Try bandcamp.

Here, I'll start you off with some premium grade-A smokey music. Nope, that's not marijuana (though if that's your thing, it should still work out for you). Inhale again and you'll realize it's mesquite. I suppose the two are similar, because smelling this music gives me the munchies, except I don't wanna settle for anything less than slow-fuckin'-cooked brisket.

Name one country that doesn't mind its military bases being photographed every couple of months and being published for anyone to look at.

If Google is photographing your bases and publishing it, the problem isn't that they published it. The problem is that Google was able to successfully photograph it.

If Google can photograph your base, then your adversary can too. And Google is almost certainly doing things in the nicest way possible, obeying laws, not generally willing to put up with planes being shot down as merely an inevitable cost of business, etc. A real adversary doesn't have those constraints.

Attempting to censor Google is symptom-treating, and really, it's to a comical degree. It's way out there; this isn't merely "slightly stupid." This totally reeks of closing barns doors after horses have gotten out... except that there will be an update in a few months and of course they'll want that blurred too,because they still haven't closed the barn door. It's more like they just don't want people talking about the barn door, that they have already decided they're never going to close.

YOUR HORSES ARE OUT, NUMBNUTS!!! WE ARE LOOKING AT YOUR BARN DOOR BECAUSE IT'S HYSTERICALLY FUNNY THAT YOU KEEP LEAVING IT OPEN, not because we want to steal your horses, which aren't in the barn anyway. If the horses were really still in the barn, then you would have shot down the photographer.

Hitler is already a proven election-winner. That's not a fair alternative to Trump. Put up a more hypothetical name, please.

And maybe what both parties need to get out of the trench warfare that they currently have as well.

Maybe, but maybe not.

The parties only hear two language: votes and money. Whatever they're doing, appears to be working for them (contrary to what you suggest, that they change). You write that it's bad, but on election day I think they are going to hear that what they did was good.

You're giving a treat to the dog (and saying "bad dog") every time he barks, and kicking him (and saying "good dog") whenever he sits and cutely wags his tail. Guess what kind of dog you're going to have.

The only good news I'm seeing in this election, is that somewhere around 10-15% of voters have finally decided to stop actively supporting and approving them, compared to single digits in previous years. But a strong majority still approves, applauds, and rewards.

I think the election night numbers are going to show: Clinton and Trump were excellent choices, America's top two favorites. Prove me wrong, America. I don't care what you say to me; I'm watching to see what you say to them and everyone else.

Aw man, I liked this guy too. Until I saw that video.. What a fucking idiot.

"How's that supposed to work? Are they supposed to be dragged from their homes..?"

Uh, yes. That's how it would work for me or anyone else if we were wanted for a crime and refused to cooperate. We'd be dragged from our homes. Now why are a specific group of people supposed to be treated differently?

This clown either drank the PC kool-aid, or he's owned, just like the majority of them.

Thanks for the link, btw.

Seriously? I'll answer your question with a list:

• The murdered scientists at space station Regula
• The Enterprise crewmen killed in the battles
• Captain Terrell and Chekov both got Ceti-Eeled. While Chekov got out alive, I'd like to hear you explain to Terrell's widow how Khan didn't bear any responsibility for what happened.
• The taxpayers, for both the cost of Reliant, and the cost of Genesis, which was wasted in an uncontrolled "test."

If he'd focused his revenge on just Kirk, that'd be one thing, but as Kirk himself pointed out, there was a lot of totally senseless collateral damage.

Fuck Khan. This one asshole set sapiens-superior relations back decades.

Khan was an asshole. Granted.

But suppose, just hypothetically, Khan hadn't repaid Captian Kirk's hospitality by attempting to steal his ship and murder him. Would you hate him then?

EU law was written by the EU. Article 50 is a mess, there was an interview with the guy who wrote it where he said he didn't bother doing it properly because he thought it'd never be used.

in the end, security is a pain in someone's ass

Lack of security is a pain in someone's ass too. What we need, is to merge these two asses. One ass: all the pain. Then you can get the correct tradeoffs.

"New Microsoft Malware Poses as Operating System"

When they talk about the "user experience" they mean someone who is buying ads, not the person who is posting "Look what Hillary Trump said last night" every day. Think in terms of Facebook's customers.

Knowing who is talking to whom is an important part of Facebook's marketing. Look at how Facebook targets and consider item #19 in that article. It's not just about who you are, it's about who you know. Whether you think this is a good idea for Facebook or not, it is what they do.

User A and user B are friends in real life, use Whatsapp, and have Facebook accounts -- but they're not "friends" on Facebook (maybe they only use Facebook for work, or something like that). (Or maybe they don't have Facebook accounts, but Facebook has profiles on them gathered by "like" buttons, and has some way to deliver ads to at least one of them.) They communicate with each other using Whatsapp. This lets Facebook connect the two profiles, even though within Facebook alone, they are unconnected. The result: Now user A can see shopping ads for user B's upcoming birthday.

The advertiser has a good products experience.

No, they're not dropping that veneer.

Saying you compete with someone, isn't the same as saying you're the same kind of business. e.g. courier bikes, courier pigeons, telegrams and email can all compete with one another, but work differently and might have really good reasons for being regulated differently.

(BTW, I'm not taking a position about how Uber should or shouldn't be regulated; I'm just saying that there is nothing about their reaction which implies they're admitting anything.)

Oh, so you're manually inspecting the self signed certificate every time you visit your website? If not, then how do you know nobody is intercepting your communication, making your self signed certificate as useless as having no encryption at all.

No, and he didn't imply that. Here are several situations, in increasing order of security.

1) The connection is not encrypted or signed. No certs exist. Nobody knows who they're talking to. An active attacker on the network between the two parties, can proxy and impersonate each side. A passive attacker, someone who just gets copies of the traffic, while they can't impersonate, can at least read what everyone is saying. No warning.(?!)

2) The connection is encrypted, but with unknown parties' public keys. Certs exist but are essentially worthless. An active attacker on the network between the two parties, can proxy and impersonate each side. A passive attacker, someone who just gets copies of the traffic, can't read anything. DANGER! DANGER! FREAK OUT!!

3) The connection is encrypted, and if you believe certain faceless parties who are totally unaccountable to you and who you don't know anything about, you think you probably know the other side's identity. Active attackers can't do anything, unless they're active enough to coerce or trick the CA. Passive attackers can't read anything. No warning.

4) The connection is encrypted just like above, but the CA pinky-swears that they really tried hard to make sure. Green URL bar.

5) As case 3 or 4, but multiple CAs, which might be hard for a single attacker to simultaneously coerce or trick, have all signed the cert. We don't have this in our browsers yet; it's early 1990s level tech that we're still waiting for.

6) As case 3 but the user has verified the identity through a different channel. No trusted introducer was needed. The cert need not be signed at all, or might be signed by the user himself. No warning, but also no green URL bar. (Yet, this is the very best-possible case, definitely more secure than any other.)

See anything wrong here? Scenarios 1 and 2 have their warning severities reversed. (And there's also a UI defect at high degrees of security, too, but that's less important.) This trains the use to think of warnings as not necessarily meaning increased severity or risk. A user will adjust to this by ignoring warnings. This is bad communication, and it's making us all a little stupider.

What you should do is add your known self signed certificate to your local certificate store, which means that the warnings will stop

He's talking about a situation where it's not known. Adding it to the local store would be inappropriate. That would be an attempt to treat scenario 2 as scenario 6, just to get around a UI bug. It'd be much better to just fix the bug.

Maybe they're our guys, maybe they're not.

Country A is full of citizens, businesses, and government orgs which routinely depend on working computers and networks. Country B is similar, but a little behind, because they're not as wealthy.

Both countries' citizens, businesses and government orgs pretty much run the same code. Same OSes, same big applications, etc.

For the most part, everyone's computers run pretty badly, and outages and various fuckup are frequent. Criminals in both countries are very happy with the situation. Both countries have a pretty easy time with espionage, but a nearly impossible problem with counter-espionage. Everyone can attack, but hardly anyone seems to be able to defend.

Well, they're about the same, but not exactly. In Country B, due to the lower tech, more people use cash, more things are done low-techy, etc. Computer crime isn't quite as easy there. Fewer government systems (both civilian and military) are vulnerable to cyber-attack simple because they're not as computerized. Fewer businesses depend on networks. The airlines' schedules in Country B are run by a guy who has a big notebook, but Country A has an airline schedule that's run in some datacenter.

A group of nerdy people figure out part of the problem with everyone's fucked up computers. Turn out, there are bugs in popular software. Sometimes the symptoms just happen (bad luck) and sometimes they are exploited by adversaries.

The nerds have to make a decision: "Do we tell software industry about the bugs and have them fixed, so that everyone (both our country and the other country) get a defense advantage? Or do we not talk about the bugs, thereby preserving everyone's attack advantage?"

The group of nerds chooses the latter, opting to not have the bugs fixed.

Tell me this: judging from the nerds' actions, which country do you infer they working for? Who has more to win or lose from the computers continuing to work so badly?

I wish they still made those Warwick Davis Leprechaun movies. They could totally have an olympics one, where he dissolves some gold thief in the pool. OMFG, gold thief! The Leprechaun could be in the olympics, and he's pissed that other contestants are winning "his" gold medals. It's perfect; the movie writes itself.

But the last two (no, the last three, but especially the "Hood" ones) totally sucked, so I understand why they don't make 'em anymore. My friends and I were so pissed that the "Hood" ones sucked; within just a few minutes of trying to get over our disappointment after watching the first one, were were making up limerick-raps way better than anything in the movie. Those bastards put in so little effort in the end, and why they made "back 2 tha hood" I can't begin to imagine. Sigh.

So anyway, Warwick, tell your agent that you're up for doing another, but only if they'll do a good job, like in Leprechaun 3 (total classic, best of the series!).