To the extent these situation are as illegal as property theft, public agencies tasked with law enforcement, like the police, are in the same position to secure your data as they are to secure your property, no?
Not when the documentation states (before the recent change) "a container never has access to credentials that are intended for another container that belongs to another task"
The point of a union, to me, is to get society to a point where you are in control of your life. You as an individual but also you as a group, regarding your origins, your gender, your sexual orientation, your skin color, or your place in the employer/employee relationship; in short, whenever you live a situation of oppression, be it small or large.
Having a lawyer helps, because it helps you fight these attacks. But larger than that, changing the situation, the society, the relationships so that you do not undergo any oppression based on your situation.
The goal, to me again, is to live in a more communal, solidarity-based environment. Telling about the genocide happening in Palestine because of their ethnicity, destroyed by their colonizer neighbor, and supporting them is totally on-topic.
I don't know that it's at all clear how successful Terraform would be if it started with a more restrictive license. I mean there is a reason why a lot of projects start out with a different license and only change to BSL once a certain level of popularity is achieved, right?
As a possible contributor, and with all things being equal (which, really, never happens), I'd prefer a GPL-based product to have my time over a BSD/MIT license, because I really want my work to remain free. A BSL-based product would have to be very important to me to make it worth for me to dedicate time to it.
In reality, the usefulness of the product and friendliness towards developers is much more important.
To sum up... AEI, an ideologically conservative, non-partisan think-tank is defending a Republican-sponsored policy by interpreting the Commerce Clause in a manner that is antithetical to conservative ideology.
> ... in a manner that is antithetical to conservative ideology. Am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing the part where this isn't particularly antithetical to conservative ideology anymore (it would have been a century ago, but not recently).
There's a common caricature of conservative ideology under which any use of federal powers to limit state powers is hypocritical. But that's not a particularly accurate depiction of conservative ideology, any more than the caricature that any use of state powers is somehow hypocritical under a liberal ideology. (If that were the case, then this push by New York and California could itself be characterized as similarly hypocritical).
In this case, both the left and the right have agreed for the better part of the last century that the federal government has this sort of power, and they have both used that power for their own respective causes at many different points in the last century. People who believe that the federal government doesn't (or shouldn't) have this sort of power are in the minority and are not a dominant force in any political party.
Again, this is a relatively new development in US Constitutional history; in 1818 or even 1918, the situation was very different; almost all the rulings that expanded the Commerce clause have happened in the last 100 years.
> If by "a century ago" you also mean "less than 2 years ago", then sure.
I probably shouldn't bother engaging with such a low-effort comment, but: no, there's plenty of precedent throughout the last 50-75 years for ideological conservatives leveraging and supporting this interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Well, I'll happily admit that I'm not guilty of doing ornate argmentative gymnastics to justify my position... I consider that a feature, not a bug, though ;-)
AEI and other conservative think tanks were throwing fits about over-reaching interpretations of the commerce clause throughout Obama's entire presidency.
AEI's current position on the commerce clause is motivated by their partisan preferences.
There is a difference between reading legacy code without empathy (sympathy? pretty sure it's empathy) and calling code equivalent of Macbeth as unreadable when Cliff's Notes would do...
Yes ("Disadvantage of this is that anyone who receives that mail will get registred without their consent if their mail client automatically shows images.").
If people do insist on using this method, they should at least add a prominent link to cancel the account in the e-mail.
But what if some random e-mail client prefetches the image and the e-mail end up never being read or whatever? This is not robust.
> But what if some random e-mail client prefetches the image and the e-mail end up never being read or whatever? This is not robust.
The whole point of not loading images is the privacy concern, so if your email client (which is any email client with any kind of traction in the past decade) offers (and defaults to) not loading images, it will indeed not hit the URL.
> The whole point of not loading images is the privacy concern, so if your email client (which is any email client with any kind of traction in the past decade) offers (and defaults to) not loading images, it will indeed not hit the URL.
Several of the clients that is listed as displaying images by default doesn't do so any more. Yahoo, Hotmail, Apple Mail, Thunderbird, Outlook Express and Entourage are among these IIRC.
Perhaps "decade" was too generous a word to use. Certainly any client that has traction today defaults to not loading images. Now, that certainly doesn't mean that there are no clients that does this, and that no-one changed that setting.
That the possibility for an email client to be so configured that it would AUTOMATICALLY process a false positive validation, makes this system utterly unusable for any developer with a [brain|conscience].
If the purpose of the validation is simply validation, then what you call a false positive isn't actually false, as the e-mail address evidently was valid.
Including a very clear "I did not ask for this" link in the e-mail would allow false positives to undo any damage done.
Just because a technology can be used for bad (and this one is indeed - anyone auto-loading images in e-mail will be flooded with spam for that exact reason) it does not imply that any use of the technology is bad.
If this is Dodd's understanding of how congressmen work, I'd like to see an investigation into Dodd's time in congress. Who wrote him checks? What kind of attention he paid in return?
