I don't think the deviding line is as big as you make it out to be. As far as technology goes, there are many people who have the same technology at home as used in theaters, as far as sound quality, display quality, display size/distance ratio, etc. Heck, I've seen home theaters that would be superior than the average multiplex theater experience. Not to mention, that now days, 4k Tv's and surround sound are a fairly low bar price wise to have in the living room of a lot of middle class families. What exactly then, is being used as criteria for Oscars/Emmy's? This difference was MUCH wider a couple decades ago, but now is razor thin in my opinion.
What is the difference between a cinema and someone watching in their acoustically treated custom home theater, on a 4K projection screen, with 7.1 THX certified sound system (besides the sticky floors)?
Let's look at creation for too... In the past, there were also 'back-end' differences between TV and movies, which included the use of 35mm (or bigger) film acquisition for movies, where TV was often acquired on video or maybe 16mm film in some cases, but transferred to video. Now days, it's almost all being acquired digitally in HD for both formats, often using the same camera setups and DI/editing workflows. Then there is the move to shoot more TV stuff on an actual location vs. a sound-stage, and higher production values makes the line between TV and movies slimmer.
Then look at distribution and sales, and what you see is that movies play in a theater for time, but then much of the sales they make are DVD/Streaming revenue after the initial theatrical release. The movies don't go away after they leave the theater, they are then sold, rented, and streamed to customers straight to their homes (the very homes that Spielberg is complaining about here). So what is the difference to someone who declines to see a "movie" in the theater, and waits until its available on streaming, vs. seeing a Netflix original movie on streaming? To the end user/viewer, there is NO difference in this case.
In this case, if the movie played on limited screen for a period of time, they are meeting the requirements in place by a technicality anyway, so they are legitimately making the list to be included for awards. If they raise the bar, to include a minimum # of screens, or minimum theater release period, they are going to inadvertently knock out many of the limited budget, artsy-fartsie, independent movies, they like to drool over too. They can't have it both ways.
Some of the reason that people don't like leaving open wifi around to, is that it attracts outsiders to loiter around you and your neighbors house and homes. While some of the people that would use free wifi, are middle class people just needing to get on the net for a quick second like you mentioned needing to do. In todays era of net addiction in the general population, and the fact that it's mostly poor and teenagers who don't have their own data plans and roam on wifi all day. Having an open wifi, would tend to attract poor, near-homeless, and teenagers to your house that will hang out in your front yard all day (and day after day) using your wifi. And while I don't have a problem with giving away a bit of wifi, how do you know if someone that is lurking around your house, and sitting on your curb all day is innocently using your wifi, or because they are casing your property or the neighbors property and learning when people come and go.
again, if it was just someone stopping in their car, connecting for 10-15mins and then moving along, then fine, no problem. But, if it's one, two or a group of people on foot, standing around for hours outside your house, in your driveway, and so on like loiterers do in front of a liquor store, then I'm not ok with encouraging that.
I also use keepass and love that the file is under my control. And I can have multiple databases if I want, all completely separate database files from each other.
To answer your question, I use an Android port of keepass that is available in the play store, and have all the time sycing of databases using Dropbox on my phone and PC. If I make a change on one side, it gets syncd instantly to the other. The databases are encrypted at the device level, so using dropbox to sync doesn't worry me about if Dropbox can unencrypted their files, they would still have to defeat the local file level encryption.
However, if I wanted to I could move my shared sync method to a shared file on my was drive if I wanted and if thought that might give me better security...but I don't, so I haven't.
Some people, (myself in this category), have no desire, and actually are irritated at the thought of renting something forever. Common sense says at some point, you should be done paying for it, and get to enjoy it free and clear. Whether this is a house/condo, vehicle, furniture, or computer software. The current trend by companies and the other half of people, is to pay less now, but pay for ever for needed items. This is how all the software companies are now charging monthly fees to rent software. You can no longer "buy" a copy of software anymore, you now have to rent it month to month forever, and never have it payed off, and account for that monthly fee in your normal monthly budgeting along with everything else you rent.
A simple calculation, on how much it cost to buy vs. rent, divided by how much you are going to use it, and how long you think it will last before another one needs to be bought, should be performed by consumers to determine if renting or purchasing is better.
For me, cars (reasonably priced $20k) are a no-brainer for purchasing. I use a car too often and they last a long time... plus taxi/uber fees would add up in short order. Plus I have a family of 5, so we make multiple trips per day for various things and various distances. If you do not, and the calculation comes out different, then fine, but assuming everyone's calculation should come up with the same answer is your's, your wrong. Most proponents of daily, de-facto ride shareing (like what is being discussed), are trying to make everyone else fit into their mold.
as a programmer that deals with fixed architecture, micro controllers and lower powered hardware, this also worries me. These types of hardware architectures are usually sandboxed from a programming perspective and sometimes run programs written in custom versions of what-ever programming language the manufacture decides. For many of these devices, encryption algorithms in general are a lot of overhead to have to deal with with every network transaction. Not to mention that the tools for these devices on the programming side are usually behind the newest times, and often don't have or support premade frameworks for handling coding implementations that are considered a given on the windows/mac and smartphone side of things Sure the toolsets can improve, and frameworks can be developed/implemented by the manufactures who release the compilers and tools for these microcontrollers, but the processing overhead is still there.
This is one of the big reasons I just moved away from Samsung phones after many years. I've had Samsung since the original Galaxy S, then an S3, then an S5. The STUFF was still running Android 4.4 and never got updates. They also had more and more bloatware with each generation. Finally broke down and bought a new One plus 6 last week. Hardly and bloat at all. Much like my wife's Nexus.
File a support ticket with your hosting provider to offer you an API with which to install a certificate. Then you can set up an ACME client to upload a renewed certificate to that API on a cron job. Also search for competing shared hosting providers that do offer such an API.
I'm sure the major hosting providers will be right on that when little ol me asks for it. I get what you are saying, when everyone asks for it, they might provide it, but until then, they don't. And until then, it remains to be a PITA, and will remain that way for some time into the future still. In the meantime, google is scaring people away from http sites RIGHT NOW. This is not googles decision to make, they are being internet bullies in this situation.
For news, it's becoming increasingly common to have to log in as site after site goes behind a paywall due to falling advertisement revenue.
For paid news, yes. There are still plenty of free news articles published daily that do not require https or logins/subscriptions to read. Plus, what about public forums, and sites that have been up for ages with free information that are not being maintained anymore? Certs not only require effort to get them, but then require effort/time/money to keep them up to date when they expire, etc. So sites that currently have little to no maintenance effort will go away, and we'll loose a lot of potentially useful information.
And all your MITM attacks that you mentioned, are not a big deal now in most cases. Are they possible? Yes. Have they happened in some instances? Sure, probably. Are they widespread and happen all the time to everyone now when browsing the internet? No, not really. The ad injection maybe, but that's more likely to be done by your ISP, and why ad blockers are important. Tracking beacons are usually baked into the website by the website owners, not by MITM attackers, so HTTPS won't help there either (all the major sites with FB, Twitter, etc beacons on every page are put there by the owners of the site). Same goes for mining scripts these days, most are put in by the site owners to help collect extra $$$ on top of ads.
I would mod you up if I could. Just experienced this recently with my home NAS. If I say setup a shared folder of family pics to send out to my family of an event we were all at, what they get is a big nasty warning page saying (at best) that my nas link has an unknown security cert (or worse) is unprotected, unencrypted and dangerous). The impression the average user gets is "this page is BAD and you will probably get a virus or worse if you visit this page".
LetsEncrypt is more trouble than it's worth for a lot of situations.
I also own my own domain for my business. It's is not HTTPS either.... why? Because it's a static information page that gives info on me and my business, what I do and how to get in touch with me and some samples of my work. There are no logins, no user accounts, no private information being stored or asked for. There is absolutely ZERO reasons for me to deal with the hassle of setting up and maintaining (which is increased because I'm on a shared hosting server for obvious reasons). Obtaining a Cert every 6 months and having my hosting provider install it for me (since I can't myself, due to the need to have root privileges on the server). and keep doing that in perpetuity is asinine for my use case.
This article is spot on, the public available portal for sites like Slashdot, news, and Wikipedia and many many thousands of other sites is not required. Now if you are logging into the site, then that is a different story, and mostly handled correctly already by most sites that allow login. Slashdot for instance is readable using HTTP, and if you want to login into your account, it then becomes HTTPS so your credentials and session becomes encrypted at that point when you are providing information to them.
This doesn't solve the problem though. The root problem is not the guns, these are being used as tools, the root problems are these individuals. Taking away the guns from everyone, because of a few bad apples is not only punishing lots of people who don't commit crimes with these guns, but also not actually solving the underlying problem that is causing this. It's a band-aid that makes it look like something is being done, but isn't fixing the problem, and has lots of collateral damage as well, like taking away people's rights that are in the constitution as being "off limits".
This is crux of the problem that I was pondering the other day as well. In order to have freedom and a free society, it means that it makes it very difficult to take away rights, arrest, detain, put into a mental institution, or take away guns until AFTER a crime was committed. As you say, hind sight is 20/20, but at what point is it ok to stop someone based on a guess of what they might do, and how far can you really go, and still try to say that society has freedom. Can you interview the person, maybe, can you arrest them on the spot, probably not depending on the circumstances.
It's kind of bordering on pre-crime type limitations. You can't arrest someone for DUI until AFTER they get caught driving while intoxicated. Simply having a drink and owning a car is not a reasonable enough intention that you will commit a DUI. Nor is limiting someone that is known to drink alcohol the ability to buy or own a car considered reasonable as well. And in this situation you are talking about a privilege rather than a right.
The folks calling for higher restrictions, or bans on firearms seem to fall into 2 categories. The first is that we punish everyone for the actions of a few which is not a way to keep a healthy vision of freedom. Or 2, they want the ability to arrest and take away a single persons rights based on circumstantial evidence of what he "MAY" do in the future but hasn't yet. If you take out the emotional "ZOMG! It's a GUN", and think about this in relation to other things as well, and it's easier to see that the ethic's in this are fuzzy at best.
Actually, it was curtailed the hardest in the 20's/30's due to mob violence. All the shootouts that are glorified in prohibition time mobster movies using things like the Thomson Sub-Machine gun and BAR, is what led to the high regulation of fully automatic guns. Before that, you could mail order a sub machine gun with ease. When the mafia and stories like Bonnie & Clyde started happening, the government thew some of the 2nd Amendment out the window. Not all the way though, as they weren't "banned", but made more difficult to get and tracked. The next biggest hit was sometime around the 80's when they banned the manufacture or import of NEW fully automatic weapons. This basically froze the market to what was already produced. This had the consequence of causing the cost of aquiring one to sky-rocket. Now if you want a fully automatic gun, you not only have to comply with the high regulations, extra fee's and background checks, but you also have to find one available, and the cost is prohibitive-- expect to pay over $25K for a singe gun. Guns widely shown in movies like the MP5 can easily cost $45K or more to get your hands on a functional one.
But I agree with statement none-the-less, the 2nd amendment's intention was that it is your right to own the same firepower as the military does. It was for protection of the country from invaders, as well as protection of the people for tyranical government. It also falls in line with the thought that the government derives it's powers from the people.
I have been using Reaper for a few months now, as I needed a DAW software and I don't run Mac, so ProTools was not an option for any price. Reaper is awesome, and the price is right too. And a free 90day trial to boot, so you know if you like it before you plunk down the $60 for the full license.
That's why I'm still using Office 2010. I do not want to RENT my office suite. Coincidentally, office 2010 still does everything I need it for, and have not had issues opening up any files from clients that may be using newer versions either.
Not be devil's advocate, but at a last resort, you can usually export multi-layer's out as individual.png or something, a separate image file for each layer if nothing else if available. While not perfect, it's better than flattening it out if you need to preserve the individual layers.
Same with multi-tracks recordings, which are usually just individual.wav's for each track anyway, even when using multi-track DAW software. You wouldn't have to mix down to a 2-chan wav file, just export each track as it's own.wav so you still have multi-track import capability in another DAW.
I think your right in that a lot of bigger companies like the subscription. However, I think there are 2 main factors driving the subscription model, especially considering the 2 primary companies that have moved to these SAS models...
1) Adobe CS was highly pirated software, possibly one of the most pirated software suites around. I don't have hard facts or numbers to back this up, but many many people who don't use it for business, can't afford it for casual use, and it's high price helped feed the demand of pirate copies for personal use. I think Adobe likes it because it drastically eliminates the ability to pirate the software when it's constantly calling home and required to be connected to the mother ship to continue to operate. The fact that get stable money month-to-month is another bonus for them, I personally think the piracy issue was one of their leading reasons. Look at how bad they started crippling the software with activation and phoneing home on later releases prior to moving to CC versions.
2) Many of the companies that use tools like these, take photoshop out of the mix a bit, but look at After Effects, PremierPro, and Autodesk Maya/3d Studio and the like from these companies and they are toolsets that are often used in TV and movie production. The paradigm for movie and TV usage is a little different, in that effects houses get contracts to work on these productions for relatively short periods of time. They often bring in contractors or hire when a big movie is in the works, and then when production wraps up, the scale back down in size until the next big project. The industry is notorious for this, especially for big budget movies. In this case, the FX Studio's probably desired to be able to spin up more seats of a particular software package as needed, and then later when done with the big rush of work, spin these seats down again.
With fixed pricing purchases, they would have to pay full price for all the extra seats they might need for 6mos to a year, and then be stuck with them after. By the time the next big project came along, they would need to upgrade to the latest versions and need to re-purchase again for that, even though they might have tons of seat licenses available of the older version. I think this fuels the SAS approach for these software packages very much, as an FX Studio can scale up/down with their project loads, and are always working with the latest greatest and aren't wasting as much money.
With that said, I personally HATE SAS models for software. I WILL NOT RENT my software. I'll look for alternatives before I do that.
I run MS Office on my main laptop, but run Libre Office on my secondary laptops used in the field, and I have noticed lots of little idiosyncrasies with using files between the two platforms.
I'm not doing anything like embedding VBA or macros or anything either, but rather mundane stuff that seems to fudged when I open in LO from the original MS-Office suite. The problems were present in both older OpenOffice versions, as well as newer Libre Office as well. For the most part, it works in a pinch, and if starting from scratch in OO or LO, you'll probably be fine, but I wouldn't say that the success rate is 99.99%. I would give it a generous 90-95% at most.
Some of the issues I've had include, working with Word docs that have tables embedded, the tables loose some of column widths, and trying to add-in a table (copied from Spreadsheets) don't come in with the proper column widths and cell borders like they do when using MS Office. Also have had some issues when you have a drawings objects (like 'line') and text boxes not positioning the same as in MS Office. Have had to nudge them around when opening in Libre Writer. Another issue I've ran into is when using 'page headers/footers', have had an issues where the original MS Office was set to all be the same except for the first page, and in Libre, they all seem to be independent of each other, so changing the page header doesn't follow through the whole document and only changes on a single page.
While these aren't big issues that keep you from getting any work done, they are rather annoying none the less, somewhat random, little quirks that seem to be persistent in revisions. And can cause headache and frustration trying to 'fix' them when bringing in a.docx file to make some little unrelated edits.
Community outreach purposes to me means that these are the vehicles that will get paraded into fairs and community events and parked to let the public look at them while some officer lets people crawl in and out of them all day to "check out" the police car up close. Sounds like they were purchased mostly for PR purposes at best. Maybe I'm wrong.
if bump stocks donâ(TM)t âoedo anythingâ, I.e. alter the rate of fire or change the mechanism, why are so many people adamant about not restricting them?
Because of the way they work, and what part of the firearm it is. If they are banned, it would set a bad precedent on being able to ban other cosmetic portions of firearms later on.
First, bump stocks are a specific shoulder-stock, which is not related to the firing mechanism or action of the firearm. There are already rules and laws restricting modifying the action, and firing mechanisms (trigger, sear, and some other parts) that cause the firearm to fire more than one cartridge per trigger pull and/or modifying the 'rate of fire' of the firearm.
Secondly, "bump fire stocks" still require, and maintain the 'fire a single cartridge per trigger pull' rule. They do not bypass this rule in any way, therefore should not be banned. The trigger is still being pulled once for each cartridge fired from said firearm.
If a ban were to be created for them, it would not be able to be written like other limitations already on the books, by restricting the firing alteration, or rate of fire alteration. They would literally have to ban a shoulder stock, and use some description of what that does (like sliding or some other feature). However, as these types of laws go, the wording chosen would also end up banning other items that do not function the same, but may meet one of the criteria that is used to define them, (for example, an adjustable stock also slides back and forth). Lawmakers seem to always get the gun laws wrong, because the things they try to ban (here in California all the time), are cosmetic and appearance items, meaning they ban features or looks of something, and end up being too specific, that another manufacturer will work around the description --or-- they write the law so vauge that is causes unrelated items and parts to also become illegal in addition to the specific thing they were targeting, and this almost always causes large swaths of gun owners to suddenly fall into an illegal category overnight (legally complient one day, and the next day felony possession).
This is why, not that I should have even answered an AC posted question anyway...
I got you beat, am self employed, have a "no longer offered" (grandfathered) HMO plan with Kaiser, and it costs me >$1750/mo premiums for the family plan [you+spouse+kid(s)]. Luckily my copays are $25 for dr. visits and $15 for perscriptions, but the premiums suck!
This same plan when I signed up for back in like ~2004/2005 cost about $800/mo and was one of the more expensive plans at the time compared to PPO plans or other HMO's with higher co-pays. Now that I'm grand-fathered, I can't pick one with a higher copay without completely dumping the plan, and picking one of the "approved" ACA plans which all seem to be PPO with high out of pocket copays and that don't cover as much.
My plan copays that I like=
$100 for ER
$25 (once) for full term prenatal care/visits/ultrasounds + delivery (including c-sections)
$100 amulance fee (which also includes the ER visit from resulting ambulance).
$100 MRI's.
$150/night hospital stays.
The only GOOD thing about having a plan so costly, is my family goes to the Dr. when ever we need to because it's the only way to feel like you're getting your moneys worth out it.
Don't want to feed the troll here, but why is this BS on every post. Whoever is posting this needs to realize that a shoe-string (or any string) with a loop tied on each end can do the same thing a "bump stock" can do. Should we ban shoe strings, or lengths of normal string too? Do you even know what a bump stock is? The reason the DOJ & BATFE didn't ban them originally is because they do not alter the fire mechanism of the fire arm in any way, or change the rate of fire.
As a PureVPN lifetime customer, this is disappointing on PureVPN's side. At least it sounds like they didn't rat out the traffic, but did origin IP address, which is pretty damning in most cases.
I would also like to point out, that PureVPN was being sold right here on the Slashdot site for lifetime memebership for quite a while (maybe still). That is the offer that I grabbed a year or two ago. While I use it mostly to protect my privacy when using open hotspots or hotel/shared wifi connections, and also occasionally for torrents (legal linux ISO's only!), that I think it would still be fairly reliable for this, however it's never good to know that if you've been targeted, there is enough info to use against you being logged.
bummer. At least I knew this was a possibility and am not shocked, just more disappointed.
There are no problems with terminating the ICE IF the state will electrify the freeways for online charging via microwave coupling under the roadbed.
while this sounds nice and dandy, state roadwork takes longer than this to complete a small freeway section improvement or new overpass, let alone tear up/trench thousands of miles of freeway in a metropolitan area in a 10 yr period. not to mention that they'd have to spread out the work, and even then it would cause massive, massive traffic issues for years while all that is being done.
Excuse me, either you're the most 9-5 jerkoff in the state or you lie... Either way, you either don't sleep or you don't work.
I'm betting on the latter
First off, You don't know me, so get off your high horse and quit making assumptions and name calling that are completely and utterly wrong and make you sound like a complete ass. I didn't say that "I" commute this far daily, but many do, and varying degrees of distances near what I posted. Personally, I work for myself, freelance programmer (for 15 years), so my daily commute is all of about 2 minutes from bed to desk, including time to take a morning pee and pour a cup of coffee.
However, my gigs do require travel to jobsites with most projects I'm working on, so while 80-90% of my time is working from my home office, I do have to spend some time for each project deploying in the field. This often involves traveling over 60mi each way (+120mi round trip) to where ever the current project location is at. In any given week, I could be working at home all week, or several different project sites, each with various distances away. One day I could be in San Jose, and the next in Sacramento, and another day, have to go as far as Fresno. These are just examples, but yes, an EV would not suit well.
Secondly, the speeds you posted, while mostly accurate, aren't for an entire long commute that I was mentioning, and are at peak commute times as well. If I have to drive 60-70mi to San Jose (as I do once in awhile), the speed I'm traveling is NOT 7mph the whole way like you make it sound, some of that I'm doing 60mph, and some 45mph, and some even 25mph. The worse of it will be 7mph (average). Depending on start time, some days it can take 1.5hrs to make it to Santa Clara area, and some days it can take 3 hrs. to the same location (different time). Luckily, when I do this, it once in awhile, and I'm not beholden to 9-5 work times.
While it's anecdotal, I've worked with many people who make similar commutes. Many people who have long commutes like this do what they can to time shift their work hours, say start work at 6 or 7am, so traffic isn't as bad when they leave their house at 5:00am, or they work longer days and shorter weeks, or try to work from home some. I'm sure there are some people that make the horrible commute every single day though. This is why housing around silicon valley is outrageously priced. A small little home can be $1M, but you'll live close to work. Those who don't want to be house poor have to move further away and commute. The sad part is, that in the Bar Area at least, the distance required to get out to more reasonably price housing has steadily gotten further and further away (depending on your particular value of "reasonably priced" is). To further illustrate my point that many people commute this far, try commuting between Sacramento and SF bay sometime, there are a LOT of people making this drive one way or the other. There isn't a whole lot of jobs in between these major metropolitan areas, much of it is farmland, and most of it is residential housing. So they have to be commuting somewhere at a great distance over 60-80mi.
LOL, same here, and many others I believe. Spend a weekend swapping the cats and stock exhaust and intake back on the car, and a couple other nik-naks. Then take it in to get smogged, and spend another weekend putting it back afterwards. It's worth it for the extra 100+ HP over stock for the rest of the time (subaru wrx in case anyone thinks that claim is bs).
There are WAY too many problems with banning ICE vehicles. For one, we have a millions of them on the road, I'm not sure manufacturers could keep up if everyone had to purchase new cars in a short timeframe.
EV's don't work for everyone, many here in the major metropolitan areas commute 120+ miles per day because housing is too expensive to live closer to work.
EV's aren't made in all form factors, and while there are a lot of people who don't *need* an SUV for a daily commute, there are families who do *need* larger vehicles like SUV's and Mini-vans for any trip where the whole family goes (local or distant). Distant trips, like vacations and fun day trips often require larger vehicles because you not only need to carry the people, but often luggage, or camping gear, or ice chest, or recreation clothing (snow trips/beach/hunting) etc. along with the people.
There are just too many trips that require a range more than an EV can make. It's common in California, for families to make the trek from SF to LA or vice versa to visit family, or do vacation. There are a lot who do Ski/Hunting/Camping trips to the mountains. These trips cannot be made with EV's.
If California tried this there would be a revolt on their hands.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the deviding line is as big as you make it out to be. As far as technology goes, there are many people who have the same technology at home as used in theaters, as far as sound quality, display quality, display size/distance ratio, etc. Heck, I've seen home theaters that would be superior than the average multiplex theater experience. Not to mention, that now days, 4k Tv's and surround sound are a fairly low bar price wise to have in the living room of a lot of middle class families. What exactly then, is being used as criteria for Oscars/Emmy's? This difference was MUCH wider a couple decades ago, but now is razor thin in my opinion.
What is the difference between a cinema and someone watching in their acoustically treated custom home theater, on a 4K projection screen, with 7.1 THX certified sound system (besides the sticky floors)?
Let's look at creation for too... In the past, there were also 'back-end' differences between TV and movies, which included the use of 35mm (or bigger) film acquisition for movies, where TV was often acquired on video or maybe 16mm film in some cases, but transferred to video. Now days, it's almost all being acquired digitally in HD for both formats, often using the same camera setups and DI/editing workflows. Then there is the move to shoot more TV stuff on an actual location vs. a sound-stage, and higher production values makes the line between TV and movies slimmer.
Then look at distribution and sales, and what you see is that movies play in a theater for time, but then much of the sales they make are DVD/Streaming revenue after the initial theatrical release. The movies don't go away after they leave the theater, they are then sold, rented, and streamed to customers straight to their homes (the very homes that Spielberg is complaining about here). So what is the difference to someone who declines to see a "movie" in the theater, and waits until its available on streaming, vs. seeing a Netflix original movie on streaming? To the end user/viewer, there is NO difference in this case.
In this case, if the movie played on limited screen for a period of time, they are meeting the requirements in place by a technicality anyway, so they are legitimately making the list to be included for awards. If they raise the bar, to include a minimum # of screens, or minimum theater release period, they are going to inadvertently knock out many of the limited budget, artsy-fartsie, independent movies, they like to drool over too. They can't have it both ways.
Yes, or at least a witness that is willing to testify. :)
Some of the reason that people don't like leaving open wifi around to, is that it attracts outsiders to loiter around you and your neighbors house and homes. While some of the people that would use free wifi, are middle class people just needing to get on the net for a quick second like you mentioned needing to do. In todays era of net addiction in the general population, and the fact that it's mostly poor and teenagers who don't have their own data plans and roam on wifi all day. Having an open wifi, would tend to attract poor, near-homeless, and teenagers to your house that will hang out in your front yard all day (and day after day) using your wifi. And while I don't have a problem with giving away a bit of wifi, how do you know if someone that is lurking around your house, and sitting on your curb all day is innocently using your wifi, or because they are casing your property or the neighbors property and learning when people come and go.
again, if it was just someone stopping in their car, connecting for 10-15mins and then moving along, then fine, no problem. But, if it's one, two or a group of people on foot, standing around for hours outside your house, in your driveway, and so on like loiterers do in front of a liquor store, then I'm not ok with encouraging that.
I also use keepass and love that the file is under my control. And I can have multiple databases if I want, all completely separate database files from each other.
To answer your question, I use an Android port of keepass that is available in the play store, and have all the time sycing of databases using Dropbox on my phone and PC. If I make a change on one side, it gets syncd instantly to the other. The databases are encrypted at the device level, so using dropbox to sync doesn't worry me about if Dropbox can unencrypted their files, they would still have to defeat the local file level encryption.
However, if I wanted to I could move my shared sync method to a shared file on my was drive if I wanted and if thought that might give me better security...but I don't, so I haven't.
Some people, (myself in this category), have no desire, and actually are irritated at the thought of renting something forever. Common sense says at some point, you should be done paying for it, and get to enjoy it free and clear. Whether this is a house/condo, vehicle, furniture, or computer software. The current trend by companies and the other half of people, is to pay less now, but pay for ever for needed items. This is how all the software companies are now charging monthly fees to rent software. You can no longer "buy" a copy of software anymore, you now have to rent it month to month forever, and never have it payed off, and account for that monthly fee in your normal monthly budgeting along with everything else you rent.
A simple calculation, on how much it cost to buy vs. rent, divided by how much you are going to use it, and how long you think it will last before another one needs to be bought, should be performed by consumers to determine if renting or purchasing is better.
For me, cars (reasonably priced $20k) are a no-brainer for purchasing. I use a car too often and they last a long time... plus taxi/uber fees would add up in short order. Plus I have a family of 5, so we make multiple trips per day for various things and various distances. If you do not, and the calculation comes out different, then fine, but assuming everyone's calculation should come up with the same answer is your's, your wrong. Most proponents of daily, de-facto ride shareing (like what is being discussed), are trying to make everyone else fit into their mold.
as a programmer that deals with fixed architecture, micro controllers and lower powered hardware, this also worries me. These types of hardware architectures are usually sandboxed from a programming perspective and sometimes run programs written in custom versions of what-ever programming language the manufacture decides. For many of these devices, encryption algorithms in general are a lot of overhead to have to deal with with every network transaction. Not to mention that the tools for these devices on the programming side are usually behind the newest times, and often don't have or support premade frameworks for handling coding implementations that are considered a given on the windows/mac and smartphone side of things Sure the toolsets can improve, and frameworks can be developed/implemented by the manufactures who release the compilers and tools for these microcontrollers, but the processing overhead is still there.
This is one of the big reasons I just moved away from Samsung phones after many years. I've had Samsung since the original Galaxy S, then an S3, then an S5. The STUFF was still running Android 4.4 and never got updates. They also had more and more bloatware with each generation. Finally broke down and bought a new One plus 6 last week. Hardly and bloat at all. Much like my wife's Nexus.
File a support ticket with your hosting provider to offer you an API with which to install a certificate. Then you can set up an ACME client to upload a renewed certificate to that API on a cron job. Also search for competing shared hosting providers that do offer such an API.
I'm sure the major hosting providers will be right on that when little ol me asks for it. I get what you are saying, when everyone asks for it, they might provide it, but until then, they don't. And until then, it remains to be a PITA, and will remain that way for some time into the future still. In the meantime, google is scaring people away from http sites RIGHT NOW. This is not googles decision to make, they are being internet bullies in this situation.
For news, it's becoming increasingly common to have to log in as site after site goes behind a paywall due to falling advertisement revenue.
For paid news, yes. There are still plenty of free news articles published daily that do not require https or logins/subscriptions to read. Plus, what about public forums, and sites that have been up for ages with free information that are not being maintained anymore? Certs not only require effort to get them, but then require effort/time/money to keep them up to date when they expire, etc. So sites that currently have little to no maintenance effort will go away, and we'll loose a lot of potentially useful information.
And all your MITM attacks that you mentioned, are not a big deal now in most cases. Are they possible? Yes. Have they happened in some instances? Sure, probably. Are they widespread and happen all the time to everyone now when browsing the internet? No, not really. The ad injection maybe, but that's more likely to be done by your ISP, and why ad blockers are important. Tracking beacons are usually baked into the website by the website owners, not by MITM attackers, so HTTPS won't help there either (all the major sites with FB, Twitter, etc beacons on every page are put there by the owners of the site). Same goes for mining scripts these days, most are put in by the site owners to help collect extra $$$ on top of ads.
I would mod you up if I could. Just experienced this recently with my home NAS. If I say setup a shared folder of family pics to send out to my family of an event we were all at, what they get is a big nasty warning page saying (at best) that my nas link has an unknown security cert (or worse) is unprotected, unencrypted and dangerous). The impression the average user gets is "this page is BAD and you will probably get a virus or worse if you visit this page".
LetsEncrypt is more trouble than it's worth for a lot of situations.
I also own my own domain for my business. It's is not HTTPS either.... why? Because it's a static information page that gives info on me and my business, what I do and how to get in touch with me and some samples of my work. There are no logins, no user accounts, no private information being stored or asked for. There is absolutely ZERO reasons for me to deal with the hassle of setting up and maintaining (which is increased because I'm on a shared hosting server for obvious reasons). Obtaining a Cert every 6 months and having my hosting provider install it for me (since I can't myself, due to the need to have root privileges on the server). and keep doing that in perpetuity is asinine for my use case.
This article is spot on, the public available portal for sites like Slashdot, news, and Wikipedia and many many thousands of other sites is not required. Now if you are logging into the site, then that is a different story, and mostly handled correctly already by most sites that allow login. Slashdot for instance is readable using HTTP, and if you want to login into your account, it then becomes HTTPS so your credentials and session becomes encrypted at that point when you are providing information to them.
This doesn't solve the problem though. The root problem is not the guns, these are being used as tools, the root problems are these individuals. Taking away the guns from everyone, because of a few bad apples is not only punishing lots of people who don't commit crimes with these guns, but also not actually solving the underlying problem that is causing this. It's a band-aid that makes it look like something is being done, but isn't fixing the problem, and has lots of collateral damage as well, like taking away people's rights that are in the constitution as being "off limits".
This is crux of the problem that I was pondering the other day as well. In order to have freedom and a free society, it means that it makes it very difficult to take away rights, arrest, detain, put into a mental institution, or take away guns until AFTER a crime was committed. As you say, hind sight is 20/20, but at what point is it ok to stop someone based on a guess of what they might do, and how far can you really go, and still try to say that society has freedom. Can you interview the person, maybe, can you arrest them on the spot, probably not depending on the circumstances.
It's kind of bordering on pre-crime type limitations. You can't arrest someone for DUI until AFTER they get caught driving while intoxicated. Simply having a drink and owning a car is not a reasonable enough intention that you will commit a DUI. Nor is limiting someone that is known to drink alcohol the ability to buy or own a car considered reasonable as well. And in this situation you are talking about a privilege rather than a right.
The folks calling for higher restrictions, or bans on firearms seem to fall into 2 categories. The first is that we punish everyone for the actions of a few which is not a way to keep a healthy vision of freedom. Or 2, they want the ability to arrest and take away a single persons rights based on circumstantial evidence of what he "MAY" do in the future but hasn't yet. If you take out the emotional "ZOMG! It's a GUN", and think about this in relation to other things as well, and it's easier to see that the ethic's in this are fuzzy at best.
Actually, it was curtailed the hardest in the 20's/30's due to mob violence. All the shootouts that are glorified in prohibition time mobster movies using things like the Thomson Sub-Machine gun and BAR, is what led to the high regulation of fully automatic guns. Before that, you could mail order a sub machine gun with ease. When the mafia and stories like Bonnie & Clyde started happening, the government thew some of the 2nd Amendment out the window. Not all the way though, as they weren't "banned", but made more difficult to get and tracked. The next biggest hit was sometime around the 80's when they banned the manufacture or import of NEW fully automatic weapons. This basically froze the market to what was already produced. This had the consequence of causing the cost of aquiring one to sky-rocket. Now if you want a fully automatic gun, you not only have to comply with the high regulations, extra fee's and background checks, but you also have to find one available, and the cost is prohibitive-- expect to pay over $25K for a singe gun. Guns widely shown in movies like the MP5 can easily cost $45K or more to get your hands on a functional one.
But I agree with statement none-the-less, the 2nd amendment's intention was that it is your right to own the same firepower as the military does. It was for protection of the country from invaders, as well as protection of the people for tyranical government. It also falls in line with the thought that the government derives it's powers from the people.
I have been using Reaper for a few months now, as I needed a DAW software and I don't run Mac, so ProTools was not an option for any price. Reaper is awesome, and the price is right too. And a free 90day trial to boot, so you know if you like it before you plunk down the $60 for the full license.
That's why I'm still using Office 2010. I do not want to RENT my office suite. Coincidentally, office 2010 still does everything I need it for, and have not had issues opening up any files from clients that may be using newer versions either.
Not be devil's advocate, but at a last resort, you can usually export multi-layer's out as individual .png or something, a separate image file for each layer if nothing else if available. While not perfect, it's better than flattening it out if you need to preserve the individual layers.
.wav's for each track anyway, even when using multi-track DAW software. You wouldn't have to mix down to a 2-chan wav file, just export each track as it's own .wav so you still have multi-track import capability in another DAW.
Same with multi-tracks recordings, which are usually just individual
I think your right in that a lot of bigger companies like the subscription. However, I think there are 2 main factors driving the subscription model, especially considering the 2 primary companies that have moved to these SAS models...
1) Adobe CS was highly pirated software, possibly one of the most pirated software suites around. I don't have hard facts or numbers to back this up, but many many people who don't use it for business, can't afford it for casual use, and it's high price helped feed the demand of pirate copies for personal use. I think Adobe likes it because it drastically eliminates the ability to pirate the software when it's constantly calling home and required to be connected to the mother ship to continue to operate. The fact that get stable money month-to-month is another bonus for them, I personally think the piracy issue was one of their leading reasons. Look at how bad they started crippling the software with activation and phoneing home on later releases prior to moving to CC versions.
2) Many of the companies that use tools like these, take photoshop out of the mix a bit, but look at After Effects, PremierPro, and Autodesk Maya/3d Studio and the like from these companies and they are toolsets that are often used in TV and movie production. The paradigm for movie and TV usage is a little different, in that effects houses get contracts to work on these productions for relatively short periods of time. They often bring in contractors or hire when a big movie is in the works, and then when production wraps up, the scale back down in size until the next big project. The industry is notorious for this, especially for big budget movies. In this case, the FX Studio's probably desired to be able to spin up more seats of a particular software package as needed, and then later when done with the big rush of work, spin these seats down again.
With fixed pricing purchases, they would have to pay full price for all the extra seats they might need for 6mos to a year, and then be stuck with them after. By the time the next big project came along, they would need to upgrade to the latest versions and need to re-purchase again for that, even though they might have tons of seat licenses available of the older version. I think this fuels the SAS approach for these software packages very much, as an FX Studio can scale up/down with their project loads, and are always working with the latest greatest and aren't wasting as much money.
With that said, I personally HATE SAS models for software. I WILL NOT RENT my software. I'll look for alternatives before I do that.
I run MS Office on my main laptop, but run Libre Office on my secondary laptops used in the field, and I have noticed lots of little idiosyncrasies with using files between the two platforms.
.docx file to make some little unrelated edits.
I'm not doing anything like embedding VBA or macros or anything either, but rather mundane stuff that seems to fudged when I open in LO from the original MS-Office suite. The problems were present in both older OpenOffice versions, as well as newer Libre Office as well. For the most part, it works in a pinch, and if starting from scratch in OO or LO, you'll probably be fine, but I wouldn't say that the success rate is 99.99%. I would give it a generous 90-95% at most.
Some of the issues I've had include, working with Word docs that have tables embedded, the tables loose some of column widths, and trying to add-in a table (copied from Spreadsheets) don't come in with the proper column widths and cell borders like they do when using MS Office. Also have had some issues when you have a drawings objects (like 'line') and text boxes not positioning the same as in MS Office. Have had to nudge them around when opening in Libre Writer. Another issue I've ran into is when using 'page headers/footers', have had an issues where the original MS Office was set to all be the same except for the first page, and in Libre, they all seem to be independent of each other, so changing the page header doesn't follow through the whole document and only changes on a single page.
While these aren't big issues that keep you from getting any work done, they are rather annoying none the less, somewhat random, little quirks that seem to be persistent in revisions. And can cause headache and frustration trying to 'fix' them when bringing in a
Community outreach purposes to me means that these are the vehicles that will get paraded into fairs and community events and parked to let the public look at them while some officer lets people crawl in and out of them all day to "check out" the police car up close. Sounds like they were purchased mostly for PR purposes at best. Maybe I'm wrong.
if bump stocks donâ(TM)t âoedo anythingâ, I.e. alter the rate of fire or change the mechanism, why are so many people adamant about not restricting them?
Because of the way they work, and what part of the firearm it is. If they are banned, it would set a bad precedent on being able to ban other cosmetic portions of firearms later on.
First, bump stocks are a specific shoulder-stock, which is not related to the firing mechanism or action of the firearm. There are already rules and laws restricting modifying the action, and firing mechanisms (trigger, sear, and some other parts) that cause the firearm to fire more than one cartridge per trigger pull and/or modifying the 'rate of fire' of the firearm.
Secondly, "bump fire stocks" still require, and maintain the 'fire a single cartridge per trigger pull' rule. They do not bypass this rule in any way, therefore should not be banned. The trigger is still being pulled once for each cartridge fired from said firearm.
If a ban were to be created for them, it would not be able to be written like other limitations already on the books, by restricting the firing alteration, or rate of fire alteration. They would literally have to ban a shoulder stock, and use some description of what that does (like sliding or some other feature). However, as these types of laws go, the wording chosen would also end up banning other items that do not function the same, but may meet one of the criteria that is used to define them, (for example, an adjustable stock also slides back and forth). Lawmakers seem to always get the gun laws wrong, because the things they try to ban (here in California all the time), are cosmetic and appearance items, meaning they ban features or looks of something, and end up being too specific, that another manufacturer will work around the description --or-- they write the law so vauge that is causes unrelated items and parts to also become illegal in addition to the specific thing they were targeting, and this almost always causes large swaths of gun owners to suddenly fall into an illegal category overnight (legally complient one day, and the next day felony possession).
This is why, not that I should have even answered an AC posted question anyway...
I got you beat, am self employed, have a "no longer offered" (grandfathered) HMO plan with Kaiser, and it costs me >$1750 /mo premiums for the family plan [you+spouse+kid(s)]. Luckily my copays are $25 for dr. visits and $15 for perscriptions, but the premiums suck!
/night hospital stays.
This same plan when I signed up for back in like ~2004/2005 cost about $800/mo and was one of the more expensive plans at the time compared to PPO plans or other HMO's with higher co-pays. Now that I'm grand-fathered, I can't pick one with a higher copay without completely dumping the plan, and picking one of the "approved" ACA plans which all seem to be PPO with high out of pocket copays and that don't cover as much.
My plan copays that I like=
$100 for ER
$25 (once) for full term prenatal care/visits/ultrasounds + delivery (including c-sections)
$100 amulance fee (which also includes the ER visit from resulting ambulance).
$100 MRI's.
$150
The only GOOD thing about having a plan so costly, is my family goes to the Dr. when ever we need to because it's the only way to feel like you're getting your moneys worth out it.
Someone is off their meds today it seems...
Don't want to feed the troll here, but why is this BS on every post. Whoever is posting this needs to realize that a shoe-string (or any string) with a loop tied on each end can do the same thing a "bump stock" can do. Should we ban shoe strings, or lengths of normal string too? Do you even know what a bump stock is? The reason the DOJ & BATFE didn't ban them originally is because they do not alter the fire mechanism of the fire arm in any way, or change the rate of fire.
As a PureVPN lifetime customer, this is disappointing on PureVPN's side. At least it sounds like they didn't rat out the traffic, but did origin IP address, which is pretty damning in most cases.
I would also like to point out, that PureVPN was being sold right here on the Slashdot site for lifetime memebership for quite a while (maybe still). That is the offer that I grabbed a year or two ago. While I use it mostly to protect my privacy when using open hotspots or hotel/shared wifi connections, and also occasionally for torrents (legal linux ISO's only!), that I think it would still be fairly reliable for this, however it's never good to know that if you've been targeted, there is enough info to use against you being logged.
bummer. At least I knew this was a possibility and am not shocked, just more disappointed.
There are no problems with terminating the ICE IF the state will electrify the freeways for online charging via microwave coupling under the roadbed.
while this sounds nice and dandy, state roadwork takes longer than this to complete a small freeway section improvement or new overpass, let alone tear up/trench thousands of miles of freeway in a metropolitan area in a 10 yr period. not to mention that they'd have to spread out the work, and even then it would cause massive, massive traffic issues for years while all that is being done.
Excuse me, either you're the most 9-5 jerkoff in the state or you lie ... Either way, you either don't sleep or you don't work.
I'm betting on the latter
First off, You don't know me, so get off your high horse and quit making assumptions and name calling that are completely and utterly wrong and make you sound like a complete ass. I didn't say that "I" commute this far daily, but many do, and varying degrees of distances near what I posted. Personally, I work for myself, freelance programmer (for 15 years), so my daily commute is all of about 2 minutes from bed to desk, including time to take a morning pee and pour a cup of coffee.
However, my gigs do require travel to jobsites with most projects I'm working on, so while 80-90% of my time is working from my home office, I do have to spend some time for each project deploying in the field. This often involves traveling over 60mi each way (+120mi round trip) to where ever the current project location is at. In any given week, I could be working at home all week, or several different project sites, each with various distances away. One day I could be in San Jose, and the next in Sacramento, and another day, have to go as far as Fresno. These are just examples, but yes, an EV would not suit well.
Secondly, the speeds you posted, while mostly accurate, aren't for an entire long commute that I was mentioning, and are at peak commute times as well. If I have to drive 60-70mi to San Jose (as I do once in awhile), the speed I'm traveling is NOT 7mph the whole way like you make it sound, some of that I'm doing 60mph, and some 45mph, and some even 25mph. The worse of it will be 7mph (average). Depending on start time, some days it can take 1.5hrs to make it to Santa Clara area, and some days it can take 3 hrs. to the same location (different time). Luckily, when I do this, it once in awhile, and I'm not beholden to 9-5 work times.
While it's anecdotal, I've worked with many people who make similar commutes. Many people who have long commutes like this do what they can to time shift their work hours, say start work at 6 or 7am, so traffic isn't as bad when they leave their house at 5:00am, or they work longer days and shorter weeks, or try to work from home some. I'm sure there are some people that make the horrible commute every single day though. This is why housing around silicon valley is outrageously priced. A small little home can be $1M, but you'll live close to work. Those who don't want to be house poor have to move further away and commute. The sad part is, that in the Bar Area at least, the distance required to get out to more reasonably price housing has steadily gotten further and further away (depending on your particular value of "reasonably priced" is). To further illustrate my point that many people commute this far, try commuting between Sacramento and SF bay sometime, there are a LOT of people making this drive one way or the other. There isn't a whole lot of jobs in between these major metropolitan areas, much of it is farmland, and most of it is residential housing. So they have to be commuting somewhere at a great distance over 60-80mi.
LOL, same here, and many others I believe. Spend a weekend swapping the cats and stock exhaust and intake back on the car, and a couple other nik-naks. Then take it in to get smogged, and spend another weekend putting it back afterwards. It's worth it for the extra 100+ HP over stock for the rest of the time (subaru wrx in case anyone thinks that claim is bs).
There are WAY too many problems with banning ICE vehicles. For one, we have a millions of them on the road, I'm not sure manufacturers could keep up if everyone had to purchase new cars in a short timeframe.
EV's don't work for everyone, many here in the major metropolitan areas commute 120+ miles per day because housing is too expensive to live closer to work.
EV's aren't made in all form factors, and while there are a lot of people who don't *need* an SUV for a daily commute, there are families who do *need* larger vehicles like SUV's and Mini-vans for any trip where the whole family goes (local or distant). Distant trips, like vacations and fun day trips often require larger vehicles because you not only need to carry the people, but often luggage, or camping gear, or ice chest, or recreation clothing (snow trips/beach/hunting) etc. along with the people.
There are just too many trips that require a range more than an EV can make. It's common in California, for families to make the trek from SF to LA or vice versa to visit family, or do vacation. There are a lot who do Ski/Hunting/Camping trips to the mountains. These trips cannot be made with EV's.
If California tried this there would be a revolt on their hands.