Lagged2Death
The subject of the article is accurately summarized by the headline, and this isn't it.
The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken and hidden from view ... The truth is that while many reporters knew some things that were going on on Facebook, no one knew everything that was going on on Facebook, not even Facebook.
Respectfully suggest you consider the root comment here with these guidelines ("name-calling") in mind.
Hm.
Pointing out that neither of those things are valid arguments is not ad hominem.
I haven't insulted you; pointing out that you're ignorant and inexperienced is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Those things are curable.
There is not. This is a shortcoming born of inexperience and youth. Your context is too small, you're not perceiving things at any scale much beyond your own few personal experiences.
I have to say you're really going above and beyond with the contempt you add to it. What are you trying to accomplish, this way?
You pretend to be so reasonable, but this is tone policing, a logical fallacy, a thought-terminating cliche.
Your position is contemptible and no one owes you good manners over it. Do better. Step up your game. Make an actual argument to persuade me - to persuade anyone - that you actually have a clue what you're talking about.
Hearing the name doesn't make you an expert. The world isn't so systematic; history and context matter. There's quite a lot of study and learning to absorb if you're inclined, but this is a stunning demonstration of arrogance from ignorance, and I can't understand why anyone would want to demonstrate that. "Boi."
Maybe there are practical reasons in this case; maybe the sound is memorable, or recognizable even with marginal reception, etc.
This fellow has a very different idea of what an "older" computer is than I do.
If you could make it work, you'd would wind up with some sort of source file of domains, parsed at build time to generate list of hashes that actually ship with your plugin. That source file would belong in a repo, and would still be DMCA-able in this way.
Also, this would make ad-blockers even more CPU intensive than they are.
We shouldn't have to pursue a technical solution. It's my computer, it's my internet connection. If I'm not allowed to control my own property, then the concept of property becomes meaningless.
"Percent of income tax burden landing on top 20% of income earners" isn't a figure anyone is particularly interested in engineering or specifying for it's own sake. Where do you think it "should" be, and how can you justify it?
This is an emotional, not a rational appeal: "Won't someone think of the well-looked-after?"
The top 20% of earners earn more than half of the earned income that exists to be taxed. You could increase taxes on the rest quite a lot without actually collecting much.
Honestly I thought my household was in the top 20%. I was going to write that sometimes our financial situation feels tight, but that taxes aren't really the reason. But it turns out I was wrong; in 2015 we were probably third quintile. Should make it to fourth quintile this year.
I suspect a lot of people think they're higher on the ladder than they are. It's hard to percieve just how high the ladder goes.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-q...
Yes, but 1) that was just the tip of the iceberg labelled "McCarthyism," and 2) even at the time, the issue wasn't that they had joined a political party, the issue was what that party proposed to achieve.
In the case of the Google's manifesto, I don't see anyone upset that the author holds an unpopular opinion or that he publicized his unpopular opinion; it's the content of the opinion itself that's at issue.
Both McCarthy himself and the Googler in question here tried to harm other people's careers by spreading untruths in a self-aggrandizing way. That seems like the most natural parallel to me.
You've jumped straight into name calling without engaging that question.
Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement? Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call.
Consider the possibility that you have read the manifesto but you haven't understood the context. That other people, who claim to see something else there, really are seeing it, they're not making it up. Consider the possibility that some of them have had experiences you have not. That some of them are just smarter than you. That people who disagree with you aren't insane or lazy.
The situation we're discussing here is pretty different.
This has always been true and I can't understand how you would imagine it was ever otherwise.
People are fired for exhibiting corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitudes every day. Are they all victims of "textbook thoughtcrime punishment?"
It's likely enough the author is observing something real in at least some cases, but it's laughable to imagine that perspective and deep insights into the minds of others (i.e., empathy) comes with success and comfort. All evidence is that the opposite is true. It's not farfetched to suppose that he sometimes reads something else (like frustration) as resentment.
Nothing to see here, just the free market regulating itself. Good job!
The pieces of plastic are not necessarily floating bottles, bags, and buoys, but teeny-tiny pieces of plastic resembling confetti, making them almost impossible to clean up.
It's not about garden-variety, dictionary-definition, transient, intermittent, universially-felt-at-some-point sort of "loneliness" many of you assume it is.
It's about chronic loneliness, the loneliness of an orphan, the loneliness of a closeted homosexual, the loneliness of a retiree whose friends are all dead.
It's about loneliness as a force powerful enough to change the sufferer's genetic expression. It's really something.
It feels like he's trying to distract the TV news from something.
Did those attackers guess or compute even one password at all?
I had an RFID credit card years ago, but that turned out to be really insecure[1], and the issuer discontinued the program.
The contact-based chips in modern cards are not the same. At all.
I wonder what would happen if some miscreant super-glued a few dozen RFID chips to the reader, or to a location close to the reader?
[1] http://hackaday.com/2013/11/03/rfid-reader-snoops-cards-from...
This might be a concern if you're the victim of a state-level targeted attack. That's not a threat most of us have to deal with. Hackers aren't likely to spend a lot of effort cracking John Doe's password list; they want to steal a few million password hashes and sift out a few thousand easy or re-used ones.
Your other points about the weaknesses of the scheme stand. Still, if we could get more users to use not-terrible, not-duplicated passwords, even with a flawed scheme like this, overall internet security would improve immeasurably.
That's all fine if you're a perfect robot. It will turn out that you aren't, though.
You could let one of your important passwords slip to a compromised dumb-password site by mistake; you could fail to appreciate how important a dumb-password site had become to you until it was too late; you could just make a human goof and set up PayPal (or what have you) with your dumb password.
But your personal ability or inability to get this stuff perfectly correct forever is kind of beside the point when you're setting policy. In a population of dozens, mistakes will be made. In a population of millions, mistakes will be legion.
If more organizations followed this guidance, it would make password systems easier to implement, easier to use, and more secure for everyone who did care. It wouldn't effect your practice in the slightest.
At $250 per square meter, 10,000 square miles of panels would come to $6.4 trillion.
I think we should be heading in this direction anyway. But it's not so small, it's not so cheap, it will take time. No surprise; the system we need to replace is not small or cheap, and it took time, too.
"Hissy fit" is a gendered insult. You're suggesting that anyone who admits that Sessions has bad intentions is acting like a menstruating woman. It's really offensive. Maybe English isn't your first language, maybe you didn't understand this. You aren't elevating the level of discourse here.
...the idea that some group of people are inherently evil cannot be logically argued...
We're talking about one person in this case, and he's had a long career which makes the argument (that he acts with malice aforethought, that he's chosen to do the more-evil option over and over again) more strongly than any "logic" anyone's likely to construct for a message board post.
If you subscribe to the view that the war on drugs is/was chiefly motivated by white supremacy and the preservation of a minority right-wing establishment (as Ehrlichman apparently did [1]), it's arguably been a success.
The administration is supported by a minority of the electorate, the administration is a right-wing regime filled with unrepentant bigots, the administration wants the war on drugs to be maintained and intensified. These things fit together in a very unsurprising way, once one can get over the shock of just how petty and vile the fabulously wealthy elites running the government turn out to be.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#War_on_drugs