So I sold my slave to my buddy in the 6th year.

And he sold me his slave.

You say "loophole" while I say "cheap labour".

My argument would be inheritance. A family could bypass all the legalities of inheritance simply by "marrying" each other.

Which was a problem whether you allowed Mom to marry her sons or whether you allow Dad to marry his sons.

And then divorce them and splitting the assets 50/50.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

When i refer to states rights, I mean the PEOPLE of the state deciding what is a deemed "a right".

Nope. Still wrong. If something is a "right" then how can a state government (or a city government) declare that it is NOT a right?

Even if the majority in that state/city says so?

Your Rights are not subject to majority approval.

As I have been trying to say though, in my first post, marriage was never a right (until SCOTUS declared it to be) it was always a PRIVILEGE granted to by the states (the status constituents who are represented by their local representatives).

Again, marriage existed BEFORE any of the states here existed. There is no "PRIVILEGE granted".

If the government cannot grant a citizen a right then how come they JUST DID??????

The Supreme Court dis NOT just grant "a right" to anyone.

They just made it ILLEGAL to DENY that right.

And Yes, i do believe the state (and moreso the states constituents) should be allowed, at their discretion to make any type of marriage illegal.

You might want to read some history.

The states have a poor record on the subject of minority rights. Such as slavery. And segregation. And so forth.

If a person of faith speaks out against gay marriage and the government reprimands that person - then that is the government interfering.. and if you are so naive to think that scenario isn't coming - then I have a nice little bridge to sell you.

You need to read about Westboro Baptist Church. They've already proven the you are wrong. And they did it at the Supreme Court.

What I am saying is is that marriage was never a fundamental right to begin with. For anyone.

I hate to break it to you but people have been getting married (by various definitions) for thousands of years.

Maybe it your personal definition of "fundamental right" that is flawed.

Read the 10th Amendment.

You might learn that our Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of our GOVERNMENT. It was NOT written as a list of the "fundamental rights" of the citizens.

You have it BACKWARDS. The citizens grant the government certain rights. NOT the government granting the citizens certain rights (such as who can marry whom).

Don't be too harsh on him. As The Onion says, he realizes that one day he will be portrayed as the villain in an Oscar-winning movie.
http://www.theonion.com/article/scalia-thomas-roberts-alito-suddenly-realize-they--32972

Building more towers is not always possible and when it is, it is frequently not feasible.

You left off "at that profit level".

If Sprint refuses to build out their infrastructure then that is their issue. In other words, they are attempting to artificially limit a resource in order to maintain their choke point in order to maximize profits.

I guarantee that if a competitor started moving into their market and offering services for less, Sprint would suddenly find it very "feasible" to build out their infrastructure.

And that would be accurate if we were actually talking about a limited resource for free.

But we aren't.

You left out the part where the profit margin is flexible. The consumer costs will only rise because Sprint wants to keep the profit as high as it was. Bandwidth is NOT a limited resource in this case.

My problem with tying it to sales and marketing is that now I will be inundated with sales calls and emails.

And then they will sell my contact info to anyone who will pay for it.

So I have to go through the effort of registering ANOTHER fake email address with GMail prior to filling out the form.

Fuck, just look at how stupid Dice is making /. now. That always happens when sales and marketing interfere with technology.

It's not about the tool specifically, of course you need to skill yourself in whatever applications your field is going to use.

My take on that is that people expect the schools to teach them what they need to get a job AND THEN STOP LEARNING ANYTHING ELSE.

But schools should really be teaching you how to LEARN NEW THINGS.

Then you choose what to learn and you learn it.

If the answer is no, you don't know how to code javascript, you know how to use libraries.

And starting that way is okay. Ending that way is not okay.

Unless you are in one of the highly competitive schools, you'll probably only "learn" the basics of one tool. Maybe two. The classes are designed for the average person/student. YOU have to put in the effort beyond school.

Which is what really annoys me with the recent spate of "how much X should you know" crap articles here.

Know how to learn more AND learn more. Both in a wider variety of tools and a deeper understanding of how those tools work.

School will, at best, teach you to be minimally competent. It's up to you to do better.

Well that's great.

As long as your local library exists.

And is accessible when you need it.

And close enough for you to get to.

And has a working computer available for you in the time frame you have.

No. That's not so great. That sucks.

Think those IoT providers will pay more than lip service to ensuring their devices are not easy prey? Won't happen.

Won't happen because it cannot happen. There will be some manufacturers who go out of business. Where's the updates then?

Not to mention the manufacturers dropping support for older models EVEN IF THEY STILL WORK. Gotta buy a new fridge because the old one isn't updated any more.

Even if they do put the minimal effort in being better than "easy prey", how many times have we seen secret backdoors suddenly becoming public knowledge?

So anyone working there with any common sense at all should be interviewing NOW!.

If you aren't interviewing then you should be updating your certifications and such.

This isn't some kind of "oops we made a mistake" error. Upper management wants to replace you with cheaper options. Get out on your terms instead of their terms.

On the other hand, this should also provide you with a list of the sites where you should be changing your password.

Hopefully everyone will manage to do that before any of the hashes are cracked (if the crackers managed to get both the algorithm and salt).

I have different concerns with that article.

"Security is not a property of a technical system," she noted in her talk at the Hack in the Box conference in Amsterdam. "Security is the set of activities that reduce the likelihood of a set of adversaries successfully frustrating the goals of a set of users."

No. "Security" does not exist. You can be MORE secure than X or you can be LESS secure than X but you cannot achieve "security".

For me, being MORE secure means that fewer people can successfully attack you (or that the attack requires more of them to work together).

Saitta realized that a lot of what we know in the security world can't be effectively used if someone in the real world is targeted by a determined adversary.

No. That is getting back to the MORE secure or LESS secure. If the attacker has to drop armed forces onto your office building then you are MORE secure than if they exploited a 0-day on your web site.

We shouldn't work on assumptions or go by intuition - we should set aside our egos, and consult with the end users - learn about their goals and adversaries.

I'd say that 99.9+% of them have no idea who their adversaries are. Other than "that asshole Bob" or "the Chinese".

In the case of high-risk users, usable security is a must.

Is there ever a case where unusable security is a must?

As she vividly put it: if you're on a rooftop, trying to get a connection and successfully send out an encrypted message because your life or freedom - or that of others - depends on it, and you know that there are snipers waiting to take a shot at you - there is simply zero room for using a tool as complex as PGP.

Choose the right tool for the job AND LEARN HOW TO USE IT PRIOR TO THE EMERGENCY.

And if her example is, literally, snipers on the rooftops then whomever did the computer security did a fucking great job. This is an example of a win, not a failure.