Re: @adrian727 - Not only
"justice system controlled by one political party"--that would be the Democrats? Because we certainly don't control it. (For the utterly clueless, check the recent Supreme Court rulings.)
1388 posts • joined 23 Jan 2015
I don't care if straight party line votes ensue at some point. If we are going to beat this thing for even one generation, it must be a bypartisan effort.
Janet Reno supported Clipper.
As I've posted before, the FBI has steadily pushed for this garbage under every administration. AGs have tended to follow along. The NSA has opposed them.
Sure, it's easier to condemn every Republican than to engage them. Maybe it's even more fun for you. But we have FAR more influence on Republican members of congress than you do. Convincing them might, you know, help stop the bill.
But you make it a partisan issue, plenty of Republicans will believe you. You've made my job of convincing them a LOT harder.
Yes, we're WAY past time to pull back blanket immunity. Punting it to the states is an abdication (to fifty successors). Backdooring is flat-earth level idiocy. But implying that no D administration would support or abuse such powers? Give it up already.
No--this is deliberate. This rhetoric is entirely about trying to make Caucasians bear guilt for something some of the ancestors of some of them did generations ago while deliberately ignoring the exact same behavior by non-Caucasians today.
If you doubt me, jump on the LKML & ask why there is no mention of current slavery in Africa. See the response you get.
Wait. Do you mean your race is white while his is black--or that your belt is white while his is black.
Seriously, as soon as you went into the martial arts, my mind focuses color on the belt. I had to rethink that line in order to figure out that you might be talking about race.
The deprecation of "master" branches is particularly annoying to me, because the term "master" in regard to copy-making has NEVER referred to the slave trade. In fact, the use of master-slave terminology in any IT context is rather illiterate, because master-copy is what is intended for every case that comes to mind. If people insist on being offended by what is clearly a technical term, (the slave portion of master-slave) then fix the "slave" part.
Because we desperately need master craftsmen when it comes to our trades in IT.
These navel gazers need to be fired for wasting everyone else's time.
Not idiots, really. More like, "savants". Trust me, if you wrote some verilog for them to look at, they would be giggling about it for weeks.
While I was doing software microprocessor validation at IBM, I started saying, "You don't want to be in the same county as an FPU I designed or that they programmed." The skills are just that different.
You really, REALLY don't have a clue, do you?
There are actually LOTS of people out there that would LOVE to be maintainers--the problem is that almost all of them would run the kernel into the ground in no more than two releases. Often this is because of incompetence. Sometimes, it is because of a narrow focus on a particular issue to the detriment of others. Some of it is a straight up **** the end user attitude by various companies. (You know I'm talking about.) And some of it is full-on prima-donnaism. (Again, it should be pretty obvious who at least one of these currently is.)
The only way to maintain the viability of Linux is to keep this binary excrement out of the kernel. On good days, the task is Herculean. On bad ones, I'm sure it feels Sisyphean. He cannot do it alone, and so he has to trust the maintainers to some extent.
And when he finds out that some of them have been negligent? Sure, he can fire them. But that means either that he has to take on the work himself, or somehow replace them.
Oh, yeah--tell me again how much money he has to attract new talent?
So, he uses public shaming. Yeah, I know. Every study ever done says that's the wrong way to fix things. Except--the real world is a whole lot messier than some academic study.
And--he has user to protect.
Dude, it's just code. I had to write what may have been the first ACPI memory detection routine. While working for AMD on what might have been an AMD-specific problem when the relevant maintainer lived in Portland (Intel's HQ). On that old assembler that used to ship with the kernel. When I barely dared to call myself a proper programmer.
The point is, I have no idea if that code ever hit the trunk. That wasn't the issue. I needed to enable our customers, and that's what I did. If the code was worthy, Linus would have allowed it. If not, well, fine.
Same as yours.
DO. NOT. TRY. TO. ROLL. YOUR. OWN. CRYPTO.
Why is it that someone has to post this to EVERY article the the subject?
Do a little (just a bit) of research on modern crypto algorithms. Every last one of them was developed by a team. And then peer reviewed by other teams.
Teams of people with PhDs in mathematics (usually algebra). Teams of people each with over a decade of experience in the field.
You really, really aren't at that level. Neither am I. Neither are 99.9999% of people in the world. Honestly, there is probably another 9 to add.
I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating. In the US, anti-trust is fundamentally a political matter.
In order to get the attention of the anti-trust authorities, you have to get into a position that you dominate a market. The authorities then have to determine that you are operating the monopoly "in restraint of trade"--that is, "abusing" your monopoly for some definition or the other. BUT--our constitution provides for monopolies! Specifically, inventors are guaranteed some sort of limited-time monopolies on their inventions. (This is a REALLY good thing, by the way, just subject to abuse.)
However, by the time you get to the point that an industry is important enough to the economy that a monopoly in it can be "in restraint of trade", the economic implications of actually doing anything about the situation can be even worse than what the monopolist is doing. The decision to proceed, therefore, is fundamentally a political one.
So...AT&T operated a monopoly on telephone services for generations. And while they were not popular, it was hard to see that there was any gain to be had by doing anything about it. The cost of the poles & wires was super high, and you would never have two competing networks that came close to the efficiency of a single network outside the densest urban areas, and it was far from clear that even there, gain was possible.
Then came the Internet. When AT&T started looking to expand into the Internet, their dominant position at the physical layer became a huge concern, and they were broken up. Remind me, how did that go?
Of course, IBM operated a monopoly (think Apple in the absence of Microsoft or Linux) for decades. The suit started, but the Reagan administration decided to slow-walk it until IBM was no longer a monopoly.
Or you could go back to the original trust-busting. Breaking up Standard Oil? Seems to have been a good thing. Breaking up the banks? That went okay--until the Depression, a few years later. Then they had to walk almost all of it back.
Or you could look at professional sports. Basketball, football, baseball--all run by monopoly organizations. But in the end, it's just entertainment, so--as a political decision--they are excluded from monopoly legislation.
There are no good answers.
Now, lets consider Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Each of these companies are hugely dependent upon the network effect for their success. Suppose we break Facebook into two companies, BookFace, and BaceFook. Suppose that we also split the users between them. What happens next? If 80% of someone's contacts are on BookFace, then that is where they will spend almost all of their time. If that means creating a new account, they will do that. And what about the other 20% of contacts? What if THEY want to talk to that person?
There is a real social benefit for keeping these companies together. The "obvious" solution is to highly regulate them. Except--let's talk about regulatory capture.
There. Are. No. Good. Answers.
Again, they can try, but these are federal agents executing their powers as they deem best. Can you fine an ICE agent for arresting folks in a "sanctuary city"? Or FBI agents for raiding a (state) legal pothouse?
A competent lawyer would show up in the state court, raise the question of jurisdiction, and walk out.
They can try, but the independence of the electors in giving their vote is constitutionally absolute. As is the right of congress to award those votes.
It's actually a two-level failsafe.
And, for those with overly-convenient memories, while, pre-election, it has been leftists & Democrats suggesting that the Republican call on his electors to switch in favor of a popular vote, it was the Democratic electors that chose to defect in 2016.
Hilary Clinton isn't just a boogeyman of the right.
No, not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(Star_Trek), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star
Of course, a black hole of any particular mass is possible, but if faces with a theoretically reasonable, but hard to observe phenomenon verses a really, really, really rare thing, it seems odd to exclude the theoretically reasonable hypothesis.
I lack access to the numbers to know the hard limits, but from my time in satellite communications, I suspect that these low, cheap, commercial satellites could be DOSed from the ground while over even a weak nation-state that really wanted to block them.
If that does not work, flying over anyone trying to use them with a receiver & some sort of HARM would be quite discouraging to potential users.
Hypocrisy? Where? This is about sovereignty, and our ability to effectively resist the efforts of an increasingly hostile power. Hypocrisy would be if we objected to the EU doing the same with us. I see no similar concerns being raised by the EU. It is only if the EU made similar restrictions, and we criticized them that hypocrisy would be in play.
It's not our concern if the EU is happy to have their data running through pipe we control.
As I've said many times, if you don't control DNS in your country, you're not really very sovereign, when it comes to the internet. This is more of the same.
OMW--do I actually have to say this? OF COURSE, the adaptations that blacks undertook in an attempt to limit the effects of the horrors of slavery took root in a way that was hugely detrimental to post slavery existence. OF COURSE, the enactment of Jim Crow laws and the reign of the Night Riders continued to inflict outrages which likelywise reinforced and broadened those patterns.
But no one alive today has been a slave in the US except by a wholy criminal action-or some weird kink. There simply is nothing to remember.
What there is is an unfortunate tendency to carry these memories from generation to generation in a way that makes it easy for race merchants to exploit. My family was very deliberate in preventing me or any of my cousins from learning what had been done to us until we were adults. THAT is my privilege--being raised that my efforts will bear fruit. I wish that privilege on you and upon your children.
We expect blue collar workers to raise safety issues. You sound like you are excusing people who should be classified "elite". Neither has my job title nor my job description ever had a hint of "security" in it. That doesn't mean that I don't consider it part of by ethical duty to pay a LOT of attention to the issue as an IC. For a group that size, even if they were purely focused on offensive, it is mind-blowing that there was NO ONE willing to sound the alarm inside loud enough to get any of these matters fixed.
Of course, this was a culture issue, and culture is the responsibility of management & senior ICs. But of all the places to expect that EVERYONE knows that security isn't something you blindly entrust other people to take care of for you, surely this is the place?
"Unfortunately, it is now clear that exempting the intelligence community from baseline federal security requirements was a mistake." Indeed. And what a tragic fact.
But it's OK if there is no pandemic?
I've been under tear gas twice. It's not that bad if you don't have any panic about it. But in an uncontrolled situation, it is likely to induce panic--and people die from being trampled.
I was also pepper sprayed (by a crazy lady) that's a whole new level of pain.
Of course, we might have different ideas of "peaceful". I don't count angry chants of "oink oink bang bang" by people carrying rifles peaceful. But I'm no cop & I've not had riot control training.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020