Comment Hardly surprising (Score 1) 161
But I'd rather have choice and the freedom to buy hardware that suits my needs & budget than be stuck in a golden cage.
But I'd rather have choice and the freedom to buy hardware that suits my needs & budget than be stuck in a golden cage.
Google moving the deadline up and saying "because our own quantum tech is progressing faster than we thought"* sounds like using one of their branches to spin another.
* Paraphrased
I think what he meant to say, is that if Lewinsky had been a decade younger (12 instead of 22), then nothing would have happened.
Assuming it's remotely true (and there's good reason for thinking it isn't), it still means the FBI director was negligent in their choice of personal email provider, that the email provider had incompetent security, and that the government's failure to either have an Internet Czar (the post exists) or to enforce high standards on Internet services are a threat to the security of the nation (since we already know malware can cross airgaps through negligence, the DoD has been hit that way a few times). The FBI director could have copied unknown quantities of malware onto government machines through lax standards, any of which could have delivered classified information over the Internet (we know this because it has also happened to the DoD).
In short, the existence of the hack is a minor concern relative to every single implication that hack has.
This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
You don't get to pick and choose what people post (with some obvious exceptions like fraud or csam), while also claiming immunity for the stuff you couldn't or wouldn't.
Exactly, thanks for the excellent example. That's the kind of statement that nobody ever explains, but always presents as pure axiomatic dogma.
I do think that you might have revealed a clue in your unusual phrasing, though. You said "claiming immunity for the stuff you couldn't or wouldn't" but how can there ever be any possibility of liability there? If your computer denies someone else's request to publish something, what liability is there to be immune from?
Yeah, what kind of idiot would think of using the internet to make money on porn?
Count the number of "former" intelligence officials on his company's board.
Then search for the many photos of him mouth-kissing his father and son (RIP).
They use both carrots and sticks to control compromised people.
I took mine apart and there were two separate display modules for the 4K screen with ribbon cables I didn't recognize so I just put it back together and stuck in an HDMI streaming stick flashed to LineageOS.
I got one around 2008. They were the best of the non-premium 1080p HDMI screens at the time.
The one I got had slightly better test review scores on display quality than the LG that year. The Sony was 20% better for 3x the price.
It lasted about twelve years and by then a bigger 4K with much brighter colors was half the cost in nominal dollars, so probably 1/4 the cost in real terms.
And by then cheap flashable streaming sticks were available as was pihole and fairly easy outbound NAT rewriting rules to keep the beasts contained.
Mozilla has realized that AI is going to kill search and when search dies Google won't keep giving Mozilla the money it needs to stay above water. So now Mozilla is scrambling to find an AI business model that users don't hate. Goodbye Mozilla, it's been a fun couple of decades.
Investment bankers in New York are absolutely aware of how much time they spend working. They know that they slept on a cot the last two nights, have eaten delivery for their last twenty meals, and cannot remember what their friends look like. Which is why most of them quit and leave New York in two years or less. I can only imagine that the software timer is there to push the weak ones to quit sooner and not get a bonus.
so will Mila Mozilla.
What about the Strait of Hormoooz?
A well regulated militia would be one that was well trained and equipped
Excuse you? The entire reason for the Second Amendment was that the government could NOT equip enough militia. Your premise is extremely flawed.
Excuse you? The right to keep and bear arms ensures that the government does not have to equip the militia, the citizenry owns their own equipment. Many states required law that the citizenry own said equipment, the specifics of what the militiaman should be equipped with being enumerated in law.
The (federal) Militia Act of 1792 states "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."
But, sure, my premise is extremely flawed.
I've looked at the listing, and it's right! -- Joel Halpern