KDE has features that Gnome has refused to implement. Gnome 3 promised Kiosk features similar to what KDE has had since version 2.0, never happened. They refuse to allow root access to the Window manager, and sometimes it's needed (CAD/CAE applications). To top all that off, it's far less flexible than KDE.
Desktop control is required in some environments, which rules out all of the Linux desktops except for KDE. So maybe for you KDE sucks, but from a enterprise and compliance perspective it's both exceptional and essential.
Further, I have had better experiences with KDE all the way around. I don't have issues controlling menus, location of "start" items, window tiling, multiple displays and desktops, sounds, or any of the other areas where Gnome and Unity are both problematic and inferior in my experience. KDE's speed has always been better than Gnome as well. I'm sure my hardware selection plays a role in that, so again your experiences may differ from mine.
You can claim that emacs is better than vi just like you can claim that Gnome is better than KDE. Different people have different experiences, and will claim the opposite. Neither side is wrong necessarily.
Jello works just as well. Working at the Department of Defense we annually had to reject the latest greatest "biometric wonder" finger print ID systems because we could easily spoof people's identity lifting prints with Jello, then log in with the same Jello. Obviously a truly malicious person could eat the tasty evidence and ensure nobody knew what happened..
I use a longer passcode on my phone than 4 characters, but not even close to 40. If you need to use bad/broken logic to justify the use of something, it probably does not deserve justification.
I think you are (intentionally?) using a non dictionary definition for "destroy". Rendering the surface of the Earth uninhabitable due to radioactive particles covering all surface area is destruction. Check your local dictionary, "destroy" is to render something completely useless. You seem to be replacing the word with "demolish"
America's nuclear strategy isn't MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), and hasn't been for a couple of decades now. The strategy we're working towards now is Minimal Deterrence - the smallest number of weapons needed for deterrence.
Based on the numbers, it's not simply deterrence. That may be where some folks want to go, but certainly not where we are today. Reduction to be just a deterrent only is heavily dependent on where other countries maintain their stockpiles.
Most comments I have seen so far only discuss one edge on this blade, and like it or not it is a double edged sword. The number of weapons we have has been negotiated down with our biggest rival. ~1500 multiple warhead weapons is still enough to blow up the world several times over, and this does not account for the tactical nuclear weapons. Further, we can only hope that some other countries like China and India are being honest with the numbers they claim. The US and Russia may be completely outpaced and not know it.
At present, the goal is to modernize the weapons we have. This improvement process is not simply to make weapons better, but required to maintain them safely. The latter seems to be overlooked.
The concern I gathered from the article is really that these same new modern facilities could be used to increase our weapons base by future administrations. Something I agree should be considered in all big political decisions (not to be confused with refusing all political decisions).
Haha, oh shit.. that is hilarious! The lack of *snark* indicates that you are such a tool you actually believe such a sad statement too. I'm sure in your mind he deserved that Nobel prize, Gitmo was closed, Torture stopped, the Government became more transparent and accountable, we finally have a balanced budget, the deficit was reduced, Bankers were held accountable for embezzlement and fraud, and the wars in the Middle East really ended.
I wish I could say that you were just a shill, but in reality there are many that believe false claims and have no idea what a "fact" really is.
Well, those same psychopaths have big ass bomb shelters with enough supplies to last at least a century. Do you really think that they would launch without being in their bunkers? Even better, do you believe that peons will be invited inside? Psychopaths are not stupid. Immoral and egotistical sure, but not stupid.
I have found numerous articles written regarding arguments to vaccines by MDs. Most are questioning the frequency and quantity at which we are recommending and pressuring people into getting vaccines for children. Using keywords, you can find them. You won't however see them published in medical journals, find mention on Yahoo or MSN, or anything else.
Since the only thing I provided any details on was the origin of the Universe, you seem to be building lots of straw men. Let us see.
to believe that there is a "Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe." Is, in itself, a religion.
Scientific inquiry into the origin of the Universe not a religion, your claim is a baseless fabrication. We investigate the origin of all kinds of objects in numerous fields of Science. What causes O3, what causes stars to form, what did dogs evolve from, etc... The origin of the Universe is a much larger subject and requires much more to attempt an answer, but it's just as valid as the three subjects just mentioned.
The question will matter the moment you can tell us why there is a reason for the origin of the universe we currently live in.
Irrational statement and nonsensical. Form this into a question and try again.
I philosopher probably would say that, but that would be an another example of why they are useless hanger ons to the historical coat tails of science.
When the fallacy and falsity is removed you state "the question does not matter" to which I'll point back to the post you responded to.
Yes, there is proof. We are walking around in it. And yes, atheists do understand the something caused it. But there is a lot of evidence showing it was a natural something, and zero evidence it was a bi-product of intent.
Absolutely false statements and more fallacy. No! Science has not determined the origin of the Universe. Both Big Bang and Expanding Vacuum theory pick up _after_ something already exists. Both require all of the laws of physics to exist, both require mass and energy to exist, and both require space to exist . Quantities of each of those things will vary depending on who's theory you prefer, but none of the explain the origin.
But there is a lot of evidence showing it was a natural something, and zero evidence it was a bi-product of intent.
I had to pull that quote twice, because this is exactly what I was referring to when I stated that people refuse to separate Religion from discussing the Origin of the Universe.
I won't pick apart the rest of your statements which do the same exact thing to other subjects that you did with trying to mangle a discussion on the origins of the Universe. You have built a bunch of straw men out of fabrications like "The science is well know. The vast majority of public debate isn't about anything debatable. It's one side making things up and the other using science. i.e. expermint, data, ect.". That is absolutely false, and any person truly interested in "science" should be appalled at such an open lie.
The IT world is certainly competitive; however, ALL companies should see the internal benefits to training employees and working to ensure they do not leave.
While your statement is surely true in many (and I daresay most) cases, the reality is that companies make money making cuts and not investments. Even if you expand by making market purchases, you are expected to cut X% of the acquisition in the process of integration. Boards may not approve acquisitions if you can not provide a plan for cutting along with your plan to purchase.
Companies with the mindset you laid out above are doing themselves a double disservice by not training their employees and leveraging the benefits and immediate returns provided by investments in their human capital. In some fields and with some resources, professional development is seen as a bigger happiness motivator and retention tool than more salary.
Companies today are not the same thing as companies of several decades ago. Companies today are seen as short term profits for someone with a bigger checkbook, not long term sustainable economies for the masses.
What you have outlined above is a company which is not interested in its people and only its immediate bottom line and one where it's clear its people should move on regardless of payscale and internal short-term opportunity provided.
Sure, but the real issue is that the majority of companies operate this way so we end up with few real choices. I remember way back when getting a job at IBM or Sun were great things. They would keep around people that worked well, and work with people to ensure transition if the job/client they were working for was changing or going away. Today, IBM has no qualms about laying off 20,000 people to outsource those same jobs for a fatter profit margin for the executives. Even if they lose whole markets full of potential and real profit (See Global Services). Sun does not exist any longer, and Oracle did not carry on any of the old Sun traditions.
Sure, technical people can find jobs if they are good. Longevity in a company is a thing of the past by and large.
As much as it may hurt _your_ beliefs, GP raises a point that many other "scientifically" minded people have been raising for some time. We can rarely have rational debate about numerous topics, which means that some of our "science" is really just bias. They even provide an example, which I think is a great one.
Science has not answered the question of whether or not the Universe requires something in order to exist. Philosophy has attempted to answer that question for over two thousand years, and any honest Philosopher will tell you the same thing. "There is no proof, but it's a rational conclusion to believe that something did cause the Universe to exist. At least as rational as the thought that a Universe could spring up out of nowhere from nothing."
Many atheists can't, or refuse to, separate Religion from the Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe. The second argument from the same or similar set of atheists is a claim "the question does not matter". The former does not follow the Socratic Method or Scientific Method. The latter is about as unscientific as you can get, discouraging investigation and discovery (No, it's not about _you_ it's about discouraging others from pursuing the question). In reality, this one question is an exceptional question for training the mind to think critically, debate, and begin to question ethics and morals.
The question regarding the origin of the Universe is just one question where bias takes charge and science is put in the background. Vaccines, GMO foods, and Global Warming are other areas that are so entrenched with bias that it is nearly impossible to debate any of these topics rationally.
Anyone that dares to challenge the status quo is attacked and ostracized. If they have arguments that are really good, they are ignored and black listed from media. Society has gone through many phases just like this one previously, as a true Philosophy I study everything including History.
I can almost assure you that this post will be censored by people with mod points, and I will receive plenty of attacks (most likely from the anonymous cowards). Not because this post is offensive, in fact I was very cautious in wording, but because it challenges the status quo.
Not only are you hiding facts, but attempting to offend as many people as possible in your fairy tale. I smell a big fat shill, but perhaps you are just trolling. Either way, claiming that the exception is the rule is asinine.
Most H1B workers are not making the same wage as Americans, but the wage is only a portion of the argument. Not even the right portion mind you.
The primary point is that Visa workers do take jobs from Citizens. That is not a question, that is a statement of fact. Citizens of any country should have priority in jobs in their own country. In fact all other countries in the world prioritizes their citizens over foreigners. They need to do so or their society begins to crumble like we have seen happening in the US for decades. (Don't "but but but" look at Wealth distribution in the US over the last 4 decades, look at median household income, and middle class wealth overall.).
A whole lot of a Visa workers treatment depends on where they are from (in addition to obviously who they are working for). I have seen both good and bad in Silicon valley, mostly good but the bad is very bad. Chinese workers with no chance of becoming a citizen seem to get the poor treatment. Indian and Russians that have a chance at citizenship seem to do well.
While I'm glad that you claim to be an exception to the rule, there are plenty of Visa workers that are not paid better than average and do have the visa hung over their head. You having an American spouse changes the equation quite a bit, and having children with that same spouse changes the equation drastically. I'm also guessing that you applied for citizenship. Interesting how you ignore those important facts, and go right to the insults and ad hominem. Hence, my statement that you are either a troll, or a shill. Most likely the latter.
While this administration has no innocence, this behavior is not new or unique. In my opinion this administration may be more blatant, but not necessarily worse about foreign policy than previous administrations.
This is the hegelian dialectic in action. People behind the scenes own the candidates placed on the ballots, Americans have not had a real choice in politicians for decades (Ross Perot was the last and a fluke).
Make no mistake, this administration knows what they are doing with all of these foreign policy decisions. Just like Bush knew damn well what he was doing. The "dumb guy" routine should be obvious by this point, but people still fall for it. Politicians are not stupid, they have the best educations money can buy and have massive think tanks helping them with policies. One person does not generate the policies, they just push them along. In other words, even if GW was not the brightest bulb in the box he did not create things like the Patriot act or war policy for the Middle East. He just executed them.
The Middle East has been intentionally destabilized. I'm sure that you have heard the phrase "Ordo ab chao", and the only way to reorder things is to make it a chaotic mess.
No need for all this, they already accomplished the goal without ever declaring an emergency. It took about 20 years to accomplish simply by deregulation and allowing 3 people to monopolize all of the companies with FCC licenses.
The Wordpress plugin Wordfence is pretty good, and we recommend it to all of our customers where I work. At a Network and Server level, which it sounds like you don't control, we take numerous proactive approaches to stop brute force attacks before they hit customer web servers.
You can easily block all mail from.ru sites. Please (re?)read your MTA documentation. I have not done so for a very long time, but in the 90s did so. In fact I used to block.tw,.ko.,.cn, and any other foreign country that sent me Spam. Management was not very happy about it when they finally figured it out, but we had very little spam for those two glorious years...
This is what people want you to believe, without a doubt. Whether or not that is truthful does not seem to matter very much. They can easily get away with manipulations using language like this.
The survey used operationalized definitions of phenomena generally characterized as “harassment” by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [17], and “assault” by WomensLaw.org [20] without specifically using the terms “harassment” or “assault” to avoid making respondents name their experiences (see Materials S1 for the full survey).
As with most fallacies, a glance this looks to be a good thing. Also, as with most fallacies, it generates a fabricated reality. As you point out, comments being automatically ranked as sexual harassment.
Disclaimer: Real problems do exist, and my comments are not intended to diminish real problems.
That out of the way, studies like this dilute real issues. The majority of the time a person hears "Your hair looks really nice." the comment is not a sexual comment but a friendly and sincere statement about someone's appearance. Nowhere does the comment indicate that the value of the recipient of the comment is only with their appearance. Nor does the statement indicate a lack of any other characteristics being human (I.E. knowledge, ethics, etc..). That Media keeps telling people that this is sexual harassment means that the gullible start to believe it, and even the not-so gullible think they can use proof of such comments as a method of advancement and/or retaliation.
This has created a society that is very isolated and simply not friendly. It has created distrust of people, where no distrust should exist.
It also means that every time a person has a real issue, their issue is not easily heard. It's hard to take the one case seriously when anyone observing evidence in numerous other cases can see that they are exaggerations to get ahead or get revenge.
No, you did not, you immediately started to muddy the waters again and then diverted the topic. Instead of answering why a power plant needs to be connected to the internet, you made up a new scenario about banana boats being shot at by a foreign military.
You completely ignored the primary question regarding two forms of justice, and cherry picked a fragment of that statement to add more bullshit about foreign super powers.
At no point did you answer either question, you are just spinning mud.
The question you just asked is not only complete nonsense, but it's not related to either of my questions. Just another attempt to muddy waters and maintain broken logic. Immediately followed by more intangible statements which avoid the questions.
At this point, there is no incentive to continue the discussion. It's impossible to debate irrational thought and a continual barrage of fantasies. If you and rationally answer my questions, I will be happy to respond but I won't hold my breath.
Nope, I don't have anything not provided in TFA. I always trust that the language used is intentional. If they meant something other that what was stated they could and should have used different language.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you Troll so frequently that the Karma is permanently set to -5 or something?
KDE has features that Gnome has refused to implement. Gnome 3 promised Kiosk features similar to what KDE has had since version 2.0, never happened. They refuse to allow root access to the Window manager, and sometimes it's needed (CAD/CAE applications). To top all that off, it's far less flexible than KDE.
Desktop control is required in some environments, which rules out all of the Linux desktops except for KDE. So maybe for you KDE sucks, but from a enterprise and compliance perspective it's both exceptional and essential.
Further, I have had better experiences with KDE all the way around. I don't have issues controlling menus, location of "start" items, window tiling, multiple displays and desktops, sounds, or any of the other areas where Gnome and Unity are both problematic and inferior in my experience. KDE's speed has always been better than Gnome as well. I'm sure my hardware selection plays a role in that, so again your experiences may differ from mine.
You can claim that emacs is better than vi just like you can claim that Gnome is better than KDE. Different people have different experiences, and will claim the opposite. Neither side is wrong necessarily.
Jello works just as well. Working at the Department of Defense we annually had to reject the latest greatest "biometric wonder" finger print ID systems because we could easily spoof people's identity lifting prints with Jello, then log in with the same Jello. Obviously a truly malicious person could eat the tasty evidence and ensure nobody knew what happened..
I use a longer passcode on my phone than 4 characters, but not even close to 40. If you need to use bad/broken logic to justify the use of something, it probably does not deserve justification.
Fallout is not limited to Urban areas, sorry. Stop trying to minimize the destructive force of nuclear weapons, your position is flat out wrong.
I think you are (intentionally?) using a non dictionary definition for "destroy". Rendering the surface of the Earth uninhabitable due to radioactive particles covering all surface area is destruction. Check your local dictionary, "destroy" is to render something completely useless. You seem to be replacing the word with "demolish"
America's nuclear strategy isn't MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), and hasn't been for a couple of decades now. The strategy we're working towards now is Minimal Deterrence - the smallest number of weapons needed for deterrence.
Based on the numbers, it's not simply deterrence. That may be where some folks want to go, but certainly not where we are today. Reduction to be just a deterrent only is heavily dependent on where other countries maintain their stockpiles.
Most comments I have seen so far only discuss one edge on this blade, and like it or not it is a double edged sword. The number of weapons we have has been negotiated down with our biggest rival. ~1500 multiple warhead weapons is still enough to blow up the world several times over, and this does not account for the tactical nuclear weapons. Further, we can only hope that some other countries like China and India are being honest with the numbers they claim. The US and Russia may be completely outpaced and not know it.
At present, the goal is to modernize the weapons we have. This improvement process is not simply to make weapons better, but required to maintain them safely. The latter seems to be overlooked.
The concern I gathered from the article is really that these same new modern facilities could be used to increase our weapons base by future administrations. Something I agree should be considered in all big political decisions (not to be confused with refusing all political decisions).
Haha, oh shit.. that is hilarious! The lack of *snark* indicates that you are such a tool you actually believe such a sad statement too. I'm sure in your mind he deserved that Nobel prize, Gitmo was closed, Torture stopped, the Government became more transparent and accountable, we finally have a balanced budget, the deficit was reduced, Bankers were held accountable for embezzlement and fraud, and the wars in the Middle East really ended.
I wish I could say that you were just a shill, but in reality there are many that believe false claims and have no idea what a "fact" really is.
Well, those same psychopaths have big ass bomb shelters with enough supplies to last at least a century. Do you really think that they would launch without being in their bunkers? Even better, do you believe that peons will be invited inside? Psychopaths are not stupid. Immoral and egotistical sure, but not stupid.
I have found numerous articles written regarding arguments to vaccines by MDs. Most are questioning the frequency and quantity at which we are recommending and pressuring people into getting vaccines for children. Using keywords, you can find them. You won't however see them published in medical journals, find mention on Yahoo or MSN, or anything else.
Since the only thing I provided any details on was the origin of the Universe, you seem to be building lots of straw men. Let us see.
to believe that there is a "Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe." Is, in itself, a religion.
Scientific inquiry into the origin of the Universe not a religion, your claim is a baseless fabrication. We investigate the origin of all kinds of objects in numerous fields of Science. What causes O3, what causes stars to form, what did dogs evolve from, etc... The origin of the Universe is a much larger subject and requires much more to attempt an answer, but it's just as valid as the three subjects just mentioned.
The question will matter the moment you can tell us why there is a reason for the origin of the universe we currently live in.
Irrational statement and nonsensical. Form this into a question and try again.
I philosopher probably would say that, but that would be an another example of why they are useless hanger ons to the historical coat tails of science.
When the fallacy and falsity is removed you state "the question does not matter" to which I'll point back to the post you responded to.
Yes, there is proof. We are walking around in it. And yes, atheists do understand the something caused it. But there is a lot of evidence showing it was a natural something, and zero evidence it was a bi-product of intent.
Absolutely false statements and more fallacy. No! Science has not determined the origin of the Universe. Both Big Bang and Expanding Vacuum theory pick up _after_ something already exists. Both require all of the laws of physics to exist, both require mass and energy to exist, and both require space to exist . Quantities of each of those things will vary depending on who's theory you prefer, but none of the explain the origin.
But there is a lot of evidence showing it was a natural something, and zero evidence it was a bi-product of intent.
I had to pull that quote twice, because this is exactly what I was referring to when I stated that people refuse to separate Religion from discussing the Origin of the Universe.
I won't pick apart the rest of your statements which do the same exact thing to other subjects that you did with trying to mangle a discussion on the origins of the Universe. You have built a bunch of straw men out of fabrications like "The science is well know. The vast majority of public debate isn't about anything debatable. It's one side making things up and the other using science. i.e. expermint, data, ect.". That is absolutely false, and any person truly interested in "science" should be appalled at such an open lie.
The IT world is certainly competitive; however, ALL companies should see the internal benefits to training employees and working to ensure they do not leave.
While your statement is surely true in many (and I daresay most) cases, the reality is that companies make money making cuts and not investments. Even if you expand by making market purchases, you are expected to cut X% of the acquisition in the process of integration. Boards may not approve acquisitions if you can not provide a plan for cutting along with your plan to purchase.
Companies with the mindset you laid out above are doing themselves a double disservice by not training their employees and leveraging the benefits and immediate returns provided by investments in their human capital. In some fields and with some resources, professional development is seen as a bigger happiness motivator and retention tool than more salary.
Companies today are not the same thing as companies of several decades ago. Companies today are seen as short term profits for someone with a bigger checkbook, not long term sustainable economies for the masses.
What you have outlined above is a company which is not interested in its people and only its immediate bottom line and one where it's clear its people should move on regardless of payscale and internal short-term opportunity provided.
Sure, but the real issue is that the majority of companies operate this way so we end up with few real choices. I remember way back when getting a job at IBM or Sun were great things. They would keep around people that worked well, and work with people to ensure transition if the job/client they were working for was changing or going away. Today, IBM has no qualms about laying off 20,000 people to outsource those same jobs for a fatter profit margin for the executives. Even if they lose whole markets full of potential and real profit (See Global Services). Sun does not exist any longer, and Oracle did not carry on any of the old Sun traditions.
Sure, technical people can find jobs if they are good. Longevity in a company is a thing of the past by and large.
As much as it may hurt _your_ beliefs, GP raises a point that many other "scientifically" minded people have been raising for some time. We can rarely have rational debate about numerous topics, which means that some of our "science" is really just bias. They even provide an example, which I think is a great one.
Science has not answered the question of whether or not the Universe requires something in order to exist. Philosophy has attempted to answer that question for over two thousand years, and any honest Philosopher will tell you the same thing. "There is no proof, but it's a rational conclusion to believe that something did cause the Universe to exist. At least as rational as the thought that a Universe could spring up out of nowhere from nothing."
Many atheists can't, or refuse to, separate Religion from the Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe. The second argument from the same or similar set of atheists is a claim "the question does not matter". The former does not follow the Socratic Method or Scientific Method. The latter is about as unscientific as you can get, discouraging investigation and discovery (No, it's not about _you_ it's about discouraging others from pursuing the question). In reality, this one question is an exceptional question for training the mind to think critically, debate, and begin to question ethics and morals.
The question regarding the origin of the Universe is just one question where bias takes charge and science is put in the background. Vaccines, GMO foods, and Global Warming are other areas that are so entrenched with bias that it is nearly impossible to debate any of these topics rationally.
Anyone that dares to challenge the status quo is attacked and ostracized. If they have arguments that are really good, they are ignored and black listed from media. Society has gone through many phases just like this one previously, as a true Philosophy I study everything including History.
I can almost assure you that this post will be censored by people with mod points, and I will receive plenty of attacks (most likely from the anonymous cowards). Not because this post is offensive, in fact I was very cautious in wording, but because it challenges the status quo.
Not only are you hiding facts, but attempting to offend as many people as possible in your fairy tale. I smell a big fat shill, but perhaps you are just trolling. Either way, claiming that the exception is the rule is asinine.
Most H1B workers are not making the same wage as Americans, but the wage is only a portion of the argument. Not even the right portion mind you.
The primary point is that Visa workers do take jobs from Citizens. That is not a question, that is a statement of fact. Citizens of any country should have priority in jobs in their own country. In fact all other countries in the world prioritizes their citizens over foreigners. They need to do so or their society begins to crumble like we have seen happening in the US for decades. (Don't "but but but" look at Wealth distribution in the US over the last 4 decades, look at median household income, and middle class wealth overall.).
A whole lot of a Visa workers treatment depends on where they are from (in addition to obviously who they are working for). I have seen both good and bad in Silicon valley, mostly good but the bad is very bad. Chinese workers with no chance of becoming a citizen seem to get the poor treatment. Indian and Russians that have a chance at citizenship seem to do well.
While I'm glad that you claim to be an exception to the rule, there are plenty of Visa workers that are not paid better than average and do have the visa hung over their head. You having an American spouse changes the equation quite a bit, and having children with that same spouse changes the equation drastically. I'm also guessing that you applied for citizenship. Interesting how you ignore those important facts, and go right to the insults and ad hominem. Hence, my statement that you are either a troll, or a shill. Most likely the latter.
While this administration has no innocence, this behavior is not new or unique. In my opinion this administration may be more blatant, but not necessarily worse about foreign policy than previous administrations.
This is the hegelian dialectic in action. People behind the scenes own the candidates placed on the ballots, Americans have not had a real choice in politicians for decades (Ross Perot was the last and a fluke).
Make no mistake, this administration knows what they are doing with all of these foreign policy decisions. Just like Bush knew damn well what he was doing. The "dumb guy" routine should be obvious by this point, but people still fall for it. Politicians are not stupid, they have the best educations money can buy and have massive think tanks helping them with policies. One person does not generate the policies, they just push them along. In other words, even if GW was not the brightest bulb in the box he did not create things like the Patriot act or war policy for the Middle East. He just executed them.
The Middle East has been intentionally destabilized. I'm sure that you have heard the phrase "Ordo ab chao", and the only way to reorder things is to make it a chaotic mess.
No need for all this, they already accomplished the goal without ever declaring an emergency. It took about 20 years to accomplish simply by deregulation and allowing 3 people to monopolize all of the companies with FCC licenses.
The Wordpress plugin Wordfence is pretty good, and we recommend it to all of our customers where I work. At a Network and Server level, which it sounds like you don't control, we take numerous proactive approaches to stop brute force attacks before they hit customer web servers.
You can easily block all mail from .ru sites. Please (re?)read your MTA documentation. I have not done so for a very long time, but in the 90s did so. In fact I used to block .tw, .ko., .cn, and any other foreign country that sent me Spam. Management was not very happy about it when they finally figured it out, but we had very little spam for those two glorious years...
If you are receiving that many brute force attacks and having to manually change admin information, you are doing the Internet wrong!
Hahaha!!
This is what people want you to believe, without a doubt. Whether or not that is truthful does not seem to matter very much. They can easily get away with manipulations using language like this.
The survey used operationalized definitions of phenomena generally characterized as “harassment” by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [17], and “assault” by WomensLaw.org [20] without specifically using the terms “harassment” or “assault” to avoid making respondents name their experiences (see Materials S1 for the full survey).
As with most fallacies, a glance this looks to be a good thing. Also, as with most fallacies, it generates a fabricated reality. As you point out, comments being automatically ranked as sexual harassment.
Disclaimer: Real problems do exist, and my comments are not intended to diminish real problems.
That out of the way, studies like this dilute real issues. The majority of the time a person hears "Your hair looks really nice." the comment is not a sexual comment but a friendly and sincere statement about someone's appearance. Nowhere does the comment indicate that the value of the recipient of the comment is only with their appearance. Nor does the statement indicate a lack of any other characteristics being human (I.E. knowledge, ethics, etc..). That Media keeps telling people that this is sexual harassment means that the gullible start to believe it, and even the not-so gullible think they can use proof of such comments as a method of advancement and/or retaliation.
This has created a society that is very isolated and simply not friendly. It has created distrust of people, where no distrust should exist.
It also means that every time a person has a real issue, their issue is not easily heard. It's hard to take the one case seriously when anyone observing evidence in numerous other cases can see that they are exaggerations to get ahead or get revenge.
Their first choice was TrueCrypt, but that would not have worked so well...
In my ever so humble opinion, dog vomit is more appealing than Beta. I think the bar should be much higher..
I think I answered them quite clearly.
No, you did not, you immediately started to muddy the waters again and then diverted the topic. Instead of answering why a power plant needs to be connected to the internet, you made up a new scenario about banana boats being shot at by a foreign military.
You completely ignored the primary question regarding two forms of justice, and cherry picked a fragment of that statement to add more bullshit about foreign super powers.
At no point did you answer either question, you are just spinning mud.
The question you just asked is not only complete nonsense, but it's not related to either of my questions. Just another attempt to muddy waters and maintain broken logic. Immediately followed by more intangible statements which avoid the questions.
At this point, there is no incentive to continue the discussion. It's impossible to debate irrational thought and a continual barrage of fantasies. If you and rationally answer my questions, I will be happy to respond but I won't hold my breath.
Nope, I don't have anything not provided in TFA. I always trust that the language used is intentional. If they meant something other that what was stated they could and should have used different language.