I suppose 20 years ago "noreply@" wasn't really standardized as an email bit bucket for domains, so I'll give him a pass on that, but yes, in general it really doesn't seem a suitable email address today. It will be some work, but get a new address, update all the important services and move on. Want to actually own an email address, buy a domain and host it with a company with email service. That's the only guarantee.
CO2 traps solar energy. This has been known for over a century, as has been the fact that if you increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, you will trap.mote energy. To deny this is to deny physics.
Restaurants are probably the worst kinds of businesses there are. Unless your a franchise like McDonalds or Starbucks, your margins are obscenely low. True, by stiffing your employees you can find a bit of extra profit, but all.in all, anyone opening a restaurant thinking they are going to reap some grand reward is out of their mins. If the only way you can make a profit is by screwing over your employees, then I'd say the business mod is fucked.
And it is, high turnover is one of the biggest issues the restaurant industry suffers, and do you know one way to reducr employee turnover (and all the training costs associated with it)? That's right, pay them more money. Better treatment of your employees is not some zero sum game. You better better morale, better productivity, lower turnover, and thus other costs go down.
So you don't want to account for higher productivity? Companies can actually see advantage to better wages and benefits. It's far more nuanced than "if wage higher then prices higher".
If you were writing software that you wanted to distribute DOS with, such as games to be run on emulators, you can say do so with FreeDOS, whereas distributing with a version of MS-DOS could still get you in hot water. I've seen it running on embedded equipment for that very reason.
I'm getting the sense you have no idea what dictionaries are used for. If slang isn't recorded, then someone in a century or two won't be able to fully comprehend texts from today.
You act as if slang is a new thing, which seems to indicate you have little knowledge of language or language evolution.
No, it mean a words mean whatever the majority of speakers in a specific dialectal region agree they mean. Language is a fundamental cultural activity.
The way dictionaries were once described tjlo me was that they were descriptive, not proscriptive.
There is (or used to be, at least) GPOs for limiting what could be executed, and we did try it to prevent non-admin staff from running executables located outside of the usual execution paths (for instance, forbidding execution of anything in their profile paths), but it was a pain in the ass, broke a few things, and then I discovered that the execution path limits could be bypassed and thus didn't offer the level of security we wanted.
The problem being that a lot of things are "executable", which is how malware can be spread via Word documents and the like. Actually locking down execution is going to mean any data format that includes macro or scripting capabilities is going to have be shelved, and there is a lot of software out there that utilize these kind of executable capabilities, and are potentially vulnerable to being used as a malware vector.
That works well on a relatively limited device like a smartphone. I'm thinking more in the context of a workstation on a network with network shares. It would be a considerable paradigm shift away from the classic shared resource to an "application-focused" model. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, and couldn't work, but it's a shift away from how shared file networks have worked for decades now.
Fair enough. I'm just trying to point out that there are going to be times and places where property rights cannot be considered absolute, and where even supposedly "free" rainwater has a tangible value.
It is until you have a water shortage, and then, at the point, you're going to run up against a greater good argument you can't win. Eminent domain still exists as an actual thing in the US, so your idea that you have some absolute right to whatever is on your property has never actually been true.
The intent of the ACA was pretty clear; to be a stepping stone towards a single payer system. That still remains the only obvious solution, and while the Republican base clearly still seems relatively enthusiastic about a repeal, a party's base isn't what gets them over the finish line, and overall, the House and Senate plans are extraordinarily unpopular with the general public. So yes, the ACA sucks, but the tax cuts masquerading as a health care reform that the Republicans are trying to pass do very little to fix the ACA, and a great deal to fuck over a lot of people who need affordable health care insurance. Neither plan is what Trump promised, and even he seemed to acknowledged that when he called the House plan "mean".
Wouldn't it be something if Trump did throw a single payer plan at Congress, and actually use his bully pulpit for something more useful than attacking MSNBC TV show hosts? I can tell you this, if he pushed some form of Single Payer health care through Congress, a great many of his failings would be forgiven and forgotten in a second. He'd certainly get a good deal of bipartisan support, as the Democrats would most certainly back such a plan.
But sadly, Trump seems little interested in actually being a President where it can count.
In some parts of the world, rainwater is among the most precious of commodities, and there are going to be places in the Continental United States where that is going to become quite true. At some point even collecting rainwater has the potential to harm a large number of people. We'll see where your ideals are then.
Where did I say that? What I'm saying is that the other branches of government are doing the job they were intended to do; which is act as a check on the Executive. Your problem isn't with me, it's with Madison, Jefferson et al who were the ones that knew there would be Presidents good and bad, and created a system with the specific intent to limit them.
Because people in the West have it so good, relative to much of the rest of the world, I think that we have a tendency towards absurd hypercriticalness and outright hyperbole. I'm not saying the three letter agencies and their equivalents in other Western countries don't abuse their powers, and certainly the stores, for instance, of J. Edgar Hoover show us how it's important that there be oversight over the conduct of such agencies. But all in all, you're right. Imagine holding a big protest against the leadership in, say, China. In Thailand you can go to jail for insulting the King.
There's always been a strong non-comformist streak in the United States, and it's right in its DNA with the English Non-conformists heading across the Atlantic to get away from what they viewed as the tyrannical interference of the English Crown. And that's a healthy thing... to a point, but more and more I'm seeing paranoia and conspiracy thinking moving into the normal discourse, to the point where when anything happens, many just leap over all the mundane explanations immediately to "the government is out to get us!" I'll admit on occasion even I fall into the trap. It's easy to do, because the human brain seems wired to some extent to commit Fundamental Attribution Errors, and from there it's a short jump to confirmation bias and all the fallacious errors that lead even the best of us at times into accepting absurd explanations of the conduct of others.
And what would a sane security model look like? Ransomware runs under the credentials of the user that has executed the malware, so if the user has read/write access to files and folders, then those folders are vulnerable. It's not that much different than someone accidentally deleting a bunch of files they have access to. I suppose you could put some quantity monitoring, as in if x number of files are altered or deleted, then suspend the process that is doing the file system changes, but that would probably interfere with any program that does a lot of file system changes, like an installer.
In general, what's needed to protect data, whether it's through intentional destruction like ransomware, or through inadvertent destruction like someone deleting a file tree or a file system or physical media becoming corrupted, is backups, mirroring and the like. There's no perfect solution that's going to guarantee every file is recoverable, but what I've seen from file system or disk meltdowns is that in most cases as long as you have a good nightly backup, you're going to get most of it back.
So long as users are basically allowed to run any code they want, ransomware is going to be a reality, and even in walled gardens malware can still find a way in, so it's best to think in terms of worst case scenarios; and whenever I do it always brings me back to the old standards; frequent backups; both on and offsite.
A lot of that "none-acting" has been tactical. Look at health care. It's clear that neither House or Senate Republicans are really all that keen to further health care reform, at least not until after the 2018 mid-terms. So they put together legislation that they can't even convince a majority of their peers to support (let alone the Democrats), and which clearly is deeply unpopular with voters (the House bill had an approval rating of just 27%, and I can't imagine the Senate bill is going to be any more popular).
What it looks like to me is that Republican lawmakers know they have an unsuitable man in the White House, but political realities mean they can't be obstructionist in the same way they were with Obama, or in the way they intended to be with Clinton. Instead of being angrily and righteously obstructionist, they're just going to create a series of situations in which nothing much happens at all. They'll shake the President's hand, they'll praise him in the media, they'll keep up the appearances of being one big happy party, and meanwhile do everything in their power to keep that idiot from completely fucking things up.
I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever. The potential damage to the US economy is enormous. The Republicans just have to figure out how to utterly fuck the Administration over while still looking like they're on the President's side.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. I don't quite understand why anyone would assert that doing a public act somehow means you retain your right to anonymity.
I suppose 20 years ago "noreply@" wasn't really standardized as an email bit bucket for domains, so I'll give him a pass on that, but yes, in general it really doesn't seem a suitable email address today. It will be some work, but get a new address, update all the important services and move on. Want to actually own an email address, buy a domain and host it with a company with email service. That's the only guarantee.
And oil and gas companies should be required to minimize methane leaks
Ah yes, the good old Libertarian "freedom to starve".
CO2 traps solar energy. This has been known for over a century, as has been the fact that if you increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, you will trap.mote energy. To deny this is to deny physics.
Restaurants are probably the worst kinds of businesses there are. Unless your a franchise like McDonalds or Starbucks, your margins are obscenely low. True, by stiffing your employees you can find a bit of extra profit, but all.in all, anyone opening a restaurant thinking they are going to reap some grand reward is out of their mins. If the only way you can make a profit is by screwing over your employees, then I'd say the business mod is fucked.
And it is, high turnover is one of the biggest issues the restaurant industry suffers, and do you know one way to reducr employee turnover (and all the training costs associated with it)? That's right, pay them more money. Better treatment of your employees is not some zero sum game. You better better morale, better productivity, lower turnover, and thus other costs go down.
So you don't want to account for higher productivity? Companies can actually see advantage to better wages and benefits. It's far more nuanced than "if wage higher then prices higher".
If you were writing software that you wanted to distribute DOS with, such as games to be run on emulators, you can say do so with FreeDOS, whereas distributing with a version of MS-DOS could still get you in hot water. I've seen it running on embedded equipment for that very reason.
A government of the idiots, by the idiots and for the idiots.
I'm getting the sense you have no idea what dictionaries are used for. If slang isn't recorded, then someone in a century or two won't be able to fully comprehend texts from today.
You act as if slang is a new thing, which seems to indicate you have little knowledge of language or language evolution.
If they're out of style in five years they will drop from all but the major reference dictionaries.
No, it mean a words mean whatever the majority of speakers in a specific dialectal region agree they mean. Language is a fundamental cultural activity.
The way dictionaries were once described tjlo me was that they were descriptive, not proscriptive.
There is (or used to be, at least) GPOs for limiting what could be executed, and we did try it to prevent non-admin staff from running executables located outside of the usual execution paths (for instance, forbidding execution of anything in their profile paths), but it was a pain in the ass, broke a few things, and then I discovered that the execution path limits could be bypassed and thus didn't offer the level of security we wanted.
The problem being that a lot of things are "executable", which is how malware can be spread via Word documents and the like. Actually locking down execution is going to mean any data format that includes macro or scripting capabilities is going to have be shelved, and there is a lot of software out there that utilize these kind of executable capabilities, and are potentially vulnerable to being used as a malware vector.
That works well on a relatively limited device like a smartphone. I'm thinking more in the context of a workstation on a network with network shares. It would be a considerable paradigm shift away from the classic shared resource to an "application-focused" model. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, and couldn't work, but it's a shift away from how shared file networks have worked for decades now.
So it's your view that there will never be new content again?
Fair enough. I'm just trying to point out that there are going to be times and places where property rights cannot be considered absolute, and where even supposedly "free" rainwater has a tangible value.
It is until you have a water shortage, and then, at the point, you're going to run up against a greater good argument you can't win. Eminent domain still exists as an actual thing in the US, so your idea that you have some absolute right to whatever is on your property has never actually been true.
The intent of the ACA was pretty clear; to be a stepping stone towards a single payer system. That still remains the only obvious solution, and while the Republican base clearly still seems relatively enthusiastic about a repeal, a party's base isn't what gets them over the finish line, and overall, the House and Senate plans are extraordinarily unpopular with the general public. So yes, the ACA sucks, but the tax cuts masquerading as a health care reform that the Republicans are trying to pass do very little to fix the ACA, and a great deal to fuck over a lot of people who need affordable health care insurance. Neither plan is what Trump promised, and even he seemed to acknowledged that when he called the House plan "mean".
Wouldn't it be something if Trump did throw a single payer plan at Congress, and actually use his bully pulpit for something more useful than attacking MSNBC TV show hosts? I can tell you this, if he pushed some form of Single Payer health care through Congress, a great many of his failings would be forgiven and forgotten in a second. He'd certainly get a good deal of bipartisan support, as the Democrats would most certainly back such a plan.
But sadly, Trump seems little interested in actually being a President where it can count.
In some parts of the world, rainwater is among the most precious of commodities, and there are going to be places in the Continental United States where that is going to become quite true. At some point even collecting rainwater has the potential to harm a large number of people. We'll see where your ideals are then.
Where did I say that? What I'm saying is that the other branches of government are doing the job they were intended to do; which is act as a check on the Executive. Your problem isn't with me, it's with Madison, Jefferson et al who were the ones that knew there would be Presidents good and bad, and created a system with the specific intent to limit them.
Because people in the West have it so good, relative to much of the rest of the world, I think that we have a tendency towards absurd hypercriticalness and outright hyperbole. I'm not saying the three letter agencies and their equivalents in other Western countries don't abuse their powers, and certainly the stores, for instance, of J. Edgar Hoover show us how it's important that there be oversight over the conduct of such agencies. But all in all, you're right. Imagine holding a big protest against the leadership in, say, China. In Thailand you can go to jail for insulting the King.
There's always been a strong non-comformist streak in the United States, and it's right in its DNA with the English Non-conformists heading across the Atlantic to get away from what they viewed as the tyrannical interference of the English Crown. And that's a healthy thing... to a point, but more and more I'm seeing paranoia and conspiracy thinking moving into the normal discourse, to the point where when anything happens, many just leap over all the mundane explanations immediately to "the government is out to get us!" I'll admit on occasion even I fall into the trap. It's easy to do, because the human brain seems wired to some extent to commit Fundamental Attribution Errors, and from there it's a short jump to confirmation bias and all the fallacious errors that lead even the best of us at times into accepting absurd explanations of the conduct of others.
And what would a sane security model look like? Ransomware runs under the credentials of the user that has executed the malware, so if the user has read/write access to files and folders, then those folders are vulnerable. It's not that much different than someone accidentally deleting a bunch of files they have access to. I suppose you could put some quantity monitoring, as in if x number of files are altered or deleted, then suspend the process that is doing the file system changes, but that would probably interfere with any program that does a lot of file system changes, like an installer.
In general, what's needed to protect data, whether it's through intentional destruction like ransomware, or through inadvertent destruction like someone deleting a file tree or a file system or physical media becoming corrupted, is backups, mirroring and the like. There's no perfect solution that's going to guarantee every file is recoverable, but what I've seen from file system or disk meltdowns is that in most cases as long as you have a good nightly backup, you're going to get most of it back.
So long as users are basically allowed to run any code they want, ransomware is going to be a reality, and even in walled gardens malware can still find a way in, so it's best to think in terms of worst case scenarios; and whenever I do it always brings me back to the old standards; frequent backups; both on and offsite.
A lot of that "none-acting" has been tactical. Look at health care. It's clear that neither House or Senate Republicans are really all that keen to further health care reform, at least not until after the 2018 mid-terms. So they put together legislation that they can't even convince a majority of their peers to support (let alone the Democrats), and which clearly is deeply unpopular with voters (the House bill had an approval rating of just 27%, and I can't imagine the Senate bill is going to be any more popular).
What it looks like to me is that Republican lawmakers know they have an unsuitable man in the White House, but political realities mean they can't be obstructionist in the same way they were with Obama, or in the way they intended to be with Clinton. Instead of being angrily and righteously obstructionist, they're just going to create a series of situations in which nothing much happens at all. They'll shake the President's hand, they'll praise him in the media, they'll keep up the appearances of being one big happy party, and meanwhile do everything in their power to keep that idiot from completely fucking things up.
I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever. The potential damage to the US economy is enormous. The Republicans just have to figure out how to utterly fuck the Administration over while still looking like they're on the President's side.