I suppose the device makers could do the HAL, but note that Microsoft writes the HAL for Windows. I see that you want to relieve the effort from Google of having to deal with coding for lots of devices, but where is the value to the device maker if you make the device maker have to invest in developing their own hardware abstraction layer?
You'd need to have a reason why device makers would be eager to do that, and honestly, they're not even really all that eager to test and deploy the newest Android to their devices, I can't see why they'd want to write even more software just for the privilege of running Android. Certainly, that would do little to bring down the price. As a software company, Google is far better positioned to write software than any individual device maker would be.
I certainly haven't missed the point. I know why they said that, of course.
I just think it would be interesting to write a biography of a person like this that purposely ignored that focus and listed the things he worked on as a politician which were not specifically civil rights.
Look at Bernie Sanders. He worked for civil rights as well, but that fact only seems to come up in context. Both of them were in Congress for decades.
It may well be hard to separate a person like this from the context of civil rights, given his identity and the size of the issue, but what happens when you strip that out and look at everything else he did?
It may be more interesting than a piece because instead of his history simply melding with the common theme of civil rights, he stands out as an individual person and not just a soldier for the Good Cause.
That's true, but you could have also written an piece like that which simply said:
"The man who saved the International Space Station and manned space flight died today."
I agree that might not have been enough for the AP and a general audience, but I'd love to have seen an article where the only way you realized he was black (or white) was his picture. Seems to me that given all of the people who worked on civil rights, he may well have been more of a standout due to his work to save manned flight than his civil rights work. It is difficult to find a black politician from that period who *wasn't* involved in civil rights.
They're not even locking people out. They're saying that they're making "open standards" and then doing their best to break anyone else's implementation of those "open standards".
It's like telling everyone your door is unlocked and open, and then tripping anyone who goes though it.
Of course this is true. And unfortunately the real argument is:
MS Office is used everywhere else. Why would *you* want to be different? All you're going to do is make trouble for yourselves. Just give up already and pay.
It doesn't matter if MS does its best to break things so that you have to re-paginate. Just pay them.
Now... doesn't that feel better when you do what I suggest? I mean, why would you do something that causes me to punch you in the face repeatedly? Do you like being punched? Of course not!
Here's a towel and a discount. Clean yourself up so you look good for the press release photo.
I'd have to agree with that. Italy never seemed the epitome of labor efficiency to me to begin with.
Of course, I do need to point out that there are annoyances with OpenOffice that have prevented me from bothering with it for long. Could I get around them? Absolutely. Do I want to bother? Not really. So I agree that the Italians probably had real challenges.
The question is: were those challenges really enough to change the TCO advantage? I wonder.
The fact that I prefer MS Office does not mean MS Office is a software product that I would buy. I get Office because I have a work laptop with it installed. Office is a better product than OpenOffice, and because it is free to me, MS Office always wins.
If I had to buy MS Office, though? I'd certainly look to OpenOffice instead of spending money on a subscription. It still has just as many annoyances as before, but it isn't worth a pile of money for me to not just get around them. MS Office is better than OpenOffice, but it isn't that much better that I'd pay for it.
It remains to see what the real reason for the switch was. Maybe it was inefficiencies. Or maybe it was, "the IT department hates supporting OpenOffice and they tried to get a sweet deal with MS so they could switch." The whole 15 minutes per person argument might simply have been normal inefficiencies in an Italian city. A convenient excuse to have, just like someone being shocked... *shocked* that there might be gambling being done in a particular establishment.
I agree that your comment is simply stating that it is just happening. I'm wondering why you bothered to make such as statement though if all you're doing is reiterating what the headline and summary already said.
That's like saying "someone dropped a nuclear weapon on a city today" and then expecting people to not want to dig deeper on something like that. Of course, most people would want to go the next step and ask "why". And you can be certain that Microsoft isn't just doing it to say, "Oh and by the way, this happened today, FYI" There is the expectation you will analyze it.
Microsoft would like you to believe that it is because OpenOffice costs you more money in a "Total Cost of Ownership" sort of way. Their press releases will push that. That's why they used the time of their marketing department to release the statement.
So, now we are led to wonder whether we should take that at face value or look under the covers. If the real reason is that Microsoft heavily discounted Office to the point that the issues with OpenOffice became enough to make them switch to a reduced-price MS deal, then the TCO argument becomes a lot less applicable to most organizations who would be expected to buy Office 365 at full price.
If Microsoft paid me to use their products, I'd most likely take them up on their offer for something like Office. That doesn't imply I'd use Office if I had to pay for it, and it doesn't imply that *you* should pay for it either.
Donald Trump would give you great advice about your hair. Here it is:
1. Make a billion dollars 2. Comb it any way you like 3. ??? 4. Attractive women oddly don't concern themselves as much with your hairstyle any more (Profit)
The difference between "hipster" and some other interest is that hipster things seem to be done for some sort of style statement. Wearing pointless glasses, or riding old bikes or being a "lumbersexual" is just a style, not a hobby or an interest.
I suppose you could have fad board games, but actually playing board games doesn't mesh with a "hipster" style over substance mentality. People have been playing things like Eurogames for years, and for other games like Axis and Allies and more adult themed board/card games, people have been playing those games for decades.
When I was younger I liked playing board games of that type, the only real problem was finding people to play them with. Now that I'm an adult, I can find people who I can enjoy them with. There's absolutely nothing hipster about it because it doesn't really impart any sort of style statement. And for the most part, its the same old gamers who I was used to playing games with in the past. I haven't noted anyone sporting style statements at game night, unless you consider the black t-shirt to be a hipster style.
Now, if people who identify as hipsters happen to have become interested in board games, good for them. But saying that board gaming is a hipster trend would be like calling steak a hipster trend because hipsters all started to like steak. Both board games and steak pretty much stand alone from those who are actually partaking of them.
I agree, but if he gets the Republican nomination, the Democrats could run a cucumber against him and win.
I'm not entirely sure that is true. Nativist speak could very easily play to the unionized part of the Democratic party. Is there really any enthusiasm for Hillary on the Democratic side? Even a Democrat has to admit that she pretty much defines "establishment" in DC these days. And be honest with yourselves, Bill isn't going to be coming back as Assistant President.
Why did Obama win over her? He had enthusiasm behind him and despite the fact that he was given a coronation early in his career as presidential contender, he was still seen as an outsider.
Bernie Sanders has the ability to put a better showing in terms of enthusiasm, but he pretty much defines "white liberal". That doesn't play well in all sectors of the country, not even on the Democratic side.
If Trump gets the Republican nomination, the Republican party could decide to embrace him, and if they get their legendary party discipline around him, as well as funding, he could have a chance. He would be a gamble, but I think he actually is the only Republican that could win in 2016, although calling him a Republican would be a pretty loose term. He's actually got some enthusiasm behind him and if you merge that with money and organization, there would at least be a showing.
Of course, its a really, really long shot. The current stable of Republicans isn't offering very much in terms of interest and Trump is only standing out because he has a big mouth that talks first and fills in the details later. He's going to offend one too many people and he will completely cease to look "presidential". And far from embracing him, the Republican establishment is probably half-convinced he's in the race to split the Republicans to ensure the Democrats win, despite their lackluster front-runner.
I just wish the Republicans could come up with a candidate that has something to offer in terms of enthusiasm. The problem is, I think that the things that the Republicans are the most "correct" about, in terms of smaller government and free trade, are those issues most likely to be misunderstood by the population, and the easiest to look like hypocrites on when they cave into the corporate interests that come alongside those positions.
Free trade should mean free trade, not some lackluster situation where free trade only benefits the corporations. Cutting the budget should both include entitlements AND military spending. And the Republicans should be decentralizing, not pretending to support smaller government while they maintain and increase the size and centrality of the Federal government in the name of busting drugs, paying off military contractors, and fencing out illegal aliens.
Honestly, why does a voter ID have to have a permanent "home"? I know it matters for political subdivision purposes, but really all that matters is that you:
a) establish residency in that subdivision b) are not voting in more than one place
If you are homeless, then if you want to vote locally, you establish a pattern of living and working in that one place. There are ways of doing that. Your ID could then reflect that instead of a home address. Things the homeless would do normally, like getting on a list for a homeless shelter could count, if they could associate that with an ID. You don't own the shelter or rent it, you don't even live there all the time, but establishing enough residency there could be enough to associate you with that neighborhood. As long as the system does not let you vote twice, and it establishes some reasonable attachment to the locality to each voter, the chance of you becoming a "bussed in voter" is less likely and the tactic less useful.
Let's be honest with ourselves, though. Many people don't want to say this, but the reality is that some people don't want the homeless on the voter rolls because the homeless have a list of wants and needs, but not much in the way of a list of what they can provide. If Joe Middle Class and his family want better schools, they feel that they earned the right to ask for them because they pay taxes into the system. That's why residency is important, and why no one wants to make it easy for people to establish residency.
That said, even the poorest of the poor homeless citizen of the US has more legal right to a vote than someone who is not a legal immigrant but who might be working (illegally, of course). Otherwise, votes are strictly about money, and not about citizenship. If that is the case, we should probably just re-institute the poll tax, because at least that's honest.
I don't think it would be too difficult to arrange for an ID for homeless or otherwise disenfranchised citizens. We just have to make the effort and accept that certain concepts like residency need to have alternate definitions which include all citizens. Ensuring that you can identify actual citizens who vote and have residency also gives you ammunition against people who complain that social program money is all going to illegal immigrants. Otherwise, the other side just ignores your homeless argument because you don't propose an alternate suggestion on how to ensure that poor citizens can be told apart from illegal aliens.
Someone will likely take it up if he quits, but that is an interesting experiment in how this all works if there is a scramble. Will someone form a working group? Will some corporation take up the work by handing it to one or two devs? Will one, sole maintainer step forward and simply fill the vacancy?
Since he hasn't been hit by a bus, chances are good that some publicity will cause this issue to get resolved. But what happens when a similar situation is terminated unexpectedly?
Absolutely true. Although there are practical issues with being too poor. Like being homeless or unable to eat.
Having said that, being somewhat poor is not necessarily an unhappy situation. Once you get beyond survival and have some creature comforts, it only really starts becoming a happiness problem when you are forced to deal with a large disparity.
In other words, people become unhappy with less if they are constantly shown things that other people have that they don't. This is also why many relatively richer (but still not actually "rich") people look down on poor people. There is a disparity that they have come up on top of, and they feel superior for it.
However, anyone who has things can tell you that First World problems can make you just as unhappy as being poor which seems ridiculous on the surface, but has everything to do with a feeling of *relative* inadequacy or poverty. You might have a nice home, decent education, and a relatively promising future, but if you're bullied or isolated socially, or just depressed, you could end up suicidal or even homicidal.
There are rich people who would have lived longer and happier lives if they'd been born poor.
No, they really don't. I don't know where you get that from.
Sure, they want to read our stuff. That hasn't prevented rollouts of new things, it just causes the government to whine that they need backdoors. That's not the same thing as failing to roll out because you don't want your people talking to one another.
What is important is that he has responsibility for the actions of his company. He will need to show without a shadow of a doubt that this was a totally rogue action that was not at all encouraged by their company directives OR their culture.
It is possible that there was one guy or a group of folks who did this on their own completely against the policies and the implied culture of Kaspersky Labs. If so, then maybe he's not responsible.
However, it's hard to believe that someone would do this without at least a cultural acceptance of these sorts of actions inside the company. You need to ensure that you have ethical people working for you, and that you make it very clear that this sort of thing is NOT accepted and certainly not rewarded. And the leadership should be asking questions, and not encouraging a "plausible deniability" atmosphere of "anything goes as long as they can't pin it to me".
So yeah, the company may not be responsible, but it won't simply be a matter of whether Eugene Kaspersky gave an order to do it. It may be that Kaspersky Labs is staffed by people who are unethical or are encouraged to be unethical. In which case, they may not be legally liable, but they should certainly become pariahs.
I suppose a lot depends on their orbit and at what point it decays.
If that is 4600 objects in a very stable high orbit, then we're looking at a long term problem. If it is in LEO and has been deployed to have its orbit decay by the end of the expected service life of the object, that is a problem that takes care of itself after a certain amount of time.
Looks like from the article they are going to be in LEO, which makes sense based on the application.
There are different versions of Buks and even the same version of the design might be manufactured differently with differently sourced parts. Yes, if Russia sent over old Buk systems from before the breakup of the USSR or soon after, there can be doubt. If it was a relatively recent manufacture with signature parts, its Russian.
Of course, again, as someone else said, old Buk or not, the Ukrainians would have had to have fired it from deep in DNR territory, when the rebels don't use planes. That pretty much would assure that the only thing they are shooting at would be civilians (or their own planes).
The simple explanation is that the rebels thought they were shooting at a Ukrainian jet and made a mistake. Not really a difficult thing to believe. It doesn't require the rebels (or anyone else) to have committed a purposeful war crime. It is understandable why they don't want the bad PR, but there's nothing really absurd or even earthshattering about the accusation.
So, it's the Russians, or at least the Russian supplied rebels. And they made an error. In the end, the blame is still squarely on Russia for destabilizing the eastern Ukraine. It doesn't even really matter much if they meant to shoot it down or not. This is what happens when you destabilize a region.
Well, open source code is no more secure than closed source. That isn't a function of the source being open or closed. You can have poorly written open source software and excellent closed source stuff.
The value of open source is the assumption that more eyes on an issue allows inevitable bugs to be found, and for potential users to inspect what they are running. Closed source would have to rely on the number of people authorized to view the code, and the customer will not be able to view the code, just the resulting functionality to evaluate its security.
In reality, however, there is no guarantee that just because there is open source, that anyone will actually *look* at that code and even less assurance that someone who is qualified to read the code will have done so. So, a distinction needs to be made between open source software with a large and active community, and open sourced software that does not have an active community. You still get a *potential* advantage from having the source to look at, but it is only a potential advantage without the community. A closed source application could overcome those potential advantages by ensuring that they have excellent customer support, and are able to insure or indemnify customers against bad results.
In any event, that is why you should never say open sourced software is simply "more secure". It isn't. And some of it is complete shit. What it does provide is the ability for a user/customer to be able to discover any issues for themselves, but *someone* has to go that extra step.
I think his point was, in the 1950's half the population wasn't working, which is to say, women mostly stayed at home.
Today, we have closer to full participation and wages are lower in a relative sense.
It is great that women are now working, but it may have been a better world for us when only one person was working in a household.
Further, the point of technology is that people should not *have* to work. The problem is that the gains we are making with automation are just being used to simply not pay workers, as opposed to eliminating drudgery. We have a world were people don't have to work, but we still insist that they work to live.
We really should look at how we can come up with a basic income for people now that we can do so. There are some hurdles to that, because we can outstrip our ability to pay out if we say, reproduce too often, or even live too long, but I don't think there's a reason that people have to suffer today in Western countries simply because they can't work at a job where the human will actually do less than automation would.
I got to Legionnaire myself, but if you worked at it, you could solo to Lieutenant General, I know one of my friends did. I was decent at PvP, but not as good as he was, and I didn't have the time to grind to make up for my inability to take on all-comers.
It was sort of cool that I had a title that no one else could have gotten again after they ended the program, although I'd gave preferred High Warlord.:)
As someone who played in endgame raiding guilds, it always annoyed me that in just one expansion, I'd have to get up and grind to the next level and then fight to be back on top again.
At the same time, though, there is always a desire to improve your character and do more epic things.
So, I was torn. I hated the way the game could become a job, just to stand still, but at the same time, I did want more things to do. I suppose if I had done less grinding to get where I was, I'd have taken it better when I had to get off my ass (obviously proverbially, not literally) and get back to grinding after the next expansion.
The one thing that sort of helped were that there were some titles you'd only end up with if you'd played the game at a time when certain events happened. Some way of having a permanent distinction that newbs couldn't get no matter how much they ground.
PvP was pointless after world PvP ceased to be a serious thing. Arenas were "meh" to me, because it rewarded short gladiatorial battles with specialized stats and skills over having to find your enemy, set up a scenario, and attack. Hunting and even being hunted (if you're not completely outclassed) is more fun in world PvP.
I even felt a bit of an achievement when I completed some PvE quests on a PvP server with good world PvP. Yeah, compared to the PvE servers we got everything done more slowly unless we went out as a guild in force to do things, but having to rely on a buddy can make the game more social and fun.
To each their own. I personally dislike raping AI mobs in a repetitive way, and the best way to get a feeling of a different game during the grind was always the ever present possibility of having to defend yourself. Or going hunting.
Of course world PvP stopped being something that people really truly did after the 1-60 vanilla, so I'd say that PvP did become PvE, only with slightly more annoyance afterward.
Did any one really think he was going to get a pardon? At least this soon anyway...
Put aside whether or not you think this was a good action, the government can't afford to have anyone who thinks that their personal issue with the government is worth dumping classified information all over the place. Snowden may well be right, and perhaps he'll get his pardon someday, but right now the government still cannot afford to make it look like there is any chance you will get off for breaking the law. And Snowden definitely broke the law, albeit perhaps for a reason that could be justified.
Snowden will get his pardon if subsequent events show that a consensus has formed on whether he did a good thing. However, they want to make very clear to people that you may get vindication, but you will pay for your action in the meantime, so you'd better seriously think over taking the steps you are taking.
This is pure necessity until there is some way found to close the hole that he represents in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose the device makers could do the HAL, but note that Microsoft writes the HAL for Windows. I see that you want to relieve the effort from Google of having to deal with coding for lots of devices, but where is the value to the device maker if you make the device maker have to invest in developing their own hardware abstraction layer?
You'd need to have a reason why device makers would be eager to do that, and honestly, they're not even really all that eager to test and deploy the newest Android to their devices, I can't see why they'd want to write even more software just for the privilege of running Android. Certainly, that would do little to bring down the price. As a software company, Google is far better positioned to write software than any individual device maker would be.
I certainly haven't missed the point. I know why they said that, of course.
I just think it would be interesting to write a biography of a person like this that purposely ignored that focus and listed the things he worked on as a politician which were not specifically civil rights.
Look at Bernie Sanders. He worked for civil rights as well, but that fact only seems to come up in context. Both of them were in Congress for decades.
It may well be hard to separate a person like this from the context of civil rights, given his identity and the size of the issue, but what happens when you strip that out and look at everything else he did?
It may be more interesting than a piece because instead of his history simply melding with the common theme of civil rights, he stands out as an individual person and not just a soldier for the Good Cause.
That's true, but you could have also written an piece like that which simply said:
"The man who saved the International Space Station and manned space flight died today."
I agree that might not have been enough for the AP and a general audience, but I'd love to have seen an article where the only way you realized he was black (or white) was his picture. Seems to me that given all of the people who worked on civil rights, he may well have been more of a standout due to his work to save manned flight than his civil rights work. It is difficult to find a black politician from that period who *wasn't* involved in civil rights.
They're not even locking people out. They're saying that they're making "open standards" and then doing their best to break anyone else's implementation of those "open standards".
It's like telling everyone your door is unlocked and open, and then tripping anyone who goes though it.
Of course this is true. And unfortunately the real argument is:
MS Office is used everywhere else. Why would *you* want to be different? All you're going to do is make trouble for yourselves. Just give up already and pay.
It doesn't matter if MS does its best to break things so that you have to re-paginate. Just pay them.
Now... doesn't that feel better when you do what I suggest? I mean, why would you do something that causes me to punch you in the face repeatedly? Do you like being punched? Of course not!
Here's a towel and a discount. Clean yourself up so you look good for the press release photo.
I'd have to agree with that. Italy never seemed the epitome of labor efficiency to me to begin with.
Of course, I do need to point out that there are annoyances with OpenOffice that have prevented me from bothering with it for long. Could I get around them? Absolutely. Do I want to bother? Not really. So I agree that the Italians probably had real challenges.
The question is: were those challenges really enough to change the TCO advantage? I wonder.
The fact that I prefer MS Office does not mean MS Office is a software product that I would buy. I get Office because I have a work laptop with it installed. Office is a better product than OpenOffice, and because it is free to me, MS Office always wins.
If I had to buy MS Office, though? I'd certainly look to OpenOffice instead of spending money on a subscription. It still has just as many annoyances as before, but it isn't worth a pile of money for me to not just get around them. MS Office is better than OpenOffice, but it isn't that much better that I'd pay for it.
It remains to see what the real reason for the switch was. Maybe it was inefficiencies. Or maybe it was, "the IT department hates supporting OpenOffice and they tried to get a sweet deal with MS so they could switch." The whole 15 minutes per person argument might simply have been normal inefficiencies in an Italian city. A convenient excuse to have, just like someone being shocked... *shocked* that there might be gambling being done in a particular establishment.
I agree that your comment is simply stating that it is just happening. I'm wondering why you bothered to make such as statement though if all you're doing is reiterating what the headline and summary already said.
That's like saying "someone dropped a nuclear weapon on a city today" and then expecting people to not want to dig deeper on something like that. Of course, most people would want to go the next step and ask "why". And you can be certain that Microsoft isn't just doing it to say, "Oh and by the way, this happened today, FYI" There is the expectation you will analyze it.
Microsoft would like you to believe that it is because OpenOffice costs you more money in a "Total Cost of Ownership" sort of way. Their press releases will push that. That's why they used the time of their marketing department to release the statement.
So, now we are led to wonder whether we should take that at face value or look under the covers. If the real reason is that Microsoft heavily discounted Office to the point that the issues with OpenOffice became enough to make them switch to a reduced-price MS deal, then the TCO argument becomes a lot less applicable to most organizations who would be expected to buy Office 365 at full price.
If Microsoft paid me to use their products, I'd most likely take them up on their offer for something like Office. That doesn't imply I'd use Office if I had to pay for it, and it doesn't imply that *you* should pay for it either.
Donald Trump would give you great advice about your hair. Here it is:
1. Make a billion dollars
2. Comb it any way you like
3. ???
4. Attractive women oddly don't concern themselves as much with your hairstyle any more (Profit)
The difference between "hipster" and some other interest is that hipster things seem to be done for some sort of style statement. Wearing pointless glasses, or riding old bikes or being a "lumbersexual" is just a style, not a hobby or an interest.
I suppose you could have fad board games, but actually playing board games doesn't mesh with a "hipster" style over substance mentality. People have been playing things like Eurogames for years, and for other games like Axis and Allies and more adult themed board/card games, people have been playing those games for decades.
When I was younger I liked playing board games of that type, the only real problem was finding people to play them with. Now that I'm an adult, I can find people who I can enjoy them with. There's absolutely nothing hipster about it because it doesn't really impart any sort of style statement. And for the most part, its the same old gamers who I was used to playing games with in the past. I haven't noted anyone sporting style statements at game night, unless you consider the black t-shirt to be a hipster style.
Now, if people who identify as hipsters happen to have become interested in board games, good for them. But saying that board gaming is a hipster trend would be like calling steak a hipster trend because hipsters all started to like steak. Both board games and steak pretty much stand alone from those who are actually partaking of them.
Yes, big corporations are engines for reproducing a popular product en masse. It takes a lot of effort to make them able to be truly creative.
I agree, but if he gets the Republican nomination, the Democrats could run a cucumber against him and win.
I'm not entirely sure that is true. Nativist speak could very easily play to the unionized part of the Democratic party. Is there really any enthusiasm for Hillary on the Democratic side? Even a Democrat has to admit that she pretty much defines "establishment" in DC these days. And be honest with yourselves, Bill isn't going to be coming back as Assistant President.
Why did Obama win over her? He had enthusiasm behind him and despite the fact that he was given a coronation early in his career as presidential contender, he was still seen as an outsider.
Bernie Sanders has the ability to put a better showing in terms of enthusiasm, but he pretty much defines "white liberal". That doesn't play well in all sectors of the country, not even on the Democratic side.
If Trump gets the Republican nomination, the Republican party could decide to embrace him, and if they get their legendary party discipline around him, as well as funding, he could have a chance. He would be a gamble, but I think he actually is the only Republican that could win in 2016, although calling him a Republican would be a pretty loose term. He's actually got some enthusiasm behind him and if you merge that with money and organization, there would at least be a showing.
Of course, its a really, really long shot. The current stable of Republicans isn't offering very much in terms of interest and Trump is only standing out because he has a big mouth that talks first and fills in the details later. He's going to offend one too many people and he will completely cease to look "presidential". And far from embracing him, the Republican establishment is probably half-convinced he's in the race to split the Republicans to ensure the Democrats win, despite their lackluster front-runner.
I just wish the Republicans could come up with a candidate that has something to offer in terms of enthusiasm. The problem is, I think that the things that the Republicans are the most "correct" about, in terms of smaller government and free trade, are those issues most likely to be misunderstood by the population, and the easiest to look like hypocrites on when they cave into the corporate interests that come alongside those positions.
Free trade should mean free trade, not some lackluster situation where free trade only benefits the corporations. Cutting the budget should both include entitlements AND military spending. And the Republicans should be decentralizing, not pretending to support smaller government while they maintain and increase the size and centrality of the Federal government in the name of busting drugs, paying off military contractors, and fencing out illegal aliens.
Honestly, why does a voter ID have to have a permanent "home"? I know it matters for political subdivision purposes, but really all that matters is that you:
a) establish residency in that subdivision
b) are not voting in more than one place
If you are homeless, then if you want to vote locally, you establish a pattern of living and working in that one place. There are ways of doing that. Your ID could then reflect that instead of a home address. Things the homeless would do normally, like getting on a list for a homeless shelter could count, if they could associate that with an ID. You don't own the shelter or rent it, you don't even live there all the time, but establishing enough residency there could be enough to associate you with that neighborhood. As long as the system does not let you vote twice, and it establishes some reasonable attachment to the locality to each voter, the chance of you becoming a "bussed in voter" is less likely and the tactic less useful.
Let's be honest with ourselves, though. Many people don't want to say this, but the reality is that some people don't want the homeless on the voter rolls because the homeless have a list of wants and needs, but not much in the way of a list of what they can provide. If Joe Middle Class and his family want better schools, they feel that they earned the right to ask for them because they pay taxes into the system. That's why residency is important, and why no one wants to make it easy for people to establish residency.
That said, even the poorest of the poor homeless citizen of the US has more legal right to a vote than someone who is not a legal immigrant but who might be working (illegally, of course). Otherwise, votes are strictly about money, and not about citizenship. If that is the case, we should probably just re-institute the poll tax, because at least that's honest.
I don't think it would be too difficult to arrange for an ID for homeless or otherwise disenfranchised citizens. We just have to make the effort and accept that certain concepts like residency need to have alternate definitions which include all citizens. Ensuring that you can identify actual citizens who vote and have residency also gives you ammunition against people who complain that social program money is all going to illegal immigrants. Otherwise, the other side just ignores your homeless argument because you don't propose an alternate suggestion on how to ensure that poor citizens can be told apart from illegal aliens.
Someone will likely take it up if he quits, but that is an interesting experiment in how this all works if there is a scramble. Will someone form a working group? Will some corporation take up the work by handing it to one or two devs? Will one, sole maintainer step forward and simply fill the vacancy?
Since he hasn't been hit by a bus, chances are good that some publicity will cause this issue to get resolved. But what happens when a similar situation is terminated unexpectedly?
Absolutely true. Although there are practical issues with being too poor. Like being homeless or unable to eat.
Having said that, being somewhat poor is not necessarily an unhappy situation. Once you get beyond survival and have some creature comforts, it only really starts becoming a happiness problem when you are forced to deal with a large disparity.
In other words, people become unhappy with less if they are constantly shown things that other people have that they don't. This is also why many relatively richer (but still not actually "rich") people look down on poor people. There is a disparity that they have come up on top of, and they feel superior for it.
However, anyone who has things can tell you that First World problems can make you just as unhappy as being poor which seems ridiculous on the surface, but has everything to do with a feeling of *relative* inadequacy or poverty. You might have a nice home, decent education, and a relatively promising future, but if you're bullied or isolated socially, or just depressed, you could end up suicidal or even homicidal.
There are rich people who would have lived longer and happier lives if they'd been born poor.
No, they really don't. I don't know where you get that from.
Sure, they want to read our stuff. That hasn't prevented rollouts of new things, it just causes the government to whine that they need backdoors. That's not the same thing as failing to roll out because you don't want your people talking to one another.
He may or may not know.
What is important is that he has responsibility for the actions of his company. He will need to show without a shadow of a doubt that this was a totally rogue action that was not at all encouraged by their company directives OR their culture.
It is possible that there was one guy or a group of folks who did this on their own completely against the policies and the implied culture of Kaspersky Labs. If so, then maybe he's not responsible.
However, it's hard to believe that someone would do this without at least a cultural acceptance of these sorts of actions inside the company. You need to ensure that you have ethical people working for you, and that you make it very clear that this sort of thing is NOT accepted and certainly not rewarded. And the leadership should be asking questions, and not encouraging a "plausible deniability" atmosphere of "anything goes as long as they can't pin it to me".
So yeah, the company may not be responsible, but it won't simply be a matter of whether Eugene Kaspersky gave an order to do it. It may be that Kaspersky Labs is staffed by people who are unethical or are encouraged to be unethical. In which case, they may not be legally liable, but they should certainly become pariahs.
I suppose a lot depends on their orbit and at what point it decays.
If that is 4600 objects in a very stable high orbit, then we're looking at a long term problem. If it is in LEO and has been deployed to have its orbit decay by the end of the expected service life of the object, that is a problem that takes care of itself after a certain amount of time.
Looks like from the article they are going to be in LEO, which makes sense based on the application.
There are different versions of Buks and even the same version of the design might be manufactured differently with differently sourced parts. Yes, if Russia sent over old Buk systems from before the breakup of the USSR or soon after, there can be doubt. If it was a relatively recent manufacture with signature parts, its Russian.
Of course, again, as someone else said, old Buk or not, the Ukrainians would have had to have fired it from deep in DNR territory, when the rebels don't use planes. That pretty much would assure that the only thing they are shooting at would be civilians (or their own planes).
The simple explanation is that the rebels thought they were shooting at a Ukrainian jet and made a mistake. Not really a difficult thing to believe. It doesn't require the rebels (or anyone else) to have committed a purposeful war crime. It is understandable why they don't want the bad PR, but there's nothing really absurd or even earthshattering about the accusation.
So, it's the Russians, or at least the Russian supplied rebels. And they made an error. In the end, the blame is still squarely on Russia for destabilizing the eastern Ukraine. It doesn't even really matter much if they meant to shoot it down or not. This is what happens when you destabilize a region.
Well, open source code is no more secure than closed source. That isn't a function of the source being open or closed. You can have poorly written open source software and excellent closed source stuff.
The value of open source is the assumption that more eyes on an issue allows inevitable bugs to be found, and for potential users to inspect what they are running. Closed source would have to rely on the number of people authorized to view the code, and the customer will not be able to view the code, just the resulting functionality to evaluate its security.
In reality, however, there is no guarantee that just because there is open source, that anyone will actually *look* at that code and even less assurance that someone who is qualified to read the code will have done so. So, a distinction needs to be made between open source software with a large and active community, and open sourced software that does not have an active community. You still get a *potential* advantage from having the source to look at, but it is only a potential advantage without the community. A closed source application could overcome those potential advantages by ensuring that they have excellent customer support, and are able to insure or indemnify customers against bad results.
In any event, that is why you should never say open sourced software is simply "more secure". It isn't. And some of it is complete shit. What it does provide is the ability for a user/customer to be able to discover any issues for themselves, but *someone* has to go that extra step.
I think his point was, in the 1950's half the population wasn't working, which is to say, women mostly stayed at home.
Today, we have closer to full participation and wages are lower in a relative sense.
It is great that women are now working, but it may have been a better world for us when only one person was working in a household.
Further, the point of technology is that people should not *have* to work. The problem is that the gains we are making with automation are just being used to simply not pay workers, as opposed to eliminating drudgery. We have a world were people don't have to work, but we still insist that they work to live.
We really should look at how we can come up with a basic income for people now that we can do so. There are some hurdles to that, because we can outstrip our ability to pay out if we say, reproduce too often, or even live too long, but I don't think there's a reason that people have to suffer today in Western countries simply because they can't work at a job where the human will actually do less than automation would.
There were some ways out of stun lock, and it had diminishing returns, but yeah, it could be really annoying.
I got to Legionnaire myself, but if you worked at it, you could solo to Lieutenant General, I know one of my friends did. I was decent at PvP, but not as good as he was, and I didn't have the time to grind to make up for my inability to take on all-comers.
It was sort of cool that I had a title that no one else could have gotten again after they ended the program, although I'd gave preferred High Warlord. :)
As someone who played in endgame raiding guilds, it always annoyed me that in just one expansion, I'd have to get up and grind to the next level and then fight to be back on top again.
At the same time, though, there is always a desire to improve your character and do more epic things.
So, I was torn. I hated the way the game could become a job, just to stand still, but at the same time, I did want more things to do. I suppose if I had done less grinding to get where I was, I'd have taken it better when I had to get off my ass (obviously proverbially, not literally) and get back to grinding after the next expansion.
The one thing that sort of helped were that there were some titles you'd only end up with if you'd played the game at a time when certain events happened. Some way of having a permanent distinction that newbs couldn't get no matter how much they ground.
PvP was pointless after world PvP ceased to be a serious thing. Arenas were "meh" to me, because it rewarded short gladiatorial battles with specialized stats and skills over having to find your enemy, set up a scenario, and attack. Hunting and even being hunted (if you're not completely outclassed) is more fun in world PvP.
I even felt a bit of an achievement when I completed some PvE quests on a PvP server with good world PvP. Yeah, compared to the PvE servers we got everything done more slowly unless we went out as a guild in force to do things, but having to rely on a buddy can make the game more social and fun.
To each their own. I personally dislike raping AI mobs in a repetitive way, and the best way to get a feeling of a different game during the grind was always the ever present possibility of having to defend yourself. Or going hunting.
Of course world PvP stopped being something that people really truly did after the 1-60 vanilla, so I'd say that PvP did become PvE, only with slightly more annoyance afterward.
Did any one really think he was going to get a pardon? At least this soon anyway...
Put aside whether or not you think this was a good action, the government can't afford to have anyone who thinks that their personal issue with the government is worth dumping classified information all over the place. Snowden may well be right, and perhaps he'll get his pardon someday, but right now the government still cannot afford to make it look like there is any chance you will get off for breaking the law. And Snowden definitely broke the law, albeit perhaps for a reason that could be justified.
Snowden will get his pardon if subsequent events show that a consensus has formed on whether he did a good thing. However, they want to make very clear to people that you may get vindication, but you will pay for your action in the meantime, so you'd better seriously think over taking the steps you are taking.
This is pure necessity until there is some way found to close the hole that he represents in the process.