I am mystified how people can read this and not realize it was just a little fun thing to do in his spare time. Or do you spend every waking minute of your life doing serious things with your knowledge and skills?
What makes it less fun now than ~2-5 years ago?
The incredibly obvious paid submissions being passed off as user-submitted stories.
-B
hmmm... what about slashdot?
awhile ago
and i feel vindicated
reddit needs to pay its mods (say, a cut of ad revenue from their sub)
if they work for free, they have no real power over them. which is unstable as current developments indicate
also, if they pay them, they can fire them
you can say paying mods will change the tenor of reddit but this is bullshit: what motivates someone to mod for free is a sort of pathetic need for power, which is actually worse than any nefariousness due to filthy lucre as their motivation
bye bye reddit, you were fun. but you have a fatal flaw in your power structure:
uncaring admins and abusive mods
so what's the next site to rise?
any tips?
In short, if your ship can stay out longer and longer, then you will have to figure out how to rotate the humans aboard.
Take SSL/TLS. Are they going to demand both parties stash the session key, or do their handshaking through a proxy logging each packet?
Probably not. You're thinking like a geek instead of a politician. Politicians don't get their way by understanding technology. They get their way by finding people who do and forcing them to obey their will.
In this case, what Cameron means by banning encryption is passing laws that say something like, "If your website is used by people in the UK, you must always be able to comply with a warrant demanding data and you must provide all data, even if it is encrypted". The exact details of how that works is neither here nor there to them.
Now of course the interesting thing is how this interacts with jurisdictions, and whether it would be enough to make GCHQ shut up (probably not). The UK may or may not be able to force the hands of Facebook/Google/etc because the UK is such a huge market and they all have offices there, but China was a huge market too and Google walked away from that anyway. So it's hard to know how things would play out. For companies that have no UK exposure it's not clear what they'd do - probably use ad-hoc blocking of any website they suspect might be used by The Evil Terrorists if it doesn't comply. Could be a mess depending on how heavily they enforce it.
All those figures say is that birds of a feather flock together. Tory voters tend to live near each other and because the UK has a political system designed a long time ago for resolving local issues, not surprisingly it doesn't translate votes to seats directly at the national level. As local politics becomes less and less relevant, of course, people feel this system no longer works well for them.
However, as you note, it would not have mattered if Labour had won, or any other party. There are NO parties in the UK that believe people should be able to keep secrets from the government. It's just not something that fits into the political worldview. And because the voting system collapses thousands of decisions down to just one every so many years, surveillance and encryption is simply not democratically decided at all. Basically the wheel of power is decided by the economy, and that's about it.
Unfortunately this is not specific to the UK and is true nearly everywhere, France is even worse for example, and the USA pretends to care but realistically lots of Congressmen would very much like total surveillance of Americans
Ha ha, did you think he meant warrants?
He meant warrant. Unfortunately as is often the case with the Tories, they use words differently to how ordinary people do. By warrant he means a ministerial rubber-stamp. For instance Theresa May last year alone "signed" nearly 2,800 warrants, a number that clearly shows zero attempt to investigate their legitimacy and indeed almost certainly means some anonymous flunky is signing them on her behalf.
Google's on screen keyboard properly displays the case of characters based on the state of the shift key. Apple's keyboard is kind of an unpolished insult to the concept of literacy. There's plenty of stuff I don't like about Google's applications but none of it is as unforgivable as that.
your alternative method is inferior as the specific request is tech *skills*, which you find on resumes, people speaking to their merits to get hired
not "tech appearing together on message boards," which indicated a whole host of relationships, relationship by skillset being far down the list
the simple fact is there is no perfect methodology so criticizing the methodology for being imperfect is without merit. and in articulating a yet even more inferior methodology in your latest comment i have to assume you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, you're barely trying, you're not serious, and so this useless thread is over
I'm unique - there are a dozen OS that I don't like. I don't complain about them, I just don't use them. You're like the majority of people. Really.
You are unique. Uniquely stupid and unable to pass basic reading comprehension.
The GP felt dismayed that Linus has drunk the systemd coolaid, and wants to switch to FreeBSD. I pointed out that not everyone has been taken in by the systemd nonsense, and that their are distros available that remain untainted, that if he wants to switch to *BSD I've found Dragonfly to be quite nice, but that there are a number of Linux choices he has available if he doesn't want to switch.
But go ahead and label that whining, since I don't love the excrement you find so appealing. And feel free to demand I spend my free time writing a competing pile of excrement for having the audacity to prefer existing init systems, such as those used by the *BSDs, and OpenRC, and to mischaracterize my contentment with OpenRC and other superior-to-systemd init systems as "doing nothing."
Feel free to say whatever nonsense you like. It reveals far more about yourself and other systemd astroturfers on this site than it does those of us who prefer the alternatives. And yes, it does reveal you as a bully as well as an idiot.
the arnold schwarzenegger move "terminator genisys" is in theatres and hollywood wanted a really effective advertising stunt
In a shocking revelation, the UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) today notified Amnesty International that UK government agencies had spied on the organization by intercepting, accessing and storing its communications.As you may recall, a little over a week ago, the IPT had ruled that the GCHQ had erred in holding onto emails too long -- but had named that Egyptian organization as the one whose emails were held. However, that's now been corrected to Amnesty International.
In an email sent today, the Tribunal informed Amnesty International its 22 June ruling had mistakenly identified one of two NGOs which it found had been subjected to unlawful surveillance by the UK government. Today’s communication makes clear that it was actually Amnesty International Ltd, and not the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) that was spied on in addition to the Legal Resources Centre in South Africa.
“How can we be expected to carry out our crucial work around the world if human rights defenders and victims of abuses can now credibly believe their confidential correspondence with us is likely to end up in the hands of governments?Both issues raised here are significant. The only reason Amnesty now knows about this is because GCHQ held onto the emails too long. If it had done its usual purge, then the IPT likely would never have revealed that, and Amnesty's communications would have continued to go on being compromised without anyone knowing.
“The revelation that the UK government has been spying on Amnesty International highlights the gross inadequacies in the UK’s surveillance legislation. If they hadn’t stored our communications for longer than they were allowed to by internal guidelines, we would never even have known. What’s worse, this would have been considered perfectly lawful.”
are you saying there exists some implementation that analyzes every resume in existence perfectly? it's "incomplete" in the sense that any such effort is incomplete and imperfect by nature of the problem. your criticism is invalid, you don't understand the task if you expect completeness is possible
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
