Yea, but know all the folks actually majoring in Crime, just copy their answers off the Criminology major in the front of the room who is just taking class as an elective. The Crime students never do the reading...
This is why our system is so messed up. This why the lobbyists and influence vendors have power. This why our laws are written such that not even the people who enact them really know what they mean.
The reason is voters like you, are willing to let them off the hook. When these guys sign their name to it they need to be accountable for it FULL STOP. You should not let them make excuses like oh well it was must pass....
No all those democrats who voted for the ACA better be willing to stand up and say proudly "I thought all the giveaways, deceptions, curtailment of individual freedoms, in the ACA were worth it to get something done." If they can't say that than they are not fit to represent you.
Same with this everyone who voted for this need to either agree with statements on climate, or admit there principle position on scientific integrity is subject to getting even relatively unimportant things done like Keystone XL.
We should base policy on what the majority of 'the people' (read voters without regard for what internationally other people want) wish to do, after they have been made aware of the risk a large number of scientists believe to exist.
That is a valid point. There is a lot Linux in the embedded and 'quasi-embedded' space that does never get updated.
That is a little different than what we normally think of as application servers that IT would be responsible for migrating. In the 'quasi-embedded' like the climate system you describe where there is basically a PC attached to some machinery you are correct. The opsticle to upgrading these things has little to do with Linux or Windows though, and everything to do with the machinery vendors unwillingness to QA or support anything other than their original configurations. You see the same situation happen with Windows boxen all the time as well just walk around any hospital or machine shop floor and you will see all sorts of DOS/Win9x/XP - pre SP2 about. Its not Microsoft's fault really nor any Linux distro maintainers where this happens.
As to the embedded space, routers, switches, headless controllers, PLCs. The amount of out data Linux out there with potentially major flaws is terrifying.
Why are you surprised the entire 'Affordable' care is really just a pile of giveaways to certain monied interests.
I mean come on the left the private insurance industry in place, while all but forcing the public to buy their product. The left them with the ability to set rates. The only real encouragement for them not gouge, is fear of political back lash AND essentially a government grantee that if they do somehow lose money they will be make whole.
There essentially no controls on the medical tort industry in it.
Nothing was done manage increasing drug costs
The medial device tax, the like one thing that industry might not like, is suspended.
Piles of money were spent hiring the incompetent to build the exchange.
The entire thing is theft all the way up and down.
Fair enough, but there are some really key differences between the Linux world and that of Windows and even Unix.
You distribution tends to package like 90+ % of the software on the system. The left over 10% is whatever in house app the server is running or 3rd party app you bought. All the libraries it uses, and support software that it uses database engines, etc typically are in the distribution. So the integration details library versions supported version issues are all taken care of for you.
On Windows this absolutely not the case. Things like databases, libraries for document rendering, and just about anything else you can think of is maintained outside the OS distribution. So Windows is where you upgrade and discover UAC totally breaks the version of ${SOFTWARE PACKGE} you have installed or changes to winHTTP cause all the web service calls to fail etc. Even if they mostly are other first party applications like SQL Server or Office. Its also true that its harder to isolate things. If you install something to
So again speaking in the general case its easier to go from RHEL 6.x to RHEL 7.x with an in place upgrade, as is true for most other Linux distros; however you do it, let package manager figurout distupdage or re-install a fresh
In most of my travels I have not seen 10+ year old Linux versions in production unless its at the same kind of shop that also does not care to patch or be on a supported version of Windows. Even in shops that are good about patch management get their WSUS updates applied etc ( I want to be fair to MS here these rarely if ever break anything) there is still lots of legitimate fear around upgrading an application server between major Windows versions. So in lots of cases Windows boxes tend to stay on whatever release for either the life of the hardware or the life of the app whichever is shorter. Linux boxes tend to be upgraded more frequently.
Google provide a la cart pricing.
Now that would be interesting. "You drove for a total of 6 hours and 51 minuets last month and major metro area, using your own vehicle presently valued at $X" You bill based on the risk you exposed us to is $Y.
That could be interesting.
With some quiet legislative changes to insurable interest [wikipedia.org] regulations, the likes of Goldman Sachs will soon be shorting your grandfather's life
Don't hold your breath there have been lots of folks who have tried this business. My ${relative} was a 30 year live insurance industry veteran. ${gender pronoun} was hired by a start-up as a expert. They had a full cabal of attorneys and folks to put up the capital on the line. The goal was to essentially establish an exchange or brokerage for other peoples life policies.
So for example a company takes out a life insurance policy on their CEO. CEO some years later. What generally happens today is the policy is allowed to lapse and the life insurer gets all the profit or the company is forced to continue servicing the policy for an indefinite period so they can eventually collect the benefit or exchange the policy for some cash value in some cases.
Their idea was you could sell the policy, the liability for paying the premium and the right to be the beneficiary. This way the policy could be sold for its net present value, rather than simply surrendered for its usually lower cash value or allowed to lapse.
Needless to say many trips to Washington were made and long SEC conversations were held and after several years they were forced to give the whole thing up. Insurable interest regulations were only a part of the problem. There are lots legal hurdles around 'who' is allowed to sell an insurance policy. The SEC was less than excited about a part other than the originator or a borker representing them doing it.
Don't worry about your precious tax dollars. I am sure they mostly paid for these things with civilly forfeited assets.
How lucky we are to live in a society where the police can just take money and property from people they don't like on some thin pretext of drug involvement. The best part is since there is expensive overhead associated with review or due process 100% of the revenue can be directly reinvesting in to further civil rights abuses ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ additional policing even more greatly reducing tax monies we would other wise have to commit to oppression ^H^H^H^H^H^H law enforcement.
The problem is people, that is why we set a government up in the first place; primarily to protect ourselves from each other.
So yes government is the problem. It never can be anything better than a necessary evil. It should be restricted, strangled, starved, and otherwise impeded to the point it can only barely achieve its goal of protecting people from each other, with minimal efficacy. To allow it to get any bigger or more capable than that as we have done not only invites abuse but assures it.
That's not what's meant by VPN in this context.
"context" don't make me laugh. There is no application of context to modern law. All sides take advantage. The words are stretched and the intents are ignored until the law can practically mean anything the AG wants it to mean that day. "VPN" already has plenty of interpretations in the tech world once the legal world gets hold of it, it is certain to be interpreted as just about anything that isn't a direct essentially the most direct path between hosts available using a plaintext protocol.
If you think otherwise you are crazy, or haven't been paying attention.
If it feels good than it is illegal, immoral, or fattening.
Where it all breaks down though is you need to get a public key from a trusted source.
For instance with SSL it works.
A)You ask for example.com and get 244.244.244.244 as the DNS result.
B)244.244.244.244 responds and presents a certificate (public key) for example.com
C)You check the certificate for example.com is legit by verification of a signature done with a 3rd party private key and check that with a public key you already have (root CA list). You can now trust 244.244.244.244's claim to be example.com and use that public key to decipher message sent to you with its private key. (which you will use to exchange a symmetric key, but that's getting off topic).
The problem with your example above with e-mail is that Bob has no way to authenticate the original message from Alice. He can't know that the public key he has been sent really from Alice and not his wife spoofing Alice's address because she suspects Alice is a mistress. Bob is how we say 'screwed'.
The only way it can work is if someone counter signs for Alice that Bob already trusts. With SSL and the 3rd party CA system its do able because Companies only have so many Web servers they are willing to pay Verisign or GeoTrust to essentially act as a notary. They won't do this for every employee that wants to send mail, the general public can't be arsed to do it either. So the CA model does not work.
Hence we have the web of trust model. This depends on your belief that most people in that web are responsible about who they 'trust' as authentic sources of keys. It assumes that most senders properly guard their private keys, or even understand they need to guard them and against what. There is zero evidence to suggest the general public has this understanding or capability.
Then there is the problem of web mail. If everyone is just going to hand Google (I am picking on them because of the popularity of GMail) their private keys we are ONE breach away from the entire system crashing down. If you implement some kind of client side encryption with javascript we ware still ONE breach away, someone gets in and replaces the javascript with a malicious one, your client trusts it because well it came from Google's server. It also makes webmail inherently unportable because you have to bring your key with you and what enter it into every untrusted systems all the time?
The GP is right, the problem is key management.
Yea, people at facebook.
I am not a medical doctor or any kind of doctor for that matter, but my understanding is many antibiotics are readily passed into urine even in patients with mostly normal kidney and liver function.
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?
