Nothing will make the pseudo-skeptics change their minds. But it's irrelevant, when even major oil producers like Saudi Arabia are setting the stage for the post-oil world, they, like pseudo-skeptics in other areas, will just fade to background noise.
I think that just makes you a moron. Defending very wealthy people hiding their cash and making sure the system is gamed so they can is not laudable, and it takes a complete fucking idiot to be making a relatively small annual salary to think what they're doing is some sort of stab at the heart of the Big Bad Government.
Even David Cameron is under an incredible amount of pressure. The Telegraph, or as some affectionately call it, the Torygraph, is calling him out. I think, particularly in an age when many governments are imposing austerity measures on their citizens, to have the very politicians who are invoking the necessity of austerity turning around and hiding their own income, and helping their wealthy friends hide their income, is becoming an unforgivable kind of hypocrisy. That the average family will have to pay higher taxes or receive less or a lower quality of various government services, while the men and women lecturing them on the necessity are protecting themselves from that measure is just not something a lot of people will stand for.
As for Cameron's pleas for privacy, considering it's his government that is trying to get the Snoopers Charter passed, well, that only demonstrates just how much of a hypocrite he really is. I don't know whether he will fall over this, but between this and the EU referendum, I'm thinking Cameron's political future doesn't extend to the next UK general election, regardless of any results.
As Simon Jenkins at the Guardian notes, while tax avoidance may be legal, the use of them, particularly by lawmakers, is just plain wrong. David Cameron, in particular, has stood against closing loopholes, and now it turns out that, because of his old man's dealings, he has been a beneficiary.
And this is the crux of the problem that the Panama Papers reveal. Yes, there is certainly a criminal element to all of this, in that these havens are used by people out and out evading taxes, and some criminals are using these havens to launder or hide their money (much as they used to do with their private Swiss bank accounts). But the real scandal here is that it is the very people who make the laws that create tax havens who are either directly making the laws (like Cameron) or have an extraordinary amount of influence over the laws being passed. These aren't just Joe and Jane Average using a few tax deductions or trusts to reduce their tax bill, these are some of he wealthiest people in the world, the kind of people that can put all sorts of pressure on lawmakers to make sure that their "avoidance" schemes stay legal.
The Panama Papers are an example of a worse kind of crime that evasion and money laundering. They are an example of the fundamental corruption of many even "liberal" political systems. In a way, this makes someone like Cameron no better than Putin, except Putin actually looks to be a lot smarter than the Prime Ministers of Britain and Iceland.
And yet the US has lead the way in shutting down probably the most infamous haven; the Swiss banks. It was the US who put the most pressure on Switzerland to reform banking practices and start abiding some reasonable standards of transparency. In fact, I'd say the popularity of other tax havens in the intervening years is because Switzerland is no longer so friendly to those seeking to hide their cash.
The reality here is that the one government who could do a lot to reduce avoidance and out and out evasion and laundering is Britain. It's overseas dependencies are some of the most notorious tax havens, but every attempt to close loopholes has been met with resistance. Judging by the increasingly hot water David Cameron is in, I think we know why.
I'm always amused, mind you, why autocrats always view themselves as effectively the "state", so that when some allegation is made against them, suddenly, it's all about destabilizing the "state".
As it is, Putin's presence in the Panama Papers, so far as I understand it, is notable by his absence. Just about everyone around him is multi-zillionaires, but Putin is not to be found. The same goes for the Chinese Premier, an apparently very poor man with lots of rich relatives.
First of all, plate tectonics has been the leading theory for over a half a century now, so it's a lot fucking longer than "a few decades" ago, a rhetorical trick you employed to make it sound like a young theory.
Second of all, so what? So a new theory was developed as new data came along. That's what AGW is. Mind you, the actual fundamental aspect of AGW, that increasing CO2 concentrations in the lower atmosphere will lead to more energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere, goes back over a century.
So here's a challenge for you, when you're not trying to make crap analogies and pointless asides into some sort of grand argument against a science you don't like. Where the fuck is that energy going if it isn't heating up the lower atmosphere, surface temperatures and the ocean? If you're going to assert the underlying theory is faulty, then you need to explain how the physics is wrong. Are you going to now claim that a thermodynamics is wrong? Are you going to claim that CO2 absorption and re-emission patterns are wrong?
All we have here is another moron who thinks he's got a killer argument against AGW, but this isn't even an argument against AGW, it's a vague claim that somehow because one branch of science, half a century ago, produced a new theory, that any day now, science will supplant AGW.
This would be the equivalent of an owner of wells drilling them into cesspools, and when someone came along and said "My microscope shows all kinds of really nasty bugs in your water, and my peers and I have determined they cause a lot of disease", basically being attacked with "You're all a bunch of frauds, consensus isn't science, and you can't trust those microscopes!"
We know the answers to these questions to a reasonable enough level of accuracy to know that if we can't hold warming below 2 degrees celsius by the end of the century, we will severely fuck things up. And the answer to that problem is to wean ourselves of fossil fuels.
For fuck's sake, even the Saudis know this, which is why they're taking this opportunity to create one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the history of humanity. They know the game is going to be up sooner or later, and they're laying the groundwork for a post-oil world, and making sure they retain the money and power that they command now. If even one of the most important fossil fuel producers in the world has clearly understood what's going to happening in the coming decades, then is there really any point in make believing that AGW isn't real and that human activity isn't driving major global climate changes? At what point does it cease to be even nominal skepticism and simply become empty-headed petulance?
And what is wrong with pricing any commodity to reflect it's true cost? If fossil fuels are not priced to take into account the real costs to society, and ultimately to the national and global economies, then what is effectively happening is a classical example of privatizing profits and socializing risk.
This is like complaining about cigarette taxes. Why should anyone have to pay an artificially hiked price for tobacco? Well, that's because tobacco products cost society a huge amount of money in health care costs, and by not building that cost into the price of tobacco profits, all that's happening is that society ends up footing the bill as tobacco companies count their profits. We have insulated them from the harm their product does, not to mention encouraging smokers to partake of a habit that not only harms themselves, but will end up costing everyone around them a great deal of money.
It matters, because if we're only a small part of the change, then we're just along for the ride. However, if we're a big part of the change, that means that we could potentially slow down, or even to some extent even "freeze" (ha ha) that change, and go some distance to mitigating the problem.
Now to be clear, there is very little debate among climatologists and people in related fields that humans are a big part of the changes in climate seen over the last few centuries, and in particular over the last few decades. There is a direct correlation between CO2 emissions and increases in lower atmospheric temperatures, oceanic temperatures and changes in ocean pH levels. There are certainly debates about the specifics, as there are in any scientific field, and new data will inevitably alter models. The newest reports coming out suggest that clouds contain a good deal more liquid water than ice, and that has altered projections, and not for the good. In reality, this is about answering one of the chief complaints of real skeptics (and no, not the fake ones that the Koch's pay), that there isn't a good understanding of how clouds may play a part in absorption of solar energy, but of course, for pseudo-skeptics, like Creationists and tobacco companies, there is no amount of evidence that will ever be enough.
And you're seeing the shift already. The "climate is always changing" meme is really just the forerunner of the newest pseudo-skeptic claim, which is not to deny to the established facts, but rather to claim that there is no point in attempting to arrest or at least minimize climate change, or, more technically, to shoot for keeping warming below the 2 degrees celsius line that climatologists have drawn in the sand. Now, suddenly, warming is an unstoppable force, so we'd best live with it.
You will notice the common element of climate psuedo-skepticism all along, and that is to defend the continued, and indeed, growing use of fossil fuels. If climate is "always changing" and "there's nothing we can do about it", then we should just keep puking CO2 into the atmosphere. All of this boils down to one thing; some very very very very rich people do not want fossil fuel use reduced, and will use their vast wealth to make sure that an army of morons buys into their views. Some of that army are posting here right now.
People used to get huge benefits from being able to flush their shit into the nearest waterway. That is, until they rendered the nearest waterway a poisonous stew.
Just because something has a short term benefit doesn't mean you can just happily ignore the long term effects.
Changes in rain belts is going to have massive effects, and not just with brown skinned people with funny names in parts of the world many in the West don't know much about and care even less about. Try to ponder North American rain belts shifting a few degrees northward. That means large part of the Great Plains could become far less productive, and meanwhile the grain belt shifts northward in Canada. While that seems okay, that means a tipping of the agricultural balance of power in North America, and whatever it's about, it's always about food.
But for some areas it will be catastrophic. Sea level rises are going to make coastal areas even in the industrialized world more difficult to maintain, and some areas, like big portions of Florida, will likely end up having to be abandoned.
This isn't even talking about CO2 absorption in the world's oceans which are having an increasing effect on aquatic ecologies. Fisheries could collapse, and considering how important sea-based protein is to millions of people, it's hard to see how that is going to end well.
Yes, the industrialized world will make it through, largely because of the vast amounts of money most industrialized nations can throw at the problems AGW will cause. But there are a lot of people who are not so fortunate, and for them it very well could be catastrophic.
It really is the same psychological trick that the Communist regimes have been using since the beginning. They've never been able to censor information completely, even in the pre-Internet age it was an impossible technical problem to fully solve. So you play a psychological warfare game instead. So long as the citizens think you have the ability, and that if they read a forbidden book or a forbidden website, that somewhere the vast colossus of state security, a light will flash and a klaxon will go off, and very serious men will appear at your doorstep and you won't be seen again. You reinforce that by making the odd citizen disappear here and there, to build up society's paranoia. The whole point is to make people police themselves.
That's why the Great Firewall, and the versions that other countries, even some so-called "liberal" democracies are creating, are as much a form of security theater as an actual control on reading forbidden content. These firewalls are like a polygraph test, they are effective because people believe they are effective, so they don't need to actually get anywhere near 100% success rate in blocking content and recording attempts. Heck, I doubt they even have to approach 50%.
That's not really the issue. The issue is that the most powerful man in the UK believes British citizens should not have any meaningful expectation of privacy from the state. If that is the case, then why precisely should he be afforded any privacy at all. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If there needs to be a "snooper's charter" that can haul all the electronic data of damned near everyone, then why is it precisely is he feels his family's offshore financial activities, designed specifically to evade British taxes, be secret? In fact, coupled with the general attitude of the British government towards tax avoiders who aren't worth millions, it creates a double-sided hypocrisy; of spying and unfair treatment. As I said, is David Cameron a god, that he should have the rules he insists his government needs for security and financial stability turned off because, well, he's a millionaire and a PM?
It looks like a glorified VM instance. There's no real integration. There's no suggestion it will end up on the server editions, and no suggestion it will be in any way integrated into Windows in a way that anyone could use as an alternative to PowerShell or CMD.EXE. Yes, I suppose for cross platform developers it might take one step out of testing some code on the other operating system, but really it sounds only slightly less of a pain that simple running an Ubuntu install virtualized in Windows.
If this is the definition of "running Bash under windows", then we've been able to do that for years.
It's little wonder the Boston Bombers managed to do what they did. All that data and all it demonstrates is that the security services are populated by complete morons.
Oh bullshit. This is about the tit not liking the tat. The reason the PM of Iceland (and now it seems the PM of Britain) wanted to keep things secret wasn't for our liberty in good government, it's because they didn't want their electorates finding out that while these people are making the average person suffer, and suffer mind you, in most cases for events the citizens had no control over, they had nice offshore accounts safely out of the hands of the taxman. They are hypocrites, and their outing was deserved and right.
Wanting to spy on every single thing a citizen types into a computing device is not some righteous cause. It's just a government spying apparatus that believes privacy and liberty should be dispensable at the merest whim. For fucks sake, there are secret fucking courts in several countries, whose sole purpose is to make sure the electorate can never have a clear picture of how many peoples' privacy are being breached.
Well you know what. If the authorities want that level of information, then I say force them to wear cameras and microphones 24 hours a day, which are constantly streamed to multiple web sites. Not a single activity, whether involve state secrets or taking a fucking dump will be permitted to be secret. That way we can make sure they aren't cutting deals that fuck over the citizens and then trying to justify it as "privacy", even as they work to destroy the privacy of millions of people who have done nothing wrong.
And you know the fuck what. If I write my private fucking thoughts down in a code that the FBI can't crack, then too fucking bad. Governments, even the judicial branch, are supposed to be limited, and not stroking each others' genitals in some big privacy destroying circle jerk. The politicians, cops and judges are merely human beings, not one tiny bit more important than anyone else. They are not gods, but if they choose to act like it, then strip them of every once of privacy. If they have a mole on their left testicle, everyone should be able to see it, and if they have a few million bucks in a tax shelter, at any moment every fucking citizen should be able to see the balance of that account. Their every intimate moment should be broadcast on hundred foot high screens.
Why is David Cameron's privacy even the tiniest bit more important than mine? Is he a god? Should we worship him?
This has happened on several of our Win10 pro machines, and the solutions found online don't work. We didn't have to nuke the installs, but it did mean deleting roaming profiles and the local copy. We are now backing profiles again after a few years of not doing it, but there are definite issues with Win10's start menu and none of the fixes work.
And don't get me started on Edge. Needless to say within a few weeks we had a GPO rolled out that made Firefox or Chrome the default browser.
I agree. If the regular citizen has no privacy rights, then neither does anyone in government, or anyone else. If there are to be no secrets, then fair enough, let's have absolutely no secrets.
Got there first? Huh? Bash is the latest iteration of the Bourne Shell, which has been around since the 1970s, and has had a number of offshoots. I mainly cut my teeth on ksh, but because the *nix world goes by the credo "if it ain't broke", it meant that a lot of the old/bin/sh scripts still run pretty much unmodified, and moving to Bash just meant learning a superset of that which I had been using for years.
And then came along PowerShell, which is just enough like the Bourne ecosystem to remind you of how Microsoft comes so close sometimes, but the inherent anti-*nix attitudes of its developers means it never quite gets there.
The fact is that if Microsoft really wants to make inroads into the realms dominated by Unix flavors, then it isn't going to do it with a scripted layer over.NET. There are decades worth of Bourne-variant scripts and libraries out there, and maybe, just for once, Microsoft might land on the right side of the question.
Unless of course, this Bash shell is nothing more than the latest iteration of the broken Posix subsystem, in which case, it's pretty much worthless.
And how does that devalue his point. Considering that David Cameron has been one of the Western leaders leading the charge against privacy with the British government's "Snooper's Charter", it's the height of irony and hypocrisy to then declare that he should be afforded privacy. If the average man on the street has no expectation of privacy, then most assuredly neither should any politician.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing will make the pseudo-skeptics change their minds. But it's irrelevant, when even major oil producers like Saudi Arabia are setting the stage for the post-oil world, they, like pseudo-skeptics in other areas, will just fade to background noise.
I think that just makes you a moron. Defending very wealthy people hiding their cash and making sure the system is gamed so they can is not laudable, and it takes a complete fucking idiot to be making a relatively small annual salary to think what they're doing is some sort of stab at the heart of the Big Bad Government.
Even David Cameron is under an incredible amount of pressure. The Telegraph, or as some affectionately call it, the Torygraph, is calling him out. I think, particularly in an age when many governments are imposing austerity measures on their citizens, to have the very politicians who are invoking the necessity of austerity turning around and hiding their own income, and helping their wealthy friends hide their income, is becoming an unforgivable kind of hypocrisy. That the average family will have to pay higher taxes or receive less or a lower quality of various government services, while the men and women lecturing them on the necessity are protecting themselves from that measure is just not something a lot of people will stand for.
As for Cameron's pleas for privacy, considering it's his government that is trying to get the Snoopers Charter passed, well, that only demonstrates just how much of a hypocrite he really is. I don't know whether he will fall over this, but between this and the EU referendum, I'm thinking Cameron's political future doesn't extend to the next UK general election, regardless of any results.
As Simon Jenkins at the Guardian notes, while tax avoidance may be legal, the use of them, particularly by lawmakers, is just plain wrong. David Cameron, in particular, has stood against closing loopholes, and now it turns out that, because of his old man's dealings, he has been a beneficiary.
And this is the crux of the problem that the Panama Papers reveal. Yes, there is certainly a criminal element to all of this, in that these havens are used by people out and out evading taxes, and some criminals are using these havens to launder or hide their money (much as they used to do with their private Swiss bank accounts). But the real scandal here is that it is the very people who make the laws that create tax havens who are either directly making the laws (like Cameron) or have an extraordinary amount of influence over the laws being passed. These aren't just Joe and Jane Average using a few tax deductions or trusts to reduce their tax bill, these are some of he wealthiest people in the world, the kind of people that can put all sorts of pressure on lawmakers to make sure that their "avoidance" schemes stay legal.
The Panama Papers are an example of a worse kind of crime that evasion and money laundering. They are an example of the fundamental corruption of many even "liberal" political systems. In a way, this makes someone like Cameron no better than Putin, except Putin actually looks to be a lot smarter than the Prime Ministers of Britain and Iceland.
And yet the US has lead the way in shutting down probably the most infamous haven; the Swiss banks. It was the US who put the most pressure on Switzerland to reform banking practices and start abiding some reasonable standards of transparency. In fact, I'd say the popularity of other tax havens in the intervening years is because Switzerland is no longer so friendly to those seeking to hide their cash.
The reality here is that the one government who could do a lot to reduce avoidance and out and out evasion and laundering is Britain. It's overseas dependencies are some of the most notorious tax havens, but every attempt to close loopholes has been met with resistance. Judging by the increasingly hot water David Cameron is in, I think we know why.
I'm always amused, mind you, why autocrats always view themselves as effectively the "state", so that when some allegation is made against them, suddenly, it's all about destabilizing the "state".
As it is, Putin's presence in the Panama Papers, so far as I understand it, is notable by his absence. Just about everyone around him is multi-zillionaires, but Putin is not to be found. The same goes for the Chinese Premier, an apparently very poor man with lots of rich relatives.
First of all, plate tectonics has been the leading theory for over a half a century now, so it's a lot fucking longer than "a few decades" ago, a rhetorical trick you employed to make it sound like a young theory.
Second of all, so what? So a new theory was developed as new data came along. That's what AGW is. Mind you, the actual fundamental aspect of AGW, that increasing CO2 concentrations in the lower atmosphere will lead to more energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere, goes back over a century.
So here's a challenge for you, when you're not trying to make crap analogies and pointless asides into some sort of grand argument against a science you don't like. Where the fuck is that energy going if it isn't heating up the lower atmosphere, surface temperatures and the ocean? If you're going to assert the underlying theory is faulty, then you need to explain how the physics is wrong. Are you going to now claim that a thermodynamics is wrong? Are you going to claim that CO2 absorption and re-emission patterns are wrong?
All we have here is another moron who thinks he's got a killer argument against AGW, but this isn't even an argument against AGW, it's a vague claim that somehow because one branch of science, half a century ago, produced a new theory, that any day now, science will supplant AGW.
And????
This would be the equivalent of an owner of wells drilling them into cesspools, and when someone came along and said "My microscope shows all kinds of really nasty bugs in your water, and my peers and I have determined they cause a lot of disease", basically being attacked with "You're all a bunch of frauds, consensus isn't science, and you can't trust those microscopes!"
We know the answers to these questions to a reasonable enough level of accuracy to know that if we can't hold warming below 2 degrees celsius by the end of the century, we will severely fuck things up. And the answer to that problem is to wean ourselves of fossil fuels.
For fuck's sake, even the Saudis know this, which is why they're taking this opportunity to create one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the history of humanity. They know the game is going to be up sooner or later, and they're laying the groundwork for a post-oil world, and making sure they retain the money and power that they command now. If even one of the most important fossil fuel producers in the world has clearly understood what's going to happening in the coming decades, then is there really any point in make believing that AGW isn't real and that human activity isn't driving major global climate changes? At what point does it cease to be even nominal skepticism and simply become empty-headed petulance?
And what is wrong with pricing any commodity to reflect it's true cost? If fossil fuels are not priced to take into account the real costs to society, and ultimately to the national and global economies, then what is effectively happening is a classical example of privatizing profits and socializing risk.
This is like complaining about cigarette taxes. Why should anyone have to pay an artificially hiked price for tobacco? Well, that's because tobacco products cost society a huge amount of money in health care costs, and by not building that cost into the price of tobacco profits, all that's happening is that society ends up footing the bill as tobacco companies count their profits. We have insulated them from the harm their product does, not to mention encouraging smokers to partake of a habit that not only harms themselves, but will end up costing everyone around them a great deal of money.
It matters, because if we're only a small part of the change, then we're just along for the ride. However, if we're a big part of the change, that means that we could potentially slow down, or even to some extent even "freeze" (ha ha) that change, and go some distance to mitigating the problem.
Now to be clear, there is very little debate among climatologists and people in related fields that humans are a big part of the changes in climate seen over the last few centuries, and in particular over the last few decades. There is a direct correlation between CO2 emissions and increases in lower atmospheric temperatures, oceanic temperatures and changes in ocean pH levels. There are certainly debates about the specifics, as there are in any scientific field, and new data will inevitably alter models. The newest reports coming out suggest that clouds contain a good deal more liquid water than ice, and that has altered projections, and not for the good. In reality, this is about answering one of the chief complaints of real skeptics (and no, not the fake ones that the Koch's pay), that there isn't a good understanding of how clouds may play a part in absorption of solar energy, but of course, for pseudo-skeptics, like Creationists and tobacco companies, there is no amount of evidence that will ever be enough.
And you're seeing the shift already. The "climate is always changing" meme is really just the forerunner of the newest pseudo-skeptic claim, which is not to deny to the established facts, but rather to claim that there is no point in attempting to arrest or at least minimize climate change, or, more technically, to shoot for keeping warming below the 2 degrees celsius line that climatologists have drawn in the sand. Now, suddenly, warming is an unstoppable force, so we'd best live with it.
You will notice the common element of climate psuedo-skepticism all along, and that is to defend the continued, and indeed, growing use of fossil fuels. If climate is "always changing" and "there's nothing we can do about it", then we should just keep puking CO2 into the atmosphere. All of this boils down to one thing; some very very very very rich people do not want fossil fuel use reduced, and will use their vast wealth to make sure that an army of morons buys into their views. Some of that army are posting here right now.
Because he's the only one saying it....
Oh wait, he isn't. Just about every climatologist out there is saying it.
People used to get huge benefits from being able to flush their shit into the nearest waterway. That is, until they rendered the nearest waterway a poisonous stew.
Just because something has a short term benefit doesn't mean you can just happily ignore the long term effects.
Changes in rain belts is going to have massive effects, and not just with brown skinned people with funny names in parts of the world many in the West don't know much about and care even less about. Try to ponder North American rain belts shifting a few degrees northward. That means large part of the Great Plains could become far less productive, and meanwhile the grain belt shifts northward in Canada. While that seems okay, that means a tipping of the agricultural balance of power in North America, and whatever it's about, it's always about food.
But for some areas it will be catastrophic. Sea level rises are going to make coastal areas even in the industrialized world more difficult to maintain, and some areas, like big portions of Florida, will likely end up having to be abandoned.
This isn't even talking about CO2 absorption in the world's oceans which are having an increasing effect on aquatic ecologies. Fisheries could collapse, and considering how important sea-based protein is to millions of people, it's hard to see how that is going to end well.
Yes, the industrialized world will make it through, largely because of the vast amounts of money most industrialized nations can throw at the problems AGW will cause. But there are a lot of people who are not so fortunate, and for them it very well could be catastrophic.
I think the context is pretty bloody clear.
It really is the same psychological trick that the Communist regimes have been using since the beginning. They've never been able to censor information completely, even in the pre-Internet age it was an impossible technical problem to fully solve. So you play a psychological warfare game instead. So long as the citizens think you have the ability, and that if they read a forbidden book or a forbidden website, that somewhere the vast colossus of state security, a light will flash and a klaxon will go off, and very serious men will appear at your doorstep and you won't be seen again. You reinforce that by making the odd citizen disappear here and there, to build up society's paranoia. The whole point is to make people police themselves.
That's why the Great Firewall, and the versions that other countries, even some so-called "liberal" democracies are creating, are as much a form of security theater as an actual control on reading forbidden content. These firewalls are like a polygraph test, they are effective because people believe they are effective, so they don't need to actually get anywhere near 100% success rate in blocking content and recording attempts. Heck, I doubt they even have to approach 50%.
That's not really the issue. The issue is that the most powerful man in the UK believes British citizens should not have any meaningful expectation of privacy from the state. If that is the case, then why precisely should he be afforded any privacy at all. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If there needs to be a "snooper's charter" that can haul all the electronic data of damned near everyone, then why is it precisely is he feels his family's offshore financial activities, designed specifically to evade British taxes, be secret? In fact, coupled with the general attitude of the British government towards tax avoiders who aren't worth millions, it creates a double-sided hypocrisy; of spying and unfair treatment. As I said, is David Cameron a god, that he should have the rules he insists his government needs for security and financial stability turned off because, well, he's a millionaire and a PM?
It looks like a glorified VM instance. There's no real integration. There's no suggestion it will end up on the server editions, and no suggestion it will be in any way integrated into Windows in a way that anyone could use as an alternative to PowerShell or CMD.EXE. Yes, I suppose for cross platform developers it might take one step out of testing some code on the other operating system, but really it sounds only slightly less of a pain that simple running an Ubuntu install virtualized in Windows.
If this is the definition of "running Bash under windows", then we've been able to do that for years.
It's little wonder the Boston Bombers managed to do what they did. All that data and all it demonstrates is that the security services are populated by complete morons.
Oh bullshit. This is about the tit not liking the tat. The reason the PM of Iceland (and now it seems the PM of Britain) wanted to keep things secret wasn't for our liberty in good government, it's because they didn't want their electorates finding out that while these people are making the average person suffer, and suffer mind you, in most cases for events the citizens had no control over, they had nice offshore accounts safely out of the hands of the taxman. They are hypocrites, and their outing was deserved and right.
Wanting to spy on every single thing a citizen types into a computing device is not some righteous cause. It's just a government spying apparatus that believes privacy and liberty should be dispensable at the merest whim. For fucks sake, there are secret fucking courts in several countries, whose sole purpose is to make sure the electorate can never have a clear picture of how many peoples' privacy are being breached.
Well you know what. If the authorities want that level of information, then I say force them to wear cameras and microphones 24 hours a day, which are constantly streamed to multiple web sites. Not a single activity, whether involve state secrets or taking a fucking dump will be permitted to be secret. That way we can make sure they aren't cutting deals that fuck over the citizens and then trying to justify it as "privacy", even as they work to destroy the privacy of millions of people who have done nothing wrong.
And you know the fuck what. If I write my private fucking thoughts down in a code that the FBI can't crack, then too fucking bad. Governments, even the judicial branch, are supposed to be limited, and not stroking each others' genitals in some big privacy destroying circle jerk. The politicians, cops and judges are merely human beings, not one tiny bit more important than anyone else. They are not gods, but if they choose to act like it, then strip them of every once of privacy. If they have a mole on their left testicle, everyone should be able to see it, and if they have a few million bucks in a tax shelter, at any moment every fucking citizen should be able to see the balance of that account. Their every intimate moment should be broadcast on hundred foot high screens.
Why is David Cameron's privacy even the tiniest bit more important than mine? Is he a god? Should we worship him?
This has happened on several of our Win10 pro machines, and the solutions found online don't work. We didn't have to nuke the installs, but it did mean deleting roaming profiles and the local copy. We are now backing profiles again after a few years of not doing it, but there are definite issues with Win10's start menu and none of the fixes work.
And don't get me started on Edge. Needless to say within a few weeks we had a GPO rolled out that made Firefox or Chrome the default browser.
I agree. If the regular citizen has no privacy rights, then neither does anyone in government, or anyone else. If there are to be no secrets, then fair enough, let's have absolutely no secrets.
Got there first? Huh? Bash is the latest iteration of the Bourne Shell, which has been around since the 1970s, and has had a number of offshoots. I mainly cut my teeth on ksh, but because the *nix world goes by the credo "if it ain't broke", it meant that a lot of the old /bin/sh scripts still run pretty much unmodified, and moving to Bash just meant learning a superset of that which I had been using for years.
And then came along PowerShell, which is just enough like the Bourne ecosystem to remind you of how Microsoft comes so close sometimes, but the inherent anti-*nix attitudes of its developers means it never quite gets there.
The fact is that if Microsoft really wants to make inroads into the realms dominated by Unix flavors, then it isn't going to do it with a scripted layer over .NET. There are decades worth of Bourne-variant scripts and libraries out there, and maybe, just for once, Microsoft might land on the right side of the question.
Unless of course, this Bash shell is nothing more than the latest iteration of the broken Posix subsystem, in which case, it's pretty much worthless.
And how does that devalue his point. Considering that David Cameron has been one of the Western leaders leading the charge against privacy with the British government's "Snooper's Charter", it's the height of irony and hypocrisy to then declare that he should be afforded privacy. If the average man on the street has no expectation of privacy, then most assuredly neither should any politician.