edit: I'm in the wrong. Cloudflare allowed me to post the comment it just seemed like it was removed because of some delay.
Since it seems Cloudflare doesn't like criticisms of the cuban government on their blog I'll repost what I posted here
The paquete is censored and only contains harmless information with respect to the government. that is why they don't allow people to implement their own mesh network to create their own ad hoc internet.
Im sorry for overreacting, it seemed like it was deleted because the comment wasn't appearing even with the "awaiting for moderation" tag so it seemed like it was removed. Things relating to Cuba are personal to me.
PowerShell, or at least the concept behind PowerShel, is an improvement/superset over the Unix shells -- and can do whatever the shells can do, plus stuff they cannot do, because they don't support typed entities.
Its problems are not technical or conceptual -- they are ecosystem and historical: lack of compatible tools, windows-only, etc.
This line of thinking is wrong. You can't just short a company because you have a reasonable belief it is overvalued when the vast majority of investors think otherwise. There needs to be some event that forces the public to reevaluate their valuation of the company for the short to work.
It's not encryption vs. safety. It's functioning software systems vs safety and there is actually no conflict because functioning systems are necessary for safety.
So really the FBI director should have phrased it as "lack of encryption vs. safety".
I'm on the "encryption is a right and essential to functioning software systems" train with you. But I don't want stick my head in the sand and pretend the other side doesn't have valid points.
If all network devices were trivially penetrated by government surveillance, a hypothetical terrorist plot with a WMD has chance A of being discovered. If network devices that are impenetrable to government surveillance are used, I'm not going to argue that the same plot doesn't have < A chance of being discovered (ceteris paribus).
I happen to believe that's a good and just tradeoff to preserve the values of a democratic society, but I accept that others might think otherwise.
The US (and France, and the UK, and everyone else grappling with this that cares to pretend to be a democracy) should absolutely have a thorough, resolute discussion about our options.
If alcohol prohibition was reinstated it would probably save about 88,000[0] lives a year in the US. Between 1995 and 2014, 3503[1] US Citizens worldwide were killed by terrorism. If congress wants to save lives it could be done in a much less constitutionally suspect way. This is why I suspect that saving lives is not the true reasoning.
The same point can be made about gun control, but there are definitely "true believers" who think that limiting access to guns is the most important political issue _because_ it would save lives. There are even people who are scared of mass shootings, which have killed ~700 people in 35 years[1] in the USA. I've seen blogs use that statistic as an argument for stricter gun control! There are people who are scared of flying, when 429 people died in 2013 from aviation accidents[2] (albeit overwhelmingly in GA, not commercial). Yet these same people happily drive to work every day, even though ~32,000 died in automobile accidents in 2014[3]!
Everyone knows that humans are terrible at estimating small risks of large dangers. The really scary thing is that humans are also by-and-large incapable of updating based on that knowledge.
Prohibition stops 88,000 people from drinking themselves to death. But how many lives are lost due to the illegal alcohol trade? How many people die from drinking denatured alcohol, mouthwash and vanilla extract? Bootleg booze? Illegal distillery explosions?
If you want to know what kind of black market arises when you prohibit a popular drug, you have multiple examples from recent history to look to. Such as the drug war, and the last time we tried to 'save lives' with alcohol prohibition.
I used terrorism as my man of straw, but the same point applies to any other illegal activity that encrypted communications would help facilitate. That's not a consequence we as technical professionals can ignore if we want to win this debate.
The first step to making a convincing argument is acknowledging reality: the proliferation of hard encryption will alter the balance between individuals and the state.
Prohibition was repealed because it was an abject failure. It did not make the public safer last time, and I very much doubt this time around would be any different.
The claim that reinstating prohibition would prevent all alcohol-related deaths is simply not based in reality.
I neither said not implied anything about the anti-terror programs. I solely wanted to address your claims about reinstating prohibition, lest someone support it based on that flawed analysis.
He pointed out the parallels between the US and Free software. You have done nothing to refute any of the parallels other than some snarky comment about potatoes which wasn't worth reading.
And most importantly there are many governments that are absolutely nothing like the free software ecosystem which gives the analogy worth.
The US is as much like Free Software as anything is. That is my point. His comparison is just random fodder based on superficial commonalities.
The US is not like Free Software in many important ways:
* The US has judges. What is the equivalent of judges in free software?
* US law is based on common law. What is the equivalent of common law in free software?
* The US has elected representatives. What is the equivalent of elected representatives in Free software.
* The US is composed of states, counties, and cities? What are the equivalent states counties and cities in Free Software?
* The US has a congress. What is the equivalent in free software?
* The US has jails. What is the equivalent of a jail in Free Software?
Etc.
I could go on and on, but the point really should be obvious by now. The comparison to Free Software is weak and most importantly, unnecessary. China is just as much like Free Software as US is.
Same, any hour long competitive game is too much for me. It feels like a complete waste of time. I only have fun playing games like battlefield now for 20 minutes while listening to music.
> At that point I made a decision to change this by enforcing a new hiring rule. Next couple of new employees are going to be women up until we balance our team
IANAL but this seems like an easy case if the company has money in the bank. The CEO openly admitted on his personal blog that he plans to discriminate in the hiring process. Im guessing that would be enough to get past the chance of dismissal and then you're on to the discovery process which is so expensive the company would probably want to settle. Throw in negative PR and a pro bono (or fees from the case/settlement) lawyer who wants to make a name for themselves going after Silicon Valley gender discrimination and you've got a party.
I probably don't know what I'm talking about though.
which part of the 73 page absurdly boring John Galt monologue do you want me to quote to prove you wrong?
also, I don't care if you don't believe me. if you were really randian you would know that reality exists regardless of your belief in it, or to quote her quote of Socrates, "A is A."
I've also read and own literally every book she published, and a few published posthumously by leonard peikoff. I've considered her views extensively to see if they can coexist with mine.
You clearly misunderstood moron, I said I don't believe you because reading that book once is a painful exercise why the hell would someone that didn't like it read it multiple times? Keep your lies in check and maybe you will be convincing.
Hard? Where did I say hard? Reading for challenge is understandable, reading a bad book multiple times is just retarded. And Atlas Shrugged isn't a hard book.
I qualified my post with "fundamentalist" for that reason. Catholic schools (in the US) tend to be far from fundamentalist. They still have a religious component, but my experience has been that they generally refrain from introducing that into their science and history classes to any great extent.
Catholicism, for all its many faults, is not a fundamentalist religion. There's no conflict between their theology and the scientific method, evolution, etc. It's various Protestant sects that are fundamentalist and deny evolution, think dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark, etc.
The day I realized this was the day my Theology professor in high school asked us, "Why wasn't the Big Bang just God pressing play?"
Jesuits will survive and prosper long after movements like Quiverfull because they actually attempt to integrate modern scientific knowledge into their theology, instead of saying "well, the jury's still out on science."
I don't think Catholicism could ever have been called a fundamentalist religion. It isn't completely based on one holy book (the Bible), it's always integrated other sources and teachings, such as the bit about Popes being infallible when making certain proclamations. As such, it's always evolving as a religion. Even more, Catholicism has always taken the stance that the Bible isn't something to be read and interpreted by regular people, and that only Church authorities can really interpret it correctly, which is why they always kept Masses in Latin and never translated the Bible to other languages. This was one of the issues in the Protestant Reformation, and why the King James Bible was such an important book at the time: it was the first time commoners were able to read it in their own language.
>it's almost like it takes a 1000 years, give or take, for a religion to blow off its steam and become reasonably peaceful.
Fundamental attribution error. It took Catholicism 1000 years to blow off that steam. That does not imply that the theology of Islam will ever move past barbarism.
Since it seems Cloudflare doesn't like criticisms of the cuban government on their blog I'll repost what I posted here
The paquete is censored and only contains harmless information with respect to the government. that is why they don't allow people to implement their own mesh network to create their own ad hoc internet.