... says the guy posting on a forum during work hours.
... says the guy posting on a forum during work hours.
you're dumb enough to esteem the judgment of a guy who hired someone dumb enough to take money from foreign sources and not report it
Oh, you're referring to the guy THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION gave a security clearance to in 2016, following a review of his business dealings in Russia? That guy? One of the reasons he didn't get even more scrutiny while being considered for that job was the fact that the previous administration had just vetted him post Russian involvement and considered him worthy of an unsponsored security clearance. Which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can spew your usual phony ad hominem. Thanks for tending so carefully to your ongoing hypocrisy display. Continue!
And yet the software you are complaining about is MS Word. That is consumer software. To me, this just seems lime more "MS should be held accountable for everything because I don't like them," crap.
You can have that however you have to accept a few things:
1) Costs are going to go way up. You aren't going to pay $50 or $100 for a software package, it'll be 5 or 6 figures. You'll be paying for all the additional testing, certification, and risk.
2) You won't get new stuff. Everything you use will be old tech. You'll be 5-10 years out of date because of the additional time needed to test and prove things. When a new chip or whatever comes on the market it'll be a good bit of time before it has undergone all the validation it needs to be ready for such a critical use.
3) You will not be permitted to modify anything. You will sign a contract (a real paper one) up front that will specify what you can do with the solution, and what environment it must be run in. Every component will have to be certified, all software on the system, the system itself, any systems it connects to, etc. No changes on your part will be permitted, everything will have to be regression tested and verified before any change is made.
If you are ok with that, then off you go! The way I know this is how it goes is that we have shit like this, we have critical systems out there and this is the kind of shit they go through. They are expensive, inflexible, and out of date compared to the latest mass market shit. If you look at the computers that control a fighter plane or the like you'll be amazed at how "dated" they are. Well they are that way because development took a long time and once they are developed, they continue to be used, they aren't changed often.
Now if that's not ok, if you want the free wheeling environment we have now where you can buy new tech when you like, put things together in any configuration, and run whatever you want that's cool, but accept that means problems will happen. You cannot have it both ways.
Oh and also with that critical stuff:
4) There will be no FOSS. If there's liability for losses, nobody will be willing to freely distribute their work. They aren't going to accept liability for no payment, and aren't going to accept that if their code was used by someone else they might be liable.
Turns out research shows that a non-trivial amount of happiness in your life is related to your commute. Long commutes, particularly by car, lead to less happiness.
It's one of the few things the EPA does that's useful and efficient. Setting a national standard is well within the things that government should do. Compared to all the really wasteful things they do this should certainly be kept.
Except it's the manufacturers that self-report their own idea of efficiency, essentially self-awarding themselves this meaningless label. You'll recall the famous experiment where someone sent in an Energy Star application featuring their design for a gasoline powered alarm clock. Which was of course granted Energy Star status, not only sight-unseen, but obviously without even a moment's critical thinking on the part of whatever bureaucratic clerk is holding the exact job that Trump very reasonably considers a waste of your taxes. If consumers want a real standard, they should embrace something the Underwriters Laboratories standard for safety. Privately run, and rigorous.
This is simply another fail policy; fact checking of late has be shown to to be biased.
Of course it has. And Hilary Clinton is a Reptoid from the Hollow Earth and Donald Trump has been negotiating with gray aliens for the cure to cancer. Do not believe the people who tell you these are not facts. They're biased.
That is another huge determining factor. The big cost is laying the infrastructure. The kind doesn't matter so much. So, if you are doing new deployments, fiber is more likely. The cable company here is all FTTH all the time for new build outs. However once that shit is deployed a replacement is a lot of money that you'd rather not spend. So they are less inclined to do it.
Well new developments also tend to not be low income. Usually middle and upper class is what they target. No surprise then that is where you see more of it.
There are plenty of rich neighbourhoods where I live with no fibre. The one right next to me is a good example. About 2 blocks away, and they have the same cable and DSL offerings I do in my cheap condo. Neither the telco nor cable company feels there's enough money to be made in ripping up and redoing the lines in either place, despite the fact that those houses are almost all 7 figures.
Go out in to a new subdivision though, and it is usually FTTH.
Also when they do rip things up and replace, of course they target the rich places since those people are more willing to spend the money. Offer someone low income the option of $100/month gigabit or $20/month 1.5mbit and they will likely go with the 1/5mbit. Ya it is way more per bit and annoyingly slow on the modern Internet, but it gets the job done and $80/month is a lot in the budget of someone low income.
You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news.
Nah. It's well understood at this point to mean, "People using widely consumed platforms to spread information they know is incorrect, and doing so while presenting those lies as facts." So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news. You know they are, their informed audience knows it's fake, and some small number of non-critical-thinking dolts take it as fact. But it's fake news. Click-bait factories in Eastern Europe are NOT the only or even a predominant source of this. Most of it comes right out of mainstream media habitats right in the US.
It is the easiest way to make money there.
It's true. When an operation like MSNBC spends an entire news cycle hyping the fact that their head fake-news-talking-head is going to "release Trump's taxes," when they know perfectly well they have no such thing and will do no such thing (except a readily available snipped that - even by itself - undermines their own narrative)
Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent
Ah, a "just doing my job" apologist...
I am still curious about the real story behind his absence from comedy.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken