If you count those as successes, you're profoundly retarded and there's nothing that can be done for you anymore. You're too detached from reality. Sorry!
Yes, I count Trump meeting with Kim Jong-un a success, as does most non-retarded people.
(The excellent economic results didn't hurt, either - something else non-retarded people can appreciate.)
The difference wasn't as large as you make it seem. If I remember correctly, the difference (just by changing the name from "ObamaCare" to "ACA") was something like 10-15%. When asked about specific provisions, though, I think the approval rating was significantly higher.
Every other business builds their costs into the price of the product. Somehow phone and cable companies get away with adding hidden fees instead of just having to raise the price a little. Why do we let them get away with that?
As much as I favor light-touch regulation, this is a case for legislative intervention.
It shouldn't even really need legislation, it just needs the courts to agree that it constitutes fraud.
If only you Americans could come up with some sort of government regulatory body to protect consumer rights from greedy telecoms. I'd suggest calling it "federal communications commission", but apparently that name is already taken by a very powerful lobby group only interested in maximizing profits for telcoms.
Nah, this isn't really a communications problem, it's more like a problem with trade in general. I think "Federal Trade Commission" would be a better name.
You're talking a couple hundred pounds of fuel per plane, they only have so much capacity as it is and they tend to only carry as much fuel as they need to get to their destination.
So if there's severe weather or some other problem that prevents a plane from landing immediately when it reaches its destination, they just let the plane crash? That doesn't sound like a very good plan.
it is not secure as it may be possible to create hash collisions with some time... but to hash a passwords is still perfectly save, you can't reverse a hash to get the password and bruteforce it is still a huge amount of combinations
No, it isn't considered safe, because computers can compute SHA1 hashes fast enough to make brute force attacks feasible. You should be using computationally-intensive algorithms such as PBKDF2, bcrypt, etc.
defined addiction as a pattern of persistent gaming behaviour so severe it "takes precedence over other life interests.
That's the definition of a hobby. I have several hobbies in my own life that I strongly prioritize over other things I could be doing but that doesn't make them harmful.
No, it isn't. "Other life interests" are not alternate recreational activities. Playing video games on a Sunday afternoon instead of going to the beach, playing golf, or making furniture in your basement is not an addiction. "Life interests" are things like going to your job or taking care of your children.
Not really. Because I can apply 5 points of those to gear heads(people who work on cars obsessively) for example. Or people who repeatedly build new PC's for themselves, even if they don't game, or even people who are bookworms.
Which 5 criteria? Being restless or irritable when prevented from doing their hobby is the only one that I can see being at all possible that doesn't indicate a serious problem.
They got pressure from religious groups to have disorders listed on a case-by-case basis. If you make the mistake of calling "mental health disorder" any behaviour so severe it takes precedence over other life interests, then the most fervent believers would be considered sick.
This sounds plausible.
No it doesn't. The only way someone could be enough of a "fervent believer" that it would be classified as a mental health disorder is if it interferes with their ordinary life, including keeping a job. Most religious institutions that would exert that kind of pressure would much rather have members that have full-time jobs and are therefore paying their membership dues, tithes, etc.
When children play role-playing games, they aren't learning about real life.
Yeah, all they're doing is assembling a team of people with a wide of variety of skills and working together to accomplish their goals. There definitely isn't any real-life use for skills like that.
I have this concept I created called "smart dust" which could be used to build swarms of mesh networks of these small computers. They could be dropped from airplanes for example to monitor oil moisture for crops. Eventually these swarms would be self organizing and AI could be introduced. If you are interested in funding my concept, please contact me.
You mostly just troll everything now, don't you...
including Trump's boy Gorsuch, voted that fuck your privacy rights,
Did you even read his argument as to why he dissented? Obviously not, otherwise you'd know that he did because he felt that the other opinions were too vague in order to be in favor of it. Go on, read it. Dust off that annotated copy of rulings, and you'll figure it out. When you do, you'll also figure out why you look like an idiot to anyone who's studied law.
If Gorsuch thought that a warrant is needed, he would have voted that way. If he did, but didn't like the reasoning that Roberts et al used, he could have written a concurring opinion. The fact that he voted that a warrant isn't necessary tells you that he thinks a warrant isn't necessary.
This case is the wireless equivalent of "Can the government search your garbage without a warrant after you've put it on the street corner for pickup?" The issue here wasn't if the government needed a warrant to track you as you're mischaracterizing it. It's if the government needed a warrant to obtain personal information you've already willingly given up to a third party. Unlike possessions inside your home or car or on your person, it is not at all obvious that these things enjoy 4th Amendment protection.
No, it isn't equivalent. By putting something in the garbage, you take a specific, explicit action that disclaims ownership of that item. Using a cell phone is not explicitly telling the police that they can track you at all times; (almost) nobody buys a cell phone for the specific purpose of being tracked.
And if a retailer isn't located in a state, they're not under that state's jurisdiction.
That's exactly the previous Supreme Court decision that was overturned today. "Physical presence" is no longer a requirement for determining that a company that does business in a state is subject to that state's sales tax.
There is literally no way for a new ISP to enter most markets unless it can rent existing fiber from an existing wire provider, and there are no laws requiring fiber providers to lease access to their lines. So really, we have only three viable options for preventing abuse: Mandate government-owned fiber, mandate fiber leasing to competitors, or treat ISPs as a regulated monopoly. (Well, I suppose there's a fourth option: we could do more than one of those things.)
Well, there's also the Musk option - a small number (possibly one) of people with a huge amount of money and the will to burn it on a project that may not succeed. Google started on that path, but they didn't have the will to follow through. Some other large company, such as Microsoft, Apple, or even a less consumer-focused company like GE, could also probably enter the market with enough money to match the price drops from the incumbents. Of course, I'm don't know if that would necessarily improve the situation much.
Cities and states charge plenty of other taxes and fees, the only reason it "had to happen" is because they want to steal more money without voters having a say
Voters don't have a say in the state and local tax laws? I'm glad I don't live in your city.
States have no right to regulate interstate commerce. As much of a problem as sales tax is online, this isn't the way to solve it. We need a constitutional amendment to even give states these powers.
You can argue that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to make this decision at this time, but Congress explicitly has the authority to regulate commerce among the states, such as by allowing collection of sales tax from online purchases. There's definitely no need for an amendment to the Constitution.
And that needs to be implemented correctly by every online business with a presence in the US.
Not necessarily. I'm fine with a state being able to collect sales tax on online purchases, but it's the state's responsibility to provide a simple mechanism that the seller can use to determine what the sales tax should be. A different API for different states would explicitly be considered not simple. There would have to be something like a web service hosted by e.g. the FTC, where the seller just submits address and item name/description and gets back the tax rate. If the state can't provide the necessary information, then they'll have to simplify their tax code before they can collect sales tax from online purchases.
Slashdot Mirror
If you count those as successes, you're profoundly retarded and there's nothing that can be done for you anymore. You're too detached from reality. Sorry!
Yes, I count Trump meeting with Kim Jong-un a success, as does most non-retarded people.
(The excellent economic results didn't hurt, either - something else non-retarded people can appreciate.)
And you call Democrats naive.
without legal justification
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oh, and he'd appoint judges who place following the Constitution and the law above the desired result.
Especially when the desired result is silly things like equality in representation and protection of the law.
The difference wasn't as large as you make it seem. If I remember correctly, the difference (just by changing the name from "ObamaCare" to "ACA") was something like 10-15%. When asked about specific provisions, though, I think the approval rating was significantly higher.
Every other business builds their costs into the price of the product. Somehow phone and cable companies get away with adding hidden fees instead of just having to raise the price a little. Why do we let them get away with that?
As much as I favor light-touch regulation, this is a case for legislative intervention.
It shouldn't even really need legislation, it just needs the courts to agree that it constitutes fraud.
If only you Americans could come up with some sort of government regulatory body to protect consumer rights from greedy telecoms. I'd suggest calling it "federal communications commission", but apparently that name is already taken by a very powerful lobby group only interested in maximizing profits for telcoms.
Nah, this isn't really a communications problem, it's more like a problem with trade in general. I think "Federal Trade Commission" would be a better name.
You're talking a couple hundred pounds of fuel per plane, they only have so much capacity as it is and they tend to only carry as much fuel as they need to get to their destination.
So if there's severe weather or some other problem that prevents a plane from landing immediately when it reaches its destination, they just let the plane crash? That doesn't sound like a very good plan.
it is not secure as it may be possible to create hash collisions with some time... but to hash a passwords is still perfectly save, you can't reverse a hash to get the password and bruteforce it is still a huge amount of combinations
No, it isn't considered safe, because computers can compute SHA1 hashes fast enough to make brute force attacks feasible. You should be using computationally-intensive algorithms such as PBKDF2, bcrypt, etc.
b) You don't run games on an MRI machine.
Then what am I supposed to run Doom on?
I haven't bothered with Bing's insane ramblings for a long time. I just felt like being pedantic.
defined addiction as a pattern of persistent gaming behaviour so severe it "takes precedence over other life interests.
That's the definition of a hobby. I have several hobbies in my own life that I strongly prioritize over other things I could be doing but that doesn't make them harmful.
No, it isn't. "Other life interests" are not alternate recreational activities. Playing video games on a Sunday afternoon instead of going to the beach, playing golf, or making furniture in your basement is not an addiction. "Life interests" are things like going to your job or taking care of your children.
Not really. Because I can apply 5 points of those to gear heads(people who work on cars obsessively) for example. Or people who repeatedly build new PC's for themselves, even if they don't game, or even people who are bookworms.
Which 5 criteria? Being restless or irritable when prevented from doing their hobby is the only one that I can see being at all possible that doesn't indicate a serious problem.
They got pressure from religious groups to have disorders listed on a case-by-case basis. If you make the mistake of calling "mental health disorder" any behaviour so severe it takes precedence over other life interests, then the most fervent believers would be considered sick.
This sounds plausible.
No it doesn't. The only way someone could be enough of a "fervent believer" that it would be classified as a mental health disorder is if it interferes with their ordinary life, including keeping a job. Most religious institutions that would exert that kind of pressure would much rather have members that have full-time jobs and are therefore paying their membership dues, tithes, etc.
When children play role-playing games, they aren't learning about real life.
Yeah, all they're doing is assembling a team of people with a wide of variety of skills and working together to accomplish their goals. There definitely isn't any real-life use for skills like that.
No, you' make an assertion with an equal sign.
Which language does that?
Pascal, for one.
Like that will happen, why would the states want to make it easy?
Because Congress can force them to make it easy if they want to be able to collect the sales tax.
I have this concept I created called "smart dust" which could be used to build swarms of mesh networks of these small computers. They could be dropped from airplanes for example to monitor oil moisture for crops. Eventually these swarms would be self organizing and AI could be introduced. If you are interested in funding my concept, please contact me.
You mostly just troll everything now, don't you...
"Now"?
KDE is barely open source. That's a major problem.
How's that? There's a pretty long list of project repositories.
including Trump's boy Gorsuch, voted that fuck your privacy rights,
Did you even read his argument as to why he dissented? Obviously not, otherwise you'd know that he did because he felt that the other opinions were too vague in order to be in favor of it. Go on, read it. Dust off that annotated copy of rulings, and you'll figure it out. When you do, you'll also figure out why you look like an idiot to anyone who's studied law.
If Gorsuch thought that a warrant is needed, he would have voted that way. If he did, but didn't like the reasoning that Roberts et al used, he could have written a concurring opinion. The fact that he voted that a warrant isn't necessary tells you that he thinks a warrant isn't necessary.
This case is the wireless equivalent of "Can the government search your garbage without a warrant after you've put it on the street corner for pickup?" The issue here wasn't if the government needed a warrant to track you as you're mischaracterizing it. It's if the government needed a warrant to obtain personal information you've already willingly given up to a third party. Unlike possessions inside your home or car or on your person, it is not at all obvious that these things enjoy 4th Amendment protection.
No, it isn't equivalent. By putting something in the garbage, you take a specific, explicit action that disclaims ownership of that item. Using a cell phone is not explicitly telling the police that they can track you at all times; (almost) nobody buys a cell phone for the specific purpose of being tracked.
And if a retailer isn't located in a state, they're not under that state's jurisdiction.
That's exactly the previous Supreme Court decision that was overturned today. "Physical presence" is no longer a requirement for determining that a company that does business in a state is subject to that state's sales tax.
There is literally no way for a new ISP to enter most markets unless it can rent existing fiber from an existing wire provider, and there are no laws requiring fiber providers to lease access to their lines. So really, we have only three viable options for preventing abuse: Mandate government-owned fiber, mandate fiber leasing to competitors, or treat ISPs as a regulated monopoly. (Well, I suppose there's a fourth option: we could do more than one of those things.)
Well, there's also the Musk option - a small number (possibly one) of people with a huge amount of money and the will to burn it on a project that may not succeed. Google started on that path, but they didn't have the will to follow through. Some other large company, such as Microsoft, Apple, or even a less consumer-focused company like GE, could also probably enter the market with enough money to match the price drops from the incumbents. Of course, I'm don't know if that would necessarily improve the situation much.
Cities and states charge plenty of other taxes and fees, the only reason it "had to happen" is because they want to steal more money without voters having a say
Voters don't have a say in the state and local tax laws? I'm glad I don't live in your city.
States have no right to regulate interstate commerce. As much of a problem as sales tax is online, this isn't the way to solve it. We need a constitutional amendment to even give states these powers.
You can argue that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to make this decision at this time, but Congress explicitly has the authority to regulate commerce among the states, such as by allowing collection of sales tax from online purchases. There's definitely no need for an amendment to the Constitution.
And that needs to be implemented correctly by every online business with a presence in the US.
Not necessarily. I'm fine with a state being able to collect sales tax on online purchases, but it's the state's responsibility to provide a simple mechanism that the seller can use to determine what the sales tax should be. A different API for different states would explicitly be considered not simple. There would have to be something like a web service hosted by e.g. the FTC, where the seller just submits address and item name/description and gets back the tax rate. If the state can't provide the necessary information, then they'll have to simplify their tax code before they can collect sales tax from online purchases.