What I'd be interested to see is if, and how aggressively, they take action against image collections that are not of any use for their desired purposes. They obviously can't be too capricious and unpredictable, or they'll spook users; but you can't offer 'unlimited' storage without making some provision for 'that guy who hacks together a FUSE filesystem that uses images uploaded to Google Photos as a storage medium' or the 'Cool, this will make my next time-lapse video project way easier' cases.(and, of course, if you are feeling particularly uncreative, /dev/random just needs a dash of formatting information to be as many bitmaps as you could possibly desire.) Are they just going to go with the ISP-style 'I said unlimited; but I actually meant X photos or Y GB of traffic per month; apparently I'm allowed to get away with that, so STFU', are they going to have peons manually examine accounts whose size gets out of hand and decide what to do?

The trials that were conducted were a treatment, not a cure. A cure insinuates the organism is no longer susceptible to the disease, which is not the case with these treatments. A better article, that represents our research and treatments, and quotes us better, is the MNN article below.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte...

For a couple of hours after being washed with a detergent? No, it doesn't.

will use this as an excuse to spend even less money on bridges. They hate us and refuse to provide jobs via infrastructure projects. They would rather have us all die on broken bridges than give one job to a single person. Here in the Republican-ruled shithole of Seattle, our waterfront has been destroyed by something called the Alaskan Viaduct, or as the locals call it, the Republican Monster. It is horrible. It is falling down. Even the Republicans admit that it is dangerous and is going to fall. But, because it uglifies the waterfront, the Republicans want to keep it. They hate us and want to make our lives so ugly. So ugly. The Republicans in Seattle are full of hate.

If you use 127.0.0.1 your web browser will try to connect to localhost. If you run a web server, this will result in a 404 and weird content on your pages. If you don't run a web server, this will result in a delay while the web browser unsuccessfully attempts to connect.

Instead, you should use 0.0.0.0 which is a null route that fails immediately.

They'll probably just pay someone else to do it for them with the oil money as usual.

You are right. Of course when the man does change, his genetic superiority (in the eyes of his mate) as a "rebel" is negated and so goes with it passion, attraction, commitment, and eventually the relationship.

Couples therapists have spoken on this in that when men actually do change, generally to be more communicative of their feelings, women don't see them as being masculine anymore and lose interest.

As usual the only winning strategy is to be yourself and avoid close relationships with anyone who doesn't respect that.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, use the Let's Encrypt protocol to get a publicly valid cert for free, set up your own internal CA or just use self signed certs... not hard.

What you're website is serving has no relationship to what the browser gets if they do a man-in-the-middle attack and change the content.

I agree this is stupid. Sometimes, though, I like to think of the best arguments I can for the other side's position. In other words, come up with reasons I might be wrong.

In this case, I'd have to admit that ANY time I send an encrypted message, it should always have a way for the good guy to read the message. For example, suppose I use https to send a secure request to bank.com. That must have a way for the good guy, bank.com, to read the message. There's no technical reason it can't be encrypted such that TWO good guys have keys, bank.com and the Good Guy Bureau.

In fact, standard encryption as used by tls does almost that - two people ALREADY have the key which is used to encrypt the message. The sender has the key and so does the receiver. The shared key is then encrypted by another key generated such that two parties can know it, without either ever transmitting it. Mathematically, one could certainly add the GGB key to the algorithm.

It could be just as unbreakable as the current encryption standards, though those do depend on keys being kept secret. The Good Guy Key probably wouldn't actually be kept secret for long. That's the huge failing that makes it a non-starter from a purely technical perspective- that we'd all be screwed if the FBI's key were ever revealed or cracked. Various attempts at DRM show that widely-used keys are always cracked.

1. Why do you hate America? 2. Why do you hate white people so much? 3. Why do you hate men so much? 4. Why do you hate the 1st amendment? 5. How does your site spawn libtard SJWs? 6. Why so many of them? 7. Do you realize your site is not that funny anymore? 8. Do you realize no on cares anymore? 9. Do you realize you're not relevant anymore? 10. Will you please stop spawning libtard SJWs?

Note that

doesn't mean that grandpa thinks that Snowden is a terrorist or that Snowden did anything wrong. The problem with surveys like this is that any interpretation of them will be skewed. Without knowing how the person interpreted the question you can't say anything about the answer.

Say that you find a wallet containing $1000 on the street. You have the option to return the wallet to the owner, keep it or keep the money and return the wallet. If you ask someone if they will be financially better off if they keep the wallet/money compared to if they return it then the answer will be that they are better off if they keep the money. If you ask what they think is the right thing to do you get another answer. (Hopefully.)

Short term I can agree that Snowdens actions probably hurt national security and the revelation clearly damaged the U.S. image. Over a longer timespan it was the right thing to do and will in the long run help with creating a global stability based on mutual trust. The NSA idea of security is to strike first against the neighbor. The ideal scenario is to have a neighbor that you can ask to look after your house while you are on vacation.

Agreed.

There already are repercussions. These are elected positions, no? You and your neighbours can decide to not vote for these people come next election. What's that? It's hard to remove corrupt public officials from office? Yeah, I'm well aware of this. Doesn't mean it's not, at least theoretically, possible. Yes, it will take lots of work, but then this is your country. And mine too. Hopefully we will eventually get enough critical mass to remove them. I just hope we can do it before they manage to completely shred what's left of the Constitution.

"Call your doctor immediately if you experience a coding session lasting more than four hours, as this may indicate a serious side effect."