and supply your own "facts". Trump is mad that he's forced to face criticism and not allowed to make up his own facts.
And beyond all that, Google ranks pages essentially based on their popularity. If a lot of sites---especially popular sites---link to your content, then it gets ranked more highly regardless of how "good" or "true" it is. In that sense, Google's rankings simply reflect an unfavorable opinion of Trump.
This is more of the same attitude on the part of the President, and I scarcely see it as newsworthy. He's been at war with the media practically since his campaign started.
...the shooter was a gamer who was competing in the tournament and lost...
Most of the mass shooters are losers, figuratively speaking. This guy was literally a loser.
Google can do that for Play apps. This whole pissing match started because Epic decided NOT to publish Fortnite on the Play Store.
I would assume the RNC and other national political bodies are targeted. They simply choose not to disclose the attacks publicly.
I doubt my employer would disclose any hacking---attempted or successful---unless legally required to do so.
This will put pressure on the prices of competing devices that I might buy.
If one or two manufacturers drop out of the market, well, too bad. There are dozens of phone manufacturers.
The limited selection in the US market is primarily due to carrier interference. If one of their OEMs goes away, they'll partner up with someone else.
When you're looking for skills rather than credentials, that tells me you're more concerned with doing good work than looking good in sales proposals.
While some career-minded people might seek credentials to "demonstrate" their skills to potential employers, there are a lot of great people out there who don't bother.
And you may see less poaching of skilled employees simply because they don't have the right mix of buzzword bingo to attract the scavengers.
The rights of one party act as restrictions on others.
If I have the right to life, you are prohibited from killing me. If I control copyright on a work, you are prohibited from copying it without permission.
So they are essentially the same thing, and the initialism has always been Rights.
Your post is one good idea mixed up with a ton of luddite nonsense.
wants to jam so-called 'self driving cars' down everyones' throats now
How is this being jammed down anyone's throat? You can't even buy one right now, and no one is seriously talking about a legal mandate (which is the only way to "force" them on people).
the damned things not being anywhere near good enough now or likely ever
Google has had self-driven cars on the road for years. For legal purposes, they were required to have a person in the driver seat in some states, but that person didn't have to do anything.
So far, their self-driven cars are better than the vast majority of drivers---no at-fault accidents.
For consumer vehicles, Tesla's self-driving tech looks like a shitshow. This is the biggest problem I have with the company. But Volvo and BMW seem to have their act together---and yes, they haven't released anything to the public because it isn't quite ready yet.
What we need is better driver training, education, and TESTING, including re-testing more often
This is what I agree with. Both self-driven vehicles and well-trained drivers will make the roads safer.
As an added bonus, self-driving cars will be immensely helpful to people who can't or shouldn't drive. Life will get a little better for anyone suffering from age-related decline, disability, medication side effects, illness/fatigue, etc.
Not sure what your problem is.
I just updated to v28 and posted this with uBlock Origin. It's running fine---looks like 9 of 18 domains are blocked on this page.
I'm running 1.13.8, so maybe there is an issue specific to the newer releases. That's always a possibility.
Verizon and privacy are polar opposites. Their attitude toward consumers is worse than Google or Facebook, but they're pretty terrible at actually doing anything with the data they collect.
Verizon customers, you are spared not by benevolence, but by incompetence on the part of those who would abuse you.