Oh look! More vague non-specifics! Who said Daesh fighters work for free? What does that have to do with your vague inferences about them somehow working for "the generals" you so sniffingly dislike? You seem obsessed with avoiding ANY possibility that groups like Daesh actually do the things they do or mean the things they say. What's your vested interest in attempting to portray them as something else? Be specific.
You do realize, right, that you are still avoiding any sort of specificity? You refer to "the fraud," but then carefully avoid explaining why our understanding of the actions of groups like Daesh or the Taliban is fraudulent? So: when Daesh rolls into town and shoots a bunch of people and throws them into a ditch because they are insufficiently in keeping with their world view, and then they explain that that's exactly what they did and why they did it and publish that explanation on numerous jihaddi-friendly web outlets which part is the fraud? Did the fake the murders? Are they lying about their world view? Be specific. Not that you will - you'll just wave your hands again and mutter something non-specific in order to deflect.
Are you sure that it isn't aliens, calling the shots? Or is that in a different one of your narratives? Because I'm a little foggy on just what it is that you think whoever the plurally vague "your" is that you're waving your hands about is doing to raise young men in Wahhabist mosques. How (please, for once, make an attempt to actually talk substance and specifics) are the ambiguous "your" dictating the precepts and call to action that is emanating from the toxic corners of that culture? Provide a solid, specific example of how whoever it is that you think is the "your" is actually directing the minds and actions of, for example, the three guys that walked into the Brussels airport yesterday to kill people. Specifically. Can't be specific? That's because it's hard to connect your comic-book-level fantasy to reality when you have to explain how it actually works. But give it a try, since your purpose is to amuse rather than enlighten.
Just to be clear, here, you're saying that the videos produced by the people who proudly state that things like ending the education of girls are really (let me guess here) actually... what?... CIA productions? Which juvenile conspiracy theory are you currently subscribed to? So the Taliban, Boko Haram, Daesh... these are all fictional contrivances, and all of their brutality and slaughter is manufactured by third parties? Do tell. Please include all the details you've imagined, so we can better understand your particular type of delusion.
Oh, I get it now. The choice of currency is a sign of who's doing the paying? You do actually understand the utility of US currency pretty much anyplace in the world, don't you? Yeah, you do. It definitely annoys you, that's obvious. Get over it. Or do something to make your own currency more valuable so YOU can be the one that ISIS fighters work for (cuz, yeah, they work for whoever happened to print the currency being used... right, gotcha).
Yes, medieval-minded theocratic thugs who swear the Koran is why they burn down schools and shoot teachers in front of their students, that's the flavor of the week. Why? Because that stuff actually happens. Do YOU do that? Do your neighbors? No? That's why you're not the flavor of the month. Start acting like a barbarian and you can get some of the same attention. Lop the heads off of a village full of people because you don't like how they interpret a fairy tale, and you can get a piece too. What the hell is your point, exactly?
Which doesn't change the fact that making a nail bomb is (as has been demonstrated repeatedly) a painless home-brew process.
You only refuse to acknowledge the role your great bickering empires play in this.
Really? So, western powers are bickering with each other, and what... angry Muslims decide to kill themselves while attempting to murder as many transit passengers as possible to get everyone to settle down and be nice? Are you even listening to yourself?
And you usefully spread their bigoted propaganda to keep the game going.
Really. Which propaganda have I just spread, and in which way is anything I've said bigoted? Be specific, instead of trying to distract by casting vague hand-waving ad hominem aspersions.
Sure, great video for them. But how does that compare to, say, a fully loaded airliner crashing into downtown Detroit as it's approaching the airport there? But for a few mis-steps on deploying/using an explosive meant to accomplish that, that's exactly what we'd have seen. Far more destruction and flaming death than the two bombs used this morning. But now much harder to attempt, for obvious reasons.
Are you being sarcastic? The explosives necessary to injure hundreds of people can be procured/produced with over-the-counter materials from any home improvement store and perhaps a side visit to the kitchen department at any department store. The materials needed can be had for the cost of a few pizzas, and the expertise needed can be had at any time, for free online. Perhaps you were being sarcastic?
Also note that they didn't need to get anything past airport security to do this.
Do you really think that if they'd been able to waltz the same explosives and guns onto passenger jets, instead, that they'd have hesitated for a moment to turn those dozens of deaths into hundreds? WTF.
I've seen this before. If it has enough backers, it will eventually divide into two main "camps", one of which is caught up on the exclusive purity angle and the other thinks that it is already superior to what other people are using and should be shared with the world.
Just the other day I was trying (AGAIN) to remind myself of the difference between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam. This about covers it.
I did not read any posts with people misunderstanding
What? How can a phrase like "providing 40 million elderly a fixed income WHICH THEY PAID FOR WITH A DEDICATED TAX" represent anything other than a pure misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation? A given elderly person, if they're receiving SS entitlements, are getting money that is being taxed from people who are currently working. The money the elderly person is receiving is NOT money that they paid in taxes back when they. The SS taxes they themselves paid were used to fund SS recipients at the time they were taxed. There is no put-it-in-take-it-out-later going on. There is no "which they paid for" at all. There is only a transfer tax: money is taken from your paycheck today, and given to other people, today. Whether or to what degree that will be true when than same worker retires later is not driven by whether SS was paid or how much was during their working years. It's a real-time welfare style tax and distribution system, subject to continual adjustment by the legislature.
Yes, there is a dedicated, specific tax. And it is used to fund the CURRENT transfers to recipients. You DO NOT HAVE an "account" in to which anything has been deposited for your later use. Trying to convey that to people is you being either spectacularly ignorant or (much more likely) deliberately disingenuous. Deceitful. Essentially, you are lying and you know it (or should).
Why is talking accurately about Hillary Clinton's abject uselessness as Secretary of State somehow "panicking" from your perspective? Isn't the whole point of the election season to examine each candidate's skills, achievements, and general sensibilities and to weigh them against what you want to see in office? Her many years as a proven serial liar make her fundamentally unfit for that office. It's not "panicking" to point that out.
i think providing 40 million elderly a fixed income WHICH THEY PAID FOR WITH A DEDICATED TAX
You might want to consider learning about transfer entitlement taxes and spending before you go on another of your phony, pedantic, condescending lectures aimed at other people whose priorities are different than yours.
Nobody paid for the Social Security money they later collects. Other people do. When you're working and being taxed for SS, that money is being transferred that year to recipients of that program's entitlements. As defined by congress for that year. It's not going "into your account" or anything even vaguely like that. When you retire, and start filing to collect that program's entitlements for yourself, it's going to be money that's being taxed against the income of other people who will then be working and paying to give you that money. That's why the language on those Social Security statements you see explicitly say that benefits described are only estimates, and that there is no guarantee that you will receive any benefits. Because whether you get it, and how much, is a recurring matter for the legislature, not a function of you having set money aside through that program.
Of course you probably know this, but are using the misleading language you use in order to distract from the real situation while hoping to score rhetorical points for the occasional viewer here who doesn't know how entitlement programs work.
No, actually, payroll taxes and sales taxes do NOT fund the federal discretionary spending budget. When people talk about "taxpayer funded" spending at universities (here, we're talking about the sort of research that produces the papers in question) they are talking about stuff that comes out of the discretionary budget. Period. This isn't mandated spending (like Social Security, Medicare, etc).
Bother to understand how this actually works before you wag your finger at someone. Coward.
Right, money is fungible. But only half of the people in the country actually pay for the sort of stuff in question. I'm pointing out that the old "it should be free for everybody because we all pay for with 'tax money' which belongs to all of us" thing is deceptive. "We" don't all pay taxes. Only about half of us do, and only a small part of that half pay for the huge majority of it. Every time somebody tries out that "we all pay for it" thing, I suspect I'm hearing a likely Bernie Sanders voter saying "the stuff I want should be free!" because "we all pay for it" blah blah. It's election season, and it's important to remind everyone how few people actually DO pay for everything that's in the governments discretionary spending bucket.
No, the cams push images to a private server, and I browse there. In once case (the real-time dog cam), I had to set up a tunnel for the app, as I can't use it over my own VPN rig. This is indeed all in a state of evolution. Ideally, I'd only talk to an externally provisioned server with good security, and it in turn would talk to the house's gadgets over a carefully established VPN.
You know what? It IS damn useful to be able to look at an app on my phone while I'm out of the house, and see whether or not the doors are locked, or the outside motion-sensor lights are on, or whether there's suddenly water standing on the basement floor, or if the temperature and humidity in the house has suddenly gone way out of bounds. It's really damn nice to be able to fire up that app and get a real-time look at the dog-cam, or to see which cars are at home in the driveway.
I do all of this in my router's DMZ.
It's not about being too lazy to walk into the next room to flip a switch.
Anything that is funded by tax money should be available to the citizens who pay that tax free of charge, at the very least.
That has a certain appeal. But since things like education funding are part of the federal government's discretionary spending budget and thus funded by income tax, that would leave only about half of the citizens allowed to see those documents (since the other half of the population pays no or negative income taxes).
On the other hand, the right to life is a fundamental, human right - and that implies that everybody has a right to live somewhere, which contradicts your statement, I think.
Nonsense. Do I have the right to move into your living room and set up camp? No? Why not?
The "right to life" means that anybody who seeks to deprive you of your life has to answer for it. As in, the government can't simply kill you because you're expensive to feed. Or the local drug dealer can't kill you (without consequence) for interfering with his attempt to sell meth outside your front door. That's not the same as a right to a lifestyle that someone else has to buy for you. Because then you're forcing that OTHER person to give up part of their life to give you want you feel entitled to for breathing.
The solution for that is TOKENS. Your web app collects the CC info over an SSL-encrypted session, and presents it to an API at the bank (also talked-to over a secure pipe). The bank records the CC info and returns a token CC account - essentially, a fake CC that you CAN store in plain text because it's completely useless outside of the context in which you and the bank have arranged to later use it. Then, when you go to run the transaction (say, when you're about to ship some goods, or renew services, etc) - which might be half a second later, or a year later - you've got something you can work with, and no need for fragile/complex crypto locally. The bank, which already in theory DOES that in a big way for a living, has that part covered.
The token/fake CC number, BTW, can contain the same last four card number digits as the real card, which makes it very easy to combine those four digits with a scrap or two of customer info in order to look up account history, etc., locally without having to interact with the bank again later.
People who have made their lives in San Francisco, especially in the arts, have a right to stay where they are
And that sentiment, right there, is what's wrong with this country. A whiny sense of entitlement that makes claim to something scarce simply because they want it. This is especially amusing (or would be, if these people didn't vote) in its predictableness, coming from the usual lefty/artist/aging-or-rebooted-hippie sector. Ask those same breathless progressives if they think that, say, the people in a Kentucky coal mining town have a "right" to things staying exactly as they are.
For a lot of these applications, the noise would be prohibitive. The weight of the generator may be a problem. And if it's being used for imaging in a stationary hover, the (usually very visible) exhaust cloud from those small engines could be a show-stopper. But I'm betting that an engine/generator/fuel combo with enough output to replace what's coming out of (say) a 6S 8000mah LiPo would be much too heavy.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh look! More vague non-specifics! Who said Daesh fighters work for free? What does that have to do with your vague inferences about them somehow working for "the generals" you so sniffingly dislike? You seem obsessed with avoiding ANY possibility that groups like Daesh actually do the things they do or mean the things they say. What's your vested interest in attempting to portray them as something else? Be specific.
You do realize, right, that you are still avoiding any sort of specificity? You refer to "the fraud," but then carefully avoid explaining why our understanding of the actions of groups like Daesh or the Taliban is fraudulent? So: when Daesh rolls into town and shoots a bunch of people and throws them into a ditch because they are insufficiently in keeping with their world view, and then they explain that that's exactly what they did and why they did it and publish that explanation on numerous jihaddi-friendly web outlets which part is the fraud? Did the fake the murders? Are they lying about their world view? Be specific. Not that you will - you'll just wave your hands again and mutter something non-specific in order to deflect.
Are you sure that it isn't aliens, calling the shots? Or is that in a different one of your narratives? Because I'm a little foggy on just what it is that you think whoever the plurally vague "your" is that you're waving your hands about is doing to raise young men in Wahhabist mosques. How (please, for once, make an attempt to actually talk substance and specifics) are the ambiguous "your" dictating the precepts and call to action that is emanating from the toxic corners of that culture? Provide a solid, specific example of how whoever it is that you think is the "your" is actually directing the minds and actions of, for example, the three guys that walked into the Brussels airport yesterday to kill people. Specifically. Can't be specific? That's because it's hard to connect your comic-book-level fantasy to reality when you have to explain how it actually works. But give it a try, since your purpose is to amuse rather than enlighten.
Just to be clear, here, you're saying that the videos produced by the people who proudly state that things like ending the education of girls are really (let me guess here) actually ... what? ... CIA productions? Which juvenile conspiracy theory are you currently subscribed to? So the Taliban, Boko Haram, Daesh ... these are all fictional contrivances, and all of their brutality and slaughter is manufactured by third parties? Do tell. Please include all the details you've imagined, so we can better understand your particular type of delusion.
Oh, I get it now. The choice of currency is a sign of who's doing the paying? You do actually understand the utility of US currency pretty much anyplace in the world, don't you? Yeah, you do. It definitely annoys you, that's obvious. Get over it. Or do something to make your own currency more valuable so YOU can be the one that ISIS fighters work for (cuz, yeah, they work for whoever happened to print the currency being used ... right, gotcha).
Yes, medieval-minded theocratic thugs who swear the Koran is why they burn down schools and shoot teachers in front of their students, that's the flavor of the week. Why? Because that stuff actually happens. Do YOU do that? Do your neighbors? No? That's why you're not the flavor of the month. Start acting like a barbarian and you can get some of the same attention. Lop the heads off of a village full of people because you don't like how they interpret a fairy tale, and you can get a piece too. What the hell is your point, exactly?
Nope, there's plenty of big money behind it.
Which doesn't change the fact that making a nail bomb is (as has been demonstrated repeatedly) a painless home-brew process.
You only refuse to acknowledge the role your great bickering empires play in this.
Really? So, western powers are bickering with each other, and what ... angry Muslims decide to kill themselves while attempting to murder as many transit passengers as possible to get everyone to settle down and be nice? Are you even listening to yourself?
And you usefully spread their bigoted propaganda to keep the game going.
Really. Which propaganda have I just spread, and in which way is anything I've said bigoted? Be specific, instead of trying to distract by casting vague hand-waving ad hominem aspersions.
Sure, great video for them. But how does that compare to, say, a fully loaded airliner crashing into downtown Detroit as it's approaching the airport there? But for a few mis-steps on deploying/using an explosive meant to accomplish that, that's exactly what we'd have seen. Far more destruction and flaming death than the two bombs used this morning. But now much harder to attempt, for obvious reasons.
who is selling the weapons to them?
Are you being sarcastic? The explosives necessary to injure hundreds of people can be procured/produced with over-the-counter materials from any home improvement store and perhaps a side visit to the kitchen department at any department store. The materials needed can be had for the cost of a few pizzas, and the expertise needed can be had at any time, for free online. Perhaps you were being sarcastic?
Also note that they didn't need to get anything past airport security to do this.
Do you really think that if they'd been able to waltz the same explosives and guns onto passenger jets, instead, that they'd have hesitated for a moment to turn those dozens of deaths into hundreds? WTF.
I've seen this before. If it has enough backers, it will eventually divide into two main "camps", one of which is caught up on the exclusive purity angle and the other thinks that it is already superior to what other people are using and should be shared with the world.
Just the other day I was trying (AGAIN) to remind myself of the difference between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam. This about covers it.
I did not read any posts with people misunderstanding
What? How can a phrase like "providing 40 million elderly a fixed income WHICH THEY PAID FOR WITH A DEDICATED TAX" represent anything other than a pure misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation? A given elderly person, if they're receiving SS entitlements, are getting money that is being taxed from people who are currently working. The money the elderly person is receiving is NOT money that they paid in taxes back when they. The SS taxes they themselves paid were used to fund SS recipients at the time they were taxed. There is no put-it-in-take-it-out-later going on. There is no "which they paid for" at all. There is only a transfer tax: money is taken from your paycheck today, and given to other people, today. Whether or to what degree that will be true when than same worker retires later is not driven by whether SS was paid or how much was during their working years. It's a real-time welfare style tax and distribution system, subject to continual adjustment by the legislature.
Yes, there is a dedicated, specific tax. And it is used to fund the CURRENT transfers to recipients. You DO NOT HAVE an "account" in to which anything has been deposited for your later use. Trying to convey that to people is you being either spectacularly ignorant or (much more likely) deliberately disingenuous. Deceitful. Essentially, you are lying and you know it (or should).
Why is talking accurately about Hillary Clinton's abject uselessness as Secretary of State somehow "panicking" from your perspective? Isn't the whole point of the election season to examine each candidate's skills, achievements, and general sensibilities and to weigh them against what you want to see in office? Her many years as a proven serial liar make her fundamentally unfit for that office. It's not "panicking" to point that out.
i think providing 40 million elderly a fixed income WHICH THEY PAID FOR WITH A DEDICATED TAX
You might want to consider learning about transfer entitlement taxes and spending before you go on another of your phony, pedantic, condescending lectures aimed at other people whose priorities are different than yours.
Nobody paid for the Social Security money they later collects. Other people do. When you're working and being taxed for SS, that money is being transferred that year to recipients of that program's entitlements. As defined by congress for that year. It's not going "into your account" or anything even vaguely like that. When you retire, and start filing to collect that program's entitlements for yourself, it's going to be money that's being taxed against the income of other people who will then be working and paying to give you that money. That's why the language on those Social Security statements you see explicitly say that benefits described are only estimates, and that there is no guarantee that you will receive any benefits. Because whether you get it, and how much, is a recurring matter for the legislature, not a function of you having set money aside through that program.
Of course you probably know this, but are using the misleading language you use in order to distract from the real situation while hoping to score rhetorical points for the occasional viewer here who doesn't know how entitlement programs work.
No, actually, payroll taxes and sales taxes do NOT fund the federal discretionary spending budget. When people talk about "taxpayer funded" spending at universities (here, we're talking about the sort of research that produces the papers in question) they are talking about stuff that comes out of the discretionary budget. Period. This isn't mandated spending (like Social Security, Medicare, etc).
Bother to understand how this actually works before you wag your finger at someone. Coward.
Yes, I suppose that they too might find it interesting to know if my basement is flooding.
Right, money is fungible. But only half of the people in the country actually pay for the sort of stuff in question. I'm pointing out that the old "it should be free for everybody because we all pay for with 'tax money' which belongs to all of us" thing is deceptive. "We" don't all pay taxes. Only about half of us do, and only a small part of that half pay for the huge majority of it. Every time somebody tries out that "we all pay for it" thing, I suspect I'm hearing a likely Bernie Sanders voter saying "the stuff I want should be free!" because "we all pay for it" blah blah. It's election season, and it's important to remind everyone how few people actually DO pay for everything that's in the governments discretionary spending bucket.
No, the cams push images to a private server, and I browse there. In once case (the real-time dog cam), I had to set up a tunnel for the app, as I can't use it over my own VPN rig. This is indeed all in a state of evolution. Ideally, I'd only talk to an externally provisioned server with good security, and it in turn would talk to the house's gadgets over a carefully established VPN.
You know what? It IS damn useful to be able to look at an app on my phone while I'm out of the house, and see whether or not the doors are locked, or the outside motion-sensor lights are on, or whether there's suddenly water standing on the basement floor, or if the temperature and humidity in the house has suddenly gone way out of bounds. It's really damn nice to be able to fire up that app and get a real-time look at the dog-cam, or to see which cars are at home in the driveway.
I do all of this in my router's DMZ.
It's not about being too lazy to walk into the next room to flip a switch.
Anything that is funded by tax money should be available to the citizens who pay that tax free of charge, at the very least.
That has a certain appeal. But since things like education funding are part of the federal government's discretionary spending budget and thus funded by income tax, that would leave only about half of the citizens allowed to see those documents (since the other half of the population pays no or negative income taxes).
On the other hand, the right to life is a fundamental, human right - and that implies that everybody has a right to live somewhere, which contradicts your statement, I think.
Nonsense. Do I have the right to move into your living room and set up camp? No? Why not?
The "right to life" means that anybody who seeks to deprive you of your life has to answer for it. As in, the government can't simply kill you because you're expensive to feed. Or the local drug dealer can't kill you (without consequence) for interfering with his attempt to sell meth outside your front door. That's not the same as a right to a lifestyle that someone else has to buy for you. Because then you're forcing that OTHER person to give up part of their life to give you want you feel entitled to for breathing.
Happily some hackers exposed the truth.
If that was their agenda, they could have done so in a far less destructive way. Quite making excuses for griefers.
The solution for that is TOKENS. Your web app collects the CC info over an SSL-encrypted session, and presents it to an API at the bank (also talked-to over a secure pipe). The bank records the CC info and returns a token CC account - essentially, a fake CC that you CAN store in plain text because it's completely useless outside of the context in which you and the bank have arranged to later use it. Then, when you go to run the transaction (say, when you're about to ship some goods, or renew services, etc) - which might be half a second later, or a year later - you've got something you can work with, and no need for fragile/complex crypto locally. The bank, which already in theory DOES that in a big way for a living, has that part covered.
The token/fake CC number, BTW, can contain the same last four card number digits as the real card, which makes it very easy to combine those four digits with a scrap or two of customer info in order to look up account history, etc., locally without having to interact with the bank again later.
People who have made their lives in San Francisco, especially in the arts, have a right to stay where they are
And that sentiment, right there, is what's wrong with this country. A whiny sense of entitlement that makes claim to something scarce simply because they want it. This is especially amusing (or would be, if these people didn't vote) in its predictableness, coming from the usual lefty/artist/aging-or-rebooted-hippie sector. Ask those same breathless progressives if they think that, say, the people in a Kentucky coal mining town have a "right" to things staying exactly as they are.
For a lot of these applications, the noise would be prohibitive. The weight of the generator may be a problem. And if it's being used for imaging in a stationary hover, the (usually very visible) exhaust cloud from those small engines could be a show-stopper. But I'm betting that an engine/generator/fuel combo with enough output to replace what's coming out of (say) a 6S 8000mah LiPo would be much too heavy.