So, what's Mass Effect 4 going to do when the premise that Charon is actually a "mass relay" is no longer usable for suspension of disbelief? =^-^=

Because native security ain't?

How anything works - outside their domain.

The problem is that being a generalist doesn't pay worth a damn.

Pug

No, you (Alice) encrypt with your private key, then encrypt with 'Bobs' public key, then Bob decrypts with his private key and again with Alice's public key.

Thus Both Alice and Bob are authenticated, and no one besides Alice and Bob can intercept.

Pug

I'm enjoying 'The Nightly Show' - his format does kind of the John Oliver thing of getting a *bit* deeper into a topic than TDS or the Colbert Report could do in their format. It works well for Larry Larry Larry - {G}.

Pug

Hah - in *my* day we used Raw HTML, parsed in binary!

Horrible policies like listening to scientists, letting people control their own bodies, keeping the government out of the bedroom, and providing better healthcare to more people for less money.

What horrors will they visit upon us next!

Pug

Frankly in my experience Politifact is annoyingly biased in their ratings, against liberals.

You may or may not agree with their articles - I usually *do* agree with the written article. But they will *happily* rate a liberal 'false' because their review shows that 'Yes it's true, but they left this or that context out, didn't mention this exception, yadda yadda' and then do backflips rating a conservative 'halftrue' when the article clearly shows it's not true at all, but 'if you consider that maybe they meant this esoteric way they might have meant it . . .'

I think it's because if they didn't grade on a curve, no conservative would ever read any of these fact-check sites, but my God is it annoying to watch liberals get bounced down one or two stars for minor mistakes, then watch them hem and haw and rate something half-true because there's is some esoteric 13th century use of a word that a conservative *might* have meant.

Our liberal media bias in action!

Pug

Actually, while TDS certainly indulged in fallacies on occasion, the Straw Man argument, e.g. actually misrepresenting the argument someone is making, was something I thought they did a very good job of dodging over the years.

Probably less 'journalistic ethics' than that Straw men don't actually get laughs.

Pug

As a leftie liberal, someone please revert the scoring on the prior post (Currently 0: Troll);

I disagree with him/her, but that is *not* a troll post.

Thank you

I don't see how anyone except John Oliver could fill in for John Stewart. Oliver is funny, he's enjoyable to watch, he's political, and the key thing is, he's earnest. Jessica Williams is a name that comes up a lot, and as great as she is, she doesn't have that earnestness that Oliver does, and she doesn't seem to get fired up about issues the same way that Oliver does, or Stewart did. I'd watch a comedy show with Jessica Williams but I don't think she's quite right to head up the Daily Show. She's one of the newer members as well; that may be why Comedy Central didn't give her the Colbert slot. Samantha Bee and Jason Jones? No way in hell that will happen. Samantha's OK but Jason has a grating presence- he pretends to be a dick but when he does, he comes across as actually being a dick. He's got that small, mean laughing-at-you-not-with-you thing that kept Craig Kilbourne from ever going anywhere with the show. Comedy Central clearly feels the same way: he was passed over to fill in for Stewart, and for Colbert's slot. I don't see Larry Wilmore happening either, he seems more annoying than funny and there's just a limit to how much humor about race a largely white audience can handle.

Everybody saw what happened when Oliver took over the Daily Show. Stewart was clearly looking to do other things. Even before this he's seemed worn out and ground-down, he joked a lot about how old he felt, at times he seemed to be going through the motions to manufacture his indignance- I think that's why he bonded with O'Reilly, John Stewart had become a lot like O'Reilly, someone who was paid to go on and pretend to be upset when he'd gotten to the point that he didn't really care that much anymore. And then John Oliver came on and for the first time in years, I actually thought that Daily Show actually was a fun show to watch. And everybody clearly saw that Oliver had that rare talent where you can get him up in front of millions of people, talk about the news, and people laugh and enjoy themselves. HBO saw it and gave him a show and he's proven he's able to headline a show, hell he can even turn net neutrality into comedy.

That's what you want. You want a guy who's funny, who's enjoyable to watch, and can make something as dull as net neutrality funny, and can get fired up about the politics: he actually cares. He's proven that he's all of those things, and none of the other names have. Oliver has the HBO thing, but my guess is that Oliver's agent negotiated some kind of a loophole with HBO so that he could go back to Comedy Central if asked. And the Daily Show is Comedy Central's flagship program. There's no way that they will replace Stewart with an unproven or unknown talent; they have too much at stake to take a chance and gamble with an unknown when they've got a proven talent who can not only do the job that Stewart does, but do it better than Stewart himself. The fact that they haven't named a replacement suggests to me that the deal isn't final, but I'm guessing that Comedy Central is currently in negotiations with Oliver.

BTK video ... of your young niece?
Or a snuff video ... of your mum?

Can't walk the walk? Then don't talk the talk!

More to the point - all copyright or ownership of the video became forfeit to the young man when he was being tortured. And it has passed to his legal hiers. So if they don't want you to watch it, or wish to remove certain portions, you do not have the right to watch or distribute it.

The only exceptions are fair use, or genuine public interest (with 'public interest' determined by a legitimate authority - like a government fighting the murderers)..

Supporters of the GPL, or any copyright-based licenses - this is particularly applicable to you.

'Washington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,' he said. 'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'"

Why not? Uncertainty drives change, and uncertainty at this point was created _by Verizon._ Granted, something had to change, because what the big ISPs have been doing is abusive at best.

Besides, it was Verizon that started this mess by trying to change the rules for its own benefit. Complaining now is just sour grapes. Enjoy your new Title II status.

Implementing your own encryption is probably the worst idea ever.

I suspect he meant "an implementation using existing encryption software that you selected yourself."

Why ... me, of course. I don't keep anything of consequence on any cloud-based storage system.