That's what I thought too, and it wasn't making sense. "How is a protocol blocking a torrent site?"
Exactly. Biometrics make even less sense because this is a clean room. Use clip on RFID tags on the end of their shirtsleeves or some other physical location that allows the RFID tag to be read while the worker is at the station.
except Natalie, of Natalie's Cakes N More bakery, is African American.
I notice that a bunch of rich white conservatives though got together to support her:
The only thing faster than the rioting, is this GoFundMe account, in which she's not only got back the $20,000 needed to rebuild her bakery, but a good year's salary in the bank besides.
by do a lot of damage, I mean completely collapse it. Most nuclear silos though are a hell of a lot deeper than 60 feet, and are built out of reinforced concrete, not packed earth.
I don't need to know so much who's supporting a candidate, because that only matters if I already know that they don't have solid beliefs themselves and are primarily just doing what their supporters want.
What politician has solid beliefs?
I'm perfectly aware of that, but if a camelback weighs 4 pounds with a liter of water in it, it's made of 1.8 pounds of nylon.
That's about the empty weight of many models. I'm referring to the complete unit, pack with bladder.
Here's the tricky thing about privacy and social networks: Facebook's privacy support is actually pretty good. Whilst people might tell you in the abstract that they want more privacy from Facebook, figuring out what they would change in concrete terms is very hard. For example, they might say "I don't want to see ads" - but given the choice, they don't want to pay for anything either. So this feedback ends up being pretty useless, equivalent to hearing "I want everything and a pony". It's not a basis for a product.
Google learned this one the hard way with Google+. The original way Google+ tried to differentiate itself from Facebook was with circles. The idea is, Facebooks relatively singular notion of "friend" doesn't reflect the way real people work, this means it doesn't respect people's privacy and so people use the product less
So - decentralised open source social networks. Not gonna work. People might sound enthusiastic when you pitch it to them in the abstract, but actually Facebook works fine for them, and the kind of privacy that matters to them (can people see who views their profile?! Can my parents see my drunken party pics?) is already well supported and tuned.
Ultimately what will do off Facebook, eventually, is a change in how people use social networking that for whatever reason they cannot replicate in their main product.
I think you know this but sometimes it's a bit hard to read tone on the internet.
HSBC processed transactions for Iran in Europe, at a time when the USA had not successfully forced Iranian sanctions onto the EU and thus they were entirely legal.
The USA did not like this one bit, because Congress had a 'fuck Iran at any cost' mentality that extended to trying to make US sanctions global. And one way they did that is by prosecuting or threatening to prosecute American employees of international banks for transactions entirely legal in both the source and destination locations. It's just empire, nothing more.
That's not "lack of diligence", that's a fundamental bootstrapping problem. CA's are meant to verify identities. If the identity you are trying to verify is not itself cryptographically verifiable, then the attempt to verify can be tampered with, but the only way to solve that is to use harder to verify identities. Which is what EV certs do, and my own experience of getting one was pretty smooth.
You might think I'm exaggerating, but even major corporations fuck this up all of the time. There is no "just choose sensible defaults and give me a secure socket" call, because if there were someone would complain that it's not secure and shouldn't be used.
Sure there is. Perhaps not in C but what did you expect? Here we go in Java:
HttpsUrlConnection conn = (HttpsUrlConnection) new URL("https://www.google.com/").openConnection();
Certificate certs = conn.getServerCertificates();
InputStream stream = conn.getInputStream();
That'll do the right thing by default.
SSL is imperfect, but that's because crypto is hard, not because of some fundamental fuckup somewhere and if only we all used the alternative protocols (which?) everything would be peachy.
Yes, but exploited browser rendering engines have been a large source of infections too. Sandboxing mobile code is just really hard. However the web is indispensable whereas Java applets aren't, so Java is the one that gets thrown out.
I suspect there isn't any way to build support for Java applets that satisfies Google's policies, therefore, they will end up being restricted to other browsers for the small number of people who need them (mostly enterprise apps).
These days the Java sandbox is actually a lot better than it used to be. Last I heard there had been no zero days this year at all. However, the Java update story still sucks, and Sun/Oracle have made Java supremely unpopular on Windows thanks to the crappy update nags and bundled adware. So nobody will be sad to see it go. Java is moving to JRE bundling for distributed apps anyway: I've written one with the new tools and it basically works like a regular desktop app, with a native installer / package on each major platform.
I should've stopped reading at 'right wing blinkers', but then I'd've stooped to an NPR level of reasoning.
I'm sure they do because countries that typically have no or weak welfare are rural, where extra hands on the farm are more valuable than the state aid.
The feminist narrative at the heart of your argument is flawed. I wasn't talking about the third world. I was specifically talking about the US system, where EBT cards are handed out to 'heroic' single mothers for the 'accomplishment' of having sex. The number one correlation for lack of maturity and success in poor children in this country is a lack of a father in the home. Then these kids grow up to repeat their parents' mistakes.
As far as 'sugar daddies' go, here in the states, the mother just waits until alimony kicks in, then divorces her 'starter husband' and the ivy league feminist indoctrinated judges award her disproportionate amounts of dad's paycheck, driving him into bankruptcy and then out of work and into debtor's prison for failing to pay. Mom, now 30ish, without any income, looks in vain for another man to latch on to (checkout dating sites for this phenomenon). Women in their 30s with children are undesirable to men who are looking for young, healthy wives to start families, so most of these women resort to fucking around on the side, purposely trying to get knocked up again so they can repeat the process.
If women want respect from and access to men's money, then they'll need to earn it as housewives while he's out making the bucks, or go out and earn their own the same way the men have to. In addition, making real life choices like the high power career OR having children, not both while expecting taxpayers and employers to prop her up, and others like her body, her right, her choice also being her responsibility, would go a long way towards earning mens' respect. This is equality of opportunity, and I have no issue with this. It's what I encourage for everyone. Until the state enforced feminist 'empowerment' is labeled as the hypocritical sexism it is, men have at least one perfectly justified reason for treating un(der)employed baby pumpers who game the system as the irresponsible dependent children they are. No one respects having to slave for another class who gets away with working less, even if it's a pauper's existence. Forcing people's hands makes them resentful. No group should be 'upsetting' any others' productive lifestyle, period, nor should the state engage in picking winners and losers.
HIV infection rate is controlled with judicious selection of sex partners. Most people, even the poor, in this country, know how to do this, but the left's insistence on destroying the family unit without suggesting viable alternatives has caused both sexes to look for sexual opportunity elsewhere, leading to dependence on the state for support, and misery on both sides.
Of course, they figure enough pressure from the poor will force redistribution..or maybe they live in rural countries where farm hands are always needed.
Just rewrite the law (abolish all the affirmative action) so that it applies to everyone equally instead of treating one side as oppressed and the other side as oppressor by default. The only way women are going to have respect as equals is if they are forced to earn it like the men.
Right. The only welfare offered by the taxpayer would be abortion and contraceptives. This way when one or both parents lose their job and the family needs assistance, they aren't encouraged to create more dependency.
People with education are smart enough to know when enough is enough, and in some cases, smart enough to know how broken DCF and 'family' court is. Welcome to the idiocracy where the uneducated and poor breed the most.