No, I think you're the victim of Poe's Law, not its perpetrator.
No, I think you're the victim of Poe's Law, not its perpetrator.
If not being heartless is being a leftist, then I'm leftist. Letting children die so you can become even more filthy rich is just pure evil.
This is a drug that costs less than ten bucks to manufacture that stops children from dying a horrible death from a severe allergy. Charging six hundred bucks for it is beyond criminal and wel into Evil with a capital E. Satanically evil.
If taxes are punishment then the rich need their taxes tripled after all the unpunished evil they've done so far this century. The poor are being punished enough - by the rich. If having to pay for roads and bridges is punishment, then having to pay for food and water is, too.
As a Christian, I have no problem with taxes (Mark 12:17). Of course, if you worship mammon rather than God, taxes would indeed be punishment.
The Convenience Rollup is kept on my keyring USB stick as its just soooo much easier than dealing with a system that may not have had a patch on it in years.
And as far as these new crap "mega updates"? Just turn off Windows Update and use WSUS Offline which last I checked is doing just as you described and grabbing the manual security updates, only you get them nicely bundled with a script that will install them all (and do any reboots required) and shut down the system, hassle free. I highly recommend it.
Well, since the figures I've seen bandied around are that protection from this level of attack would be about USD100-200K per annum
Google offers it free to all journalists.
If I understand this correctly, Akamai threw Krebs out because Akamai could not handle the DDS. This means I'm never sending any business to Akamai because they can't handle it properly. But it doesn't mean Krebs is off the air for long.
For example, I bet Cloudflare would take him on. They've differentiated themselves on the ability to handle DDS.
There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.
Why does it boggle the mind? Most of the Android revenue is licensing. Google doesn't have a lot of cost when it comes to licensing.
I think most of Android's revenue is from the Play store, not licensing. In fact, I don't think Google charges anything for the Google apps, and it really couldn't charge anything for Android, since it's open source.
No, he's saying it's not real, those numbers are purely speculative "valuations", like Uber's 60 "billion". They are pure fantasy. Google is just squeezing investors.
How is Google using secret, unpublished numbers to squeeze investors?
Maybe Krebs should talk to Google about getting on their Project Shield
It's wishful thinking to suppose that a more technically advanced civilization would be more peaceful and tolerant.
I don't think so, for two reasons.
The first is that our own history is one of increasing peace and tolerance. If you don't believe this, you should read Stephen Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature". I won't attempt to restate his arguments here, but there's very compelling evidence that we've become dramatically less violent and more tolerant in step with our increased technology.
The second is that advanced technology is impossible without extremely high levels of cooperation. For one example, the massive, interlocking global supply chains that are needed to produce all of our more advanced technologies today (such as the computer I'm typing this on or the phone sitting next to the computer) are mind-bogglingly complex and involve a significant fraction of the world. Broad negotiation and cooperation requires empathy, the ability to understand the minds and goals of both your collaborators and your opponents, and that same empathy slowly -- but inevitably -- results in discomfort with violence and suffering.
Indeed, we've become uncomfortable with violence to and suffering of even non-human creatures. Up to the 19th century cat burning was a popular mass entertainment in much of Europe. They'd hang a sack full of live cats over a bonfire, or douse a cat in oil and light it's tail on fire and chase it through the street. Although there were people who found these activities distasteful, the vast majority found them hilarious. Today, that would be reversed, and the vast majority would call such "entertainment" sick. In many jurisdictions, such animal cruelty is a felony.
It's clear that we're rapidly proceeding further down this road. We devote large areas of land and resources to preserving other species. Vegetarianism and veganism are on the rise, and I expect that within a few decades we'll have good cultured meats and that we'll virtually cease killing other animals for food. As the human population declines (it's rising towards a peak but will then begin to fall) and our wealth increases we'll be better able to indulge our empathy and go ever further to minimize future killing and we'll work hard to try to repair the damage we've done to other species.
Your argument is that it seems likely that advanced alien species would have followed much the same course that ours did. I agree, I think it stands to reason they'll have followed that course to become very peaceful and tolerant, particularly if they have achieved FTL travel which should completely eliminate any need to compete for resources. To reach the stars (assuming that's possible) will require openness and scientific inquisitiveness that are incompatible with violence and subjugation, and make them unnecessary.
Which is why folks like Einstein worked so hard to find alternative theories and disprove quantum theory.
Albert Einstein was one of the co-founders of quantum mechanics. Indeed, he arguably created the field when he originated the idea that energy can exist only in discrete quanta in his paper on the photoelectric effect, for which he received the Nobel prize. He never tried to disprove quantum theory. He was uncomfortable with some of the implications, particularly quantum entanglement, and spent a lot of time seeking a way to fix quantum theory so that it would obey his notions of locality, but he never tried to disprove it.
How is this any different from Whedon forming a super PAC and using his Hollywood connections to shill for it?
Lets be honest folks, there really isn't an upside this round. On the one hand you have the most corrupt politician this side of Richard Nixon that has promised more wars and to flood this country with refugees ala Germany (didn't work out so great for them, did it?) and on the other hand you have a reality TV star that spends his time tweeting memes...ugh.
Yeah, sell the fiber network to Pinetops for $1 and then they can hire Wilson to run the net.
That would require that there be a legally entity "Pinetops" to do the buying. If it's an unincorporated area, there isn't. Of course, the residents of Pinetops could create a corporation "Pinetops Internet", or something, and have it buy the fiber network. Assuming the state law doesn't prevent that somehow.
"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer