Ah, sorry, you sent it to the wrong person. You must want the Nigerian prince sitting in the back row of the cafeteria over there.

I don't do ID theft or other crimes, but if you want to e-mail me the private keys for a Bitcoin wallet with a few hundred BTC in it.......

Pathogens don't "learn". They evolve, ok. They adapt, ok. But they aren't sentient. They are not thinking. And especially they aren't thinking "hey, if they vaccinate, they won't die anyway, at least not as fast, so let's get more deadly!" This isn't the fucking Pandemic flash game for crying out loud!

There is no interest of killing a host for a parasite. It's an side effect. Unintended, and actually harmful for the parasite in the long run. Just like poisoning the seas is harmful for us. We ain't some comic book villain who does it for ... well, for being evil. We do it 'cause it cuts costs. The oil spill is only the side effect, not the reason we do it.

So yes, they COULD get more deadly because we don't die as fast and a more deadly mutated strain would kill itself off with the host if there was no vaccination. But that is hardly an argument against vaccination. It only means that at worst we're with vaccination where we are now without. AT WORST. If, and only if, the pathogens mutate in such a way that they get more deadly. Which is neither in their interest nor anything they would (evolutionary) strive for.

What's the benefit for a pathogen to be more deadly? Killing the host is actually bad for it, since that ends spreading (with this host at least).

I can dissolve that conspiracy theory: They are more afraid of someone finding a way to bypass their input sanitizers than losing money from hacks. So no characters are allowed that could possibly, remotely, be considered "active" or "command" characters in any language they could probably think of.

Also, most, if not all, of the hacks happen due to people getting their passwords stolen by trojans and the like rather than someone actually guessing the passwords.

Provided that we now know how your passwords are created, finding your password is essentially not harder or easier than before. From a technical point of view of course. Actually, it probably is much easier now considering that, since you probably rely on your creation algorithm to introduce enough entropy, you probably choose simpler passwords.

That's not what I've read from the FCC ruling that nixed that law. I must confess that I haven't read it all, but can you cite that which supports your point? What I've read from i.e. the amicus briefs to the FCC the law prohibited the electric company from servicing someone that didn't get their electricity from same company (or wasn't "in the area serviced"), not that they did any of the things you mention. (And in either case the FCC didn't like that law and struck it down).

OK, I'll bite. What would be a fair characterisation then? Or isn't there a problem to begin with? (Again the FCC in their 2015 broadband report seems to think there is.)

Given that most of these webpages are also the ones where you have to answer some "secret" question to recover your password, it's kinda moot to select a secure password.

What is it you say? "Instead of giving a real answer to the "secret" question, simply use another randomly generated string?"

That's a good idea. Until the admin of the page locks your account because "you obviously are a robot, because humans don't do this".

The problem runs far, far deeper, people...

the supervisor was shown the door rather quickly, that tech had friends in high places.

Very effective.... use a sacrificial supervisor/lower-level-employee to break the law and fire folks over Section 7 rights exercise / unionization attempts.. Supervisor fired, and plausible deniability regained.

In theory they could still be sued, but it's probably exceedingly unlikely.

That's why... if you want to do a unionization effort, then you better make sure it succeeds, and ideally involve observers outside the company with legal assistance.

Initially... some verbal discussions of pay information in safe place off work premises is probably harder for management to combat.

Ideally, there would be legal papers written up, letters already crafted, and backup plans established to address retaliation attempts, before management becomes aware... if an organizer gets canned, then management should be served with legal papers the same day.

And this is why I'm glad that I'm here, instead of over there. What purpose does the municipality serve other than to serve its inhabitants? And what better way to serve them than with infrastructure, especially that kind which succumbs to a natural monopoly anyway? (Running many different fibre networks is as dumb as running many different electricity lines, or roads, to a house).

Now, if you want to preserve the market, then by all means, do what we do here, and stipulate that the municipality can't offer service on said network, instead having to open it to all and sundry who want to do so. That provides the customer with both potentially high speed internet, even in out of the way places. If you look at the places where e.g. the local electric company rolled out fibre and was stopped by legislation (Tennessee?), these markets weren't served by anybody else, and still isn't), and you have a market for service where companies can offer there services. Legislating against the electric company pulling the fibre is just counter productive; legislating that they would have to open their network, now that would be another thing.

But as that would lead to real competition, at a lower total cost, not crony capitalism, I don't have high hopes for you...

No.... it's a 3rd party messaging service using HTML E-mail and a custom browser extension. To enforce the "self-destruct" rule, the e-mail is hosted on the Dmail provider's mail servers instead of the content being sent in the e-mail message.

Nothing to see here..... I'm not going to be accepting any e-mail sent using such a service. I will tell the sender "No, send me a normal e-mail message; I can't read that one."

Actually it means the same in America. Americans are just reallhy of stupid and blame the government for everything even remotely public. You can see this very often for instance with Obama being blamed for the actions of republican Governors.

It would be interesting what kind of money such a fundraiser can collect. Somehow I can see this getting a LOT of money.

I do have a lot of respect for the women (and men, let's not forget them) who provide a valuable service by selling professional aid in the area of satisfying one of the most powerful human urges.

But these people I'd certainly call prostitutes. Or maybe, if I have to skirt the issue, a "working girl/guy".

I would never dream of calling someone who actually has a decent job and provides a valuable service a hoe or a whore!

"I have here your son. He can be alive tomorrow provided you..."

That kind?

Wasn't Win10 the system where you can't turn off updates? Now, how does that work out for you?

No, its usually about twice that, with the rest in subsidies from the EU. But, the power of a co-op should not be underestimated. Since they can both do work and grant land (cheaply).

And when I check speedtest net, they list an average of $3.52/MBps which would give a much higher cost for 100/100. This article from the BBC also lists much higher prices; $90 for speeds over 45 Mbps on average. (Granted it's two years old).

Now, that rural infrastructure is subsidised is no surprise. Everyone does that, even you. Only problem is you only do it for phone service, which used to be important. We've said that internet service is equally important, while you don't. That's the gist of the problem.

And that's where your regulatory capture comes in. There have been numerous stories here on slasdot on states that have explicitly forbidden local municipalities to be involved in fibre/broadband, instead legislating that that can only be done by corporations. Who then don't actually deliver any infrastructure. Municipalities or co-ops are in most of these cases banned by law from addressing the problem. If that's not regulatory capture, I don't know what is...