nickburns

Is that not what Equal Protection under the 14A (applied to the USG through the Due Process clause of the 5A) is for?

You seem to have pondered this metaphor at least at some length before. Me too. :)

And yes, that's certainly a plausible hurdle.

Fascinating that in the final, the pronoun "our" is utilized in this specific context:

  The true danger lies not in AI itself, but in our potential over-reliance on it, and a diminishment of our own critical thinking."

All 'unpluggable.' It's a metaphor.

You've made great points throughout this entire post. This is yet another that I've just upvoted (from having been downvoted). But in each you've been needlessly aggressive and hostile. Everyone here knows how frustrating COVID-19 can be to discuss—as is the case with most topics worth discussing. But it's less frustrating when we all implicitly agree to stick to our thoughtful great points.

Most accurately, lab leak and spillover event are not mutually exclusive theories.

oh, i counted your earlier post lol. thanks for posting all the above.

"Unfortunately, the authors did not provide details of their BLAST research. The patent database that they used contained 24,712 sequences. Yet, by querying BLAST, we obtained a database of 46,121,617 patent sequences with an average length of 560 nucleotides."

is that not relevant?

the "practical difference" is that zoonotic spillover and lab leak may not be mutually exclusive theories.

> there's a 23? bp sequence that is directly lifted from the moderna hiv vaccine patent (which preceded covid-19 by a decade).

could you cite this? not because i'm questioning the statement's credibility, but because i'm curious (and you could save me a lot of time from even knowing where to begin to look for credible information for myself—full disclosure, lol).

So it's basically a matter of figuring out what problem context can and should be selectively hidden from the algorithm in order to make it work 'smarter' and not 'harder.' Weird.

Humans created this condition for this fish. We should lament what its apparent consciousness of the world around it (constrained to tank walls of course) implies.

This is not an outcome. The legal process is but still well underway. In the United States, we abide by the rule of law.[1] That's really what separates us from China.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

In your opinion. That's not the rationale proffered in the legislation however.

I belive this is simply called 'critical thinking.'[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

How much money do you estimate you've actually saved using GasBuddy?

The former. AirPlay and Google Cast (and Spotify Connect for that matter) are not actually standards at all. They're proprietary protocols subject to change in ways and for reasons not publicly known nor disclosed. But it can typically be safely assumed that any/all changes are made in order to maximize profits.

The opposite, actually.

You're just saying words.

The traffic would obviously be encrypted. Obviously.

pfBlockerNG on pfSense does industry-standard DNSBL and IP filtering. That'd be an entirely separate alternative to what you just set up though, and quite a bit more complex.

> There is no malware on the website crazy

Reasonable minds may differ. No need for name-calling.

> I will remove all those ugly display ads as soon as we have enough income from readers and authors directly.

Doubtful.

This specific conviction upheld, yes. But no, this ruling doesn't speak to whether or not any future convictions may be overturned.

It simply means that at the trial court level, future prosecutions will not be able to rely on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule if warrantless inculpatory evidence is obtained under similar circumstances. If the governement were to try to present such evidence at trial and the trial judge were to admit it over the objection of the defendant, then that would present a specific ground for appeal.

This ruling merely bolsters the 'better to get a warrant' spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

Where? Definitely nowhere in the Western Hemisphere (excepting Chukotka and whatever else is floating out in the Pacific west of the IDL), and in maybe only half of the Eastern Hemisphere as of this very moment.

And that's 'ugh' in English. ;)

Bruh... it's Friday. And this is a post about social media participation. Not your existential waxing. You don't see any irony whatsoever in what you're spouting?

Long and winding but you make cogent points. Shit pisses me off too. Already a couple 'but, but... they consented to this when they installed it!' comments here. Those types know not what kind of corporate misbehavior they enable, nay are complicit in.

This does nothing for a mobile device that either concurrently maintains its cellular 'data' connection together with its Wi-Fi connection (and whose apps are permitted to access both)—or leaves the LAN without connecting remotely via a force-tunneled VPN. And even with such a VPN, the cellular NIC continues to maintain baked-in alternate routes on both Android and iOS. All that's before we even get into specific Pi-Hole and LAN config, not to mention DoH.

Krebs and everyone else he cites is right—it's time for Apple and Google to eliminate MAID altogether.

ETA: Do not downvote this parent! Use trustworthy ad blockers anywhere and everywhere you can!

For anyone not familiar with this methodology, it's called 'greasing the groove.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmOEgK5o2yg

1.) Carried out, that logic suggests not performing any outbound filtering because LAN hosts could simply find another way, protocol or port, out? I understand that 99.9% of LANs are configured default-allow LAN outbound. But the premise of your statement is untrue if the firewall is configured default-deny in all directions on all interfaces.

2.) I've not suggested 'blanket blocks' (nor 'blanket allows' for that matter). Specifically, both ingress and egress ICMP should be filtered by type code.

3.) In a zero trust model[1], every LAN device is untrusted. One should perform as much isolation and filtering as possible at all the relevant network layers. Network security is "disruptive" by definition.

4.) The second paragraph of my comment suggested that ping should be explicitly allowed for anyone/any device on the LAN legitimately utilizing it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_trust_security_model

What do you think about black box/IoT/whatever hosts on your LAN pinging external hosts with unknown payloads while you're not using them?

Best security practice is obviously to block any/all ping not intentionally sent by you, whoever the local network admin is, or otherwise only whoever or whatever is explicitly allowed to.