This places an absolute upper size on the alien battlefleet seeking to use Earth as a food source.

Trump's abandoned The Wall, as he found that the album doesn't mention Mexico even once, although he found the marching hammers very inspiring.

Back in the days of the Rainbow series, the Orange Book required that data that was marked as secure could not be transferred to any location or user who was (a) not authorised to access it or (b) did not have the security permissions regardless of any other authorisation. There was an additional protocol, though, listed in those manuals - I don't know if it was ever applied though - which stated that data could not be transferred to any device or any network that did not enforce the same security rules or was not authorised to access that data.

Regardless, in more modern times, these protocols were all abolished.

Had they not been, and had all protocols been put in place and enforced, then you could install all the unsecured connections and unsecured servers you liked, without limit. It wouldn't have made the slightest difference to actual security, because the full set of protocols would have required the system as a whole to not place sensitive data on such systems.

After the Clinton email server scandal, the Manning leaks, and the Snowden leaks, I'm astonished this wasn't done. I am dubious the Clinton scandal was actually anything like as bad as the claimants said, but it doesn't really matter. If these protocols were all in place, then it would be absolutely impossible for secure data to be transferred to unsecured devices, and absolutely impossible for secure data to be copied to machines that had no "need to know", regardless of any passwords obtained and any clearance obtained.

If people are using unsecured phones, unsecured protocols, unsecured satellite links, etc, it is not because we don't know how to enforce good policy, the documents on how to do this are old and could do with being updated but do in fact exist, as does the software that is capable of enforcing those rules. It is because a choice has been made, by some idiot or other, to consider the risks and consequences perfectly reasonable costs of doing business with companies like Microsoft, because companies like Microsoft simply aren't capable of producing systems that can achieve that kind of level of security and everyone knows it.

In and of itself, that's actually the worrying part.

In the 1930s, and even the first few years of the 1940s, a lot of normal (and relatively sane) people agreed completely with what the fascists were doing. In the Rhythm 0 "endurance art" by Marina Abramovi, normal (and relatively sane) people openly abused their right to do whatever they liked to her, at least up to the point where one tried to kill her with a gun that had been supplied as part of the installation, at which point the people realised they may have gone a little OTT.

Normal (and relatively sane) people will agree with, and support, all kinds of things most societies would regard as utterly evil, so long as (relative to some aspirational ideal) the evil is incremental, with each step in itself banal.

There are various (now-disputed) psychology experiments that attempted to study this phenomenon, but regardless of the credibility of those experiments, there's never really been much of an effort by any society to actually stop, think, and consider the possibility that maybe they're a little too willing to agree to stuff that maybe they shouldn't. People are very keen to assume that it's only other people who can fall into that trap.

Normal and sane is, sadly as Rhythm 0 showed extremely well, not as impressive as we'd all like to think it is. The veneer of civilisation is beautiful to behold, but runs awfully thin and chips easily. Normal and sane adults are not as distant from chimpanzees as our five million years of divergence would encourage us to think. Which is rather worrying, when you get right down to it.

Pretty much agree, I'd also add that we don't have a clear impression of who actually did the supposed rioting, the media were too busy being shot by the National Guard to get an overly-clear impression.

(We know during the BLM "riots" that a suspiciously large number of the "rioters" were later identified as white nationalists, and we know that in the British police spy scandal that the spies often advocated or led actions that were more violent than those the group they were in espoused, so I'd be wary of making any assumptions at the heat of the moment as to exactly who did what, until that is clearly and definitively known. If this had been a popular uprising, I would not have expected such small-scale disturbances - the race riots of the 60s, the Rodney King riots, the British riots in Brixton or Toxteth in the 80s, these weren't the minor events we're seeing in California, which are on a very very much smaller scale than the protest marches that have been taking place.)

This is different from the Jan 6th attempted coup, when those involved in the coup made it very clear they were indeed involved and where those involved were very clearly affiliated with domestic terrorist groups such as the Proud Boys. Let's get some clear answers as to exactly what scale was involved and who it involved, because, yes, this has a VERY Reichstag-fire vibe to it.

I would have to agree. There is no obvious end-goal of developing an America that is favourable to the global economy, to Americans, or even to himself, unless we assume that he meant what he said about ending elections and becoming a national dictator. The actions favour destabilisation, fragmentation, and the furthering of the goals of anyone with the power to become a global dictator.

Exactly who is pulling the strings is, I think, not quite so important. The Chechen leader has made it clear he sees himself as a future leader of the Russian Federation, and he wouldn't be the first tyrant to try and seize absolute power in the last few years. (Remember Wagner?) We can assume that there's plenty lurking in the shadows, guiding things subtly in the hopes that Putin will slip.

I think they are going for "reduced waiting time" and "more consistent high quality preparation", with an option for "cheaper prices" at some point (if they feel they must). It's not clear that AI will actually provide any of those things, but that's the goal.

The song will advise you to "share and enjoy", and the beverage will be almost (but not quite) entirely unlike the one you wanted.

Depends on how clearly written the instructions are. Even when the instructions are correct and unambiguous, language that is well-defined to someone with experience is often inscrutable to the newbie. (e.g. have you ever been following a recipe that tells you to "fold in" an ingredient and had to figure out exactly what "folding in" is supposed to consist of in that context?)

Traditionally your newbie barista would ask their co-worker at that point, so I'm not sure that having an AI on-hand provides much benefit unless it's faster and/or more accurate than getting a co-worker's attention would be. If it turns out not to be helpful, it will go away quickly enough.

R&D tax credits did not end. The way they are accounted was changed. IIRC, instead of being able to claim 100% of the credit in year one, you claim 20% of the credit in each of five years. This is a rolling period, so after a five year adjustment period, the credit is essentially a wash.

Your link only says, essentially, "congress should have given us more money" and not "evil mustache twirling republicans are the reason for our problems." So, I did look.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (first I could find post Dubya administration) was, indeed, somewhat contentious (most house democrats voting against the final conference bill, though the senate was less divided). I don't know why the bill was controversial, maybe it was direct funding, but I don't have the data. The FAA Reauthorization Act(s) of 2018 and 2024 were both broadly bipartisan, so I will make the (possibly poor) assumption that 2012 was about other things rather than a specific dollar amount.

From 2009-2024, the democrats have controlled the senate for a total of ten years, the republicans for six. The democrats controlled the house for six years, the republicans for ten. The democrats controlled both houses for four years, the republicans for four years. The democrats controlled the executive for twelve years, the republicans for four (and each with a two year period of full control of government, with the democrats having a ~3 month period of theirs including a filibuster proof senate majority).

So, where is the evidence of your claims that this is a single party problem? Which record should I be looking at?

Given that a Republican controlled congress (with broad bipartisan support) and a Republican president appropriated that money and manpower 22 years ago, I would say that you are the one being purposefully ignorant.

<OldManVoice> Back in my day, it was all about hot grits and a petrified Natalie Portman, and Goatse was just a giant gaping asshole without a dick shoved in it, dammit! We had CowbowNeal and polls, and we liked it that way! </OldManVoice>

As usual with your claims, [citation needed]. Floppy disks being sold today new all appear to be old stock manufactured in prior years or used, rather than rolling off a production line (and, really, "thousands per second?" If we define "thousands" in the lowest possible term (i.e. "two") that would be 7.2 million per hour, 57.6 million per eight hour shift, 288 million per five day week at one shift per day, and roughly 15 billion per year... which is triple the number of floppy disks sold per year at the peak of the market).

I agree it's worth being angry about, the problem is that blaming this on Republicans is simply bullshit. The issue appears to be the typical "bureaucracy cannot accomplish useful work" rather than the claimed "mustache twirling villains are responsible."

I'm just gonna put this right here.

Two decades ago, Republican majorities in both houses and a Republican president.