Yes, the USA did the same with Assange. The same with Chelsea Manning - she was accused of treason and basically faced capital punishment at some point. I'm grateful to Obama that he basically saved her life.
But in Russia, this is on a completely another level. Especially if you started the business in the 90s, there is no way they couldn't dig up any dirt on you.
Do you understand what you come out as someone who defends the criminals which exploited the post-USSR break-up for their own enrichment through the illegal means which often involved the deaths and murders?
No, it didn't work this way back then. In order to survive, you had to do what everyone else, for example make payments to some people. Today you can set up a business without having to deal with this shit so people have no idea what it was like back then. People who murdered others are a different category altogether.
Back in the day you needed to get onto TV and into newspaper headlines to get any attentions besides your neighbours. Today you can do that with a Facebook page and send your ideas worldwide.
And that works the back way too: instead of the news of bombing in some remote country you can't even find on the map you can get a funny cat videos to fill in.
In the 1970s everyone and their grandma was a member of some left wing revolutionary group, and half of them were working on some terrorist plot, bombing an embassy here, taking hostages there, hijacking an airplane, etc. etc. And in the 1980s every right wing reactionary had joined a right wing counter-revolutionary group, and 99% of them were plotting terrorist attacks (most of them targeting minorities). </exaggeration>
Today the cops are doing the job of the right wing counter-revolutionary groups, and relatively rarely do we get the right wing counter revolutionary terror attacks (but we definitely still do; just not as much). Meanwhile the left has pretty much abandoned terrorism as a viable tactic. It is mostly employed as part of an anti-colonial struggle of an oppressed minority sometimes under literal occupation of their colonizer’s military. But alas we only have a fraction of colonies today relative to the 1970s and the 1980s.
You declare what this is democratic. Declaring the same by a country from the other side of the planet also helps. Worked fine for a certain democratic country in 2014.
That's because people actually powered off their computer after work/leisure sessions. Someone on an unlimited night dial-up could had discovered it well before "anybody" but it's not like there was a built-in function to actually send a crash report to Redmond.
> Haven't they been telling people to do that since before it became reserved
If you actually try to find an evidence for this (even time traveling to 2015 before the great wipe of most pre-Vista docs) you wouldn't find a confirmation for this.
What you would find is what the official docs always recommended the root domain to be an official bought one on the public internet. And this excludes .local.
'Bridge' was and still is an established network term for joining two broadcast domains into one. Why the hell you decided to name your NAT'ed network layer a 'bridge'?
As far as I know, Docker uses the term "bridge" in the standard way, to designate the use of Linux bridge interfaces (basically virtual ethernet switches) to interconnect containers. Containers connect to each other via a layer 2 bridge, not NAT.
It has as much sense as calling all the car roads in the world 'bridges'. They are interconnecting some areas via a physical connection, not some 5th dimension magik, after all.
It's even more egregious with 'ipvlan' and 'macvlan' drivers:
> ipvlan Connect containers to external VLANs.
Duh, that's a 'routed network' and nobody cares if it's on a separate vlan or not.
> macvlan Containers appear as devices on the host's network.
Which reminds me that BuildKit does not have support for specifying a network which is crazy given how you can configure the daemon to not attach one by-default.
I saw a computer with 'system33', 'system34' folders personally. Also you would never actually know it happened because... it's not ECC. And with ECC memory we replace a RAM stick every two-three months explicitly because ECC error count is too high.
Nah, office building. And memtest confirmed what that was a faulty RAM stick.
But it was quite amusing to see in my own eyes: computer mostly worked fine but occasionally would cry what "Can't load library at C:\WINDOWS\system33\somecorewindowslibrary.dll".
I didn't even notice at first just though it was a virus or a consequences of a virus infection until I caught that '33' thing. Gone to check and there were system32, system33, system34...
So when the computer booted up cold at the morning everything were fine but at some time and temp the unstable cell in the RAM module started to fluctuate and mutate the original value of a several bits. And looks like it was in a quite low address that's why it often and repeatedly was used by the system for the same purpose: or the storage of SystemDirectory for GetSystemDirectory or the filesystem MFT.
But again, it's the only time where I had a factual confirmation of a memory cell failure and only because it happened at the right (or not so, in the eyes of the user of that machine) place. How many times all these errors just silently go unnoticed, cause some bit rot or just doesn't affect anything of value (your computer just froze, restarted or you restarted it yourself because it started to behave erratically) is literally unknown - because that's is not a ECC memory.
Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc#Collaboration_and...
And also it was Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_CDP-101#Legacy
But also it was Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music#1991%E2%80%932004:_...
And last but not least it was Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_technical_specific...
reply