I mean it sounds like this is just to protect sensitive data from the day-to-day work of your regular old DBAs. They aren't trying to look at the data, and hack into the system to examine it. They just shouldn't unnecessarily be exposed to it.
Yeah, okay. You're right. I thought about including solar wind, and tabulating how many mph it'd make per year, but decided it was too complicated and standing on false simplicity would make for a better point.
Being objectively wrong like that wasn't a "better point".
Not to worry, as soon as google cements their monopoly, you'll be free to watch any advertisement video you want. You can choose to watch the ads your friends share, or the ones that are merely placement ads in popular video series.
For a more important question that actually having this debate, since like I said, intransigence, do you know how crazy you are, or do you think that you're exceptionally insightful and have stumbled, through reading an articles' summary, upon a grand and important conspiracy with unspecified ends, that just happens to need this researcher, in particular, dead?
I mean, what degree of self awareness do your kind have?
Because the OP alleged motivated murder, and that was the most plausibly motivated group, while still being insane to allege.
Now, you can stop being insane too, or we can go down a rabbit hole where you pretend that there's no reason to assume the OP meant that because nobody could ever mean that. You'll know you're lying, I'll know you're lying, and people reading will know you're lying, but at least you'll have saved face by not admitting that relatively plausible explanation.
Concrete goals with palpable results. Watergate had political leverage for a national election. Operation Valkyrie had the goal of removing a racist dictator from office, and protecting the political stability of Germany.
Do you know what conspiracy theories have that mark them as crazy?
Allegations of a widespread and well-covered up plan to achieve a nebulous unstated group who benefits in an abstract matter, by deceiving as large a group of people as possible.
A "strange world" is full of people doing stupid shit for stupid reasons.
No, you misunderstood my post, to say the least. I was alleging a substantial separation from any sort of politicized violence the GP was implying.
As to the rest of your post, you're taking that rather substantial misunderstanding and running pretty crazy with it. We can talk about the dozen or so actual murders performed specifically in the name of "pro life" ideology if you want. But if we did, it would a red herring and unrelated to my post.
I just got the oddest sense of deja vu, like I've had this exact same debate with the exact same presumption of a crazy conspiracy as a baseline for the discussion. Completely different subject, but the exact same argument, at the exact same threading depth. I seem to recall it ending in intransigence on the part of the paranoid party.
It is not "simpler" to concoct an elaborate conspiracy to draw international attention to the subject just before you kill them.
Ah, but that's the question the string theory proponents claim to be working towards: parsimony. Fewer, more elegant equations for more of the universes' behavior.
Is that better occam's razor material than the standard model that applies several different core mechanics more straightforwardly? Maybe. Maybe not. Tough question, and irrelevant if string theory doesn't hold up its end on predictive value.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same rule for computers as other systems:
At some level you have to trust the people who run your systems. Quis cosdet ipsos custodes, ya know?
That is to say that sensitivity is a spectrum, not a Boolean status?
I mean it sounds like this is just to protect sensitive data from the day-to-day work of your regular old DBAs. They aren't trying to look at the data, and hack into the system to examine it. They just shouldn't unnecessarily be exposed to it.
Well, I mean, slashdot has been astroturfing for a while, this is just the first time I've noticed it specifically being for Microsoft.
Yeah, okay. You're right. I thought about including solar wind, and tabulating how many mph it'd make per year, but decided it was too complicated and standing on false simplicity would make for a better point.
Being objectively wrong like that wasn't a "better point".
Slashdot articles are now pushing Microsoft products. Everything is backwards from 1997.
On the other hand, it is space. The list external forces to worry about are: gravity.
Don't worry, the NSA isn't forgetting you, you're just required to forget some criminals. Hope that helps.
I don't know who modded you troll. Your objection to my post is totally reasonable.
You might have seen it. I didn't.
I've gotta say, I didn't see rampant abuse of the law coming so fast.
Of course there will be. But they'll be in not-quite enforced back room trust agreements about salaries and pricing. You know, like already happens.
Who's sick of Jewish influence in this country?
Neo-nazi shitheads.
Not to worry, as soon as google cements their monopoly, you'll be free to watch any advertisement video you want. You can choose to watch the ads your friends share, or the ones that are merely placement ads in popular video series.
No, but argument is reserved for the intellectually honest.
Okay, so rabbit hole it is.
You know you're lying. I know you're lying. I'm done with the conversation.
No, this isn't an insult. Do you know you're crazy or not?
Hey, look. A major industry exists.
For a more important question that actually having this debate, since like I said, intransigence, do you know how crazy you are, or do you think that you're exceptionally insightful and have stumbled, through reading an articles' summary, upon a grand and important conspiracy with unspecified ends, that just happens to need this researcher, in particular, dead?
I mean, what degree of self awareness do your kind have?
How much will the class action lawsuit cost them, when they're brought to court for deceitful contracts?
Because the OP alleged motivated murder, and that was the most plausibly motivated group, while still being insane to allege.
Now, you can stop being insane too, or we can go down a rabbit hole where you pretend that there's no reason to assume the OP meant that because nobody could ever mean that. You'll know you're lying, I'll know you're lying, and people reading will know you're lying, but at least you'll have saved face by not admitting that relatively plausible explanation.
Do you know what actual conspiracies have?
Concrete goals with palpable results.
Watergate had political leverage for a national election.
Operation Valkyrie had the goal of removing a racist dictator from office, and protecting the political stability of Germany.
Do you know what conspiracy theories have that mark them as crazy?
Allegations of a widespread and well-covered up plan to achieve a nebulous unstated group who benefits in an abstract matter, by deceiving as large a group of people as possible.
A "strange world" is full of people doing stupid shit for stupid reasons.
No, you misunderstood my post, to say the least. I was alleging a substantial separation from any sort of politicized violence the GP was implying.
As to the rest of your post, you're taking that rather substantial misunderstanding and running pretty crazy with it. We can talk about the dozen or so actual murders performed specifically in the name of "pro life" ideology if you want. But if we did, it would a red herring and unrelated to my post.
Not everyone bothers with these distinctions. To say that the debate is one rife with ignorance is to master the skill of understatement.
shut him up
I just got the oddest sense of deja vu, like I've had this exact same debate with the exact same presumption of a crazy conspiracy as a baseline for the discussion. Completely different subject, but the exact same argument, at the exact same threading depth. I seem to recall it ending in intransigence on the part of the paranoid party.
It is not "simpler" to concoct an elaborate conspiracy to draw international attention to the subject just before you kill them.
They haven't released the note, that makes assessing the motivations impractical.
Ah, but that's the question the string theory proponents claim to be working towards: parsimony. Fewer, more elegant equations for more of the universes' behavior.
Is that better occam's razor material than the standard model that applies several different core mechanics more straightforwardly? Maybe. Maybe not. Tough question, and irrelevant if string theory doesn't hold up its end on predictive value.