noyoudumbdolt

First paragraph of TFA says Windows Server supports BGP. But hey, I guess you don’t let facts get in the way of some anti-Windows snarky shitposting.

>2008 happened because clearly the banks do have that incentive. The only thing that stops them are the regulations.

It’s truly absurd to argue that banks have no incentive to limit lending to make sure they get paid back. The 2008 crisis proves no such thing. Banks simply made a lot of bad bets.

>Now a German tech forum it's easy to identify with one country

Sounds like you’d be disrespecting Austrians, and Austrian and German diaspora all over the world by u/michpoch’s logic.

Money creation by fractional reserve banking has been Econ 101 for longer than anyone currently alive.

This pro-piracy nonsense is a point of faith for many nerds. They will twist themselves into pretzels to avoid the conclusion that piracy is costly and that enforcement of the law can be good.

Calculus doesn’t solve this. Creating a way to solve sums of infinite series does not itself prove anything about the mechanism of the physical world. Yes, obviously motion is possible. And 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 … = 1. But that doesn’t tell you how the motion can actually go through all those steps in finite time. It might very well be that the only reason the universe works is because it’s discrete, not continuous.

UAC offers almost no additional security for single user systems. You’re trying to protect your data and passwords and stuff, not the ability to install device drivers.

>I am not going to make the trojan writers job easier.

The Trojan writer now targets systems with UAC, since it’s the default and the vast majority of systems, so you’re not gaining anything. And he never needed an elevated token in the first place.

Take them outside and shoot them.

Almost all the bad things you’re worried about don’t require an elevated token. I’m much more worried about someone stealing my data, installing a trojan, etc. (none of which require elevation) than installing a device driver (which does).

This obsession with not running as root/using UAC is just cargo cult security for single user systems.

>Compromising an user account is a necessary step to get there, often enough.

But whether you have an elevated token or not won’t make a difference in almost all cases.

First, a bit of pedantry: UAC is not a security feature. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20160816-00/?p=94... . It just works to encourage developers to make their software work without an elevated token. The security feature is Windows administrator accounts running apps with non-elevated tokens by default.

Protecting local administrator tokens is also kind of a useless security feature these days. What are you worried about? Data theft? Ransomware? Trojans? Credentials theft? All of those can be done just fine with only standard user permissions, without an administrator token. OTOH, you need an elevated token to install device drivers or whatever.

>Both my Range Rovers are converted to run on propane

What is the downside to this? Obviously availability and ease of filling is part of it, but any other downsides?

I bet half the organists at Catholic churches are gay.

No need to worry about statute of limitations. He sold them a license to use it in the game, in exchange for $20,000.

Please name one platform where this is the case.

I'm skeptical there's a single C compiler out there that makes the first two behave as expected but not the third. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the real oversight is that the standard meant to say all three, or that the authors thought it implied.

The Fourth Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. And it does not require warrants in all cases. There have always been exceptions to the requirement.

>civil asset forfeiture and absolutely no protection against unlawful seizure.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even putting the specifics here aside, that's not how civil asset forfeiture works. If the government seizes your assets, you can force them to go to court, where they have to establish to a preponderance of the evidence that the seized property was the proceeds of illegal activity. That's the same standard that anyone seeking to sue you and take your money has to meet.

Poor legal reporting by CNN, but it sounds like DOJ was worried that these shares might fall under a bankruptcy exception somehow and end up in SBF's hands, clear of the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. If so, this move makes sure the victims, not SBF, get this money.

:'(

The Great Filter is obviously correct. It eventually becomes trivially easy to make civilization-ending pathogens and weapons, even accidentally. And there is always a deranged grad student or hubristic scientist willing to pull the trigger.

501(c)3's are some of the most political organizations out there. The only thing they can't do is be directly involved in electoral politics. But social influence and ideologically driven work, that's totally fine.

Like I said, I'm including capital gains income in my figures. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in your first sentence. Capital gains are taxed lower because, in theory, that income was already taxed at the corporate tax level, since capital gains come out of corporate profits. Wages, on the other hand, are a corporate expense, so they're exempt from the corporate tax. This whole thing is somewhat broken by the corporate tax being easily avoided for large corporations. But anyway, this whole thing is an aside and irrelevant.

Look here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Uni... . The Top 1% is the small bright pink part of the furthest right bar. You can raid them at 50% tax every year if you'd like, but that's not going to make a big difference.

The French Revolution was an evil thing. Its horrors exceeded anything that the ancien regime could even fathom doing. And in any case, the situation isn't comparable. The average poor American is overfed and lives a life of comfort that the rich of 200 years ago could only dream of.

The top 20% is household income over $109,000. That's not the ultra rich by any means.

This is how every guild in history has operated. Every profession when it controls the supply of its own members seeks to limit it. The AMA can only furnish the weakest of excuses for this practice. They say it has to do with federal funding for residency programs. But there's no reason for residency programs to need federal funding at all. They generate more value for hospitals than they cost to run.

The vast majority of the profits from those industries are not going to the ultra-rich either. They mostly go to pension funds and 401k holders.

The focus on the ultra-rich is an obvious political ploy. In every western country with a more socialistic arrangement than another, the taxes on the middle class are inevitably higher. And the salaries for high-skill positions are also depressed to begin with, due to legal/social arrangements that force more egalitarian pay scales. You can't get what you want by just taking the income/wealth/whatever of the tippy-top.

Not a broken premise at all. The focus on the ultra rich is mostly just a political ploy since it's easy to villainize extravagant wealth. But the vast majority of income (I'm including capital gains in this) is made by the middle class and wage-earning upper class, not by the ultra rich. If you take all the wealth of the ultra rich and distribute it evenly, every person would get a one-time, nice, but not life-changing check (somewhere between $70k and $150k). And then next year everyone is mostly back where they were before except you can't raid the ultra rich again since you just wiped them out.

It’s pretty obvious why the doctor’s guild would prevent more medical school spots from being available.