consumer-grade encryption is that upon which one cannot rely
No, it's having violent tantrums as lefty social currency and expecting that since it's put up with in places like Berkeley that it'll all be just fine, since one got that rockin' balaclava shipped Prime from Amazon... upon which one cannot rely.
I see. So what you're saying is that the appearance of a huge cash quid pro quo from the Russians directly into the Clintons' personal bank account while she's serving as Secretary of State and in charge of things like the granting of giant give-aways to the Russian government... the appearance of that happening literally hours apart, it nothing to worry about. But the appearance of something utterly meaningless and without any follow up or cash payment if it's someone you disapprove of politically, well, that's HORRIBLE! CNN must spend every waking hour pretending they're not hypocrites and ranting about it and simply fabricating things because appearances are crimes. Unless you're the candidate they preferred, in which case no appearance or act is ever bad.
I like your strategy of avoiding the underlying point that "having ties to Russia" is only a bad thing if you're somehow, however indirectly, related to the Trump campaign, but it's just fine if, for example, you're Secretary of State and your department is granting huge energy sector favors to Putin and your husband is quickly putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into your family's personal bank account as "speaking fees" from Russian banks involved in the deal. Yes, definitely avoid the substance of the matter at all costs, because then you'd have to confront the media hypocrisy, which would take all the fun out of the current nonsense - which exists only to distract people from how and why the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who turned their backs on Democrats out of disgust. Yes! Please keep up the snark, right on through the next election cycle. It worked SO well in the last one, didn't it? Excellent work.
If I lend you a dime after I'm linked to Russia by interacting with Kaspersky, you TOO will have Russian ties. And you'll be all the more New York Times Flavor Guilty because you've cleverly used an intermediary to establish those back channel connections. Better lawyer up.
If I use this free product, does it mean I will have "ties to Russia?" I'm sure that if I actually pay for their more advanced product, I will then have "links to Kremlin-associated Russian bankers." I don't want to get in trouble with the New York Times.
I'll count any media outlet that routinely uses phrases like "right wing" in reference to anyone of whom they disapprove (say, for insufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton in November) to be identifying themselves as left of those they hate. When you position the people you hate as being on the right, you are identifying yourself as left.
Can't help but notice how carefully you're avoiding mentioning MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the high-profile partisan ax-grinders who are caught routinely lying. Not just editorializing, or slanting their coverage to their known demographic, but actually lying. I know, it's only fun when some crazy right wing blog does it. But lefty media outlets with VASTLY larger audiences have become completely unhinged, and you know it (or should).
Well there is something to be said about strongly discouraging people who cannot personally arrange to feed and educate their children from having half a dozen of them.
Pretty much, yeah. The smashing, violence, and beatings is overwhelmingly coming from the left. That's how it's been for many years.
And the unhinged, vitriolic hate and calls for death and whatnot? Yeah, the left is a steady source of that. It's mostly notable because that's the crowd that's forever talking about how much better educated they are, and how low-brow and barbaric are all of the people who refused to obey and vote for Hillary.
Not that you can trouble yourself to identify the other sentient beings that have the ability to communicate with us but are choosing not to. Because that would mean more typing to back up your extravagant assertion.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected and was accused of even 1/10th of what Trump is under investigation for...
What? As they FBI has already pointed out, they weren't investigating him for anything. They did, however, have multiple criminal investigations into Clinton's conduct while she was a cabinet official and one of the most powerful people in the country... and nearly a dozen of her staff refused to talk without being granted immunity from prosecution. She HAS been accused - of a lot. A lot more than Trump has, because... Trump hasn't been "accused" of anything, other than delusional ranty nonsense from Democrats who are still desperate to come up with a narrative about why they've lost essentially all of their political power over the last eight years. Their absurd "Trump worked with the Russians to hack the election" narrative is laughable on its face, whereas Clinton's parade of years of demonstrated lying, mishandling of classified material, and enriching her and her husband by selling access while she was in office is established fact.
It's just classic liberal hypocrisy. Everything juvenile and coarse that other people do is a sign of their stupidity and lack of nuanced culture. When liberals can't muster an intelligent, non-insulting thing to say, or - as they do so often - resort to actual violence and destruction because they can't make a convincing, coherent point using words... then their juvenile and coarse behavior is "resistance" and is noble and good. When a progressive says that someone is bad because of how they look, it's a sign of progressive superiority. When a progressive smashes someone's business window and beats people bloody for daring to want to go hear someone speak non-approved thought on a college campus, that's a sign of just how correct they are. You need to keep up!
It's about Trump deciding that certain individuals don't qualify to receive his 'tweets'.
No, you've got it exactly wrong. Certain individuals have demonstrated that they can't be constructive REPLYING in public on his personal account and have been stopped from doing so. They can READ his tweets all day long.
No, what's cute is a anonymous loser saying he IS going to be impeached without having the intellectual honesty (or capacity, obviously) to mention any tangible reason why he would be, let alone actually be convicted of anything. The fact that you don't include such musings is a measure of what a phony you are on the subject. But please! Carry on! Continue with unhinged, delusional snarkery right on through the 2018 elections. Because unhinged liberal delusions are exactly what cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats under Obama, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and hordes of two-time Obama voters who turned their back on condescending, petulant ranty liberals in a final fit of disgust. More please! So, thanks for every bit of fact- and context-free snark you can continue to provide - it helped in November, and will continue to. Thanks in advance.
But it's not a "last mile" problem. It's a "several miles between houses" AT LEAST problem, often where there is at best some electricity, but nothing even resembling the sort of infrastructure needed to run fiber/coax. It would cost tens of thousands at least, often six figures, to get the "last mile" anywhere within a mile of each of millions of homes. That's why wireless makes more sense in such cases.
It does make you wonder what they are trying to get out of this
They are increasingly in the business of selling subscribed-to services that individuals and small businesses (say, farming operations in rural America) can't use without reliable high-enough-speed connectivity. Tens of millions of people lacking decent connectivity represents a lot of potential that MS can't eventually market to. To say nothing of the near impossibility of someone living on the side of a mountain somewhere getting their copy of Windows 10 patched/updated over the wire when they've got - at best - DSL or awful satellite service.
Just spent the last weekend driving around parts of Virginia, in the outskirts of the Charlottesville area. We're talking about people who own multi-million-dollar horse farms and wineries who have to drive 30 minutes into town to use the WiFi at a Starbucks. But they can't get cable or fiber out to their properties because nobody will do it, almost regardless of the price offered. Some sort of terrestrial wireless solution on poles, hilltop-to-hilltop, is the only way to go. LEO sats MAY provide some relief, but not likely enough to bank on when you're trying to run a point-of-sale system at the tasting room of your thousand acre winery with two hundred guests trying to give you money.
The vast majority of drones in the air right now are home built. DJI and Parrot are actually expensive toys that are in the minority here.
Citation required. I believe it is exactly the opposite. Literally millions of off-the-shelf drones from DJI and their small handful of competitors, and a rapidly dwindling number of home/custom-built machines regularly in any kind of use. The complete integration and ease of use in products like DJI's make that a no-brainer for the millions of people who are flying around for fun. Most pro photographers/videographers don't have the time to build, tweak, and maintain a custom rig - they just need a camera in the air and for it all to work: enter DJI and almost every price point.
It's not about the candy bar. It's about how the willingness to steal something that cheap tells you what you need to know about the value system and ethics of the person who does it. How is this not clear to you?
They DID act to discourage that petty theft. By firing the people who did it. You know, making them lose their jobs and of course as a result their security clearances. Not that you think that has any impact because you have no idea how the actual world works.
We shouldn't have secrets that dangerous.
Like I said, you have no idea how the actual world works. There are, for example, entire groups of people - organized at various scales from families up through governments that own nukes - that want you to be dead. You, personally, dead. It's helpful to try to find out how those groups think, what they are capable of, when and how they will conduct certain actions. How we figure those things out can involve a certain amount of secrecy. I know, you'd like the person living in or near those groups to have to have their identity out in the open even as they provide the rest of the world information about how their boss uses poison gas to attack villages. You consider transparency so important that you think that person should die as a result of providing that helpful information. Because you're a sociopathic virtue-signalling troll.
"Allow" single payer? Like the numbers that California just ran, showing that if they tried to set that up in that state, the costs of just that program would be bigger - by far - than the entire state budget? Hilarious!
During which Republicans pointed out that the whole thing was unsustainable, and would collapse. Which it's doing right now, even in states were it was embraced by liberal legislatures and executives. And during which, of course, the "discussion" involved Obama and Pelosi and Reid telling bald faced lies, over and over again, about costs and consequences. Deliberate, purposeful lying. For months. And we're now wearing it, with real problems no matter how we approach repairing the damage the Democrats deliberately inflicted for lazy political points. They new that another legislature and executive, later, would have to clean up the disaster, and they were thrilled to lay down that minefield. Which, oddly, you seem to really like.
Slashdot Mirror
consumer-grade encryption is that upon which one cannot rely
No, it's having violent tantrums as lefty social currency and expecting that since it's put up with in places like Berkeley that it'll all be just fine, since one got that rockin' balaclava shipped Prime from Amazon ... upon which one cannot rely.
I see. So what you're saying is that the appearance of a huge cash quid pro quo from the Russians directly into the Clintons' personal bank account while she's serving as Secretary of State and in charge of things like the granting of giant give-aways to the Russian government ... the appearance of that happening literally hours apart, it nothing to worry about. But the appearance of something utterly meaningless and without any follow up or cash payment if it's someone you disapprove of politically, well, that's HORRIBLE! CNN must spend every waking hour pretending they're not hypocrites and ranting about it and simply fabricating things because appearances are crimes. Unless you're the candidate they preferred, in which case no appearance or act is ever bad.
I like your strategy of avoiding the underlying point that "having ties to Russia" is only a bad thing if you're somehow, however indirectly, related to the Trump campaign, but it's just fine if, for example, you're Secretary of State and your department is granting huge energy sector favors to Putin and your husband is quickly putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into your family's personal bank account as "speaking fees" from Russian banks involved in the deal. Yes, definitely avoid the substance of the matter at all costs, because then you'd have to confront the media hypocrisy, which would take all the fun out of the current nonsense - which exists only to distract people from how and why the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who turned their backs on Democrats out of disgust. Yes! Please keep up the snark, right on through the next election cycle. It worked SO well in the last one, didn't it? Excellent work.
If I lend you a dime after I'm linked to Russia by interacting with Kaspersky, you TOO will have Russian ties. And you'll be all the more New York Times Flavor Guilty because you've cleverly used an intermediary to establish those back channel connections. Better lawyer up.
If I use this free product, does it mean I will have "ties to Russia?" I'm sure that if I actually pay for their more advanced product, I will then have "links to Kremlin-associated Russian bankers." I don't want to get in trouble with the New York Times.
So, teams with women getting funding 25% percent as often as male-only, and the author calls those chances of getting funding almost impossible?
There is no 'lefty' media
I'll count any media outlet that routinely uses phrases like "right wing" in reference to anyone of whom they disapprove (say, for insufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton in November) to be identifying themselves as left of those they hate. When you position the people you hate as being on the right, you are identifying yourself as left.
Can't help but notice how carefully you're avoiding mentioning MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the high-profile partisan ax-grinders who are caught routinely lying. Not just editorializing, or slanting their coverage to their known demographic, but actually lying. I know, it's only fun when some crazy right wing blog does it. But lefty media outlets with VASTLY larger audiences have become completely unhinged, and you know it (or should).
Well there is something to be said about strongly discouraging people who cannot personally arrange to feed and educate their children from having half a dozen of them.
Pretty much, yeah. The smashing, violence, and beatings is overwhelmingly coming from the left. That's how it's been for many years.
And the unhinged, vitriolic hate and calls for death and whatnot? Yeah, the left is a steady source of that. It's mostly notable because that's the crowd that's forever talking about how much better educated they are, and how low-brow and barbaric are all of the people who refused to obey and vote for Hillary.
Not that you can trouble yourself to identify the other sentient beings that have the ability to communicate with us but are choosing not to. Because that would mean more typing to back up your extravagant assertion.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected and was accused of even 1/10th of what Trump is under investigation for...
What? As they FBI has already pointed out, they weren't investigating him for anything. They did, however, have multiple criminal investigations into Clinton's conduct while she was a cabinet official and one of the most powerful people in the country ... and nearly a dozen of her staff refused to talk without being granted immunity from prosecution. She HAS been accused - of a lot. A lot more than Trump has, because ... Trump hasn't been "accused" of anything, other than delusional ranty nonsense from Democrats who are still desperate to come up with a narrative about why they've lost essentially all of their political power over the last eight years. Their absurd "Trump worked with the Russians to hack the election" narrative is laughable on its face, whereas Clinton's parade of years of demonstrated lying, mishandling of classified material, and enriching her and her husband by selling access while she was in office is established fact.
It's just classic liberal hypocrisy. Everything juvenile and coarse that other people do is a sign of their stupidity and lack of nuanced culture. When liberals can't muster an intelligent, non-insulting thing to say, or - as they do so often - resort to actual violence and destruction because they can't make a convincing, coherent point using words ... then their juvenile and coarse behavior is "resistance" and is noble and good. When a progressive says that someone is bad because of how they look, it's a sign of progressive superiority. When a progressive smashes someone's business window and beats people bloody for daring to want to go hear someone speak non-approved thought on a college campus, that's a sign of just how correct they are. You need to keep up!
It's about Trump deciding that certain individuals don't qualify to receive his 'tweets'.
No, you've got it exactly wrong. Certain individuals have demonstrated that they can't be constructive REPLYING in public on his personal account and have been stopped from doing so. They can READ his tweets all day long.
No, what's cute is a anonymous loser saying he IS going to be impeached without having the intellectual honesty (or capacity, obviously) to mention any tangible reason why he would be, let alone actually be convicted of anything. The fact that you don't include such musings is a measure of what a phony you are on the subject. But please! Carry on! Continue with unhinged, delusional snarkery right on through the 2018 elections. Because unhinged liberal delusions are exactly what cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats under Obama, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and hordes of two-time Obama voters who turned their back on condescending, petulant ranty liberals in a final fit of disgust. More please! So, thanks for every bit of fact- and context-free snark you can continue to provide - it helped in November, and will continue to. Thanks in advance.
But it's not a "last mile" problem. It's a "several miles between houses" AT LEAST problem, often where there is at best some electricity, but nothing even resembling the sort of infrastructure needed to run fiber/coax. It would cost tens of thousands at least, often six figures, to get the "last mile" anywhere within a mile of each of millions of homes. That's why wireless makes more sense in such cases.
It does make you wonder what they are trying to get out of this
They are increasingly in the business of selling subscribed-to services that individuals and small businesses (say, farming operations in rural America) can't use without reliable high-enough-speed connectivity. Tens of millions of people lacking decent connectivity represents a lot of potential that MS can't eventually market to. To say nothing of the near impossibility of someone living on the side of a mountain somewhere getting their copy of Windows 10 patched/updated over the wire when they've got - at best - DSL or awful satellite service.
Just spent the last weekend driving around parts of Virginia, in the outskirts of the Charlottesville area. We're talking about people who own multi-million-dollar horse farms and wineries who have to drive 30 minutes into town to use the WiFi at a Starbucks. But they can't get cable or fiber out to their properties because nobody will do it, almost regardless of the price offered. Some sort of terrestrial wireless solution on poles, hilltop-to-hilltop, is the only way to go. LEO sats MAY provide some relief, but not likely enough to bank on when you're trying to run a point-of-sale system at the tasting room of your thousand acre winery with two hundred guests trying to give you money.
Perhaps players in, for example, the automotive sales market were having trouble taking "Beepi" seriousli.
What IS it with the infantile names? It's a plague. I know, I'll start up AppNameli to help people name their startupslies.
The vast majority of drones in the air right now are home built. DJI and Parrot are actually expensive toys that are in the minority here.
Citation required. I believe it is exactly the opposite. Literally millions of off-the-shelf drones from DJI and their small handful of competitors, and a rapidly dwindling number of home/custom-built machines regularly in any kind of use. The complete integration and ease of use in products like DJI's make that a no-brainer for the millions of people who are flying around for fun. Most pro photographers/videographers don't have the time to build, tweak, and maintain a custom rig - they just need a camera in the air and for it all to work: enter DJI and almost every price point.
Except what they do is essential. You know it, and you're just trying to wish it away because you see the world as being some sort of comic book.
It's not about the candy bar. It's about how the willingness to steal something that cheap tells you what you need to know about the value system and ethics of the person who does it. How is this not clear to you?
If the CIA can't discourage petty theft ...
They DID act to discourage that petty theft. By firing the people who did it. You know, making them lose their jobs and of course as a result their security clearances. Not that you think that has any impact because you have no idea how the actual world works.
We shouldn't have secrets that dangerous.
Like I said, you have no idea how the actual world works. There are, for example, entire groups of people - organized at various scales from families up through governments that own nukes - that want you to be dead. You, personally, dead. It's helpful to try to find out how those groups think, what they are capable of, when and how they will conduct certain actions. How we figure those things out can involve a certain amount of secrecy. I know, you'd like the person living in or near those groups to have to have their identity out in the open even as they provide the rest of the world information about how their boss uses poison gas to attack villages. You consider transparency so important that you think that person should die as a result of providing that helpful information. Because you're a sociopathic virtue-signalling troll.
Maybe the sort of bonehead who can't make it all the way through the summary in order to discover the system was provisioned many years ago?
"Allow" single payer? Like the numbers that California just ran, showing that if they tried to set that up in that state, the costs of just that program would be bigger - by far - than the entire state budget? Hilarious!
a months-long open process of discussion
During which Republicans pointed out that the whole thing was unsustainable, and would collapse. Which it's doing right now, even in states were it was embraced by liberal legislatures and executives. And during which, of course, the "discussion" involved Obama and Pelosi and Reid telling bald faced lies, over and over again, about costs and consequences. Deliberate, purposeful lying. For months. And we're now wearing it, with real problems no matter how we approach repairing the damage the Democrats deliberately inflicted for lazy political points. They new that another legislature and executive, later, would have to clean up the disaster, and they were thrilled to lay down that minefield. Which, oddly, you seem to really like.