I don't think the major US parties follow any ideology at all. It's not that the views shift over time, it is that they are inconsistent at any given instant.
For example, Democrats support social welfare for minorities and the disabled; Republicans support social welfare for the elderly and veterans. To be more specific: Republicans supported the Medicare prescription drug program, while Democrats supported the ACA. This is because the elderly vote Republican, while minorities vote Democrat. This is ideologically inconsistent because Republicans claim that they are against welfare, while the Democrats will say they are in favor of it. But both parties are actually supporting welfare, just aimed only at their particular constituent groups.
Another example: Republicans generally support a strict interpretation of the second amendment, but a loose interpretation of the first. Democrats take the opposite view. There is no consistent ideology here. The reality is that Republicans are more likely to own guns, and Democrats are more likely to be employed in mass-media.
Another one: Republicans claim Obama could not be president because if he was born in Kenya, but Republicans claim that Ted Cruz can be even though he was born in Canada, and Republicans also claimed that George Romney could even though he was born in Mexico. The underlying philosophy is the definition of the term "natural born citizen" for which the party members hold no consistent ideology.
It is for this reason, that I don't see political parties as aligning to an ideology at all. The align to whatever group will vote for them. Most voters have no concept of a philosophy or ideology on these matters. They merely vote for the party that is most likely to help them out.
A political party is typically an organization whose members share a common political view, or ideology.
Perhaps I am just jaded as an American, but in the US political parties aren't like that. They change their stance according to whoever is the leader of the party. There are some consistencies: In the US, the Republicans are against gun control and abortion. But then major issues like privacy rights and war switch every decade or so.
I am just as disinterested in this as I was when all the other phone manufacturers did it years ago.
However, the fact that Apple is shipping a camera with a significantly wider aperture, dual cameras, 2x optical zoom, and RAW support is a marvel! How about focusing (no pun intended) on that? If dual-cameras truly become standard, there's lots of interesting uses for that. Part of the reason it hasn't take-off has been that no manufacturer has offered dual-cameras consistently, so app makers had to make one-off apps that only worked on specific phones. Apple doing it could make it a standard thing. Think: 3D pictures, 3D scanner apps, better augmented reality games,...
I don't agree with your terminology. I thought ideological consistency was the opposite of being "political." Wouldn't being "political" lean more toward following a party, rather than an ideology?
Back when I was growing-up, every book, newspaper, magazine, and billboard had a white background. It was terrible on the eyes! They even went out of their way to use horrible chemicals like bleach to make the paper even whiter. Imagine how bright that was if you were reading in the sunshine!
I doubt you could make a meaningful security improvement.
No password retry limit?????? Storing and giving out router and email passwords?????? It would be so easy to make meaningful security improvements in this device it isn't funny.
This could be handled just like how UL approval is. Most stores won't sell electronics unless they are UL approved, but it isn't a government agency. We need something like that, but who checks device security. Homeowners insurance policies don't have to pay out from a fire if was caused by a non UL-approved device. So maybe we could have something like that: You are liable for the damage your hacked devices cause, unless they are UL approved.
We need a trade for this. Just like you call pest control when you have a mouse, you call someone to find out what hacked device is connected to your network.
1) We don't know about it until after they are hacked. So that ban comes too late. 2) It's not just one device. It's hard to even know what the devices are. 3) This attack is just a small piece of the damage that could be inflicted. It was a DDOS conducted by stupid devices like home security cameras. But what happens when IOT devices in gas stations and power plants are hacked? It could be used for far more nefarious acts. Stuxnet showed us the damage that could be done when industrial devices are hacked.
I hope some white-hat runs the same tools used to hack all those devices, and uses it to permanently disable them.
A better link is the one from ScienceDaily which points to here: the actual paper. My employer blocks sci-hub because they regularly post papers in violation of copyright.
I hate to defend Facebook here, but if you RTFA, you will see that some of the supposed "fake" and "inaccurate" articles were actually spoofs. People posted them because they were funny. That's like stopping by The Onion and complaining that the news is biased and inaccurate.
It would be awesome if there was some way for my home computer to become a server on the internet, and I could download or stream files straight from my computer! That would be so cool. Someone should invent that.
Are gamers asking for 4K? If not, what are they asking for?
Personally, I want: * 60fps and up * Better motion control
The motion control era died when Nintendo made the Wii U and Microsoft released the Kinect. Both were essentially inferior, more costly versions of what came before them. That's too bad, because I was excitedly waiting for the next generation and it never came. But I think I'm in the minority on this.
The summary totally ignores Powell's extremely critical remarks about Hillary, her lies, manipulation, and the public exploitation of his name against his wishes.
The summary does not mention this, because the article is about Colin Powell's emails, and no such email exists. If such an email does exist, please link to it. Otherwise, it is the AC who is lying. That post should not have been modded up without a citation to an email from Powell regarding Clinton. It was just troll/flamebait.
why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that?
1. Because warhawks are warhawks, and allies are allies, regardless of party affiliation. After 9/11, Europe sympathized with the US.
everybody's intelligence agencies seemed to suggest that Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons
2. Actually, the intelligence agencies didn't suggest this. The politicians claimed that the intelligence agencies said this, but they really didn't. The agencies don't really speak publicly, they speak through the elected officials that they report to. We now know that what they told the president and prime minister isn't the same as what the president and prime minister said publicly.
For example: We now know that for example, at the time that George W. Bush gave a speech about the supposed "yellow cake uranium," that he knew it was falsified evidence but proceeded with the speech anyway. The UK did the same thing, leading up to the invasion, asking BBC reporters to basically make-up phony facts.
If you look back at the evidence, it was clear that the evidence was being used to justify an already decided-upon conclusion. For example: The UK and US cited a shipment of aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. It turns out that the tubes were used for the much more mundane purpose of rockets. If you saw an aluminum tube that could be used for rockets or nuclear weapons, and you knew the country was developing rockets, why would you assert that these tubes are evidence of nuclear weapons? Certainly, it is possible. But they didn't present it as "well, it was probably used for rockets, but maybe it is for nukes (shrug)." It was presented as "OMG This is proof that they are developing nukes!" A lie of omission is still a lie.
You asked "Why?" It is important to understand why. It is because well-intentioned people can sometimes lie to support what they believe is right. The populus and the media in particular, must be vigilant against such things. The New York times, has since, apologized for being the white house's mouthpiece.
The paper presents a technical solution to a problem, but doesn't state what the problem is. It pays lip service to network neutrality, but demonstrates no understanding of the actual problem. If you allow users to choose what sites to prioritize, a logical user will choose "whatever site I am visiting now." If you ask them which sites should not count toward their data caps, they will answer "whatever site I am visiting now."
This is like having a special ticket that you hand to a cashier that tells them which items in this shopping trip you want to be free. They will obviously pick the most expensive item. They can also choose which lane they want to run the fastest. They will obviously pick whichever lane they are on. The solution is entirely unworkable.
Giving users the ability to choose this doesn't do anything for the ISPs. It also doesn't do anything for the users because it just means they picked which sites to slow down. Nobody wins here. The only incentive to do this would be to confuser users into thinking they have some kind of choice for marketing purposes. There is no material benefit.
Ahh, but I could make a USB kill stick that kills USB ports that kill 'kill sticks.' It would protect the data lines, sense the way-too-high voltage coming in on said lines, and counter it with a power source having *bigger* voltage and substantial current capacity.
Yes, but this only requires physical access to another person who has physical access.
As a kid, I always joked about making a "deaths head disk" which would be a floppy disk that would go up in smoke. You would put 1/2 of a flammable chemical combination on the inner rings of the spinning disk, and the other 1/2 on the outside rings. When the drive spins the disk, the chemicals mix, producing *boom*.
Perhaps. But sometimes what happens at Slashdot is that someone points out hypocricy, and once that comment is modded up, other moderators realize the hypocrisy and steer the discussion away from it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the major US parties follow any ideology at all. It's not that the views shift over time, it is that they are inconsistent at any given instant.
For example, Democrats support social welfare for minorities and the disabled; Republicans support social welfare for the elderly and veterans. To be more specific: Republicans supported the Medicare prescription drug program, while Democrats supported the ACA. This is because the elderly vote Republican, while minorities vote Democrat. This is ideologically inconsistent because Republicans claim that they are against welfare, while the Democrats will say they are in favor of it. But both parties are actually supporting welfare, just aimed only at their particular constituent groups.
Another example: Republicans generally support a strict interpretation of the second amendment, but a loose interpretation of the first. Democrats take the opposite view. There is no consistent ideology here. The reality is that Republicans are more likely to own guns, and Democrats are more likely to be employed in mass-media.
Another one: Republicans claim Obama could not be president because if he was born in Kenya, but Republicans claim that Ted Cruz can be even though he was born in Canada, and Republicans also claimed that George Romney could even though he was born in Mexico. The underlying philosophy is the definition of the term "natural born citizen" for which the party members hold no consistent ideology.
It is for this reason, that I don't see political parties as aligning to an ideology at all. The align to whatever group will vote for them. Most voters have no concept of a philosophy or ideology on these matters. They merely vote for the party that is most likely to help them out.
A political party is typically an organization whose members share a common political view, or ideology.
Perhaps I am just jaded as an American, but in the US political parties aren't like that. They change their stance according to whoever is the leader of the party. There are some consistencies: In the US, the Republicans are against gun control and abortion. But then major issues like privacy rights and war switch every decade or so.
Perhaps, the word itself has become political. :-P
I am just as disinterested in this as I was when all the other phone manufacturers did it years ago.
However, the fact that Apple is shipping a camera with a significantly wider aperture, dual cameras, 2x optical zoom, and RAW support is a marvel! How about focusing (no pun intended) on that? If dual-cameras truly become standard, there's lots of interesting uses for that. Part of the reason it hasn't take-off has been that no manufacturer has offered dual-cameras consistently, so app makers had to make one-off apps that only worked on specific phones. Apple doing it could make it a standard thing. Think: 3D pictures, 3D scanner apps, better augmented reality games, ...
I don't agree with your terminology. I thought ideological consistency was the opposite of being "political." Wouldn't being "political" lean more toward following a party, rather than an ideology?
Back when I was growing-up, every book, newspaper, magazine, and billboard had a white background. It was terrible on the eyes! They even went out of their way to use horrible chemicals like bleach to make the paper even whiter. Imagine how bright that was if you were reading in the sunshine!
I doubt you could make a meaningful security improvement.
No password retry limit?????? Storing and giving out router and email passwords?????? It would be so easy to make meaningful security improvements in this device it isn't funny.
My toaster has an IPX address you insensitive clod!
This could be handled just like how UL approval is. Most stores won't sell electronics unless they are UL approved, but it isn't a government agency. We need something like that, but who checks device security. Homeowners insurance policies don't have to pay out from a fire if was caused by a non UL-approved device. So maybe we could have something like that: You are liable for the damage your hacked devices cause, unless they are UL approved.
Fair question.
We need a trade for this. Just like you call pest control when you have a mouse, you call someone to find out what hacked device is connected to your network.
Maybe we need some kind of minimum security standards for any network-connected device. Like how we have FCC and UL, we need something else.
While I agree, there's a bigger picture to it.
1) We don't know about it until after they are hacked. So that ban comes too late.
2) It's not just one device. It's hard to even know what the devices are.
3) This attack is just a small piece of the damage that could be inflicted. It was a DDOS conducted by stupid devices like home security cameras. But what happens when IOT devices in gas stations and power plants are hacked? It could be used for far more nefarious acts. Stuxnet showed us the damage that could be done when industrial devices are hacked.
I hope some white-hat runs the same tools used to hack all those devices, and uses it to permanently disable them.
A better link is the one from ScienceDaily which points to here: the actual paper. My employer blocks sci-hub because they regularly post papers in violation of copyright.
Which is fine, right up until the point where I go to news.google.com and start seeing Onion headlines there sourced directly from the Onion.
Which didn't happen.
If you're labeling it "news", you really should be making some rudimentary effort to filter out that kind of material.
They didn't label it news. The summary says it was labeled "Trending Topics."
Well, it's a pretty common fact at this point that Netflix's *streaming* library is shrinking.
I hate to defend Facebook here, but if you RTFA, you will see that some of the supposed "fake" and "inaccurate" articles were actually spoofs. People posted them because they were funny. That's like stopping by The Onion and complaining that the news is biased and inaccurate.
It would be awesome if there was some way for my home computer to become a server on the internet, and I could download or stream files straight from my computer! That would be so cool. Someone should invent that.
Reaction: Change the term from Global Warming to Climate Change.
Do you know when this changeover of terminology actually happened? I've heard reference to it before, but I am unclear.
Are gamers asking for 4K? If not, what are they asking for?
Personally, I want:
* 60fps and up
* Better motion control
The motion control era died when Nintendo made the Wii U and Microsoft released the Kinect. Both were essentially inferior, more costly versions of what came before them. That's too bad, because I was excitedly waiting for the next generation and it never came. But I think I'm in the minority on this.
Sheeesh, I just wanted a link. It is strange that none of the linked articles mentioned it. Was it the summary that was biased, or the media?
The summary totally ignores Powell's extremely critical remarks about Hillary, her lies, manipulation, and the public exploitation of his name against his wishes.
The summary does not mention this, because the article is about Colin Powell's emails, and no such email exists. If such an email does exist, please link to it. Otherwise, it is the AC who is lying. That post should not have been modded up without a citation to an email from Powell regarding Clinton. It was just troll/flamebait.
You asked "why?"
why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that?
1. Because warhawks are warhawks, and allies are allies, regardless of party affiliation. After 9/11, Europe sympathized with the US.
everybody's intelligence agencies seemed to suggest that Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons
2. Actually, the intelligence agencies didn't suggest this. The politicians claimed that the intelligence agencies said this, but they really didn't. The agencies don't really speak publicly, they speak through the elected officials that they report to. We now know that what they told the president and prime minister isn't the same as what the president and prime minister said publicly.
For example: We now know that for example, at the time that George W. Bush gave a speech about the supposed "yellow cake uranium," that he knew it was falsified evidence but proceeded with the speech anyway. The UK did the same thing, leading up to the invasion, asking BBC reporters to basically make-up phony facts.
If you look back at the evidence, it was clear that the evidence was being used to justify an already decided-upon conclusion. For example: The UK and US cited a shipment of aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. It turns out that the tubes were used for the much more mundane purpose of rockets. If you saw an aluminum tube that could be used for rockets or nuclear weapons, and you knew the country was developing rockets, why would you assert that these tubes are evidence of nuclear weapons? Certainly, it is possible. But they didn't present it as "well, it was probably used for rockets, but maybe it is for nukes (shrug)." It was presented as "OMG This is proof that they are developing nukes!" A lie of omission is still a lie.
You asked "Why?" It is important to understand why. It is because well-intentioned people can sometimes lie to support what they believe is right. The populus and the media in particular, must be vigilant against such things. The New York times, has since, apologized for being the white house's mouthpiece.
The paper presents a technical solution to a problem, but doesn't state what the problem is. It pays lip service to network neutrality, but demonstrates no understanding of the actual problem. If you allow users to choose what sites to prioritize, a logical user will choose "whatever site I am visiting now." If you ask them which sites should not count toward their data caps, they will answer "whatever site I am visiting now."
This is like having a special ticket that you hand to a cashier that tells them which items in this shopping trip you want to be free. They will obviously pick the most expensive item. They can also choose which lane they want to run the fastest. They will obviously pick whichever lane they are on. The solution is entirely unworkable.
Giving users the ability to choose this doesn't do anything for the ISPs. It also doesn't do anything for the users because it just means they picked which sites to slow down. Nobody wins here. The only incentive to do this would be to confuser users into thinking they have some kind of choice for marketing purposes. There is no material benefit.
Ahh, but I could make a USB kill stick that kills USB ports that kill 'kill sticks.' It would protect the data lines, sense the way-too-high voltage coming in on said lines, and counter it with a power source having *bigger* voltage and substantial current capacity.
Yes, but this only requires physical access to another person who has physical access.
As a kid, I always joked about making a "deaths head disk" which would be a floppy disk that would go up in smoke. You would put 1/2 of a flammable chemical combination on the inner rings of the spinning disk, and the other 1/2 on the outside rings. When the drive spins the disk, the chemicals mix, producing *boom*.
Perhaps. But sometimes what happens at Slashdot is that someone points out hypocricy, and once that comment is modded up, other moderators realize the hypocrisy and steer the discussion away from it.