Yeah, you don't have to show its only purpose is making bombs. There are varying standards that are all trying to capture what would be "reasonable." It wouldn't be a particularly strong argument to invoke the public safety exception in this case, but it wouldn't necessarily lose either.
Haven't you been paying attention? They already hacked blue cross, which is a shitload more concerning in terms of intelligence targets than hacking health care info for America's poor and out-of-work.
I can't say I RTFA, but when the police shut down the street and show up at your front door with the bomb squad, most people don't realize they have the right to ask for a warrant.
People always have the right to *ask* for a warrant, but the police don't always need one.
Public safety is a legit exception to the warrant requirement, btw. If the police know of a dangerous condition in your house that is putting the public in danger they're allowed to enter without a warrant because it's still "reasonable" under the fourth Amendment. It's not a great argument in this case but still might win. I mean, they could someone looking for a common bomb component, it's not unreasonable to think he might have poorly-built bombs in the house which could go off. It might just be enough to consider the risk to the public such that you don't need a warrant.
*Might* be. So only a stupid cop wouldn't get a warrant or consent to search. But he might not need them.
still doesn't give you the right to trespass and steal.
Spoken like one who never had any adventures as all a kid.
I mean, granted, he's 18 so he's legally an adult for most purposes, but the proper response is still a "you have to make sure owner X doesn't mind", not a "you little thief!" Unless they have a major problem with this particular 18 year old or they just won't stop, you solve this with conversation.
Kids break laws every day. Things like trespassing (shortcut through a neighbor's yard), assault & battery (fighting another kid without their consent or other legal defense), defamation (your mom's a ____), and a dozen other things.
From a system point of view, this seems like the opposite of what we should actually want. Journal articles exist to communicate the findings of an experiment, they actually have nearly no relevance to the public, nor should they.
But the result of this is that hundreds of thousands of smart people who might be interested in your research never hear about it. I didn't get exposed to academic journals until maybe my third year in college, and they were great, and why the hell aren't they part of life for everyone who's smart? There are bad ones too, of course... but surely you could take small steps, like requiring that every paper have three abstracts: one for the scientific community, one for college students, and one for high school students and the general public.
It's like panels of people discussing problems in society seriously. Why isn't that a part of our conversation as a society? Why do we have talking heads instead of real experts on the news and then at schools we don't require watching an hour-long panel of experts talking about global warming or human rights or new developments in battery design?
indeed there are many companies that resemble Microsoft, for instance Starbucks is the Microsoft of coffee and equally evil.
Yeah, like that time that Starbucks paid less than the average wage? Woops, they pay more. Or like that time that Starbucks put the competition out of business by dumping and then raised their prices, destroying jobs in the process? No, they put the competition out of business by being consistent, and they are totally willing to open a starbucks across the street from a starbucks so there's plenty of jobs. Wait, like that time they underpaid their suppliers? No, they pay more than fair trade amounts, although those amounts are arguably too low at least they've over the baseline. So in what way is Starbucks like Microsoft? Because they produce a product that more people want to use than the stuff you like?
FWIW I think starfucks coffee is ass and if I wanted a cup of sugar I'd just ask for it, but seriously, how is Starbucks like Microsoft? The occasional bullshit trademark lawsuit? That's lame, but nowhere near that territory.
That's great when you've invested money you have. There is a high number of investors working on margin.
So saying, "I've made a 75% increase" does no good when you have no money backing it.
I think Jack Nicholson put it best in The Departed, "no tickie no wash!"
Yes, the relaxed margin rules are really at fault here. 3.5 trillion got wiped out in a few weeks and there were about 2 trillion margined invested, up from 400 billion a few years ago. So people who invested more money than they have at a time when the market was priced too high are going to have a really terrible time for a while and it sucks for them, but the Chinese economy as a whole should be fine.
The market started to reduce value as they tightened margin rules. It was the right call but obviously should have been done more gradually.
The biggest harm is going to be to consumer confidence for a while, but they'll get over it depending on the timing of when they have a real estate bubble burst, which may lead to a depression down the road. They could have a few bad years but we're not there yet, and the market will adjust.
It's called an endowment effect when rich people benefit and entitlement when poor people benefit?
The endowment effect is a well-known human psychological problem where losing what we already have matters more to us than gaining what we don't have, even if it's the same amount of money. It's why an office gives you a "25% discount" is you pay within 30 days as opposed to a "25% penalty" if you pay on day 31: you prefer taking away their money to their taking away your money, even if it's the same transaction.
It shot up 150% fro mid-2014 and then corrected way down so that now it's only up about 75%.
Up about 75% in a year is doing fucking awesome. It's just that the big drop from the ridiculous 150% valuation will let some people sell fear and hurt the economy a bit in the short term.
Remember the endowment effect--people who made money during the 150% rise are now going to be complaining about how much they've *lost* even though they're still up.
Go to the feds, preferably anonymously (although it's hard to do that reliably without lawbreaking). But I would always do that *after* I made sure my family was safe, or for family members who refused to be safe at least had a lot of guns. You never know when the feds have a leak, or where they're going to share information with a local police force that has a leak, for example. They're not particularly bright about how they go after organized crime and public corruption (or else they'd be asking for tips and for anonymous information a *lot* more than they do). Hell, they could post a slashdot story under the radar and ask people how to deal with a corrupt building inspector and might get lots of stories.
Does GP really think organized crime in Russia doesn't get a phone call from the cops if there's a problem?
You've never imagined having a gun to your kids' head, have you?
No... But this is NOT the movies or TV. Nobody was being held captive, they had their personal cell phones, cars, homes and where freely walking around. Nobody had a gun to their head 24/7...
Surely there was a time and opportunity to make a move to reach out to authorities, make a phone call, send an E-mail or two, or get somebody in your family to help you. This went on for MONTHS.... Surely there was a number of possible exit ramps one could have taken. Heck, they claim to have had enough time to discuss and implement ways to disrupt what was going on. They had time and opportunity to get out if they wanted too.
This is not how most captivity works. People are held captive by fear and intimidation relatively easily, we just don't expect or and rarely understand it if it's not a part of *our* lives. Domestic Violence is probably the most common example--someone acts as a thug and beats up a person who is physically less powerful or fearful and emotionally unwilling to fight back. The spouse could usually call for help a hundred times a day but just doesn't. She's afraid, for herself or her kids. Human trafficking works the same way--you manipulate someone, show a willingness to show extreme violence, then throw them out on a corner and tell them they better get you some money.
Captivity is not usually about bars, it's about psychological power structures that most humans are susceptible to.
There is nothing wrong with your son. He doesn't have any syndrome. Patients with Autism can hardly speak, let alone get "90s" in all their classes. Your snowflake diagnosis to make your child "extra-special" is an insult to parents struggling with profoundly, permentantly, disabled offspring, an insult to your son whose natural condition wasn't enough to make you happy with him, and an insult to the intelligence of the rest of us who can see right through this ridiculous bullshit.
You are raising your son to be a sperg. Stop. You've done enough damage already. Get him a normal childhood in the time he has left. Otherwise he'll end up a mendacious, amoral, flake like you.
Autism is a spectrum and not everybody is the same.
I have an uncle who is profoundly disabled, like one-of-the-most-disabled-in-the-world-can't-speak-or-toilet-himself disabled, and it doesn't insult his parents or any of his relatives when another parent struggles to find the right care for their child's health. Doesn't matter if it's autism anywhere on the spectrum or a speech impediment or full-blown AIDS.
Seriously, if you have enough cash and connections to even think about starting a company, or even doing one of these new-fangled "startups", then you're better off than 95% of the country and better of than 99% of the world.
So what? You still have a problem to deal with. Doesn't matter if you're fortunate or driven or whatever to be in the position with the skill-set to drive a startup.
In serious circles (C-level employees, attorneys, doctors, academic faculty, anyone with a security clearance) psychological treatment is still heavily stigmatized. That's dumb. Psychological treatment should just be a fact of life--someone's getting treatment, that should be fine. If it's not, you encourage them not to seek treatment, in which case you have people with *untreated* psychological problems in positions of power.
If you have any pull in your org, you should be advocating for making these things okay. Not as a top priority, but as a significant one.
So, take it from someone with over 20 years in IT. When you outsource technical functions you need to have your technical people vet the contract and you need to keep them to monitor and make sure that the company, you are outsourcing to, does their job.
The reverse lesson is also true. When you make vendor/purchaser agreements or service agreements on which a lot relies, you should have your lawyer vet the contract. (A lot of the time people don't and wind up with how-the-hell-did-we-agree-to-this down the road). If it's for the sale of goods, make sure your lawyer knows and understands the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as it applies in your state. A lot of them don't.
For this model to work you need a benevolent entity running the fiber network. Verizon runs a highly profitable wireless internet network which in many cases competes against high speed fixed internet. It is in their interest to kill fiber to the curb not keep it going. This might work if you spun off the fiber business or handed it over to a traditional utility like ConEd or National Grid. But then those electric utilities would probably end up using internet service to subsidize keeping the old electric grid going as that business enters its death spiral.
Think about the fortune they must have made in the financial district after the hurricane. I heard from someone who works there that the flooding took most of the hard links offline for IIRC months as infrastructure needed replacement (and drainage), most people switched to wireless and connections got slower and slower...
And while I haven't run into a problem with verizon techs in particular, I know cable guys up there can be pretty damn competitive, by which I mean blatantly telling you shit and lawbreaking. Cutting or disconnecting competitors' lines in apartment buildings and telling you fiber won't work because fibers break all the time, that kind of thing.
I wish them luck. Security is less of a "can't" thing as opposed to a "not worth the trouble" item.
The fundamentals are widely known, and were in place for ages -- use private WANs (although settling for Private IP MPLS networks is better than nothing) for traffic that should not be on the Net, use basic firewalling, run an IDS/IPS.
On the system level, SIEM is a big thing. Had Sony had AD policies that alerted if passwords were being guessed and locked accounts (even if the lockout time is just 1-5 minutes), the intrusion would have been mitigated.
Yes, the enterprise stuff is costly, but on the SOHO/SMB level, one can easily use a PC as a decent firewall, either using Windows Server 2012 and RRAS or a UNIX and its innate routing capabilities. There are open source tools (snort, nagios) for IDS/IPS work, and for logs, Splunk, SolarWinds, or GrayLog.
Next to will, there is the fact that competent computer security people are rare. For every clued person, there are at least ten suit wearing chatter monkeys who are willing to sell some "solution".
I still wonder if the answer is something similar to the Great Firewall of China, but this is a double-edged technology. However, the good side is that it could be used to break international botnets as well as block known malware origination sites via IP until the IP owner cleans their mess. This way, there are far fewer attacks actually hitting sites inside the US, and it would force intruders to compromise domestic machines. Of course, the bad thing is that it could easily be a censorship tool, just like China's version.
Even a UL stamp for sites that do parameterized SQL injection would be an improvement over today's utter lack of standards. Add to that a browser-based warning for sites without a UL stamp and you've reduced XSS attacks.
Security is so bad that small improvements can make big differences.
I can't help it, and maybe it's my imagination and perception bias, but to me it seems to be that as soon as a new version of Windows is approaching or even out the door, the old version starts to slow down considerably.
Correlation is not causation. The guys at MS are professional engineers--they may have different philosophies or coding styles or project priorities than you do, but they're not slowing things down in order to make you buy the next product. You're much more likely to run into that with a local guy or a disreputable company. And you might not like MS, but they haven't been a disreputable company for decades. Even if they had an inclination to be (and they don't), they're too big in the business-to-business space to risk their reputation.
What happens is your systems get slower as they get older, other systems get faster, you install more stuff, your drives fragment a bit, you add extra hardware, maybe you get malware you don't know about, etc...
Running Windows 8 on non-SSDs, I just found performance went up incredibly when I turned off the superfetch service. There's some sort of bug where it gets to 100% disk usage after a while if you're not restarting every day or two. (Sleep isn't enough). Slows the whole damn system down and task manager and resource monitor just show that you're using the pagefile, making it tricky to track down.
It might not be a problem with SSDs, which have very different read characteristics.
Even if the guy who wrote the sentence is saying otherwise? I don't think it's so clear cut in this case, but hey, it is what it is now.
Frequently, yes. It's politics, and people tend to lie. And even while that would technically be evidence of the drafter's intention (albeit after the fact and with a strong motive to lie), it wouldn't necessarily reflect the intent of the legislature in passing the law.
Long answer: Oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllll Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssss!!!
People need to grow the fuck up and grow some slightly thicker skin. People still have a lot of rights. Thankfully. But the "right to never be offended" has NEVER been among them.
People have the right to free speech, but unfortunately that does not extend to free speech without consequence from your employers. The employer isn't firing you because of anyone's right not to be offended, they're doing it because keeping him around keeps them in the news cycle and makes it be one of the first things you see about them when you look them up. Like the girl who got fired for poor-judgment tweeting about white privilege and not getting HIV.
Screw you, Statists, get back to enforcing the malum in se — you know, the kind of thing, that is illegal because it is wrong.
For a modern state to function, you need both kinds of law. Failure to pay taxes is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited), but without paying taxes you don't have cops.
availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result
In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.
Yes. In the real world SCOTUS looks closely at what impact their decision will have. "not based on the law itself" is a ridiculous criticism--they are being *asked* what the law is, and part of deciding what the law is when there is any ambiguity or potentially counterintuitive result is to figure out what are the consequences if the law is way X vs. way Y.
That's why SCOTUS often considers "administrability" when they are making decisions. It's a fundamental part of how the court operates. Would you rather they kill people Congress didn't intend to kill or that they say "this is a typo and in the context of what you are doing, it's pretty damn clear you would have intended this to mean X if you had bothered to read the law you wrote."
There is zero ambiguity here in terms of what Congress intended; it's clear that a law was poorly drafted. This is a not a maybe-they-meant-Y situation, this is a "hey, they accidentally used a sentence that probably says Y."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you don't have to show its only purpose is making bombs. There are varying standards that are all trying to capture what would be "reasonable." It wouldn't be a particularly strong argument to invoke the public safety exception in this case, but it wouldn't necessarily lose either.
That will happen. It is only a matter of time.
Haven't you been paying attention? They already hacked blue cross, which is a shitload more concerning in terms of intelligence targets than hacking health care info for America's poor and out-of-work.
I can't say I RTFA, but when the police shut down the street and show up at your front door with the bomb squad, most people don't realize they have the right to ask for a warrant.
People always have the right to *ask* for a warrant, but the police don't always need one.
Public safety is a legit exception to the warrant requirement, btw. If the police know of a dangerous condition in your house that is putting the public in danger they're allowed to enter without a warrant because it's still "reasonable" under the fourth Amendment. It's not a great argument in this case but still might win. I mean, they could someone looking for a common bomb component, it's not unreasonable to think he might have poorly-built bombs in the house which could go off. It might just be enough to consider the risk to the public such that you don't need a warrant.
*Might* be. So only a stupid cop wouldn't get a warrant or consent to search. But he might not need them.
still doesn't give you the right to trespass and steal.
Spoken like one who never had any adventures as all a kid.
I mean, granted, he's 18 so he's legally an adult for most purposes, but the proper response is still a "you have to make sure owner X doesn't mind", not a "you little thief!" Unless they have a major problem with this particular 18 year old or they just won't stop, you solve this with conversation.
Kids break laws every day. Things like trespassing (shortcut through a neighbor's yard), assault & battery (fighting another kid without their consent or other legal defense), defamation (your mom's a ____), and a dozen other things.
From a system point of view, this seems like the opposite of what we should actually want. Journal articles exist to communicate the findings of an experiment, they actually have nearly no relevance to the public, nor should they.
But the result of this is that hundreds of thousands of smart people who might be interested in your research never hear about it. I didn't get exposed to academic journals until maybe my third year in college, and they were great, and why the hell aren't they part of life for everyone who's smart? There are bad ones too, of course... but surely you could take small steps, like requiring that every paper have three abstracts: one for the scientific community, one for college students, and one for high school students and the general public.
It's like panels of people discussing problems in society seriously. Why isn't that a part of our conversation as a society? Why do we have talking heads instead of real experts on the news and then at schools we don't require watching an hour-long panel of experts talking about global warming or human rights or new developments in battery design?
indeed there are many companies that resemble Microsoft, for instance Starbucks is the Microsoft of coffee and equally evil.
Yeah, like that time that Starbucks paid less than the average wage? Woops, they pay more. Or like that time that Starbucks put the competition out of business by dumping and then raised their prices, destroying jobs in the process? No, they put the competition out of business by being consistent, and they are totally willing to open a starbucks across the street from a starbucks so there's plenty of jobs. Wait, like that time they underpaid their suppliers? No, they pay more than fair trade amounts, although those amounts are arguably too low at least they've over the baseline. So in what way is Starbucks like Microsoft? Because they produce a product that more people want to use than the stuff you like?
FWIW I think starfucks coffee is ass and if I wanted a cup of sugar I'd just ask for it, but seriously, how is Starbucks like Microsoft? The occasional bullshit trademark lawsuit? That's lame, but nowhere near that territory.
Oh drinkypoo, you're such a ray of sunshine.
That's great when you've invested money you have. There is a high number of investors working on margin.
So saying, "I've made a 75% increase" does no good when you have no money backing it.
I think Jack Nicholson put it best in The Departed, "no tickie no wash!"
Yes, the relaxed margin rules are really at fault here. 3.5 trillion got wiped out in a few weeks and there were about 2 trillion margined invested, up from 400 billion a few years ago. So people who invested more money than they have at a time when the market was priced too high are going to have a really terrible time for a while and it sucks for them, but the Chinese economy as a whole should be fine.
The market started to reduce value as they tightened margin rules. It was the right call but obviously should have been done more gradually.
The biggest harm is going to be to consumer confidence for a while, but they'll get over it depending on the timing of when they have a real estate bubble burst, which may lead to a depression down the road. They could have a few bad years but we're not there yet, and the market will adjust.
It's called an endowment effect when rich people benefit and entitlement when poor people benefit?
The endowment effect is a well-known human psychological problem where losing what we already have matters more to us than gaining what we don't have, even if it's the same amount of money. It's why an office gives you a "25% discount" is you pay within 30 days as opposed to a "25% penalty" if you pay on day 31: you prefer taking away their money to their taking away your money, even if it's the same transaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It shot up 150% fro mid-2014 and then corrected way down so that now it's only up about 75%.
Up about 75% in a year is doing fucking awesome. It's just that the big drop from the ridiculous 150% valuation will let some people sell fear and hurt the economy a bit in the short term.
Remember the endowment effect--people who made money during the 150% rise are now going to be complaining about how much they've *lost* even though they're still up.
Go to the feds, preferably anonymously (although it's hard to do that reliably without lawbreaking). But I would always do that *after* I made sure my family was safe, or for family members who refused to be safe at least had a lot of guns. You never know when the feds have a leak, or where they're going to share information with a local police force that has a leak, for example. They're not particularly bright about how they go after organized crime and public corruption (or else they'd be asking for tips and for anonymous information a *lot* more than they do). Hell, they could post a slashdot story under the radar and ask people how to deal with a corrupt building inspector and might get lots of stories.
Does GP really think organized crime in Russia doesn't get a phone call from the cops if there's a problem?
You've never imagined having a gun to your kids' head, have you?
No... But this is NOT the movies or TV. Nobody was being held captive, they had their personal cell phones, cars, homes and where freely walking around. Nobody had a gun to their head 24/7...
Surely there was a time and opportunity to make a move to reach out to authorities, make a phone call, send an E-mail or two, or get somebody in your family to help you. This went on for MONTHS.... Surely there was a number of possible exit ramps one could have taken. Heck, they claim to have had enough time to discuss and implement ways to disrupt what was going on. They had time and opportunity to get out if they wanted too.
This is not how most captivity works. People are held captive by fear and intimidation relatively easily, we just don't expect or and rarely understand it if it's not a part of *our* lives. Domestic Violence is probably the most common example--someone acts as a thug and beats up a person who is physically less powerful or fearful and emotionally unwilling to fight back. The spouse could usually call for help a hundred times a day but just doesn't. She's afraid, for herself or her kids. Human trafficking works the same way--you manipulate someone, show a willingness to show extreme violence, then throw them out on a corner and tell them they better get you some money.
Captivity is not usually about bars, it's about psychological power structures that most humans are susceptible to.
There is nothing wrong with your son. He doesn't have any syndrome. Patients with Autism can hardly speak, let alone get "90s" in all their classes. Your snowflake diagnosis to make your child "extra-special" is an insult to parents struggling with profoundly, permentantly, disabled offspring, an insult to your son whose natural condition wasn't enough to make you happy with him, and an insult to the intelligence of the rest of us who can see right through this ridiculous bullshit.
You are raising your son to be a sperg. Stop. You've done enough damage already. Get him a normal childhood in the time he has left. Otherwise he'll end up a mendacious, amoral, flake like you.
Autism is a spectrum and not everybody is the same.
I have an uncle who is profoundly disabled, like one-of-the-most-disabled-in-the-world-can't-speak-or-toilet-himself disabled, and it doesn't insult his parents or any of his relatives when another parent struggles to find the right care for their child's health. Doesn't matter if it's autism anywhere on the spectrum or a speech impediment or full-blown AIDS.
Oh bull. Therapy is a throw away thing today. The stigmata evaporated along about the '80s.
If you think I'm wrong, try slipping a reference to some condition of yours into every third conversation for a week and see how people react.
Seriously, if you have enough cash and connections to even think about starting a company, or even doing one of these new-fangled "startups", then you're better off than 95% of the country and better of than 99% of the world.
So what? You still have a problem to deal with. Doesn't matter if you're fortunate or driven or whatever to be in the position with the skill-set to drive a startup.
In serious circles (C-level employees, attorneys, doctors, academic faculty, anyone with a security clearance) psychological treatment is still heavily stigmatized. That's dumb. Psychological treatment should just be a fact of life--someone's getting treatment, that should be fine. If it's not, you encourage them not to seek treatment, in which case you have people with *untreated* psychological problems in positions of power.
If you have any pull in your org, you should be advocating for making these things okay. Not as a top priority, but as a significant one.
So, take it from someone with over 20 years in IT. When you outsource technical functions you need to have your technical people vet the contract and you need to keep them to monitor and make sure that the company, you are outsourcing to, does their job.
The reverse lesson is also true. When you make vendor/purchaser agreements or service agreements on which a lot relies, you should have your lawyer vet the contract. (A lot of the time people don't and wind up with how-the-hell-did-we-agree-to-this down the road). If it's for the sale of goods, make sure your lawyer knows and understands the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as it applies in your state. A lot of them don't.
For this model to work you need a benevolent entity running the fiber network. Verizon runs a highly profitable wireless internet network which in many cases competes against high speed fixed internet. It is in their interest to kill fiber to the curb not keep it going. This might work if you spun off the fiber business or handed it over to a traditional utility like ConEd or National Grid. But then those electric utilities would probably end up using internet service to subsidize keeping the old electric grid going as that business enters its death spiral.
Think about the fortune they must have made in the financial district after the hurricane. I heard from someone who works there that the flooding took most of the hard links offline for IIRC months as infrastructure needed replacement (and drainage), most people switched to wireless and connections got slower and slower...
And while I haven't run into a problem with verizon techs in particular, I know cable guys up there can be pretty damn competitive, by which I mean blatantly telling you shit and lawbreaking. Cutting or disconnecting competitors' lines in apartment buildings and telling you fiber won't work because fibers break all the time, that kind of thing.
I wish them luck. Security is less of a "can't" thing as opposed to a "not worth the trouble" item.
The fundamentals are widely known, and were in place for ages -- use private WANs (although settling for Private IP MPLS networks is better than nothing) for traffic that should not be on the Net, use basic firewalling, run an IDS/IPS.
On the system level, SIEM is a big thing. Had Sony had AD policies that alerted if passwords were being guessed and locked accounts (even if the lockout time is just 1-5 minutes), the intrusion would have been mitigated.
Yes, the enterprise stuff is costly, but on the SOHO/SMB level, one can easily use a PC as a decent firewall, either using Windows Server 2012 and RRAS or a UNIX and its innate routing capabilities. There are open source tools (snort, nagios) for IDS/IPS work, and for logs, Splunk, SolarWinds, or GrayLog.
Next to will, there is the fact that competent computer security people are rare. For every clued person, there are at least ten suit wearing chatter monkeys who are willing to sell some "solution".
I still wonder if the answer is something similar to the Great Firewall of China, but this is a double-edged technology. However, the good side is that it could be used to break international botnets as well as block known malware origination sites via IP until the IP owner cleans their mess. This way, there are far fewer attacks actually hitting sites inside the US, and it would force intruders to compromise domestic machines. Of course, the bad thing is that it could easily be a censorship tool, just like China's version.
Even a UL stamp for sites that do parameterized SQL injection would be an improvement over today's utter lack of standards. Add to that a browser-based warning for sites without a UL stamp and you've reduced XSS attacks.
Security is so bad that small improvements can make big differences.
I can't help it, and maybe it's my imagination and perception bias, but to me it seems to be that as soon as a new version of Windows is approaching or even out the door, the old version starts to slow down considerably.
Correlation is not causation. The guys at MS are professional engineers--they may have different philosophies or coding styles or project priorities than you do, but they're not slowing things down in order to make you buy the next product. You're much more likely to run into that with a local guy or a disreputable company. And you might not like MS, but they haven't been a disreputable company for decades. Even if they had an inclination to be (and they don't), they're too big in the business-to-business space to risk their reputation.
What happens is your systems get slower as they get older, other systems get faster, you install more stuff, your drives fragment a bit, you add extra hardware, maybe you get malware you don't know about, etc...
Running Windows 8 on non-SSDs, I just found performance went up incredibly when I turned off the superfetch service. There's some sort of bug where it gets to 100% disk usage after a while if you're not restarting every day or two. (Sleep isn't enough). Slows the whole damn system down and task manager and resource monitor just show that you're using the pagefile, making it tricky to track down.
It might not be a problem with SSDs, which have very different read characteristics.
Even if the guy who wrote the sentence is saying otherwise? I don't think it's so clear cut in this case, but hey, it is what it is now.
Frequently, yes. It's politics, and people tend to lie. And even while that would technically be evidence of the drafter's intention (albeit after the fact and with a strong motive to lie), it wouldn't necessarily reflect the intent of the legislature in passing the law.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllll Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssss!!!
People need to grow the fuck up and grow some slightly thicker skin.
People still have a lot of rights. Thankfully.
But the "right to never be offended" has NEVER been among them.
People have the right to free speech, but unfortunately that does not extend to free speech without consequence from your employers. The employer isn't firing you because of anyone's right not to be offended, they're doing it because keeping him around keeps them in the news cycle and makes it be one of the first things you see about them when you look them up. Like the girl who got fired for poor-judgment tweeting about white privilege and not getting HIV.
Screw you, Statists, get back to enforcing the malum in se — you know, the kind of thing, that is illegal because it is wrong.
For a modern state to function, you need both kinds of law. Failure to pay taxes is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited), but without paying taxes you don't have cops.
Who cares that they won a prize? They did something useful and nerdy. Can't we just be happy about that? #slashdot
In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.
Yes. In the real world SCOTUS looks closely at what impact their decision will have. "not based on the law itself" is a ridiculous criticism--they are being *asked* what the law is, and part of deciding what the law is when there is any ambiguity or potentially counterintuitive result is to figure out what are the consequences if the law is way X vs. way Y.
That's why SCOTUS often considers "administrability" when they are making decisions. It's a fundamental part of how the court operates. Would you rather they kill people Congress didn't intend to kill or that they say "this is a typo and in the context of what you are doing, it's pretty damn clear you would have intended this to mean X if you had bothered to read the law you wrote."
There is zero ambiguity here in terms of what Congress intended; it's clear that a law was poorly drafted. This is a not a maybe-they-meant-Y situation, this is a "hey, they accidentally used a sentence that probably says Y."
:)