But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
No arguments here. This totally can wait till the government is reopened.
If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already
No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way. If we were literally talking about any other piece of legislation outside of a CR, maybe. But refusing to sign a CR (or in the Congressional sense vote for a CR) makes a person(s) look like an asshat. That applies to anyone and everyone regardless of political party.
authorized by previous government bills
Which if you might remember Trump was going to veto. First President I've known of who had exactly what they wanted and then threaten to veto it. Nah, he got his chance in March when the first pieces of his wall were addressed in the 2018 Omnibus spending. He shot it down, at this point he can kick rocks. The President wanted his cake and to eat it as well. I'll continue sending care packages to the local TSA agents and helping out friends who are furloughed till the 2020 election if need be. The President blew his one chance, he ought not get another. If you get three inches in anything government, you take that small bit and roll with it. The President looked at that small concession, wasn't happy it wasn't a "BIG WIN", and decided he'd pass and wait for something better. Doing that in anything government is call being a greedy fool.
Linux isnt unix, so dont expect it to maintain the unix philosophy. BSD is unix.
As the old saying goes:
BSD is what you get when a bunch of UNIX hackers sit down to try to port a UNIX system to the PC. Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a UNIX system for the PC.
So that said, I'll stick to my Slackware installs thank you..
I think there's the problem with your numbers. You are assuming that the goal is to make more people richer. However, I'm a pretty firm believer that the world is tending toward the complete opposite here as the endgame. The goal isn't to make everyone richer, it is to just simply be rich. Be that a nation takes 120 million, 1.2 billion, or somewhere in between to become rich, so be it.
Per capita only matters if you'd like to bring all the citizens in your nation along for the ride. It used to be wise to do so to prevent uprising. Today between the ability to cheaply entertain the working labor to forget their issues, easily communicate talking points that confuse the working labor as to what their issues are, removal of competent representatives to help further the working labor's issues, and technology to replace some of that working labor and remove them as to no longer be an issue, there's less inclination to bring the working labor along for the ride up since any power they might have is easily negated.
Or you know, how about we just don't point fingers and do something? You know, I've got an uncle who's got stage three colon cancer, I could sit here all day and say, "Welp, you spent the last 35 years of your life 100 pounds overweight. What did you think was going to happen?!" Or ya know, I could help out with taking him to chemo. Why is everyone so knotted up with playing blame games? It's what five-year olds do. Adults just get to work fixing shit.
it would only harm U.S. jobs and standards of living
You know this kind of mentality makes me think of the old adage of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It's funny to see how many people don't see how not being able to predict when to grow things will affect food supply in any one country. Oh well, sorry future people of the planet, hate that you will have to spend an endless amount of money solving basic everyday tasks that our rapacious greed and ephemeral way of life took for granted. If it makes any of you all feel better, we weren't the only ones apparently doing it, so that makes it okay that we didn't do anything either.
Given that the millennial "i"-gen are quitting Facebook in droves, I think the future majority populous wants a phone without Facebook on it
That doesn't kill Facebook. It might kill the app, but we allow these kinds of large companies to form in the US and thus, they hedge their eventual demise on whatever it was they originally started with. I cannot count the number of folks who sat there giving the middle finger to Facebook only for them to then go to something like Instagram, which is owned by Facebook. Or some people wanting to warn others about the dangers of Facebook and privacy, only to spin up a website with ad revenue sharing with Facebook or a Facebook partner.
So we kill the Facebook app from being pre-installed means insanely little. Facebook has diversified so much, that whatever their leading product de jure is, that's what will get pre-installed. And hell at this point there's a good chance they won't need anything installed. There's content sharing programs that vendors are more than happy to join in on to gain access to the vast wealth of information that Facebook has already collected. So it's just a matter of your phone maker agreeing to share SMS/Location/whatever else out the door with Facebook, no app needed of course you can opt out. But that's even less true for websites that have the Facebook pixel on them, Facebook is so interwoven in the Internet, going somewhere that doesn't have the pixel or a pixel for one of their partners is the exceptional case.
The idealism that everyone has about "let's kill Facebook" is cute, but it is woefully ignoring how absolutely massive the magnitude of wealth of information that Facebook has, that everyone on this planet wants. You can boycott Facebook till you are blue in the face and rise repeat for all 7+ billion people on this planet and Facebook will sit there and grin at you taking absolutely little to no impact on their true source of money. It is only if and when governments begins to regulate the collection of information and put people's privacy as the default legal option as opposed to opt-out BS that Facebook will ever suffer any kind of shift in their stance.
Folks thinking deleting Facebook gets rid of the problem are in for a surprise. Deleting the app just makes you less obvious of the underlying issue and solves zero percent of the problem. So let's all be honest with ourselves here. "Facebook ain't going nowhere", everyone needs to either get used to their privacy being meaningless or get serious about making governments press the ever love hell out of this and other companies that collect data on people.
Unlikely wind turbines will be running during the storms and, if damaged, will need repair before resuming operation
This is a very odd argument. I'm not aware of any infrastructure that holds up well to storms. So the same can be pretty much said for anything versus nature. I get that there's degrees of repair, but pretty much everyone has to take the whole nature versus things distinctly not natural into the equation. That's part of the operating cost... Or at least I would hope that operators are banking some back in the event nature does damage to their operations.
It's like saying that buying a low to the ground car is a bad idea because it might flood in the area, but that's essentially true for anything except for vehicles that are overtly raised and even then that raised vehicle, because it is raised, has a different set of challenges to handle. At any rate, that doesn't negate the whole point of why one ought to invest in insurance that is correctly matched to the investment placed into their vehicle.
The thing is that a lot of folks reduce this whole topic down to a binary point of capitalism versus socialism. That's not just you saying, better of two evils, but there others that would say, "socialism is the only cure to capitalism" or some BS like that. The whole thing is that our current model of capitalism isn't good. It encourages less diversity and bigger more centralized, more too big to fail companies. I'm not saying ditch capitalism, but clearly our current approach is less than ideal.
Funny, if the US is so damn bad, why don't "progressives" support building a wall around it to keep people out of the awfulness?
I have no idea what that has to do with anything other than sounding edgy. I'm not progressive in the sense of economics or security in any sense, but even I think the wall is a silly idea. The US as a nation doesn't adequately fund anything, hell we've got bridges that have millions of people going over it that have spent the last two decades needing repairs. But some wall that 99.995% of the nation will never see is going to kept tip-top? Call me skeptical, but even if the wall got built, I'll put my dollar here on parts of it falling down and the number of people caring about that, being countable on one hand in two/three decades hence.
I'm not saying, "That won't happen!!" What I am saying is that the current fee is $185,000 to start up a new gTLD, plus a $25,000 yearly fee, plus there's a sunrise period, review period before you do go live because you also need to submit a rules and regulation prospectus to ICANN, that review period is to look over everything you've submitted and can take as long as four years to complete, and you need to provide the name/address of your legal representative whom they indicate that they will be contacting. You can find all of that at ICANNs site about getting a new gTLD. So yeah, so if someone is really, really, really wanting to do that which you described, there's little stopping them outside of the process that's been indicated.
As far as if gTLDs are good or bad. Meh, I can think of worse things that ICANN could have done. I'm pretty ambivalent about them really. I think you're looking at the absolute worse case here, which means you're still technically correct. There's just a ton of better ways folks can already go about obfuscating junk and I think they'll go those routes way before they attempt starting up a brand new gTLD.
unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together
Yeah, that's exactly the point here to a degree. Each person should strive to make great the world that they are given and in aggregate that means each generation approaches the world with the intent to move upward. All that's being done is a bunch of people sitting on their lazy butts not contributing anything additional, but just rehashes of what has already come before. Just more of the same old thing.
your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope
You're sort of right in that it is a slippy slope, if people in general are complete idiots. But re imagining inheritance as endowments shouldn't be a nasty word. I get that there's a line to be drawn, and that's Congress' job to do so. The only problem and it might be the reason you are so hesitant is that they're extremely horrible at doing this job.
How do you define who made something, when talking about products made under funding of a corporation?
Oh good grief, that's not even an answerable question. Shit, even courts have issues trying to answer that question. Just because the parent didn't answer every single question that could possibly arise does not make the original argument invalid. I'm so tried of hearing this kind of crap of, "Oh that's a great idea, but it doesn't address XYZ that our current model also doesn't address as well, ergo, it's no better than our current system." Sitting on copyright for a century is stupid, there is literally zero ways anyone can convince me that sitting on anything (even if actively developing it) for 100 years benefits society in any form or fashion. Think of all the time Disney could have been developing new IP instead of giving us something like "Micky Mouse Club House". No, there's just no rational reason for anything to ponied like that for that long. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on it.
Absolutely this. So many scientist told this kid that trying to filter plastic from the ocean is literally the last item on the to-do list of actual useful things we could do to help this planet. Cutting off new plastics and trash from entering the ocean is as close to the top as you can get here. All that crowd funded money was a complete waste on tech that's not really been tested and could have been used on any one of the multiple ways we know to filter trash from streams. I give the kid credit that he wants to help out, but blessed if he went the completely opposite direction of anything that could be remotely considered within 500 light-years of the definition of useful.
Okay I went through every link presented on this page, saw nothing that says anything like that. So I'm going to ask for a source here to back that claim up. I'm not, not believing you, but that's pretty outrageous and I'd like that outrage to well founded.
Or that new job you're trying to land might try calling your old position and find out you ghosted them when you left. Then the new company will be less likely to hire you.
Okay maybe this is me, but it's completely normal to ask the people interviewing you to hold off on contacting your current employer until a written offer is made. I've never had a company that I went to work for that didn't honor that. What the hell kind of shitty jobs are you thinking folks are going to apply to, because if they trust you that little walking in the door, it's probably best to just walk away anyway.
Additionally, right to work states. Being in a right to work state means the employer or the employee may terminate the position at any time for any reason or no reason at all. So you literally have States that promote ghosting as being completely normal.
Most of you here on Slashdot are supporting a side Russia is strongly supporting. Doesn't that tell you anything about how wrong it is to support Net Neutrality as the FCC had it?
Here let me explain why that's getting you flagged Troll here. Your argument lacks any amount of depth outside of of "hey let me scare you and back that up with nothing". But wait there's more to your comment here...
but you have all been lied to if you think the 30 page monstrosity the FCC originally had was anything like what you want
Again, let me make a statement that has nothing in the sense of actual substance. Really? Can you please cite any single page thereof that you'd like to argue? Making statements like "your ideas suck because bad guy likes them" is pretty much akin to getting into a real debate and then just tossing out "yo mama".
We are all better off being rid of it, being rid of something that Russia fully backed because they knew how it would screw up our internet in the long run
This shouldn't surprise you when the obvious question that comes from that statement is "why?". And the reason why? Oh it's that boogeyman argument again. Perhaps you should try an argument with more meat and potatoes instead of "thoughts and prayers"?
Now on to the point here. The FCC created a set of rules to abide by and the ISPs continually filed suit, really fucking long story short, these cases basically said you need the authority to enforce those rules and considering everything you have currently, Title II is it. What really needed to happen was Congress pass legislation that allowed additional enforcement authority, BUT SURPRISE Congress did nothing. So considering that Congress was content with sitting on its fat ass and doing nothing, the FCC went ahead with Title II and then moved to enforce their rules on NN. ISPs got butt hurt and began to earworm their way into the FCC's chairman to remove Title II change things so that FTC would handle the matters (which they won't since there's a long legal story there as to why they're not really going to be able to stand well in court should they challenge NN conventions in court and gosh ISPs know that), and the FCC would mostly stick to a purely service level enforcement (you have Internet or you don't but how well that Internet functions is no longer their beef).
Blah, blah, blah. This whole thing is longer than I really care to reiterate, we have an Internet go read for yourself. But point being Congress needs to step up, they aren't go to (surprised - no one), we're fucked, the end. This, "Oh look Russia supports it, so that should blah blah blah" is a stupid comment, but considering the source of the comment, no one on this site is surprised.
You should stick to global warming/climate change arguments, you put more effort into those. This feels like a McDonald's level of gratification for trolly comments you put out. Yeah, I get to laugh at how dense the comment is, but I feel so empty since it's such a cheaply put together argument. And "No" I don't really care to (big air quotes here)debate(/big air quotes here) NN with you in particular, because honestly it means nothing and you sure as shit aren't changing your mind about anything any time this century. So why even begin? I write my Congressional rep all the time about it, I write my shitlord Senators about it (once per month), and ultimately that's about all I can do short of breaking out pitchforks and torches, which in turn I'm saving for topics that I care a lot more about than NN. But just in case you were wondering why you were getting modded troll, which I'm pretty sure, you are not, but in the off chance you were, there you go.;-) Cheers!
Okay for anyone wanting the whole story. Here is the story on the left. And then here is the story on the right. Now the story on the left is based on this paper.
I highly suggest folks read the paper and then read the stories. This side by side that's being presented as "Oh look, they're contradicting themselves!!" Is massively deceptive and smart people shouldn't fall for it.
Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is. The total volumetric thermal energy in the atmosphere is increasing. The amount of energy that strikes the Earth from the Sun and reflects back into space is decreasing. This isn't a new feature, Example This increase was observed in 1949. The first order derivative of that change has been a positive one over the course of the last one hundred years and if the rate of change continues it will lead to a total average energy increase in the atmosphere of two degrees Celsius.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago
We do see it. Heat waves that hit the middle east, rising sea levels, heat waves in Australia, receding ice shelf, decreased insect populations, ever increasing invasion of spices into regions where previous temperatures would not have allowed them to go. Heck I distinctly remember a year in December where I slapped a mosquito off my arm. It's just difficult to pinpoint any one particular affect of increasing temperatures because all of them are slow to see.
An especially clear example of this is todays NYT feature on Scary Global Warming
I distinctly remember the NYT graph, however it does give range and if you do look over at the website that provided data you'll see that there's a ton of assumptions that we could sit here for days picking apart. My particular region shows an increase anywhere between (min) 8 days and (max) 40 days of 90+ temperatures. But looking at the actual site that provided the data, you'll get a sense that it is indeed conjecture based on methods they feel are appropriate. But that doesn't negate the fact that temperatures will increase even in conservative readings of their data. Again, that's not a fear thing, that's a these are the numbers, this is what the trend looks like, deal with how you so please. But you do have to realize that NYT is obviously going to place some sort of "point" to their story.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago, maybe even a decade at at this point
We are seeing it. For example, in my area falling numbers within wheat yields have impacted to a small degree acre to pound of flour numbers. Nothing massive here, maybe about 0.2% decrease in yields. However, thinking in terms of joules of energy versus the multitude of acres of wheat, it would take a significant increase in atmospheric energy to change the massive number of acres of wheat to change a 0.1% much less a 0.2%. Again, in the end product flour, it's difficult to see that translation because it's spread all over the place. And it is very, very important that I point out that FN is just one measure and not the end all be all of any debate. So I'm not saying that "Ah-Ha! I got'cha!" All I am saying is that it is "interesting" to see that. But I think that's also the insidious part of climate change is that it can change factors ever so slightly because the effect of climate are very wide ranging. So while exponential energy accumulation may not always in turn evolve into full on heat waves, it can also deposit the excess energy in other ways that in aggregate are near impossible to foresee, but they happen none-the-less.
I would LOVE to see a serious discussion on climate at some point
I'm not sold on that point. I feel you've made your mind up about the debate and rather just yell at how people are wrong rather than show where they are wrong. I'm even typing this and wondering what the hell is the point here con
Company boards waking up to realize that overextending yourself and your brand can be negative to profit margin, news at 11. In all seriousness though, there's still value in brick and mortar but using that model as solely a distribution is dying. Customers are seeing that simply walking into a store just for the ability to purchase something isn't worth their time.
That's not to say general retail is dead, quite the opposite, but name-brand shopping isn't the same as going into WalMart and grabbing the first package of T-Shirts you see. Name-brand retail and single market retail are going to need to adapt to a more specialty market mentality. Simply saying, "Oh hey buy Gap because there's one only six miles down the road from you!" Isn't going to cut it. Even name-brand loyalist will go online first before they walk into a store, and will prefer delivery to their door more over delivery to storefront. That trend is only going to accelerate.
The illogical fear that disappearing from physical presence will equate to less exposure and less sales has got to be something that companies get past. Keeping a massive footprint that doesn't generate traffic is a gaping hole that's bleeding dollars.
You aren't wrong. However, a lot of projects have unreasonable time frames for deployment for that optimization part. There's steps to help try to make that optimization more automatic, like tree shaking, VMs that run closer to metal, lighter containers, document parsers that automatically create an index... But yeah, we need better resource management and we need people who make the calls and set the timelines to understand that it's better if we focused on optimization in the long run.
The government must make its own computers, tools, cars, and even pulp its own paper.
My question is, why can't they? The government is the one actor within a country that stands in the unique position that they "could" do all of this. And to an extent they sort of do since a lot of what you just mention has Government specific customization, but I agree it's not 100% which I assume is what you mean. Being the head of a nation and having the ability to at will dictate resources within a border confers some pretty powerful abilities that private companies don't get. As an aside which is why our country more or less helps to try and check that power with the people, but I think that's outside this discussion.
where a number of private companies can deliver space flight more cheaply AND safely than NASA can?
I'm not sure I follow your logic here, because you started with "government must make..." but now you're talking about what pretty much boils down to a management matter. NASA itself does not build the rockets, they oversee design, they approve blueprints, etc. But ultimately private companies *build* the rocket. So I'm honestly missing where you are trying to head with this argument if it's not a NASA sucks at management issue? I was curious if you could clarify?
because they will be handling vastly more launches which means they need to be reliable in a way NASA has never had to be
Hold up there for a second. The systems that NASA has helped to produced have been insanely reliable, that we're still shocked when there's a failure and loss of life is a sure sign of that. I get that we've entered an age where strapping a bomb to your ass and hoping for the best has become normal, let's be clear about one thing. That for the majority case human beings didn't just kersplode on the launchpad is an amazing testament to reliability. As neat as SpaceX has made rocket launching, we're running the risk of treating launching a rocket like some trivial event just because they haven't killed anyone, yet. Launching rocket = hard, that every rocket hasn't exploded thus far shows that NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, et al are doing absolutely fantastic jobs at building complex machines that are highly reliable.
volume that reduces costs in a way NASA cannot match
These are space launches, not Thanksgiving turkeys. I grant you that we've come along way in human advancement, but we are not yet on the tech tree where there will be a demand for space launches that allows for a volume that reduces cost to any significant value whatsoever. The majority of cost in NASA is much like anything else government, red tape. You can launch 10 rockets or 100 rockets, but no matter the number of rockets if the red tape is all the same, no amount of volume is going to save you anything that we could reasonably call significant. Adding some competition to the market has indeed improved the situation, but that's less volume playing a role and more hey we ought to have free market and competitive bidding process.
Oh also, if you're trying to get at "more hey we ought to have free market and competitive bidding process" in your comment, then by all means, you are correct, I apologize for having wasted your time with this comment, good day to you sir/madam. However, I didn't get that vibe, but I could be wrong, have been known to be wrong before.
makes ZERO sense for NASA to be building rockets
NASA does not build rockets, full stop.
they should be building more advanced spacecraft that can reach space on commercial space delivery systems
No argument, but let's not forget the massive amount of research they also conduct. I feel folks focus so much on NASA launching rockets that people forget that they also research all kinds of things.
ill take black ops assassins for 500. trust me the only reason it has not happened is because everyone would know they did it,
I don't know. If he did mysteriously turned up dead I'd say it's 50/50 on it being US or Russia that did it. Depends on how it was done. Poison sounds very Russian while random bullet whizzing through the air "oh no how could that have happened" would totally be US all day, everyday.
I figure Russia would probably want him dead too since I'm pretty sure they handed some intel from their office to him to put on W/L. His work with the whole Iraq war was great, but when he got trapped he became a pawn.
By the end of your comment you get what I'm saying but you still miss the point. Perhaps I'm being obtuse. Especially if you think I was ever equating free speech with slavery. Let me make it a bit more generic and to the point here.
I support (insert issue) because I feel (insert feeling) about (issue we are talking about). The problem with the statement isn't that you have based it on (inserted feeling), the problem with the statement is all the "I" that's in it. You said you don't trust the public and that's a shame because like it or not we operate on aggregate and not individual. As much as I would like (insert thing I would like to happen), I have to identify that if I do not to some degree speak to the passions of the general public about (thing I would like to happen), I can count that a lost cause.
And that's what I'm addressing here. Simply saying that, "No one can quantify (insert thing that is by nature subjective), ergo I wish for that thing to (insert unilateral action you wish to take on said thing that is subjective by nature)." Is no different than "I support (issue) because I feel (insert feeling)." You are saying that the subjective is the cause for doing or not doing the thing that you are talking about while basing the entire thing on how you feel about it. You can label it fear of the public, a feeling you have based on history of man, or however else you want to break it down, but it ultimately is summed up by, "I feel (feeling)."
Again, by the end of your comment you kind of get the point, but you still chalk up to being more careful, which means you're still relying on the public and ultimately, be it that you understand it or not, you're acknowledging that the subjective nature of this has a lot more weight in the topic we're talking about, and that the objective and the argument for action or inaction based on objective matters are less relevant. But ultimately you revert back to a "feeling" and not a feeling of the public, your neighborhood, or the world in aggregate. No, just your feeling. I don't want you to worry about what you have to say either, but what you and me want isn't really relevant here if we don't at the very least acknowledge that me, you, and the rest of us are in the same team and we need to look at the matter as such, otherwise we'll go nowhere.
Here let me just take one piece of your comment and use it to illustrate something.
I don't know your age, but do you remember the PMRC? I remember the first time I purchased the Frank Zappa album Jazz from Hell with an "explicit lyrics" sticker. The album had no lyrics, it was an instrumental. That was a bit of an eye opener for me. If a group could try to censor an album for explicit lyrics when it had none, then just think of how censorship laws could be twisted
Oh yeah, I was early college when that started. The thing to remember here is this, folks talk about it as censorship but that's just a means. The reality was that they were "I feel a particular way about music and I want to ensure that everyone feels that same way". In the 1990s (I don't remember exactly when) but PMRC basically collapsed and that's because of the ultimate folly the PMRC had. "No one else wanted to feel the same way they did." See the public did their part there. It didn't require anything objective in nature and it was ultimately doomed from the start because it attempted to argue objective goals and denied its true nature of ultimately being subjective BS that a group was trying to cram down everyone's throat.
And that's what I'm ultimately getting on about here. You're going to need to put a lot more faith in the public. Here's an exercise, you can try it out or you can tell me to go to hell, whatever, but it's just something for you to try. Take your argument and assume that whatever it is that you have there, it absolutely has to apply to everyone. Once you do that, play devils advocate for yourself and imagine an real argument that invalidates your argume
Reading over you comment, do you have a distrust in the public? You want censorship to not be a thing, yet you do not want to trust the public with making that decision for themselves. What if the vast majority of the public wants hateful things gone? Additionally, if the vast majority want it gone, then who is indeed in power here? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are hitting on an existential problem with your own argument here.
It's a nebulous term and the thought of laws for such a thing being defined by who's in power is scary as hell.
The reason it is scary is because you aren't the one in power. If you were indeed in power, well we all know what we'd be doing, regardless of what anyone else thought. We'd be censoring censorship.
there is no way to objectively define hate speech
Just because we cannot objectively define something, does not mean it is a worthless goal to pursue. You mention some timeframes here...
How many things were acceptable 10, 50, or 100 year ago that would fall under current hate speech laws?
And the thing is you're missing the entire point of being a human being. We're going to be wrong and over time we correct. And then one day everything we knew will be corrected because we were wrong, and then corrected again for the exact same reason of us being wrong, and again, and again, and again...until the very end of time. You're asking to stop a fight that by its very definition has no end.
If I find something offensive, I try to make my case, move past it or ignore it
Except when the opinion is held by the majority. Kind of hard to move past the opinion of let's return to enslaving black people if say for example, you're black. Now, wonderfully, that opinion isn't held by the majority, but once upon a not too distant time ago, it was. But this isn't me tossing some red herring trying to bring up the race card, it's just me pointing out, not everything can just be a simple ignore option. You kind of touch on that with...
Of course you can make arguments for not allowing people to get an abhorrent point of view out in the public
But then you follow it up with...
But if no one is even allowed to discuss these things...
No one is suggesting not allowing an academic debate about the topic, but you're jumping to that conclusion. And that's where the folly in your rationale of "subjective ought not be worthwhile" breaks down. Here ask yourself. Why? Do you not trust someone to be able to censor in moderation? To know when a line has been crossed? That your fellow citizens will rise up when such a massive load of injustice has been carried out?
Think of it like this. We know in majority that socialism is a bad idea. We ought not to censorship the discussion of socialism. However, what ought we do when the majority wishes to switch to socialism, even as bad an idea as it might be? What might happen to our free speech in that case? And the reality is that we ought to trust the public to make an informed choices but ultimately we just have to bank it all in faith, there's no objective reason why folks will not do thing they knowingly know to harm themselves. If this weren't the case, we wouldn't have anti-vaxxers. They would understand that the one or two events in which vaccines hurt someone amount to a better chance at winning the lotto than the chance in harm coming from any one vaccine. And yet, some persist in acting in a manner that is self-harm. It just defies all logic and yet your argument worries about the objective for people who would like to have a word about you're quantifying things with you.
even if it is what the majority of a nation believes is correct
But if you aren't willing to trust the public/majority to over long time scales not screw it up, then you're just c
I'd say the people who don't want to learn how to use new tools would also not want to learn how to use a new OS?
One would think so. However, a lot of higher ups that would make the call to change the OS are not really concerned about the means, but more of the ends. So they see blah blah in marketing indicating Linux versus Windows, they instruct their underlings to get it done, and allocate all of zero time to the underlings getting properly trained. So the underlings resort to StackExchange to get day-to-day stuff done, wishing for a day where they could just use the tools they know to get day-to-day done. In this kind of environment you've got a statistical break. X% group will eventually pick things up by enough visits to Google, Y% will actually pick up a book and learn (maybe on their own dime outside of work), and Z% will just complain "Why can't this be easier?!" (incorrectly, mind you). It appears that Z% has tickled someone in the MS research department.
Project managers and the folks calling shots just see Apache, Tomcat, node.js, or whatever the ends are. Underlings are the ones actually dealing with the details Apache on Linux vs Apache on Windows.
Don't the MS people realize that the only reason for using "sysinternals" is that their OS doesn't come with decent instrumentation by default?
No.
This toolset doesn't even come close to what's natively available in Unix or Linux
Correct. However, no one wants to really learn how to use those tools. So that's where the demand for this comes from.
I guess the question, Should folks learn these tools? Should folks educate themselves? is the underlying question here. I know exactly how I feel but, how I feel doesn't change the mentality one bit.
I don't dispute what you said, it's correct, however, I do want to point out a few things.
we have been told for years now that RSA-1024 is insecure, and that it should have been ditched long ago
If someone told you it's insecure, then they should have preceded it with, "in some situations". And you hit on the reason a bit further in your comment, here.
If the bad guys/government agencies really wanted your data (which they probably don't anyway) they have far more efficient, faster, cheaper and better methods at their disposal to obtain it
But brute-forcing it is also an option for State sponsored cracking efforts. And indeed, for most folks, RSA-1024 is good enough unless you're targeted. At least right now. But the timelines for when to retire a given RSA strength was based mostly on Moore's Law and carefully (actually that's debatable but that'll get us side-tracked) calculating people dragging feet versus new and improved advancements in processing. So the idea is that folks would indeed drag their feet on RSA-1024 and thus calculate a point when processing power is good/cheap enough to break RSA-1024 and subtract 20-30ish years from that. That's the date we need to pull it. But again, you are totally right in that we're not near getting to a point where folks freely break RSA-1024 all over the place.
The largest RSA keys that have been brute-forced were RSA-768 a few years...The projection was that RSA-1024 would have been publicly broken by about now. It hasn't happened. Why?
Also, I just want to point out there was money involved. RSA stopped paying people in 2007. That might (I'm guessing here so feel free to call me out on my BS here) have had some effect on when these things get broken by research efforts.
Because it is way too onerous a process, both financially and time-wise
Absolutely, expect in cases where it is worthwhile to spend that time and money on breaking it, which are few and far between which again, you already pointed out.
If you have a certificate meant to be valid for 10 years and meant to protect really critical, world-importance data then, sure, use a bigger RSA key or ECC
Exactly.
So you might wonder, why deprecate RSA? Because you aim for lowest common denominator here. In 20-30ish years computational power is going to be to a point where breaking RSA-1024 will become easier, not at the point where we do it on a desktop, but definitely within the realm of someone who's got enough equipment to do such a thing. Thus, since folks tend to drag everything out, let's call it now (which was 2010) and eventually everyone will catch up, eight years later, still seeing folks using RSA-1024. So the dragging feet argument I think has some merit.
Now of course that was based on processing power growing at a steady state, which I think we're hitting a point where that will no longer be true. If we do hit a plateau, well then good news! All the worrying was for naught. So you have an incredibly fair argument here and I commend you. However, I think it is fair to remember what the thinking was way back in the day when RSA was designed. You know simpler times and when there was massive idealism about where computers were heading.
As far as the Uber-hype that shortly followed when RSA-1024 was going out of date. Yeah, that's totally...
In a nutshell, security people engaging in hype, probably for job-security reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
No arguments here. This totally can wait till the government is reopened.
If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already
No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way. If we were literally talking about any other piece of legislation outside of a CR, maybe. But refusing to sign a CR (or in the Congressional sense vote for a CR) makes a person(s) look like an asshat. That applies to anyone and everyone regardless of political party.
authorized by previous government bills
Which if you might remember Trump was going to veto. First President I've known of who had exactly what they wanted and then threaten to veto it. Nah, he got his chance in March when the first pieces of his wall were addressed in the 2018 Omnibus spending. He shot it down, at this point he can kick rocks. The President wanted his cake and to eat it as well. I'll continue sending care packages to the local TSA agents and helping out friends who are furloughed till the 2020 election if need be. The President blew his one chance, he ought not get another. If you get three inches in anything government, you take that small bit and roll with it. The President looked at that small concession, wasn't happy it wasn't a "BIG WIN", and decided he'd pass and wait for something better. Doing that in anything government is call being a greedy fool.
Linux isnt unix, so dont expect it to maintain the unix philosophy. BSD is unix.
As the old saying goes:
BSD is what you get when a bunch of UNIX hackers sit down to try to port a UNIX system to the PC. Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a UNIX system for the PC.
So that said, I'll stick to my Slackware installs thank you..
GDP per capita
I think there's the problem with your numbers. You are assuming that the goal is to make more people richer. However, I'm a pretty firm believer that the world is tending toward the complete opposite here as the endgame. The goal isn't to make everyone richer, it is to just simply be rich. Be that a nation takes 120 million, 1.2 billion, or somewhere in between to become rich, so be it.
Per capita only matters if you'd like to bring all the citizens in your nation along for the ride. It used to be wise to do so to prevent uprising. Today between the ability to cheaply entertain the working labor to forget their issues, easily communicate talking points that confuse the working labor as to what their issues are, removal of competent representatives to help further the working labor's issues, and technology to replace some of that working labor and remove them as to no longer be an issue, there's less inclination to bring the working labor along for the ride up since any power they might have is easily negated.
Well as long as we are pointing fingers
Or you know, how about we just don't point fingers and do something? You know, I've got an uncle who's got stage three colon cancer, I could sit here all day and say, "Welp, you spent the last 35 years of your life 100 pounds overweight. What did you think was going to happen?!" Or ya know, I could help out with taking him to chemo. Why is everyone so knotted up with playing blame games? It's what five-year olds do. Adults just get to work fixing shit.
it would only harm U.S. jobs and standards of living
You know this kind of mentality makes me think of the old adage of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It's funny to see how many people don't see how not being able to predict when to grow things will affect food supply in any one country. Oh well, sorry future people of the planet, hate that you will have to spend an endless amount of money solving basic everyday tasks that our rapacious greed and ephemeral way of life took for granted. If it makes any of you all feel better, we weren't the only ones apparently doing it, so that makes it okay that we didn't do anything either.
Given that the millennial "i"-gen are quitting Facebook in droves, I think the future majority populous wants a phone without Facebook on it
That doesn't kill Facebook. It might kill the app, but we allow these kinds of large companies to form in the US and thus, they hedge their eventual demise on whatever it was they originally started with. I cannot count the number of folks who sat there giving the middle finger to Facebook only for them to then go to something like Instagram, which is owned by Facebook. Or some people wanting to warn others about the dangers of Facebook and privacy, only to spin up a website with ad revenue sharing with Facebook or a Facebook partner.
So we kill the Facebook app from being pre-installed means insanely little. Facebook has diversified so much, that whatever their leading product de jure is, that's what will get pre-installed. And hell at this point there's a good chance they won't need anything installed. There's content sharing programs that vendors are more than happy to join in on to gain access to the vast wealth of information that Facebook has already collected. So it's just a matter of your phone maker agreeing to share SMS/Location/whatever else out the door with Facebook, no app needed of course you can opt out. But that's even less true for websites that have the Facebook pixel on them, Facebook is so interwoven in the Internet, going somewhere that doesn't have the pixel or a pixel for one of their partners is the exceptional case.
The idealism that everyone has about "let's kill Facebook" is cute, but it is woefully ignoring how absolutely massive the magnitude of wealth of information that Facebook has, that everyone on this planet wants. You can boycott Facebook till you are blue in the face and rise repeat for all 7+ billion people on this planet and Facebook will sit there and grin at you taking absolutely little to no impact on their true source of money. It is only if and when governments begins to regulate the collection of information and put people's privacy as the default legal option as opposed to opt-out BS that Facebook will ever suffer any kind of shift in their stance.
Folks thinking deleting Facebook gets rid of the problem are in for a surprise. Deleting the app just makes you less obvious of the underlying issue and solves zero percent of the problem. So let's all be honest with ourselves here. "Facebook ain't going nowhere", everyone needs to either get used to their privacy being meaningless or get serious about making governments press the ever love hell out of this and other companies that collect data on people.
Unlikely wind turbines will be running during the storms and, if damaged, will need repair before resuming operation
This is a very odd argument. I'm not aware of any infrastructure that holds up well to storms. So the same can be pretty much said for anything versus nature. I get that there's degrees of repair, but pretty much everyone has to take the whole nature versus things distinctly not natural into the equation. That's part of the operating cost... Or at least I would hope that operators are banking some back in the event nature does damage to their operations.
It's like saying that buying a low to the ground car is a bad idea because it might flood in the area, but that's essentially true for anything except for vehicles that are overtly raised and even then that raised vehicle, because it is raised, has a different set of challenges to handle. At any rate, that doesn't negate the whole point of why one ought to invest in insurance that is correctly matched to the investment placed into their vehicle.
The thing is that a lot of folks reduce this whole topic down to a binary point of capitalism versus socialism. That's not just you saying, better of two evils, but there others that would say, "socialism is the only cure to capitalism" or some BS like that. The whole thing is that our current model of capitalism isn't good. It encourages less diversity and bigger more centralized, more too big to fail companies. I'm not saying ditch capitalism, but clearly our current approach is less than ideal.
Funny, if the US is so damn bad, why don't "progressives" support building a wall around it to keep people out of the awfulness?
I have no idea what that has to do with anything other than sounding edgy. I'm not progressive in the sense of economics or security in any sense, but even I think the wall is a silly idea. The US as a nation doesn't adequately fund anything, hell we've got bridges that have millions of people going over it that have spent the last two decades needing repairs. But some wall that 99.995% of the nation will never see is going to kept tip-top? Call me skeptical, but even if the wall got built, I'll put my dollar here on parts of it falling down and the number of people caring about that, being countable on one hand in two/three decades hence.
I'm not saying, "That won't happen!!" What I am saying is that the current fee is $185,000 to start up a new gTLD, plus a $25,000 yearly fee, plus there's a sunrise period, review period before you do go live because you also need to submit a rules and regulation prospectus to ICANN, that review period is to look over everything you've submitted and can take as long as four years to complete, and you need to provide the name/address of your legal representative whom they indicate that they will be contacting. You can find all of that at ICANNs site about getting a new gTLD. So yeah, so if someone is really, really, really wanting to do that which you described, there's little stopping them outside of the process that's been indicated.
As far as if gTLDs are good or bad. Meh, I can think of worse things that ICANN could have done. I'm pretty ambivalent about them really. I think you're looking at the absolute worse case here, which means you're still technically correct. There's just a ton of better ways folks can already go about obfuscating junk and I think they'll go those routes way before they attempt starting up a brand new gTLD.
unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together
Yeah, that's exactly the point here to a degree. Each person should strive to make great the world that they are given and in aggregate that means each generation approaches the world with the intent to move upward. All that's being done is a bunch of people sitting on their lazy butts not contributing anything additional, but just rehashes of what has already come before. Just more of the same old thing.
your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope
You're sort of right in that it is a slippy slope, if people in general are complete idiots. But re imagining inheritance as endowments shouldn't be a nasty word. I get that there's a line to be drawn, and that's Congress' job to do so. The only problem and it might be the reason you are so hesitant is that they're extremely horrible at doing this job.
How do you define who made something, when talking about products made under funding of a corporation?
Oh good grief, that's not even an answerable question. Shit, even courts have issues trying to answer that question. Just because the parent didn't answer every single question that could possibly arise does not make the original argument invalid. I'm so tried of hearing this kind of crap of, "Oh that's a great idea, but it doesn't address XYZ that our current model also doesn't address as well, ergo, it's no better than our current system." Sitting on copyright for a century is stupid, there is literally zero ways anyone can convince me that sitting on anything (even if actively developing it) for 100 years benefits society in any form or fashion. Think of all the time Disney could have been developing new IP instead of giving us something like "Micky Mouse Club House". No, there's just no rational reason for anything to ponied like that for that long. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on it.
Absolutely this. So many scientist told this kid that trying to filter plastic from the ocean is literally the last item on the to-do list of actual useful things we could do to help this planet. Cutting off new plastics and trash from entering the ocean is as close to the top as you can get here. All that crowd funded money was a complete waste on tech that's not really been tested and could have been used on any one of the multiple ways we know to filter trash from streams. I give the kid credit that he wants to help out, but blessed if he went the completely opposite direction of anything that could be remotely considered within 500 light-years of the definition of useful.
Okay I went through every link presented on this page, saw nothing that says anything like that. So I'm going to ask for a source here to back that claim up. I'm not, not believing you, but that's pretty outrageous and I'd like that outrage to well founded.
Or that new job you're trying to land might try calling your old position and find out you ghosted them when you left. Then the new company will be less likely to hire you.
Okay maybe this is me, but it's completely normal to ask the people interviewing you to hold off on contacting your current employer until a written offer is made. I've never had a company that I went to work for that didn't honor that. What the hell kind of shitty jobs are you thinking folks are going to apply to, because if they trust you that little walking in the door, it's probably best to just walk away anyway.
Additionally, right to work states. Being in a right to work state means the employer or the employee may terminate the position at any time for any reason or no reason at all. So you literally have States that promote ghosting as being completely normal.
Most of you here on Slashdot are supporting a side Russia is strongly supporting. Doesn't that tell you anything about how wrong it is to support Net Neutrality as the FCC had it?
Here let me explain why that's getting you flagged Troll here. Your argument lacks any amount of depth outside of of "hey let me scare you and back that up with nothing". But wait there's more to your comment here...
but you have all been lied to if you think the 30 page monstrosity the FCC originally had was anything like what you want
Again, let me make a statement that has nothing in the sense of actual substance. Really? Can you please cite any single page thereof that you'd like to argue? Making statements like "your ideas suck because bad guy likes them" is pretty much akin to getting into a real debate and then just tossing out "yo mama".
We are all better off being rid of it, being rid of something that Russia fully backed because they knew how it would screw up our internet in the long run
This shouldn't surprise you when the obvious question that comes from that statement is "why?". And the reason why? Oh it's that boogeyman argument again. Perhaps you should try an argument with more meat and potatoes instead of "thoughts and prayers"?
Now on to the point here. The FCC created a set of rules to abide by and the ISPs continually filed suit, really fucking long story short, these cases basically said you need the authority to enforce those rules and considering everything you have currently, Title II is it. What really needed to happen was Congress pass legislation that allowed additional enforcement authority, BUT SURPRISE Congress did nothing. So considering that Congress was content with sitting on its fat ass and doing nothing, the FCC went ahead with Title II and then moved to enforce their rules on NN. ISPs got butt hurt and began to earworm their way into the FCC's chairman to remove Title II change things so that FTC would handle the matters (which they won't since there's a long legal story there as to why they're not really going to be able to stand well in court should they challenge NN conventions in court and gosh ISPs know that), and the FCC would mostly stick to a purely service level enforcement (you have Internet or you don't but how well that Internet functions is no longer their beef).
Blah, blah, blah. This whole thing is longer than I really care to reiterate, we have an Internet go read for yourself. But point being Congress needs to step up, they aren't go to (surprised - no one), we're fucked, the end. This, "Oh look Russia supports it, so that should blah blah blah" is a stupid comment, but considering the source of the comment, no one on this site is surprised.
You should stick to global warming/climate change arguments, you put more effort into those. This feels like a McDonald's level of gratification for trolly comments you put out. Yeah, I get to laugh at how dense the comment is, but I feel so empty since it's such a cheaply put together argument. And "No" I don't really care to (big air quotes here)debate(/big air quotes here) NN with you in particular, because honestly it means nothing and you sure as shit aren't changing your mind about anything any time this century. So why even begin? I write my Congressional rep all the time about it, I write my shitlord Senators about it (once per month), and ultimately that's about all I can do short of breaking out pitchforks and torches, which in turn I'm saving for topics that I care a lot more about than NN. But just in case you were wondering why you were getting modded troll, which I'm pretty sure, you are not, but in the off chance you were, there you go. ;-) Cheers!
Okay for anyone wanting the whole story. Here is the story on the left. And then here is the story on the right. Now the story on the left is based on this paper.
I highly suggest folks read the paper and then read the stories. This side by side that's being presented as "Oh look, they're contradicting themselves!!" Is massively deceptive and smart people shouldn't fall for it.
you can choose to live a life not lived in fear
Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is. The total volumetric thermal energy in the atmosphere is increasing. The amount of energy that strikes the Earth from the Sun and reflects back into space is decreasing. This isn't a new feature, Example This increase was observed in 1949. The first order derivative of that change has been a positive one over the course of the last one hundred years and if the rate of change continues it will lead to a total average energy increase in the atmosphere of two degrees Celsius.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago
We do see it. Heat waves that hit the middle east, rising sea levels, heat waves in Australia, receding ice shelf, decreased insect populations, ever increasing invasion of spices into regions where previous temperatures would not have allowed them to go. Heck I distinctly remember a year in December where I slapped a mosquito off my arm. It's just difficult to pinpoint any one particular affect of increasing temperatures because all of them are slow to see.
An especially clear example of this is todays NYT feature on Scary Global Warming
I distinctly remember the NYT graph, however it does give range and if you do look over at the website that provided data you'll see that there's a ton of assumptions that we could sit here for days picking apart. My particular region shows an increase anywhere between (min) 8 days and (max) 40 days of 90+ temperatures. But looking at the actual site that provided the data, you'll get a sense that it is indeed conjecture based on methods they feel are appropriate. But that doesn't negate the fact that temperatures will increase even in conservative readings of their data. Again, that's not a fear thing, that's a these are the numbers, this is what the trend looks like, deal with how you so please. But you do have to realize that NYT is obviously going to place some sort of "point" to their story.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago, maybe even a decade at at this point
We are seeing it. For example, in my area falling numbers within wheat yields have impacted to a small degree acre to pound of flour numbers. Nothing massive here, maybe about 0.2% decrease in yields. However, thinking in terms of joules of energy versus the multitude of acres of wheat, it would take a significant increase in atmospheric energy to change the massive number of acres of wheat to change a 0.1% much less a 0.2%. Again, in the end product flour, it's difficult to see that translation because it's spread all over the place. And it is very, very important that I point out that FN is just one measure and not the end all be all of any debate. So I'm not saying that "Ah-Ha! I got'cha!" All I am saying is that it is "interesting" to see that. But I think that's also the insidious part of climate change is that it can change factors ever so slightly because the effect of climate are very wide ranging. So while exponential energy accumulation may not always in turn evolve into full on heat waves, it can also deposit the excess energy in other ways that in aggregate are near impossible to foresee, but they happen none-the-less.
I would LOVE to see a serious discussion on climate at some point
I'm not sold on that point. I feel you've made your mind up about the debate and rather just yell at how people are wrong rather than show where they are wrong. I'm even typing this and wondering what the hell is the point here con
Company boards waking up to realize that overextending yourself and your brand can be negative to profit margin, news at 11. In all seriousness though, there's still value in brick and mortar but using that model as solely a distribution is dying. Customers are seeing that simply walking into a store just for the ability to purchase something isn't worth their time.
That's not to say general retail is dead, quite the opposite, but name-brand shopping isn't the same as going into WalMart and grabbing the first package of T-Shirts you see. Name-brand retail and single market retail are going to need to adapt to a more specialty market mentality. Simply saying, "Oh hey buy Gap because there's one only six miles down the road from you!" Isn't going to cut it. Even name-brand loyalist will go online first before they walk into a store, and will prefer delivery to their door more over delivery to storefront. That trend is only going to accelerate.
The illogical fear that disappearing from physical presence will equate to less exposure and less sales has got to be something that companies get past. Keeping a massive footprint that doesn't generate traffic is a gaping hole that's bleeding dollars.
You aren't wrong. However, a lot of projects have unreasonable time frames for deployment for that optimization part. There's steps to help try to make that optimization more automatic, like tree shaking, VMs that run closer to metal, lighter containers, document parsers that automatically create an index... But yeah, we need better resource management and we need people who make the calls and set the timelines to understand that it's better if we focused on optimization in the long run.
The government must make its own computers, tools, cars, and even pulp its own paper.
My question is, why can't they? The government is the one actor within a country that stands in the unique position that they "could" do all of this. And to an extent they sort of do since a lot of what you just mention has Government specific customization, but I agree it's not 100% which I assume is what you mean. Being the head of a nation and having the ability to at will dictate resources within a border confers some pretty powerful abilities that private companies don't get. As an aside which is why our country more or less helps to try and check that power with the people, but I think that's outside this discussion.
where a number of private companies can deliver space flight more cheaply AND safely than NASA can?
I'm not sure I follow your logic here, because you started with "government must make..." but now you're talking about what pretty much boils down to a management matter. NASA itself does not build the rockets, they oversee design, they approve blueprints, etc. But ultimately private companies *build* the rocket. So I'm honestly missing where you are trying to head with this argument if it's not a NASA sucks at management issue? I was curious if you could clarify?
because they will be handling vastly more launches which means they need to be reliable in a way NASA has never had to be
Hold up there for a second. The systems that NASA has helped to produced have been insanely reliable, that we're still shocked when there's a failure and loss of life is a sure sign of that. I get that we've entered an age where strapping a bomb to your ass and hoping for the best has become normal, let's be clear about one thing. That for the majority case human beings didn't just kersplode on the launchpad is an amazing testament to reliability. As neat as SpaceX has made rocket launching, we're running the risk of treating launching a rocket like some trivial event just because they haven't killed anyone, yet. Launching rocket = hard, that every rocket hasn't exploded thus far shows that NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, et al are doing absolutely fantastic jobs at building complex machines that are highly reliable.
volume that reduces costs in a way NASA cannot match
These are space launches, not Thanksgiving turkeys. I grant you that we've come along way in human advancement, but we are not yet on the tech tree where there will be a demand for space launches that allows for a volume that reduces cost to any significant value whatsoever. The majority of cost in NASA is much like anything else government, red tape. You can launch 10 rockets or 100 rockets, but no matter the number of rockets if the red tape is all the same, no amount of volume is going to save you anything that we could reasonably call significant. Adding some competition to the market has indeed improved the situation, but that's less volume playing a role and more hey we ought to have free market and competitive bidding process.
Oh also, if you're trying to get at "more hey we ought to have free market and competitive bidding process" in your comment, then by all means, you are correct, I apologize for having wasted your time with this comment, good day to you sir/madam. However, I didn't get that vibe, but I could be wrong, have been known to be wrong before.
makes ZERO sense for NASA to be building rockets
NASA does not build rockets, full stop.
they should be building more advanced spacecraft that can reach space on commercial space delivery systems
No argument, but let's not forget the massive amount of research they also conduct. I feel folks focus so much on NASA launching rockets that people forget that they also research all kinds of things.
ill take black ops assassins for 500. trust me the only reason it has not happened is because everyone would know they did it,
I don't know. If he did mysteriously turned up dead I'd say it's 50/50 on it being US or Russia that did it. Depends on how it was done. Poison sounds very Russian while random bullet whizzing through the air "oh no how could that have happened" would totally be US all day, everyday.
I figure Russia would probably want him dead too since I'm pretty sure they handed some intel from their office to him to put on W/L. His work with the whole Iraq war was great, but when he got trapped he became a pawn.
By the end of your comment you get what I'm saying but you still miss the point. Perhaps I'm being obtuse. Especially if you think I was ever equating free speech with slavery. Let me make it a bit more generic and to the point here.
I support (insert issue) because I feel (insert feeling) about (issue we are talking about). The problem with the statement isn't that you have based it on (inserted feeling), the problem with the statement is all the "I" that's in it. You said you don't trust the public and that's a shame because like it or not we operate on aggregate and not individual. As much as I would like (insert thing I would like to happen), I have to identify that if I do not to some degree speak to the passions of the general public about (thing I would like to happen), I can count that a lost cause.
And that's what I'm addressing here. Simply saying that, "No one can quantify (insert thing that is by nature subjective), ergo I wish for that thing to (insert unilateral action you wish to take on said thing that is subjective by nature)." Is no different than "I support (issue) because I feel (insert feeling)." You are saying that the subjective is the cause for doing or not doing the thing that you are talking about while basing the entire thing on how you feel about it. You can label it fear of the public, a feeling you have based on history of man, or however else you want to break it down, but it ultimately is summed up by, "I feel (feeling)."
Again, by the end of your comment you kind of get the point, but you still chalk up to being more careful, which means you're still relying on the public and ultimately, be it that you understand it or not, you're acknowledging that the subjective nature of this has a lot more weight in the topic we're talking about, and that the objective and the argument for action or inaction based on objective matters are less relevant. But ultimately you revert back to a "feeling" and not a feeling of the public, your neighborhood, or the world in aggregate. No, just your feeling. I don't want you to worry about what you have to say either, but what you and me want isn't really relevant here if we don't at the very least acknowledge that me, you, and the rest of us are in the same team and we need to look at the matter as such, otherwise we'll go nowhere.
Here let me just take one piece of your comment and use it to illustrate something.
I don't know your age, but do you remember the PMRC? I remember the first time I purchased the Frank Zappa album Jazz from Hell with an "explicit lyrics" sticker. The album had no lyrics, it was an instrumental. That was a bit of an eye opener for me. If a group could try to censor an album for explicit lyrics when it had none, then just think of how censorship laws could be twisted
Oh yeah, I was early college when that started. The thing to remember here is this, folks talk about it as censorship but that's just a means. The reality was that they were "I feel a particular way about music and I want to ensure that everyone feels that same way". In the 1990s (I don't remember exactly when) but PMRC basically collapsed and that's because of the ultimate folly the PMRC had. "No one else wanted to feel the same way they did." See the public did their part there. It didn't require anything objective in nature and it was ultimately doomed from the start because it attempted to argue objective goals and denied its true nature of ultimately being subjective BS that a group was trying to cram down everyone's throat.
And that's what I'm ultimately getting on about here. You're going to need to put a lot more faith in the public. Here's an exercise, you can try it out or you can tell me to go to hell, whatever, but it's just something for you to try. Take your argument and assume that whatever it is that you have there, it absolutely has to apply to everyone. Once you do that, play devils advocate for yourself and imagine an real argument that invalidates your argume
Reading over you comment, do you have a distrust in the public? You want censorship to not be a thing, yet you do not want to trust the public with making that decision for themselves. What if the vast majority of the public wants hateful things gone? Additionally, if the vast majority want it gone, then who is indeed in power here? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are hitting on an existential problem with your own argument here.
It's a nebulous term and the thought of laws for such a thing being defined by who's in power is scary as hell.
The reason it is scary is because you aren't the one in power. If you were indeed in power, well we all know what we'd be doing, regardless of what anyone else thought. We'd be censoring censorship.
there is no way to objectively define hate speech
Just because we cannot objectively define something, does not mean it is a worthless goal to pursue. You mention some timeframes here...
How many things were acceptable 10, 50, or 100 year ago that would fall under current hate speech laws?
And the thing is you're missing the entire point of being a human being. We're going to be wrong and over time we correct. And then one day everything we knew will be corrected because we were wrong, and then corrected again for the exact same reason of us being wrong, and again, and again, and again...until the very end of time. You're asking to stop a fight that by its very definition has no end.
If I find something offensive, I try to make my case, move past it or ignore it
Except when the opinion is held by the majority. Kind of hard to move past the opinion of let's return to enslaving black people if say for example, you're black. Now, wonderfully, that opinion isn't held by the majority, but once upon a not too distant time ago, it was. But this isn't me tossing some red herring trying to bring up the race card, it's just me pointing out, not everything can just be a simple ignore option. You kind of touch on that with...
Of course you can make arguments for not allowing people to get an abhorrent point of view out in the public
But then you follow it up with...
But if no one is even allowed to discuss these things...
No one is suggesting not allowing an academic debate about the topic, but you're jumping to that conclusion. And that's where the folly in your rationale of "subjective ought not be worthwhile" breaks down. Here ask yourself. Why? Do you not trust someone to be able to censor in moderation? To know when a line has been crossed? That your fellow citizens will rise up when such a massive load of injustice has been carried out?
Think of it like this. We know in majority that socialism is a bad idea. We ought not to censorship the discussion of socialism. However, what ought we do when the majority wishes to switch to socialism, even as bad an idea as it might be? What might happen to our free speech in that case? And the reality is that we ought to trust the public to make an informed choices but ultimately we just have to bank it all in faith, there's no objective reason why folks will not do thing they knowingly know to harm themselves. If this weren't the case, we wouldn't have anti-vaxxers. They would understand that the one or two events in which vaccines hurt someone amount to a better chance at winning the lotto than the chance in harm coming from any one vaccine. And yet, some persist in acting in a manner that is self-harm. It just defies all logic and yet your argument worries about the objective for people who would like to have a word about you're quantifying things with you.
even if it is what the majority of a nation believes is correct
But if you aren't willing to trust the public/majority to over long time scales not screw it up, then you're just c
I'd say the people who don't want to learn how to use new tools would also not want to learn how to use a new OS?
One would think so. However, a lot of higher ups that would make the call to change the OS are not really concerned about the means, but more of the ends. So they see blah blah in marketing indicating Linux versus Windows, they instruct their underlings to get it done, and allocate all of zero time to the underlings getting properly trained. So the underlings resort to StackExchange to get day-to-day stuff done, wishing for a day where they could just use the tools they know to get day-to-day done. In this kind of environment you've got a statistical break. X% group will eventually pick things up by enough visits to Google, Y% will actually pick up a book and learn (maybe on their own dime outside of work), and Z% will just complain "Why can't this be easier?!" (incorrectly, mind you). It appears that Z% has tickled someone in the MS research department.
Project managers and the folks calling shots just see Apache, Tomcat, node.js, or whatever the ends are. Underlings are the ones actually dealing with the details Apache on Linux vs Apache on Windows.
Don't the MS people realize that the only reason for using "sysinternals" is that their OS doesn't come with decent instrumentation by default?
No.
This toolset doesn't even come close to what's natively available in Unix or Linux
Correct. However, no one wants to really learn how to use those tools. So that's where the demand for this comes from.
I guess the question, Should folks learn these tools? Should folks educate themselves? is the underlying question here. I know exactly how I feel but, how I feel doesn't change the mentality one bit.
I don't dispute what you said, it's correct, however, I do want to point out a few things.
we have been told for years now that RSA-1024 is insecure, and that it should have been ditched long ago
If someone told you it's insecure, then they should have preceded it with, "in some situations". And you hit on the reason a bit further in your comment, here.
If the bad guys/government agencies really wanted your data (which they probably don't anyway) they have far more efficient, faster, cheaper and better methods at their disposal to obtain it
But brute-forcing it is also an option for State sponsored cracking efforts. And indeed, for most folks, RSA-1024 is good enough unless you're targeted. At least right now. But the timelines for when to retire a given RSA strength was based mostly on Moore's Law and carefully (actually that's debatable but that'll get us side-tracked) calculating people dragging feet versus new and improved advancements in processing. So the idea is that folks would indeed drag their feet on RSA-1024 and thus calculate a point when processing power is good/cheap enough to break RSA-1024 and subtract 20-30ish years from that. That's the date we need to pull it. But again, you are totally right in that we're not near getting to a point where folks freely break RSA-1024 all over the place.
The largest RSA keys that have been brute-forced were RSA-768 a few years...The projection was that RSA-1024 would have been publicly broken by about now. It hasn't happened. Why?
Also, I just want to point out there was money involved. RSA stopped paying people in 2007. That might (I'm guessing here so feel free to call me out on my BS here) have had some effect on when these things get broken by research efforts.
Because it is way too onerous a process, both financially and time-wise
Absolutely, expect in cases where it is worthwhile to spend that time and money on breaking it, which are few and far between which again, you already pointed out.
If you have a certificate meant to be valid for 10 years and meant to protect really critical, world-importance data then, sure, use a bigger RSA key or ECC
Exactly.
So you might wonder, why deprecate RSA? Because you aim for lowest common denominator here. In 20-30ish years computational power is going to be to a point where breaking RSA-1024 will become easier, not at the point where we do it on a desktop, but definitely within the realm of someone who's got enough equipment to do such a thing. Thus, since folks tend to drag everything out, let's call it now (which was 2010) and eventually everyone will catch up, eight years later, still seeing folks using RSA-1024. So the dragging feet argument I think has some merit.
Now of course that was based on processing power growing at a steady state, which I think we're hitting a point where that will no longer be true. If we do hit a plateau, well then good news! All the worrying was for naught. So you have an incredibly fair argument here and I commend you. However, I think it is fair to remember what the thinking was way back in the day when RSA was designed. You know simpler times and when there was massive idealism about where computers were heading.
As far as the Uber-hype that shortly followed when RSA-1024 was going out of date. Yeah, that's totally...
In a nutshell, security people engaging in hype, probably for job-security reasons.