So, as I said, don't put your personal shit out on the web
The point is that, short of logging off entirely and becoming a luddite hermit, it's incredibly hard to actually accomplish that! I have literally six different anti-tracking browser extensions going (BetterPrivacy, Lightbeam, RefControl, RequestPolicy, Self-Destructing Cookies and uBlock), and whitelisting cross-site requests extremely judiciously, and I still doubt I'm stopping all the tracking!
They're not using the word in that sense. In military terms, an "actor" is merely an entity that takes an action. Think of the distinction between a "state actor" (referring to a combatant operating on behalf of a government) versus an individual acting of his own accord.
It's because when he's run against female candidates in the past, they bury him with spurious accusations of sexism (even though he's a feminist), but he's not politically-correct enough to defend against the tactic.
There are many labels you could give his plan, but "silly" seems inappropriate, at least if you know any history. The Founding Fathers would probably have strongly approved of such an initiative, since they knew their history too and modeled our country after principles of ancient Greece and Rome.
The ancient Romans had a specific way of dealing with a major crisis -- they'd elect a dictator as an "extraordinary magistrate" whose sole purpose was to deal with the crisis and then resign. The classic example invoked by the Founding Fathers was Cincinnatus who twice was given absolute power by the Romans and then gave it up to return to his farm. For the Romans, there was nothing worse than a politician who sought to keep power for a long time -- a trend that held for centuries until Julius Caesar finally broke that system and turned the Republic into an Empire.
No, it's silly because getting elected means depending on votes from drooling morons who don't have the slightest clue about any of that! You have to at least pretend to be a "normal" candidate (i.e., corrupt-as-fuck sociopath), then reveal your noble scheme after getting elected.
In other words, Lessig's fatal flaw was that he assumed the American public was rational and paying attention.
Because the Clintons have the party establishment tied up, Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her
Never mind that Sanders has been polling above Clinton at least part of the time, he's not "viable" because "reasons."
Of course, the only reason people believe Sanders is "crazy" is because the media keeps claiming so, but that's a total lie -- in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.
If the biased media unfairly refuses to acknowledge the candidate exists, how's he supposed to get the poll numbers?
Lessig lost because the media pre-ordained it, simple as that. It's the same reason Bernie Sanders will lose: the media categorically refuses to acknowledge him as a serious candidate despite the fact that he's been polling above HRC at least part of the time!
Being too lazy to sort through the issues is not the same as having no choice. Besides, it's the user's responsibility to follow the law, not Google's.
Misrepresenting it as something it is not, does not help your cause.
Pot, meet Kettle. "Independent PACs," my ass!
They only look "independent" because the candidate doesn't control them... just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain who's controlling both the PACs and the candidate.
I think you may be misunderstanding. I'm not trying to stop Google Voice from recording the call; quite the opposite: I'm trying to turn call recording on, but when I do, Google Voice plays a message (that the other person can hear) saying "this call is now being recorded" or similar. I want it to record the call, but not play that message since I'm under no obligation to notify the other party that I'm recording.
Or if you're in a one-party consent state, go ahead and record whoever the fuck you want regardless of whether they know it's happening. All you Californians assume that just because your state (stupidly) requires all-party consent, that everywhere else is the same. It's not.
(On a side note, it is total bullshit that services like Google Voice don't have a way to turn the "this call is being recorded" notification off.)
They want you to fumble around with an additional piece of equipment that needs its own separate remote just so you can watch their video?
Of course they do! If they control the hardware, that means they're the ones who get to advertise to you, they/re the ones who get to collect statistics on what you watch, they're the ones who get to know your wifi network's password, and they're the ones who get to listen and/or watch (depending on the sensors available) to what's going on in your living room. Letting a competitor like Apple, Google, or even LG have all that data instead is intolerable to Amazon.
The engines are optimized for (at least a modicum) of emissions already. If you told an aftermarket tuner to completely ignore NOx (and possibly particulates, although the DPF would still catch them), he could substantially increase horsepower (think 25% or more).
Also, tuning a diesel does not tend to reduce MPG much, because you are actually using the extra power only occasionally. The rest of the time it uses only the same amount of fuel as it did before.
No kidding. If I own a device (and I do own the device under the Doctrine of First Sale, regardless of what some bullshit unenforceable EULA allegedly says!), then its purpose is whatever I want it to be. If I decide my PS3 (not that I'd ever own a Sony product) is a supercomputer node, then it's a supercomputer node. If I decide my Kindle is a smartphone, then it's a smartphone.
If we're going to have standardized tests, and have the teachers "accountable" to them, then the test itself needs to draw from such a wide scope of subject matter that it's impossible for the teacher to prep for it. (Or in other words, the scope need to be so broad that prepping for the test necessarily entails conveying a sufficient general education.)
First of all, people didn't have cable TV lines hooked up to their house in the analog era.
Of course they did! How do you think cable TV worked in the '80s, '90s and early 2000s? Haven't you ever heard of an (analog) "cable-ready" TV?
It's true that CableCARD went too far by most cable providers not allowing recording by default on any channels - even when the content companies didn't ask them to. It was totally possible for an HDHomerun CableCARD device to record as long as the record/copy flags were set to allow. The fact that they had this capability as part of the standard is the one part that is absolutely wrong.
No, CableCARD went too far by allowing the flag disabling recording to exist. Being on by default is beside the point.
And what about one device impersonating another device? The SIM card does that. In very much the same way that CableCARD does what it does.
Nobody's complaining about a hardware authentication token, but both SIM cards and CableCARDs go way, way beyond that. There's no reason for either of those things to even know the model number of the device they're plugged into! Literally, the only thing they should actually "need" to do is give the appropriate response to the authentication request.
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T had a patent on that, at least as applied to mobile phone minutes ("rollover minutes"). Nobody else was allowed to do it.
What's the difference between Joe's blog and Amazon.com customer reviews?
The point is that, short of logging off entirely and becoming a luddite hermit, it's incredibly hard to actually accomplish that! I have literally six different anti-tracking browser extensions going (BetterPrivacy, Lightbeam, RefControl, RequestPolicy, Self-Destructing Cookies and uBlock), and whitelisting cross-site requests extremely judiciously, and I still doubt I'm stopping all the tracking!
I'm guessing Wikipedia.
...which means it's failing to block ooyala.com, ntv.io, and rxpnow.com. You might want to get a better browser extension (such as RequestPolicy).
They're not using the word in that sense. In military terms, an "actor" is merely an entity that takes an action. Think of the distinction between a "state actor" (referring to a combatant operating on behalf of a government) versus an individual acting of his own accord.
You have the same rights everywhere. The only thing that varies by jurisdiction is which of them are being infringed upon.
Roads are designed for all users, not just cars. A pedestrian is "traffic!"
It's because when he's run against female candidates in the past, they bury him with spurious accusations of sexism (even though he's a feminist), but he's not politically-correct enough to defend against the tactic.
No, it's silly because getting elected means depending on votes from drooling morons who don't have the slightest clue about any of that! You have to at least pretend to be a "normal" candidate (i.e., corrupt-as-fuck sociopath), then reveal your noble scheme after getting elected.
In other words, Lessig's fatal flaw was that he assumed the American public was rational and paying attention.
But when you combine that with the fact that the two dominant parties completely control the electoral process, that's called "tyranny."
Never mind that Sanders has been polling above Clinton at least part of the time, he's not "viable" because "reasons."
Of course, the only reason people believe Sanders is "crazy" is because the media keeps claiming so, but that's a total lie -- in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.
If the biased media unfairly refuses to acknowledge the candidate exists, how's he supposed to get the poll numbers?
Lessig lost because the media pre-ordained it, simple as that. It's the same reason Bernie Sanders will lose: the media categorically refuses to acknowledge him as a serious candidate despite the fact that he's been polling above HRC at least part of the time!
Being too lazy to sort through the issues is not the same as having no choice. Besides, it's the user's responsibility to follow the law, not Google's.
Pot, meet Kettle. "Independent PACs," my ass!
They only look "independent" because the candidate doesn't control them... just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain who's controlling both the PACs and the candidate.
I think you may be misunderstanding. I'm not trying to stop Google Voice from recording the call; quite the opposite: I'm trying to turn call recording on, but when I do, Google Voice plays a message (that the other person can hear) saying "this call is now being recorded" or similar. I want it to record the call, but not play that message since I'm under no obligation to notify the other party that I'm recording.
Put your Viking helmet on! Spread that mayonnaise on the lawn!
Oh wait, you said kittens, not weasels...
Ironically, that's exactly how Apple wanted everyone to develop for the iPhone in the beginning...
Or if you're in a one-party consent state, go ahead and record whoever the fuck you want regardless of whether they know it's happening. All you Californians assume that just because your state (stupidly) requires all-party consent, that everywhere else is the same. It's not.
(On a side note, it is total bullshit that services like Google Voice don't have a way to turn the "this call is being recorded" notification off.)
The relevant sector is Internet retailers, and Wal-Mart's web presence sucks.
Of course they do! If they control the hardware, that means they're the ones who get to advertise to you, they/re the ones who get to collect statistics on what you watch, they're the ones who get to know your wifi network's password, and they're the ones who get to listen and/or watch (depending on the sensors available) to what's going on in your living room. Letting a competitor like Apple, Google, or even LG have all that data instead is intolerable to Amazon.
The engines are optimized for (at least a modicum) of emissions already. If you told an aftermarket tuner to completely ignore NOx (and possibly particulates, although the DPF would still catch them), he could substantially increase horsepower (think 25% or more).
Also, tuning a diesel does not tend to reduce MPG much, because you are actually using the extra power only occasionally. The rest of the time it uses only the same amount of fuel as it did before.
No kidding. If I own a device (and I do own the device under the Doctrine of First Sale, regardless of what some bullshit unenforceable EULA allegedly says!), then its purpose is whatever I want it to be. If I decide my PS3 (not that I'd ever own a Sony product) is a supercomputer node, then it's a supercomputer node. If I decide my Kindle is a smartphone, then it's a smartphone.
If we're going to have standardized tests, and have the teachers "accountable" to them, then the test itself needs to draw from such a wide scope of subject matter that it's impossible for the teacher to prep for it. (Or in other words, the scope need to be so broad that prepping for the test necessarily entails conveying a sufficient general education.)
Of course they did! How do you think cable TV worked in the '80s, '90s and early 2000s? Haven't you ever heard of an (analog) "cable-ready" TV?
No, CableCARD went too far by allowing the flag disabling recording to exist. Being on by default is beside the point.
Nobody's complaining about a hardware authentication token, but both SIM cards and CableCARDs go way, way beyond that. There's no reason for either of those things to even know the model number of the device they're plugged into! Literally, the only thing they should actually "need" to do is give the appropriate response to the authentication request.