His stance was consistent with his position - that the government should not regulate what the free market can and should take care of.

I'm not defending it.

I'm saying that he has an ideology, and he is consistent.

More importantly, people who agree with him, and later find out just how consistent he is, learn more about themselves than about him.

Abolish the EPA, let black people, or white people, into your business, or not, cause an economic crisis, ignore all manner of shit, and it's all consistent with his platform. I believe he would have supported Hitler right up until the government mandated what color skin and/or eyes the people should have.

It's only troubling if you don't understand him. If you do understand him, then everything about him should be troubling, and the whole segregation thing is par for the course.

I'm full-on libertarian until it makes no sense any more, and he crossed that line a long time ago. Right to kill a dude? Too libertarian for me. Discriminate? Too far. Drop mercury in as fish bait? Too far. Understand where the person stands, and whether you can deal with it. Frequently, the sound bites sound better than the planks.

Comprehension. It's difficult.

That will cause the browser

First, browser developers are in charge of browser behavior, not a protocol. RFC may say "should", or "must", but browser implementers don't have to do that.

There is a need for this, but your question is whether the standard requests, or requires, the feature. Your other, unasked question, is whether any development team has committed to respect the "required" or "must" statement from the RFC.

It's another hack-fest from theodp - the beater of the single horse.

Sometimes it's important, sometimes it's not. Mostly not.

Do we need to be reminded about every event? No. Do we need to be reminded from time to time when things turn nasty? I'd say yes.

Still, mostly no.

You sound rich.

I can only hope that the search warrant specifies all machines by IP address, or some other technical error so that all those 100 hostnames that point to the same address have their servers confiscated.

And I can also only hope that some LEO isn't communicating with another LEO, and it really was a honeypot that got everyone's servers hosed.

Rich tech people will throw piles of money and strange things will happen. I so hope this happens. Also, you're an idiot if you so much as click on that site.

It is difficult to put yourself in another person's shoes - to put aside your beliefs and look at the world from a different perspective.

It is even more challenging to update this constantly with each new person you see. And still more challenging to go through your life while staying mindful of others.

Normal people only think of the "now" self, and find it easy to make the future self do all the hard work, losing the mindfulness of even your own self.

Thinking about accessibility, or how someone else might not agree with your user interface choice, and especially how someone less fortunate might be happy to have your problems is extremely difficult.

Observing someone can temporarily grant you empathy, but not insight. For insight, you need both experience and mindfulness. Experience everything twice - as yourself, and as someone else. This is good advice in every situation, but very difficult.

But that's push polling. They asked a very neutral question to find out a real answer. That's more valuable. Even more valuable is maintaining a reputation of being a reliable source of numbers. Fucking that up means no one cares about your results.

You are free to conduct your own fake study where your real intent is to bias people, if that's your goal. But that was not the goal here.

Turn off your computer and go play in the dirt, and think about what you've done.

Better yet, how would you even broach the subject to a stranger without really sounding super creepy?

"Thanks for the coffee, barista person. Now, can I ask you how you feel about a three letter agency?"

The question was, literally,

Is your overall opinion of [INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE ITEMS a. THROUGH b. FOLLOWED BY
RANDOMIZED ITEMS c. THROUGH j.; OBSERVE FORM SPLITS] very favorable, mostly
favorable, mostly UNfavorable, or very unfavorable? [INTERVIEWERS: PROBE TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN âoeNEVER HEARD OFâ AND âoeCANâ(TM)T RATE.â] How about [NEXT ITEM]? [IF
NECESSARY: Just in general, is your overall opinion of [ITEM] very favorable, mostly favorable,
mostly UNfavorable, or very unfavorable?] [INTERVIEWERS: PROBE TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN âoeNEVER HEARD OFâ AND âoeCANâ(TM)T RATE.â]
(VOL.) (VOL.)

They specifically not only reported on the "never heard of" part, and tried to differentiate between that and "I really couldn't say".

How you can be moderated as insightful is simply astonishing, considering that you will probably never consider any fact that doesn't already fit into your established worldview. I would have accepted "ignorant", "mindless", or "automaton". But insightful? No. You do not deserve the internet.

I know the guy that did it. Big data is about asking the guy that did it.

If I can assign that guy an identifier, then I know you forever.

I know the girl, and I know the guy. More importantly, I know the guy that didn't go for that girl. I want to get paid.

More importantly, I want everyone to be private.

Don't pay me. I can't be bought.

But everyone else, for all practical purposes, can.

Big data is really a thing.

Firefox feedback is not, in any sense, a representation of big data.

Global data sets are, for lack of a better word, global.

You are, for lack of a better word, a complete and total brain-lacking vacuum.

Can yo point to anything at all to support this assertion? Because I'm saying it won't happen like you expect, and I point to all the money given to ISPs to subsidize building out infrastructure, that apparently just disappeared.

They won't reduce prices without either competition, or a law. And they will beg for more subsidies to do a half added job at meeting the absolute minimum. More expensive, especially since you pay a second time in taxes that go into the subsidies.

How frequently does your scenario happen? That's the sticking point here, coming up with realistic use cases. I'm more concerned with covering most people with the current definition.

Apparently you didn't read it at all. It was a bug in the application, not a compatibility issue. DOS did not advertise the use-after-free scenario as working, it just happened not to crash.

Do you define dis-allowing "use after free" to be breaking backwards compatibility? Because I don't think it should be allowed at all, and they inserted a whitelist to make sure new applications would not rely on the behavior.

This is a single example out of many, many, many special cases Microsoft implemented in order to keep things working. "Not break userspace", as I understand it, would apply both to API behavior, and not crashing a previously working application. The assumption is, however, that if you rely on undefined behavior, it's not the kernel team's responsibility to fix.

I really hope your post was just sarcasm that I did not detect, and not willful ignorance.

Ah the standard marginalization technique where you completely, often intentionally, misunderstand something to get your point across. Exactly like "I'm not going to play Fallout because you're just wandering around in a radioactive wasteland collecting bottlecaps."

They have make-up and post-processing and all kinds of things so you don't see pores. Unless you're looking at bad amateur porn, and then the camera is either poor quality, too jiggly, or out of focus.

I object on a more realistic argument - I don't need more pixels to see compression artifacts better. And I'm not confident that we have the content delivery problem solved. A new physical storage spec helps with the kind of thing people are going less frequently these days.