Or, I imagine, Ken Thompson when he developed "ed".
From TFA:
No-one could rival Oscar Wilde for brevity. He is said to have once asked his publisher how a book was doing, by telegraphing simply "?". To which the publisher replied enigmatically "!"
"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
Maybe they're just warning about using words most Republican representatives won't understand. Although... I'm pretty sure they understand the word "entitlement" and the word "evidence" too -- something they say Mueller doesn't have, but they can't prove he doesn't, they just know it.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, said the reported decree on banned words was a misrepresentation.
"In consideration with community standards and wishes," the parrot's not dead - he's just restin'. Beautiful plumage!
... I suspect there are better ways of retaliating against Russia should the American government acknowledge Russian election meddling than standing by as a terrorist attack is carried out.
Helping an adversary when they're in trouble is called "taking the high road". It's a completely new concept for Trump and his administration, so it will feel strange to them -- and us -- for a while, especially if they try continuing down that road (but, I'm not holding my breath).
Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy. "The Mr. Robot series centers around the theme of online privacy and security," the company said in an explanation of the mysterious extension.
Have they even *watched* the show? I'm not sure the word "promotes" is apt here - unless they mean "promotes violating user privacy". The protagonist Elliot Alderson has violated *everyone's* privacy and broken into everyone's computer, as has just about everyone else who owns a keyboard -- though they all do seem to get really pissed when *their* privacy and systems get violated, hmm...
So, Mozilla, a company that claims privacy is important to them and in their web browser product Firefox, silently mass auto-force-installs an add-on into already installed software, using a built-in feature that almost no one knows about (that comes enabled by default), that promotes the television show Mr. Robot, in which just about everyone in that show routinely breaks the law, breaks into other people's computers (installing backdoors, trojans and root kits), and violates people's privacy. Nice going.
This is precisely why I fret about every new FF release wondering what new crap, I mean "feature", I need to disable. For fucks sake Mozilla, just concentrate on making a good *web-browser*. Seriously, what's next - [spoiler] an axe to the head?
A little Googling leads me to think the Looking Glass add-on was installed via the Firefox built-in Shield Recipe Client Feature, also described here: Firefox/Shield/Shield Studies, which is documented as:
Shield is a Firefox user testing platform for proposed, new and existing features and ideas.
Shield Studies is a function of the Shield project that prompts a random population of users to help us try out new products, features, and ideas.
I have this disabled via the following pref.js settings:
That's not all. I went to Publix the other day and bought a five pound bag of flour... while wearing a fake chef hat! They didn't take even a moment to check that I was a real chef! This is the kind of sloppy taking short cuts thing I wouldn't expect from a respected retailer.
Perhaps they thought you were Swedish and gave you a pass on the hat.
the idea that YOUR ASSETS are on trial, and you have no standing is absolutely fucking weapons grade bonkers.
On the other hand, it's probable that the guy bought/acquired the Bitcoins as a result of selling bogus drugs. If so, those assets were obtained unlawfully. However, if he's acquitted or he can prove they were obtained legally, he can petition to get his property back. One can argue about the wisdom of selling the Bitcoins now -- they could continue to increase in value -- but, in any event, the guy or Government won't lose money should their value decline or, more likely, Bitcoin crashes.
Aaron Shamo, whom prosecutors say led a multimillion-dollar ring of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, including oxycodone and alprazolam that were sold on Dark Web marketplaces.
Using automated scripts to access publicly available data is not "hacking," and neither is violating a website's terms of use.
If I'm reading this correctly, I'm not so sure I agree with that last bit, about "violating terms of use"....
I'm sure we can all agree that hacking a website and violating their terms of use are not necessarily the same thing. If their terms say you must be wearing a blue shirt to use the site and your shirt is red, I can't really see any hacking going on. I imagine that a bot retrieving information automatically that could similarly be retrieved manually are pretty much the same thing, unless the bot operates so much faster that it affects operation of the site. Even then, no reasonable person would call that "hacking". What's going on here is that LinkedIn is neither (a) reasonable or (b) a person -- even before they were bought by Microsoft.
“Today is a great day for consumers, for innovation and for freedom.” That is what Commissioner Brendan Carr of the Federal Communications Commission said as he voted to strip net neutrality protections.
Whenever people tell me that we are on the verge of new, undiscovered freedom for consumers, I always feel a little nervous. “Unprecedented freedom for consumers” is usually what people call it right before placing rabid hedgehogs in the stocking stuffer display. Before, you only had the choice of things you wanted that would make appropriate gifts. Now, you might also get a rabid hedgehog! What a day this is for the consumer.
I can't wait to get my rabid hedgehog for Christmas.
Mattis. I'd take a Marine Corp general over any politician.
Unfortunately, he's in line *after* Secretary of the Treasury "we have over 100 people working overtime for months to produce a 1 page 'analysis' of the Republican Tax Plan - that supports everything" Steven Mnuchin and his wife, Bond villain Louise Linton.
Republicans (in office) constantly complain about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because its single director has too much power, no external accountability and isn't subject to Congressional oversight (ie. control) and should either be abolished or changed to be run by a board of Commissioners, like the FCC.
Funny how they don't complain about the FCC behaving much the same way, even considering the FCC *has* a board of Commissioners and *is* subject to Congressional oversight. Maybe it's because the FCC is protecting corporations, not consumers - exactly like Republicans (in office) want.
I say "in office" because it seems many Representatives are doing what is in their best interest, regardless of what their constituents, who may also be Republicans, want. Sometimes, it seems the masses are more reasonable and responsible than their elected officials - sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
When is Musk going to stop making big promises and then following through?
He sure is a bad politician.
Well, we're not on Mars yet, despite what this (pretty good) television show make make us think.
Scientists don't deal with truth, they deal with evidence. If you don't understand that, you don't understand science.
True, true...
I'm sure you meant, evidently. :-)
So by that definition no one can be trusted since everyone lies at some point.
Dr. House asserted that for 8 years...
Or, I imagine, Ken Thompson when he developed "ed".
From TFA:
No-one could rival Oscar Wilde for brevity. He is said to have once asked his publisher how a book was doing, by telegraphing simply "?". To which the publisher replied enigmatically "!"
"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
Maybe they're just warning about using words most Republican representatives won't understand. Although... I'm pretty sure they understand the word "entitlement" and the word "evidence" too -- something they say Mueller doesn't have, but they can't prove he doesn't, they just know it.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, said the reported decree on banned words was a misrepresentation.
"In consideration with community standards and wishes," the parrot's not dead - he's just restin'. Beautiful plumage!
Tell me, what "process" are they entitled [to] here?
In a country with secret courts? None.
Do you mean Russia or the US - oh, wait ...
... I suspect there are better ways of retaliating against Russia should the American government acknowledge Russian election meddling than standing by as a terrorist attack is carried out.
Helping an adversary when they're in trouble is called "taking the high road". It's a completely new concept for Trump and his administration, so it will feel strange to them -- and us -- for a while, especially if they try continuing down that road (but, I'm not holding my breath).
:bangs-head-on-desk:
It was a pun...
*sigh*
Or, rather, ":!s-head-on-desk:"
There's plenty of power in the city of Atlanta, just no way to get it to the airport.
Send it FedEx/UPS by air ... oh, wait.
As opposed to partially apocalyptic.
a poc a lyp tic - adjective:
- describing or prophesying the complete destruction of the world.
That said, I was in the Atlanta airport at 4am once, many years ago, for a red-eye layover from LA to Norfolk and it was pretty quite and creepy.
by George Carlin.
The Seven words you can never say on television.
For those unfamiliar: Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television. You can Google "seven words carlin" to find clips and transcripts of the actual monologue.
OpenSSH for Windows
Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy. "The Mr. Robot series centers around the theme of online privacy and security," the company said in an explanation of the mysterious extension.
Have they even *watched* the show? I'm not sure the word "promotes" is apt here - unless they mean "promotes violating user privacy". The protagonist Elliot Alderson has violated *everyone's* privacy and broken into everyone's computer, as has just about everyone else who owns a keyboard -- though they all do seem to get really pissed when *their* privacy and systems get violated, hmm ...
So, Mozilla, a company that claims privacy is important to them and in their web browser product Firefox, silently mass auto-force-installs an add-on into already installed software, using a built-in feature that almost no one knows about (that comes enabled by default), that promotes the television show Mr. Robot, in which just about everyone in that show routinely breaks the law, breaks into other people's computers (installing backdoors, trojans and root kits), and violates people's privacy. Nice going.
This is precisely why I fret about every new FF release wondering what new crap, I mean "feature", I need to disable. For fucks sake Mozilla, just concentrate on making a good *web-browser*. Seriously, what's next - [spoiler] an axe to the head?
A little Googling leads me to think the Looking Glass add-on was installed via the Firefox built-in Shield Recipe Client Feature, also described here: Firefox/Shield/Shield Studies, which is documented as:
Shield is a Firefox user testing platform for proposed, new and existing features and ideas.
Shield Studies is a function of the Shield project that prompts a random population of users to help us try out new products, features, and ideas.
I have this disabled via the following pref.js settings:
// Disable Shield Recipe Client
user_pref("app.shield.optoutstudies.enabled", false);
user_pref("extensions.shield-recipe-client.enabled", false);
That's not all. I went to Publix the other day and bought a five pound bag of flour... while wearing a fake chef hat! They didn't take even a moment to check that I was a real chef! This is the kind of sloppy taking short cuts thing I wouldn't expect from a respected retailer.
Perhaps they thought you were Swedish and gave you a pass on the hat.
Seriously? They get to personally pocket the dosh?
Sure, if you work at the Treasury and your name is Asset Forfeiture.
Once sold, the money would go to an account held at the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture.
civil forfeiture is theft, plain and simple.
the idea that YOUR ASSETS are on trial, and you have no standing is absolutely fucking weapons grade bonkers.
On the other hand, it's probable that the guy bought/acquired the Bitcoins as a result of selling bogus drugs. If so, those assets were obtained unlawfully. However, if he's acquitted or he can prove they were obtained legally, he can petition to get his property back. One can argue about the wisdom of selling the Bitcoins now -- they could continue to increase in value -- but, in any event, the guy or Government won't lose money should their value decline or, more likely, Bitcoin crashes.
Aaron Shamo, whom prosecutors say led a multimillion-dollar ring of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, including oxycodone and alprazolam that were sold on Dark Web marketplaces.
Using automated scripts to access publicly available data is not "hacking," and neither is violating a website's terms of use .
If I'm reading this correctly, I'm not so sure I agree with that last bit, about "violating terms of use". ...
I'm sure we can all agree that hacking a website and violating their terms of use are not necessarily the same thing. If their terms say you must be wearing a blue shirt to use the site and your shirt is red, I can't really see any hacking going on. I imagine that a bot retrieving information automatically that could similarly be retrieved manually are pretty much the same thing, unless the bot operates so much faster that it affects operation of the site. Even then, no reasonable person would call that "hacking". What's going on here is that LinkedIn is neither (a) reasonable or (b) a person -- even before they were bought by Microsoft.
Saw this article, Net neutrality is gone. Feel the freedom coursing through your veins and thought she summed things up nicely:
“Today is a great day for consumers, for innovation and for freedom.” That is what Commissioner Brendan Carr of the Federal Communications Commission said as he voted to strip net neutrality protections.
Whenever people tell me that we are on the verge of new, undiscovered freedom for consumers, I always feel a little nervous. “Unprecedented freedom for consumers” is usually what people call it right before placing rabid hedgehogs in the stocking stuffer display. Before, you only had the choice of things you wanted that would make appropriate gifts. Now, you might also get a rabid hedgehog! What a day this is for the consumer.
I can't wait to get my rabid hedgehog for Christmas.
When President Kennedy announced the Apollo Program, he famously argued that we should go to the moon because it is hard.
This is very close to the pick-up line JFK used on Marilyn Monroe.
Mattis. I'd take a Marine Corp general over any politician.
Unfortunately, he's in line *after* Secretary of the Treasury "we have over 100 people working overtime for months to produce a 1 page 'analysis' of the Republican Tax Plan - that supports everything" Steven Mnuchin and his wife, Bond villain Louise Linton.
Republicans (in office) constantly complain about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because its single director has too much power, no external accountability and isn't subject to Congressional oversight (ie. control) and should either be abolished or changed to be run by a board of Commissioners, like the FCC.
Funny how they don't complain about the FCC behaving much the same way, even considering the FCC *has* a board of Commissioners and *is* subject to Congressional oversight. Maybe it's because the FCC is protecting corporations, not consumers - exactly like Republicans (in office) want.
I say "in office" because it seems many Representatives are doing what is in their best interest, regardless of what their constituents, who may also be Republicans, want. Sometimes, it seems the masses are more reasonable and responsible than their elected officials - sometimes.