Compare that to the $200-400 monthly health-insurance costs you can get in the US,
I'm not sure where you get that figure. I pay for my own insurance, and it's closer to $1K/month. And it's no gold-plated plan, by far. To put it in proper perspective, the average payment for health insurance is somewhere around $10K/year per person. Now realize that 20-40 year olds pay about 4-5K / year for the cheapest plan they can get away with and you see how people in the US become rapidly uninsured right about when they start needing some care, as they enter their 40s. Medicare doesn't do squat until you're 65 in most cases.
You might want to double check those cases of "fraud" (because it's not fraud, but it is ethically and morally questionable IMHO) So here's a short result list for 2018 that has, among other results - NC GOP (nope, not a D in the list there) Ted Cruz (the only D there is at the end of his name) and Club for Growth (a conservative PAC, don't think there's a D there either). To be fair, there are some liberal entries in the results too, but it far and away is not solely a 'D' issue.
Then again, you're trolling hard today. So continue asserting the D's are guilty of R deeds, and keep doing so without any citations, because, you know, you don't have any.
It's the sad state of affairs that once, every 5-12 years, depending upon state, you have to haul your butt to a licensing office to get a license. Voter registration can be done at the same time, and once done, is usually automatic, or at least has been in my experience.
You are trolling hard. I checked the state of Texas, a whole 33 cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted under Paxton. Not won - prosecuted. One of the "successfully prosecuted" cases wasn't even really voter fraud, but submission of a provisional ballot in case she could vote. So that means that there were no more than 32 potential cases of voter fraud.
Or do you just store a few balloons for when it's screwed up? It's not up to the car to prevent you from going somewhere. It's up to you. And, as mentioned with the balloons, or bellows, or any number of other options, there's lots of ways around just about any currently available test for alcohol.
That said, autonomous cars seem like the necessary pre-condition for this particular concept. The "manual" mode can't be invoked if it thinks you're over the limit, that at least wouldn't put anyone at risk.
'll address this specific case. The laptop has a significant battery that is very dense, and consequently fairly opaque to xray. The battery is very easy to replace with a nicely shaped chunk of semtek with a blasting cap inserted inside.
While this is true, removing it from the bag to scan it doesn't help prevent that attack. You have to make people turn it on. Some airports did this, some didn't.
They stopped turning on laptops over 10 years ago.
there is such a thing as private email. ProtonMail comes to mind as an easy version but even besides that, there's truly private email. It's highly unlikely any of you are using it, yet it's been around since at least 1992. With all the asshattery going on, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes mainstream in the near future, warts and all.
So, you didn't vote? I mean, you may as well have written "I wish for puppies for all" in a bottle and tossed it in an ocean.
Grown ups choose among the options they have, and not choosing is not choosing.
And if you could not see a huge difference between the two major party candidates, you're insane . You can like one or the other, but they are very different. And by "you can like one or the other," I'm not implying they were equal. There was a clear correct choice.
In this case, not voting for one of the 2 party candidates with 40+% of the vote each is voting for the winning candidate. So those holier than thou 3rd party voters in this election essentially voted for Trump. It's the way our elections work. I say we change it to a straight plurality required. That would make things a lot more interesting, especially on a state by state basis.
Without knowing what you've got running there or what is on it, I can still call your statement a pile of bullshit. So I will call bullshit.
Why is your statement bullshit? Because I have 12 minis dating back to the mid 2009 mini that are all running OSX fine. The 2009 is even running 10.11 right now, but it won't be upgraded to 10.14 because, well, it can't be. The rest are running 10.12+, and there's no grinding, slow access, or anything.
That said, I did have a 2014 MBP that I had to install a plain OSX version into for 10.12 instead of upgrading, primarily because I'd upgraded and migrated the account I used from a PowerBook running 10.3 all the way through to 10.10 on that machine via 3 other machines. It was having some challenges with 10.10 and the cruft that had built up over 7 years and multiple architectures. Clean install with a quick data copy, and my account was 90% back and clean. Machine runs fine to this day on 10.14.
I'm guessing you haven't been a mac user in 10 years. That's ok - the real "upgrade" road for Win7 users is macOS or Linux. Yes, that means new hardware for one case, but you probably were going to need new hardware anyways for Win10's next release or two to not suffer some arbitrary performance hit (suspected, just wait - it will happen)
macOS definitely hasn't gotten more bloated, or not anywhere near the level you seem to think. The downloads have varied over the past few releases:
10.10 5.73GB
10.11 5.8GB
10.12 4.78GB
10.13 5.21GB
10.14 6.03GB
Hmm, that doesn't seem like it's going bloat, rather a major shrinkage and then some growth again, especially considering the variety of things that were added over the releases.
Um, not that I recall. The FP interface was there to stay, more or less. It's been so long I don't remember the specifics of the UI, other than going back to 95/98 or 2K is butt ugly utilitarian.
They never did. It took them roughly 7 years to get XP to a reasonable state, and that still required heavy modification to remove BS services that no one needed or wanted. Unless, of course, you wanted to do something like print to an HP inkjet/scanner combo that required an external security and some other module that no one outside of the military required.
Simple single password security, or frameworks that provide security. Not security like you'd need for ElasticSearch type services. In some ways, the security used by systems such as MySQL are even worse than no security at all. CORBA has no built in security, it's a separate component layered on top but not necessary. Neither do some queue services, they're added on but not required. The DBs have at least basic security, but their use is generally single password based. When's the last time you saw an app use a per-user to DB connection authentication?
So effectively, everything listed (except maybe SAP since you'd need to define exactly what part of SAP you're talking about) needs some sort of proxy to handle individual security concerns.
But all of that is moot, really - why would you ever expose an ElasticSearch service directly to the internet? About as often as directly exposing a DB or messaging service.
While I agree on the premise, there are literally no other services that I can think of that expect to you put a proxy in front of them to provide security with the possible exception of Tomcat.
MySQL
Oracle
DB/2
Any of the Queue software
SAP
CORBA ....
I'd say that sites with domain names that match your search terms and listed as being owned by the owners of trademarks used in the domain names should be listed over sites that are not. In fact, obviously misspelled domains should most likely suffer huge down rankings or even be banned outright if they're engaging in fraud or libel. It's a thought, anyways, and not one that Google can simply dismiss since they are already managing what sites make the rankings through what appears to be arbitrary human intervention. We just don't know because they keep it private.
You can quite easily do without Apple, Google, or MS. Amazon and Linux are intwined in the structure of the internet, those you cannot do without. (And yes, Google isn't as big a deal as they'd like to be, they're not crucial to the internet)
And knowingly propagating false statements as facts effectively what Google is doing there
Horseshit. The only "fact" Google is claiming is that certain words and links appear in particular places and are associated with certain other words and links in ways that often tend to indicate relevance. That's all Google knows about anything anyway.
Is it horseshit that Google chooses to promote secondary non-official sites over official sites? Why no, it's not. It's not a flaw of their algorithm either, but a feature that allows them to avoid accountability. It's something that's bugged me for years about their search results, ever since shortly after they went public. The "page rank" algorithm I think is more tailored to "money making" than "correct results", but we'll never know as long as that algorithm is kept behind closed doors.
If we are really serious about combating fake news, then why shouldn't Google have to delist the biased and misleading blacklist, in favor of other more accurate reviews?
A reasonable question. So how do we do this in something approximating real time with good accuracy? It's easy to say we should do it but HOW is a lot more complicated with a lot of sticky censorship and free speech and freedom of the press and civil rights issues. Even for private companies. How does one decide what constitutes good versus bad information without having editorial control like a newspaper? And how do you do this in an automated way? There is too much out there for Google (or any company) to have people reviewing all content.
...
It seems perfectly reasonable that people should start pushing back against Google's search manipulation, and the "right to be forgotten" seems to be a good first step.
I think the right to be forgotten stuff is a very blunt instrument that doesn't really get at the core problems.
A blunt instrument would be a 10% of your yearly revenue fine for propagating false statements as facts.
And knowingly propagating false statements as facts effectively what Google is doing there - the facts are the update, the original should have been down the page in small text for reference only, if at all. The fact that they had both sets of data indicates they purposely wanted to push the false narrative.
On second thought, 5 or 10% of yearly revenue as a fine may not be unwarranted in that situation at all - it would certainly get their attention to fix these issues.
Ummm, donâ(TM)t look now but Plex has advertising. Emby is the new Plex.
Don't know what *Plex* advertising you're talking about. If you think OTA advertising in the DVR is a problem, that's just the price you pay for OTA. Same with any online streaming service.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh? And then why do people vote the way they do?
Because there's an R or D next to the name.
What do I win?
...
Compare that to the $200-400 monthly health-insurance costs you can get in the US,
I'm not sure where you get that figure. I pay for my own insurance, and it's closer to $1K/month. And it's no gold-plated plan, by far. To put it in proper perspective, the average payment for health insurance is somewhere around $10K/year per person. Now realize that 20-40 year olds pay about 4-5K / year for the cheapest plan they can get away with and you see how people in the US become rapidly uninsured right about when they start needing some care, as they enter their 40s. Medicare doesn't do squat until you're 65 in most cases.
Then again, you're trolling hard today. So continue asserting the D's are guilty of R deeds, and keep doing so without any citations, because, you know, you don't have any.
It's the sad state of affairs that once, every 5-12 years, depending upon state, you have to haul your butt to a licensing office to get a license. Voter registration can be done at the same time, and once done, is usually automatic, or at least has been in my experience.
You are trolling hard. I checked the state of Texas, a whole 33 cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted under Paxton. Not won - prosecuted. One of the "successfully prosecuted" cases wasn't even really voter fraud, but submission of a provisional ballot in case she could vote. So that means that there were no more than 32 potential cases of voter fraud.
Or do you just store a few balloons for when it's screwed up? It's not up to the car to prevent you from going somewhere. It's up to you. And, as mentioned with the balloons, or bellows, or any number of other options, there's lots of ways around just about any currently available test for alcohol. That said, autonomous cars seem like the necessary pre-condition for this particular concept. The "manual" mode can't be invoked if it thinks you're over the limit, that at least wouldn't put anyone at risk.
'll address this specific case. The laptop has a significant battery that is very dense, and consequently fairly opaque to xray. The battery is very easy to replace with a nicely shaped chunk of semtek with a blasting cap inserted inside.
While this is true, removing it from the bag to scan it doesn't help prevent that attack. You have to make people turn it on. Some airports did this, some didn't.
They stopped turning on laptops over 10 years ago.
there is such a thing as private email. ProtonMail comes to mind as an easy version but even besides that, there's truly private email. It's highly unlikely any of you are using it, yet it's been around since at least 1992. With all the asshattery going on, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes mainstream in the near future, warts and all.
So, you didn't vote? I mean, you may as well have written "I wish for puppies for all" in a bottle and tossed it in an ocean.
Grown ups choose among the options they have, and not choosing is not choosing.
And if you could not see a huge difference between the two major party candidates, you're insane . You can like one or the other, but they are very different. And by "you can like one or the other," I'm not implying they were equal. There was a clear correct choice.
In this case, not voting for one of the 2 party candidates with 40+% of the vote each is voting for the winning candidate. So those holier than thou 3rd party voters in this election essentially voted for Trump. It's the way our elections work. I say we change it to a straight plurality required. That would make things a lot more interesting, especially on a state by state basis.
A debit card is a credit card attached to your bank account. That's why "Visa" or "MC" is printed on it.
Without knowing what you've got running there or what is on it, I can still call your statement a pile of bullshit. So I will call bullshit.
Why is your statement bullshit? Because I have 12 minis dating back to the mid 2009 mini that are all running OSX fine. The 2009 is even running 10.11 right now, but it won't be upgraded to 10.14 because, well, it can't be. The rest are running 10.12+, and there's no grinding, slow access, or anything.
That said, I did have a 2014 MBP that I had to install a plain OSX version into for 10.12 instead of upgrading, primarily because I'd upgraded and migrated the account I used from a PowerBook running 10.3 all the way through to 10.10 on that machine via 3 other machines. It was having some challenges with 10.10 and the cruft that had built up over 7 years and multiple architectures. Clean install with a quick data copy, and my account was 90% back and clean. Machine runs fine to this day on 10.14.
and I agree with this - although the new mini is a welcome step in the right direction, the pro desktop is missing.
Hmm, that doesn't seem like it's going bloat, rather a major shrinkage and then some growth again, especially considering the variety of things that were added over the releases.
Um, not that I recall. The FP interface was there to stay, more or less. It's been so long I don't remember the specifics of the UI, other than going back to 95/98 or 2K is butt ugly utilitarian.
They never did. It took them roughly 7 years to get XP to a reasonable state, and that still required heavy modification to remove BS services that no one needed or wanted. Unless, of course, you wanted to do something like print to an HP inkjet/scanner combo that required an external security and some other module that no one outside of the military required.
It's a standard on macOS as well. A whole lot better than cycling through 50 windows to get to that one app window you're interested in.
You're right, it has absolutely useless fine-grained security for 99% of the uses people use it for.
Simple single password security, or frameworks that provide security. Not security like you'd need for ElasticSearch type services. In some ways, the security used by systems such as MySQL are even worse than no security at all. CORBA has no built in security, it's a separate component layered on top but not necessary. Neither do some queue services, they're added on but not required. The DBs have at least basic security, but their use is generally single password based. When's the last time you saw an app use a per-user to DB connection authentication?
So effectively, everything listed (except maybe SAP since you'd need to define exactly what part of SAP you're talking about) needs some sort of proxy to handle individual security concerns.
But all of that is moot, really - why would you ever expose an ElasticSearch service directly to the internet? About as often as directly exposing a DB or messaging service.
It'd be better if you never used credit. It's not dystopian because it's not a requirement for leading a happy life.
While I agree on the premise, there are literally no other services that I can think of that expect to you put a proxy in front of them to provide security with the possible exception of Tomcat.
MySQL
....
Oracle
DB/2
Any of the Queue software
SAP
CORBA
I'd say that sites with domain names that match your search terms and listed as being owned by the owners of trademarks used in the domain names should be listed over sites that are not. In fact, obviously misspelled domains should most likely suffer huge down rankings or even be banned outright if they're engaging in fraud or libel. It's a thought, anyways, and not one that Google can simply dismiss since they are already managing what sites make the rankings through what appears to be arbitrary human intervention. We just don't know because they keep it private.
You can quite easily do without Apple, Google, or MS. Amazon and Linux are intwined in the structure of the internet, those you cannot do without. (And yes, Google isn't as big a deal as they'd like to be, they're not crucial to the internet)
Horseshit. The only "fact" Google is claiming is that certain words and links appear in particular places and are associated with certain other words and links in ways that often tend to indicate relevance. That's all Google knows about anything anyway.
Is it horseshit that Google chooses to promote secondary non-official sites over official sites? Why no, it's not. It's not a flaw of their algorithm either, but a feature that allows them to avoid accountability. It's something that's bugged me for years about their search results, ever since shortly after they went public. The "page rank" algorithm I think is more tailored to "money making" than "correct results", but we'll never know as long as that algorithm is kept behind closed doors.
If we are really serious about combating fake news, then why shouldn't Google have to delist the biased and misleading blacklist, in favor of other more accurate reviews?
A reasonable question. So how do we do this in something approximating real time with good accuracy? It's easy to say we should do it but HOW is a lot more complicated with a lot of sticky censorship and free speech and freedom of the press and civil rights issues. Even for private companies. How does one decide what constitutes good versus bad information without having editorial control like a newspaper? And how do you do this in an automated way? There is too much out there for Google (or any company) to have people reviewing all content.
It seems perfectly reasonable that people should start pushing back against Google's search manipulation, and the "right to be forgotten" seems to be a good first step.
I think the right to be forgotten stuff is a very blunt instrument that doesn't really get at the core problems.
A blunt instrument would be a 10% of your yearly revenue fine for propagating false statements as facts.
And knowingly propagating false statements as facts effectively what Google is doing there - the facts are the update, the original should have been down the page in small text for reference only, if at all. The fact that they had both sets of data indicates they purposely wanted to push the false narrative.
On second thought, 5 or 10% of yearly revenue as a fine may not be unwarranted in that situation at all - it would certainly get their attention to fix these issues.
Ummm, donâ(TM)t look now but Plex has advertising. Emby is the new Plex.
Don't know what *Plex* advertising you're talking about. If you think OTA advertising in the DVR is a problem, that's just the price you pay for OTA. Same with any online streaming service.