What I find hilarious, in a dark humor sort of way, is that the keyboard warriors who would protect us from the dishonest gubermint are so dishonest about the (very few) known details of what happened. OK, government is imperfect, but why are these lying pundits to be preferred? At least the Gubermint is restricted in what they can do based on their need to keep it secret. The internet pundits don't respect honesty, secrecy, or laws that permit the government to do things they disapprove of, so if they were the ones with the power what would constrain them? Nothing but their own purported saintly moral and ethical values.
Perhaps Snowden was shocked by what he saw and that led to his actions. OK so far. But he did not actually attempt to raise objections from within in the sense that "whistleblower" is normally understood. He certainly didn't go to Senator Wyden, or anybody else with an oversight role and security clearance.
I just wanted to say, thank you for reading. Few people who can write comments can also read, and even fewer are anonymous cowards. Well done, Citizen.
I don't always feel butthurt, but when I do I do it anonymously so that I don't have to see the responses in a message queue and be reminded of whatever I said.
Does ANYONE have any faith in our Government to do the right thing ?
About 50% do, and which 50% changes every few years following elections.
I'm not asking you to change your views, but please step out of the echo chamber once in awhile and realize that it is only a small closet not the majority of the nation.
Also, they have a history of becoming embroiled in conflicts with Russia, including various incidents during the Cold War, and they don't share information about it. So we need to spy on them just for that reason alone; to prevent WWIII from accidentally breaking out where NATO, Swedish, and Russian borders join.
That doesn't even attempt to argue against the threat. If both sides are trying to do it, then both sides must remain vigilant in their attempts to defend themselves, and that is going to include attempting to use surveillance to detect breaches.
Just like if there are two bears with bordering territory, and sometimes they wander into the others territory to grab some honey. They don't serve their interests by ignoring the infraction just because they did it too, then they would have to share and the other bear wouldn't. Instead, they're both well-served by trying to defend their border, hopefully using nonviolent posturing and mere threats.
No, most countries are our Frenemies. We don't keep an eye on them just because of what they might do to us, but rather what we sometimes catch them doing.
This is not controversial outside of tinfoil nut butter.
The controversial stuff is the stuff that is not even related to other countries, like domestic surveillance of disputed legality.
A limited hangout is what happens when your fly is only partially unzipped.
A limited hangout is what happens when you thought you were a commando and made an opsec blunder that resulted in having to register on the list of such people, and now are limited in where you're allowed to hang out.
In my fuzzy recollection of years gone by, I think slashdot comments were rather more insightful.
It seems that way to me too, but maybe I was just young and stupid and had lower expectations? There is no way for me to know without going back and reading back issues, and there is no way I'm going to spend time on that.
why the economic model of KeePass has failed so badly?
It hasn't, the developer would just make less money with HTTPS ads. He wouldn't stop making money. He'd just make less off this particular residual revenue stream, and he's not willing to milk it for less than the maximum.
In short you'd have to be dumb enough to not notice...
What if it turns out to be a known fact that humans are dumb? Are you seriously arguing that a threat vector is fake if it can only affect "dumb" people? I doubt very many security threats affect Vulcans, but Humans might have a broader need for technical protection.
Sometimes calling things names only discredits your analysis.
The implication was that if your ISP or their ISP or some ISP in between has a pwned router, then that can't really be guaranteed when using HTTP.
You admit you didn't understand what you were responding to, so how can you possibly know if it is a valid concern or not? Obviously, you have to understand what was said in order to evaluate the relevance. Maybe you don't worry about MITM attacks; some people do. Like the person you didn't understand.;)
I personally find it really hard to trust somebody on something as important and detail-oriented as security when they don't even know what an important, basic word like "possible" means. I naturally assume that when it comes to knowing what attacks against his product are "possible," he just is unable to do the analysis because he doesn't even know what the question is.
It "seems strange" because it offers better information than you thought you had. When facts disprove your beliefs, you can either change your beliefs, or disbelieve the facts.
Serving lower-paying ads to sites running HTTPS shows you how Google feels about HTTPS. They're an ad company. Whatever PR or outside-of-google information you used as the basis of your "boner" beliefs was clearly inaccurate.
You seem to be missing the fact that there are two boolean variables involved: "has a motor" and "motor is speed limited to less than n."
So to answer your question, by that standard it doesn't matter what speed you were going; you presumably didn't have a motor on your old 10-speed. And there is no law against riding a power-assisted bicycle above n mph, the law is that unless the motor is appropriately speed-limited you need a moped license and have to have the vehicle registered as a moped. Mopeds that have pedals can even be ridden legally on bicycle paths if the motor is turned off. And bicycles with speed-limited motors can be ridden above n mph even on bike paths, since most of that speed would be being produced by the human.
And lets not forget... if it doesn't require specialized hardware, there is no reason at all to even be talking about the phone/camera, or selfies. It is just a digital photo filter. This is like paid-ringtones; it will make a lot of money until people who buy it realize it didn't improve their lives, and then it will fade into the background and the functionality will just be another stupid thing you can make your computer do if you're bored.
You don't really make a convincing case that the Apollo era was bad for space technology. Maybe the alternative was simply to not develop any of that technology?
What bigger goverment-tit-sucking in space technology has there been than the Space Shuttle? I say it was worth it, even if the money could have been better spent. Because, it wouldn't have been better spent; it would have been spent on handouts to the oil industry, or to increasing payments to companies that manufacture military food packs.
The Apollo program was the best thing that could have happened for space technology, because it was the only thing that would have been happening for it. If not for the perceived need for missile tech, it wouldn't have happened at all because there was no public will or interest in going to the moon "just because," or based on the real reasons that educated people want it to happen. People loved that dream, it was very good PR and it pulls in people who wouldn't support a purely military program. None of the reasons people have for wanting space technology can individually pull in a lot of support, but most people can be persuaded that at least one of those things is worth having.
Maybe getting more launches and perfecting reuse is not the only thing that needs to be improved before space is really useful to humans? I'm not convinced that economic progress alone has value here. There isn't some grand thing that we'd be doing if only it was $n cheaper. There are a wide variety of technologies and experience that need to exist before things like habitats, or asteroid mining, or whatever are practicable. All the important things to have satellites for already have satellites, after all.
SpaceX seems to be doing good business, and doing engineering research too. A Mars mission would have lots of science onboard that without a Mars mission would simply not happen. Just sending more satellites into orbit isn't going to cause a bunch of science to get funded, and it isn't going to enable serious habitats that are of consequence either. I'll bet you could increase the satellite launches 100 times over and if that is all you did, it wouldn't make orbital habitats practicable other than for research.
Another thing is, increasing the launch frequency might increase the failure rate, which could be counter-productive for long-term goals involving manned flight. Maybe they don't have enough of the right type of engineers to do more launches, but they have a lot of engineers that are good at less-critical things, like trying to land a rocket that is also allowed to crash? It might be that their schedule is already optimized, regardless of the backlog.
Without reuse, you simply can't hope to scale up access very far. Reuse isn't just about reuse; it teaches how to repair things, it teaches engineering that will be useful throughout the industry once the industry is leaving non-disposable things in space. At a large enough scale, all-new equipment will stop being at all reasonable. The scale won't increase before the industry has developed, for economic reasons other than launch cost. It is not a new thing to point out an economic chicken/egg problem, or that large popular goals are a way to cause the money to flow to get past that problem.
Another detail that is easy to overlook is that the more launches there are, the more will be invested by competitors, and margins will tighten; that might not be a viable way to grow the industry to the next plateau.
There is no rule that stupid jokes based on pretending to misunderstand something need to be taken as intended. It is perfectly reasonable to instead look down on the idiot who thinks it is "funny."
The funnier part is that you thought people misunderstood the joke. No, they're explaining why it is so stupid. And you missed that, and accused them of missing it. Talk about "d'oh!"
It is up to the person telling the joke to be funny, it is not up to the reader to laugh. Sneering or derping are also expected reactions to poor attempts at humor.
Turn off your tee-vee, it is polluting your elitist brain. Bicycling is very normal thing in the US. Maybe your anti-Americanisms are not a big deal, but it is still pretty pathetic. Maybe you once visited some redneck American city and presumed the whole country is the same. I'll remember to judge you by assuming you're a French waiter.
It isn't that it "can't work," it is that it is more expensive than a motorcycle. If you build it yourself, and don't count the time, that brings the cost down to what a used motorcycle costs, and that is including the title and registration. Insurance on a motorcycle isn't very much.
In my State you can ride power-assisted bicycles in bike lanes if they can't go over 15mph, and what sells are internal combustion kits with a small wheel that presses on the bike rim. (like a bottle generator) They're loud and they stink, but they're cheap enough for people that can't afford a used motorcycle.
Compared to a car, can you save money? Of course. Compared to a motorcycle or moped? Expect savings to be small, and that is if you got lucky and bought quality batteries.
I'm in a State where the rules are very friendly to electric bikes, and they worked with the manufacturers to make sure that most of the reasonable electric bikes are still considered bikes. Lots and lots of stores opened up trying to sell them. Most of them also already went out of business.
The reason is that they had the idea that they could sell really expensive ones to yuppies. But most of the market is working class commuters. So home-built ones are more common than the crazy-expensive ones.
Another problem with the idea of an expensive electric bicycle is that they're too easily stolen. People who ride a lot and have a fancy bike... also have a cheaper bike to use when they're going to have to lock it up outside somewhere.
China has much lower battery prices than the US, so they have products targeted at the working class.
Slashdot Mirror
What I find hilarious, in a dark humor sort of way, is that the keyboard warriors who would protect us from the dishonest gubermint are so dishonest about the (very few) known details of what happened. OK, government is imperfect, but why are these lying pundits to be preferred? At least the Gubermint is restricted in what they can do based on their need to keep it secret. The internet pundits don't respect honesty, secrecy, or laws that permit the government to do things they disapprove of, so if they were the ones with the power what would constrain them? Nothing but their own purported saintly moral and ethical values.
Perhaps Snowden was shocked by what he saw and that led to his actions. OK so far. But he did not actually attempt to raise objections from within in the sense that "whistleblower" is normally understood. He certainly didn't go to Senator Wyden, or anybody else with an oversight role and security clearance.
I just wanted to say, thank you for reading. Few people who can write comments can also read, and even fewer are anonymous cowards. Well done, Citizen.
A truth doesn't become less true just because the source is a known liar.
True, but a statement from a known liar will often not be evaluated for truth so it won't matter and won't be a fallacy. ;)
"You didn't care what I said" isn't a fallacy.
I don't always feel butthurt, but when I do I do it anonymously so that I don't have to see the responses in a message queue and be reminded of whatever I said.
lol
Does ANYONE have any faith in our Government to do the right thing ?
About 50% do, and which 50% changes every few years following elections.
I'm not asking you to change your views, but please step out of the echo chamber once in awhile and realize that it is only a small closet not the majority of the nation.
Because they're not perfect saints who are immune from being the source of threats, accidental or intentional.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Also, they have a history of becoming embroiled in conflicts with Russia, including various incidents during the Cold War, and they don't share information about it. So we need to spy on them just for that reason alone; to prevent WWIII from accidentally breaking out where NATO, Swedish, and Russian borders join.
That doesn't even attempt to argue against the threat. If both sides are trying to do it, then both sides must remain vigilant in their attempts to defend themselves, and that is going to include attempting to use surveillance to detect breaches.
Just like if there are two bears with bordering territory, and sometimes they wander into the others territory to grab some honey. They don't serve their interests by ignoring the infraction just because they did it too, then they would have to share and the other bear wouldn't. Instead, they're both well-served by trying to defend their border, hopefully using nonviolent posturing and mere threats.
No, most countries are our Frenemies. We don't keep an eye on them just because of what they might do to us, but rather what we sometimes catch them doing.
This is not controversial outside of tinfoil nut butter.
The controversial stuff is the stuff that is not even related to other countries, like domestic surveillance of disputed legality.
A limited hangout is what happens when your fly is only partially unzipped.
A limited hangout is what happens when you thought you were a commando and made an opsec blunder that resulted in having to register on the list of such people, and now are limited in where you're allowed to hang out.
In my fuzzy recollection of years gone by, I think slashdot comments were rather more insightful.
It seems that way to me too, but maybe I was just young and stupid and had lower expectations? There is no way for me to know without going back and reading back issues, and there is no way I'm going to spend time on that.
why the economic model of KeePass has failed so badly?
It hasn't, the developer would just make less money with HTTPS ads. He wouldn't stop making money. He'd just make less off this particular residual revenue stream, and he's not willing to milk it for less than the maximum.
In short you'd have to be dumb enough to not notice ...
What if it turns out to be a known fact that humans are dumb? Are you seriously arguing that a threat vector is fake if it can only affect "dumb" people? I doubt very many security threats affect Vulcans, but Humans might have a broader need for technical protection.
Sometimes calling things names only discredits your analysis.
The update check goes to the official web site
The implication was that if your ISP or their ISP or some ISP in between has a pwned router, then that can't really be guaranteed when using HTTP.
You admit you didn't understand what you were responding to, so how can you possibly know if it is a valid concern or not? Obviously, you have to understand what was said in order to evaluate the relevance. Maybe you don't worry about MITM attacks; some people do. Like the person you didn't understand. ;)
I personally find it really hard to trust somebody on something as important and detail-oriented as security when they don't even know what an important, basic word like "possible" means. I naturally assume that when it comes to knowing what attacks against his product are "possible," he just is unable to do the analysis because he doesn't even know what the question is.
It "seems strange" because it offers better information than you thought you had. When facts disprove your beliefs, you can either change your beliefs, or disbelieve the facts.
Serving lower-paying ads to sites running HTTPS shows you how Google feels about HTTPS. They're an ad company. Whatever PR or outside-of-google information you used as the basis of your "boner" beliefs was clearly inaccurate.
You seem to be missing the fact that there are two boolean variables involved: "has a motor" and "motor is speed limited to less than n."
So to answer your question, by that standard it doesn't matter what speed you were going; you presumably didn't have a motor on your old 10-speed. And there is no law against riding a power-assisted bicycle above n mph, the law is that unless the motor is appropriately speed-limited you need a moped license and have to have the vehicle registered as a moped. Mopeds that have pedals can even be ridden legally on bicycle paths if the motor is turned off. And bicycles with speed-limited motors can be ridden above n mph even on bike paths, since most of that speed would be being produced by the human.
And lets not forget... if it doesn't require specialized hardware, there is no reason at all to even be talking about the phone/camera, or selfies. It is just a digital photo filter. This is like paid-ringtones; it will make a lot of money until people who buy it realize it didn't improve their lives, and then it will fade into the background and the functionality will just be another stupid thing you can make your computer do if you're bored.
I'd at least suggest that they take all of the athletes to some islan to quarantine them for a few months after it is over.
There are only a few athletes. There will be 500,000 tourists. We might need to just leave them there, and quarantine Brazil.
You don't really make a convincing case that the Apollo era was bad for space technology. Maybe the alternative was simply to not develop any of that technology?
What bigger goverment-tit-sucking in space technology has there been than the Space Shuttle? I say it was worth it, even if the money could have been better spent. Because, it wouldn't have been better spent; it would have been spent on handouts to the oil industry, or to increasing payments to companies that manufacture military food packs.
The Apollo program was the best thing that could have happened for space technology, because it was the only thing that would have been happening for it. If not for the perceived need for missile tech, it wouldn't have happened at all because there was no public will or interest in going to the moon "just because," or based on the real reasons that educated people want it to happen. People loved that dream, it was very good PR and it pulls in people who wouldn't support a purely military program. None of the reasons people have for wanting space technology can individually pull in a lot of support, but most people can be persuaded that at least one of those things is worth having.
Maybe getting more launches and perfecting reuse is not the only thing that needs to be improved before space is really useful to humans? I'm not convinced that economic progress alone has value here. There isn't some grand thing that we'd be doing if only it was $n cheaper. There are a wide variety of technologies and experience that need to exist before things like habitats, or asteroid mining, or whatever are practicable. All the important things to have satellites for already have satellites, after all.
SpaceX seems to be doing good business, and doing engineering research too. A Mars mission would have lots of science onboard that without a Mars mission would simply not happen. Just sending more satellites into orbit isn't going to cause a bunch of science to get funded, and it isn't going to enable serious habitats that are of consequence either. I'll bet you could increase the satellite launches 100 times over and if that is all you did, it wouldn't make orbital habitats practicable other than for research.
Another thing is, increasing the launch frequency might increase the failure rate, which could be counter-productive for long-term goals involving manned flight. Maybe they don't have enough of the right type of engineers to do more launches, but they have a lot of engineers that are good at less-critical things, like trying to land a rocket that is also allowed to crash? It might be that their schedule is already optimized, regardless of the backlog.
Without reuse, you simply can't hope to scale up access very far. Reuse isn't just about reuse; it teaches how to repair things, it teaches engineering that will be useful throughout the industry once the industry is leaving non-disposable things in space. At a large enough scale, all-new equipment will stop being at all reasonable. The scale won't increase before the industry has developed, for economic reasons other than launch cost. It is not a new thing to point out an economic chicken/egg problem, or that large popular goals are a way to cause the money to flow to get past that problem.
Another detail that is easy to overlook is that the more launches there are, the more will be invested by competitors, and margins will tighten; that might not be a viable way to grow the industry to the next plateau.
Make sure to get both, just in case.
I guess that means it should be "10-50m" instead of "up to 50m."
There is no rule that stupid jokes based on pretending to misunderstand something need to be taken as intended. It is perfectly reasonable to instead look down on the idiot who thinks it is "funny."
The funnier part is that you thought people misunderstood the joke. No, they're explaining why it is so stupid. And you missed that, and accused them of missing it. Talk about "d'oh!"
It is up to the person telling the joke to be funny, it is not up to the reader to laugh. Sneering or derping are also expected reactions to poor attempts at humor.
By "prepared" he meant, "this is as good as it gets, this is Olympics third-world pandemic version."
In a normal year, I might share concerns about open sewers. But with zika? That's a minor concern.
Turn off your tee-vee, it is polluting your elitist brain. Bicycling is very normal thing in the US. Maybe your anti-Americanisms are not a big deal, but it is still pretty pathetic. Maybe you once visited some redneck American city and presumed the whole country is the same. I'll remember to judge you by assuming you're a French waiter.
It isn't that it "can't work," it is that it is more expensive than a motorcycle. If you build it yourself, and don't count the time, that brings the cost down to what a used motorcycle costs, and that is including the title and registration. Insurance on a motorcycle isn't very much.
In my State you can ride power-assisted bicycles in bike lanes if they can't go over 15mph, and what sells are internal combustion kits with a small wheel that presses on the bike rim. (like a bottle generator) They're loud and they stink, but they're cheap enough for people that can't afford a used motorcycle.
Compared to a car, can you save money? Of course. Compared to a motorcycle or moped? Expect savings to be small, and that is if you got lucky and bought quality batteries.
I'm in a State where the rules are very friendly to electric bikes, and they worked with the manufacturers to make sure that most of the reasonable electric bikes are still considered bikes. Lots and lots of stores opened up trying to sell them. Most of them also already went out of business.
The reason is that they had the idea that they could sell really expensive ones to yuppies. But most of the market is working class commuters. So home-built ones are more common than the crazy-expensive ones.
Another problem with the idea of an expensive electric bicycle is that they're too easily stolen. People who ride a lot and have a fancy bike... also have a cheaper bike to use when they're going to have to lock it up outside somewhere.
China has much lower battery prices than the US, so they have products targeted at the working class.