Slashdot Mirror

List of spacewalkers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Reads down to 1984. Soviet Union and the USA have done that.

NSA Playset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wonder what TINYALAMO software with BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) and allowed keystroke surveillance and injection did?

It would be fair to apply Hanlon's razor. Companies are quite often sloppy with security.

For additional context, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... just references "human behavior".

It isn't clear if you [Tabilizer] mean Microsoft, Huawei, or any just company that does something so stupid it seems malicious. Like Boeing in today's news.

As regards the narrow topic of fake vulnerabilities versus real mistakes, in previous variations of this topic I have suggested some of the desired features a planned security attack should have. Being implemented in visible code is NOT one of them. If the vulnerability can be discovered (as this one was), then only fools would rely on security by obscurity.

(1) "Security by obscurity" is widely regarded as a dead horse.

(2) Does anyone regard Huawei's engineers as a bunch of fools who would try to ride a dead horse?

We cannot completely rule out the possibility that it was a deliberately implanted flaw. In such a case, it would only be natural to limit the development team, increasing the likelihood of a "flaw in the flaw". In this story, a "flaw in the flaw" that led to detection. However it would be extremely foolish if Huawei had not subjected the code to careful scrutiny by a large team of experts, because Huawei knows that ALL of its code is going to get expert scrutiny.

BtW, I believe that most of the desired design-level features to support effective security breaches would be to create ways for attack code to be added only when needed and in ways that would cause the attack code to disappear if any suspicion was aroused.

Actually, I am an electrical engineer, I've designed many power systems, and it's quite obvious. for anyone with first year EE or physics.

First, start with a primer on air core transformers.

Then check a simple model and experiment (which confirms the model) to see what kind of coupling you can get. See slide 5 about the coupling factor.

Now learn about how coupling factor - leakage inductance - affects efficiency.

Lastly, add in the permeability of the core material - steel versus air - and it is quite obvious why an air core transformer will never be as efficient as a steel core, let alone a connector.

You don't want to believe it, fine. Physics says you're wrong. Go talk to your local EE professor and ask them if an air-core transformer, with a wide separation of misaligned coils, will be more efficient than a direct electrical wired connection. Learn for yourself.

Speaking of broken moral compasses, here are Friedman's own words comparing Social Responsibility (basic American Ethics) to Totalitarianism:

Friedman argued that a company should have no "social responsibility" to the public or society because its only concern is to increase profits for itself and for its shareholders and that the shareholders in their private capacity are the ones with the social responsibility. He wrote about this concept in his book Capitalism and Freedom. In it he states that when companies concern themselves with the community rather than focusing on profits, it leads to totalitarianism.

As far as your hokum analysis of Keynesian Economics... it only looks like theft if you have no idea how to contribute to a society and the role that taxes play in that. FYI, the people who bankrolled Friedman were they same robber baron families that broke the economy in the Great Depression and then got really butt-hurt when they ended up paying higher taxes due to the New Deal.

Ultimately Keynesian economics recognize that our economy is Demand-Sided and the only way to pull the country out of the depression was to put money into the hands of consumers.

Speaking of broken moral compasses, here are Friedman's own words comparing Social Responsibility (basic American Ethics) to Totalitarianism:

Friedman argued that a company should have no "social responsibility" to the public or society because its only concern is to increase profits for itself and for its shareholders and that the shareholders in their private capacity are the ones with the social responsibility. He wrote about this concept in his book Capitalism and Freedom. In it he states that when companies concern themselves with the community rather than focusing on profits, it leads to totalitarianism.

As far as your hokum analysis of Keynesian Economics... it only looks like theft if you have no idea how to contribute to a society and the role that taxes play in that. FYI, the people who bankrolled Friedman were they same robber baron families that broke the economy in the Great Depression and then got really butt-hurt when they ended up paying higher taxes due to the New Deal.

Ultimately Keynesian economics recognize that our economy is Demand-Sided and the only way to pull the country out of the depression was to put money into the hands of consumers.

Then I am sure that you know that Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics were pivotal in redefining business ethics as being, "Enhancing shareholder value", as opposed to supporting their workers, communities, countries, etc..., which chucked old-timey American Values into the ditch and traded them for a set of beliefs that encourage the masses to contendedly accept that a few people will own everything.

So, aside from being brilliant, are you also fantastically wealthy, or just another rube who drank Friedman's kool-aid?

The idea of using links as votes was valid only until everybody found out. In other words, Goodhart's Law.

"Parents" are completely irrational and can be motivated by fear into many untenable positions, read up on Think of the children, which has been used to pass horrible policy for decades, if not centuries.

Holy crap, I somehow forgot this age-old wisdom... damn it. Thank you for the reminder. I've been killing myself because the CFL light in my bathrooms are a REAL BITCH to change. They are part of the vent system, and I have to literally unhook the entire fixture, bring it down, unhook again, unplug the electric wires, then bring the whole thing outside to pry the lightbulb out and replace. I've broken at least one bulb because it is so hard to get out. All the while, I fanatically turn them off ASAP thinking I'll make them last longer. O_o

Wikipedia backing you up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The life of a CFL is significantly shorter if it is turned on and off frequently. In the case of a 5-minute on/off cycle the lifespan of some CFLs may be reduced to that of incandescent light bulbs.

And this guy:
http://www.robaid.com/gadgets/...

And here:
https://richsoil.com/CFL-fluor...

They do that by design. If LED lightbulbs don't have an MTBF similar to old incandescent bulbs then the manufacturers stand to lose a lot of money. So they are intentionally made like crap. Everyone thought that with LEDs we wouldn't have to change lightbulbs anymore. That was naive. Incandescent bulbs can last much longer than what we were used to as well. But there is no money in it

Just looking at a standard 60 watt replacement soft white Cree led light bulb, they have a 10 year 100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty https://creebulb.com/warranty/
There is no possibility of this being sustainable with a mtbf similar to the old incandescent light bulbs (about 1000 hours) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If you really believe what you are saying you'd be short selling Cree stock like crazy, and somehow I seriously doubt you are.

Freedom only functions for those that do what they should do.

Used to be, people were free to do whatever laws didn't specifically forbid. You seem to advocate that people should only be free to do what the laws specifically allow. That's not freedom. That's a cage.

the words "narcissist" and "sociopath" come to mind

Yes, people who behave in non-approved ways clearly have psychiatric problems and, for the good of society, need to be treated - preferably in isolated places where they don't risk to infect the general populace with their madness. There are some great precedents too.

What the actual fuck?

You used to be able to buy long-lasting incandescent bulbs for slightly more and they did last longer.

They were also less efficient.

During ordinary operation, the tungsten of the filament evaporates; hotter, more-efficient filaments evaporate faster. Because of this, the lifetime of a filament lamp is a trade-off between efficiency and longevity.

Considering things like this and the renewable portfolio standards, the desire to leave is understandable. Countries like France and Sweden which are already near carbon-free, are being forced to deploy ineffective and costly renewables, increasing both emissions and costs. Germany has spent hundreds of billions chasing unicorns, and their carbon intensity remains near flat at more than 10x that of France, with electricity nearing twice the price. Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power; instead Germany is a model of failure that the EU is forcing on their other member states.

I see you are grinding your Social Credit.

For the same reason that cartridges replaced black powder weapons in general: convenience.

Powder and ball wrapped in paper is called...?

This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming,

Actually, the location and size of a glacier is a good indicator of the average of local temperatures over many years. We call this "climate."

You're right that this is only one spot on the earth, which neither proves or disproves *anything* about global climate. However, the same observation of glacier retreat are made all over the world.

It sounds to me from TFA that Sussman annoys other editors until they do any editing that he is prohibited from doing. It sounds to me like an opportunity for automation, in the vein of CongressEdits. Find who he converses with on User:Talk pages, correlate it to edits by those users, and report the results.

Only a lying wanker like you would go to eligible voters and not just to those that voted. Fact is, that he got 46.1% of the popular vote which is close enough to 45%.

Go back to your bog.

It was also a time of enclosing the commons. The rich discovered they could pass laws making common areas private, and they did this in a large way, forcing many farmers off the land, removing the little wealth they had and forcing them into the city where there was basically no work available.
6.8 million acres enclosed between 1604 and 1914 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Losing your livelihood, even if it was subsistence farming, was getting poorer and one of the reasons that the industrial revolution was a nightmare for the majority for generations.
Things didn't really get better until the workforce was reduced in size, child labour laws removed a lot of labourers, shorter work weeks spread the labour around, for a while, women were moved from labourers to stay at home moms. Wars also created a lot of demand.
There was also large amounts of emigration (both forced and voluntarily) to countries with lots of basically free land.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Being from the US it's tempting to make a "freedom of speech" argument, however since this is Australia I won't even go down that path. Looking at it from a purely logistical standpoint - how on Earth is a company supposed to suppress LIVESTREAMS of "extremist content". Even a human reviewer won't know what's going on until sometime specific happens.

The best they could ever hope for would be to just have a really good user reporting system but even with that you're not going to stop the first group of people from seeing it. All this will do is enforced is basically to make tech companies simply not allow livestreaming. And heck even outside of livestreaming for something like Youtube they can't possibly human review all uploaded content to know if it's against the rules.

To me, whether there's nefarious motive behind it or sincerely good intentions, this seems like a governmental push to get us back to the 1950's era of curated content only coming from official sources, rather than people actually sharing information among themselves.

Despite all that, this is is still a free speech issue.

This is prior restraint of speech issue that goes at least as far back as 18th century England, so it does apply to Australia.

And Australia is turning it's back on free speech.

No worries. We'll employ them writing articles about how robots are going to take all our jobs away.

Half can do that, and the other half can write about economic fallacies.

If automation really caused job losses and impoverishment, Western Civilization would have collapsed in the 1800s, and countries like Ethiopia and Afghanistan that wisely avoided the "productivity catastrophe" would dominate the world.

Actually, in the meaning of copyright infringement, perhaps since 1603 and the 1886 Berne convention mentioned it by name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What has change is that "piracy" meant for profit copyright infringement until recently when referring to peer to peer sharing.
Me, I was taught that sharing was good and showed a positive character.

needs something like the Locomotive Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
To cover the speed of operation of your new modem in terms of mph (mp3 per hour)

In France, spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed at the La Hague site, where the remnants are temporarily stored into the permanent underground repository. La Hague reprocessed 1700 tonnes of fuel per year.

France has a project to permanently store long-life nuclear waste 500 metres below ground in impermeable clay in Bure, eastern France, but the plan has not yet received government approval and is strongly opposed by local groups and environmentalists.

Piracy has been going on since dial up modem times.

Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The earliest documented instances of piracy are the exploits of the Sea Peoples who threatened the ships sailing in the Aegean and Mediterranean waters in the 14th century BC.

[ Perhaps they had *really* long landlines ... ]

There's been an MLG arena in Columbus Ohio for years.

As someone from Columbus, even our MLG arena wasn't the first.
The Nexon Arena in South Korea is also dedicated to gaming and beat us by almost 2 years, opening the end of 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexon_Arena

Even at the time the Nexon Arena made a big deal branding themselves as the first stadium dedicated to esports built by a game developer

I never bothered to look into it but that makes it sound like they weren't the first either if you drop the "by a game developer" qualifier.

And don't forget, your tax dollars are going to a country which has its own version of apartheid.

Proof of this? Seriously, I have seen this presented as "fact" without any actual proof.

The BDS movement was started by Omar Barghouti. Yeah, he is a victim of "apartheid" all right, since he went to "Tel Aviv University." I guess that they forgot about their apartheid when they admitted him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I have a friend in Israel. He has Muslim friends, and tells me that one of his friends won't get an Israeli citizenship -- because if he does, he will not be allowed into many neighboring countries, like Syria. So, it is Israel's neighbors that are trying to discriminate against people.

Yes, the Palestinians have a rough time. But that is because they keep on trying to kill Jews. What do you expect, for the Jews to just say "murder as many of us as you want?"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25...

When you make absurd statements, please be prepared to be called out on them.

Basically you're switching from a 100% efficient cable to 80% efficient wireless.

Problem:
1. As LynnwoodRooster identified, cables aren't 100% efficient themselves.
2. The 80% efficiency is for the entire charging circuit, and is a false number. I'm seeing numerous examples around 90%.

Of course, the ideal isn't to just look at the "wireless link" and assume all other parts are still present and the same loss. It's better to look at the loss from the input on the charging 'station' to what the vehicle receives. Most charging stations have extensive electronics, after all. Inductive chargers allow some of the loss to be "shifted" to the inductive link, as the link itself remains ~90% efficient.

This seems highly unlikely.

I know not all wealth is stock, but a lot of it is. The top 10% of the population hold 76% of the wealth.

The skew away from stock for the richest would have to be extreme for the middle class to hold 50% of the stock.

The 50th=90th percentile hold 23% of the wealth, so they'd have to be holding 3x as much in stock relative to the top 10% to be holding 50% of the stock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Since, "The exception proves the rule is a saying whose meaning has been interpreted or misinterpreted in various ways," it may be helpful to let us know how you think that phrase is used.

Some acquired changes can be actually passed via gene methylation, chemical switches that can enable or disable genes without changing the sequence of the DNA. This changes sometimes are acquired and sometimes can even be passed to the next generations without being being reset. But this isn't about complex skills and memories.

Well, there are two challenges. One is storing the stuff permanently, but the other is transporting the waste and putting it into the permanent storage. Much of the opposition to facilities like Yucca Mountain have been around the transportation issue. That's what they can celebrate having demonstrated success with now.

There are nuclear flasks (which we've had for decades) which can withstand any abuse. "For a second test the same flask was fitted with a new lid, filled again with steel bars and water before a train was driven into it at high speed. The flask survived with only cosmetic damage while the train was destroyed." Read that again, we parked this thing on a railroad crossing and drove a train at full speed into it and the flask only has cosmetic damage, while the train was destroyed. Is that safe enough for you? We have solved these engineering problems to any reasonable degree of certainty. This is about obstructionism, not reasonable objections.

For your readability pleasure... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This drops the energy efficiency of EVs below that of ICEs.

The EPA lists the Nissan Leaf at 30 kWh per 100 miles. This is energy stored in the battery. Getting the energy into the battery involves a charging efficiency of about 80% (i.e. only 80% of the electricity coming out the wall socket makes it into the battery, the other 20% becomes waste heat). Transmission over power lines is about 95% efficient. And electricity generated from coal plants is about 37% efficient, about 58% efficient for natural gas plants. Split the difference and call it 47.5%. So to move an EV 100 miles requires (30 kWh) / (0.8 * 0.95 * 0.475) = 83.1 kWh = 299 MJ worth of fuel if you're generating the electricity from fossil fuels.

The Nissan Versa hatchback (ICE equivalent to the Leaf) uses 2.9 gallons of gasoline per 100 miles. Gasoline has an energy density of 34.2 MJ per liter, or 129.5 MJ per gallon. So 2.9 gallons holds 375.4 MJ. Making the ICE vehicle slightly less energy-efficient than the EV (uses about 25% more energy than the EV).

Wireless inductive chargers have been built over 90% efficient in labs, but the typical chargers in commercial production are only 75%-80% efficient. That moves the EV's 299 MJ per 100 mile energy consumption up to 374-399 MJ per 100 miles. Meaning the EV consumes more energy than an equivalent ICE vehicle to travel the same distance.

Norway can get away with it because they get almost all their electricity from hydroelectric. But this idea won't work in countries heavily reliant on fossil fuels to generate electricity (most of the world). The EV still gets the advantage of being able to better filter out particulate emissions at the power plant using big effective filters, instead of poor transportable filters at the tailpipe of every car. But it would result in EVs generating more CO2 per mile than ICE vehicles, defeating much of the purpose of switching to EVs.

This drops the energy efficiency of EVs below that of ICEs.

The EPA lists the Nissan Leaf at 30 kWh per 100 miles. This is energy stored in the battery. Getting the energy into the battery involves a charging efficiency of about 80% (i.e. only 80% of the electricity coming out the wall socket makes it into the battery, the other 20% becomes waste heat). Transmission over power lines is about 95% efficient. And electricity generated from coal plants is about 37% efficient, about 58% efficient for natural gas plants. Split the difference and call it 47.5%. So to move an EV 100 miles requires (30 kWh) / (0.8 * 0.95 * 0.475) = 83.1 kWh = 299 MJ worth of fuel if you're generating the electricity from fossil fuels.

The Nissan Versa hatchback (ICE equivalent to the Leaf) uses 2.9 gallons of gasoline per 100 miles. Gasoline has an energy density of 34.2 MJ per liter, or 129.5 MJ per gallon. So 2.9 gallons holds 375.4 MJ. Making the ICE vehicle slightly less energy-efficient than the EV (uses about 25% more energy than the EV).

Wireless inductive chargers have been built over 90% efficient in labs, but the typical chargers in commercial production are only 75%-80% efficient. That moves the EV's 299 MJ per 100 mile energy consumption up to 374-399 MJ per 100 miles. Meaning the EV consumes more energy than an equivalent ICE vehicle to travel the same distance.

Norway can get away with it because they get almost all their electricity from hydroelectric. But this idea won't work in countries heavily reliant on fossil fuels to generate electricity (most of the world). The EV still gets the advantage of being able to better filter out particulate emissions at the power plant using big effective filters, instead of poor transportable filters at the tailpipe of every car. But it would result in EVs generating more CO2 per mile than ICE vehicles, defeating much of the purpose of switching to EVs.

This drops the energy efficiency of EVs below that of ICEs.

The EPA lists the Nissan Leaf at 30 kWh per 100 miles. This is energy stored in the battery. Getting the energy into the battery involves a charging efficiency of about 80% (i.e. only 80% of the electricity coming out the wall socket makes it into the battery, the other 20% becomes waste heat). Transmission over power lines is about 95% efficient. And electricity generated from coal plants is about 37% efficient, about 58% efficient for natural gas plants. Split the difference and call it 47.5%. So to move an EV 100 miles requires (30 kWh) / (0.8 * 0.95 * 0.475) = 83.1 kWh = 299 MJ worth of fuel if you're generating the electricity from fossil fuels.

The Nissan Versa hatchback (ICE equivalent to the Leaf) uses 2.9 gallons of gasoline per 100 miles. Gasoline has an energy density of 34.2 MJ per liter, or 129.5 MJ per gallon. So 2.9 gallons holds 375.4 MJ. Making the ICE vehicle slightly less energy-efficient than the EV (uses about 25% more energy than the EV).

Wireless inductive chargers have been built over 90% efficient in labs, but the typical chargers in commercial production are only 75%-80% efficient. That moves the EV's 299 MJ per 100 mile energy consumption up to 374-399 MJ per 100 miles. Meaning the EV consumes more energy than an equivalent ICE vehicle to travel the same distance.

Norway can get away with it because they get almost all their electricity from hydroelectric. But this idea won't work in countries heavily reliant on fossil fuels to generate electricity (most of the world). The EV still gets the advantage of being able to better filter out particulate emissions at the power plant using big effective filters, instead of poor transportable filters at the tailpipe of every car. But it would result in EVs generating more CO2 per mile than ICE vehicles, defeating much of the purpose of switching to EVs.

Actually, I was just checking up on this, it seems that inductive charging tends to be most wasteful at under 100W, and more efficient above around 5kW. EV charging being closer to 5kW than 100W....

That said, you have the problem that universal standards themselves tend to be cludges and thus slightly less efficient, but a wired charger might not encourage people to use them as much as wireless as they'd require the driver to not only get out to hook them up, but they'd have to remember to get out and unhook before driving away. While with a wireless they just pull up to the proper spot and everything else is automatic.

Would also be more compatible with driverless systems down the road, as it is easier to make an AI car pull into a wireless charging station and line everything up correctly than it is to add a robot to plug the wire in.

I'd be careful with presuming that there's extra inefficiency with inductive charging.

For example, Cleantechnia

says,

Wireless EV charging is just as efficient — or more efficient — than plugging in. Most people think they have to plug in an electric car to get the most efficient charging possible, but that’s not true. No charging method is 100% efficient. Conventional chargers are typically 88% to 95% efficient. Wireless charging is right in the middle of that range at 90% to 93% efficiency. That means it does as good a job of transferring electricity from the charger to a car’s battery as most conventional charging equipment that uses a cord.

This is largely because a wired charging system still needs to use a transformer to match voltage to the battery, while with a wireless charger, the inductive loop IS the transformer.

Even wikipedia notes that inefficiency is primarily a problem for systems under 100W, and becomes inapplicable over 5 kW. Which is interesting that it is more efficient to plug our small devices - IE smartphones and such, in, but better to charge our huge devices (electric vehicles) wirelessly.

Even worse, this is a "pilot plant". It's basically in beta testing. The production version was never completed.

We're celebrating 20 years of perpetual beta.

"the land and people are just TOO large and spread out for mass transit to really work." = Bullshit from a fountain of it.

" NYC is having more and more problems with their aging subway systems," Built in 1869, most things require maintenance and reinvestment. Your education may vary.

"I"d rather have my own modes of transport" = Unrelated disjointed non sequitur.

You don't get a say, this is representative government, we elect people to speak for us. Don't like it? Move back to Moscow and bribe your way through life, you dumb cunt.

Sorry, we just don't take the whims of uneducated faggots like yourself into consideration in planning mass transit infrastructure projects. You don't matter dumbass.

So, the way I see it, India has huge social problems .. you know, like gangs of people raping women on buses.

To me, India demonstrates a really scary fact about humans .. that we're all just barely above animals, and all of our talk about being enlightened and moral is just window dressing.

Video games isn't the issue here, but the fact that humans are barely above the level of barbarism, especially when you factor in archaic bullshit raping women in retaliation for crimes of male relatives.

Indian society, and indeed all human society, is at any point only just barely above the level of complete barbarism.

Huh? What do you know, Brits really don't consider referendums this way. My mistake, different country different customs it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Neural Network", "Deap Learning", "Watson" etc. are just vacuous marketing terms.

No they're not, well not the first two. If you can put it down in code, they're not vacuous.

A NN is a combination of dot products and nonlinearities forming a universal approximator.

Since you just read the link you now know that a NN of infinite width and one hidden layer is a universal approixmator in the mathematical sense. Deep learning usually refers to networks that are deeper than the depth required for universl approxiation (it happens that they're uch easier to optimise). It also is used to refer to networks which have no feature detection preprocessing stage and so for which every part is used in the optimiser.

Just because you've only heard the terms used by vacuous marketing types, don't be fooled. Deep learning is a real thing as are neural nets. Go and speak to a practitioner in the field.

I'd read the Foundation Trilogy first, or at least the first book, before reading the robot novels. The robot novels are mysteries, but the Foundation Series is a must-read about the cyclic rise and fall of civilization

Sealed indictment :An indictment can be sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested or has been notified by police.[13]

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sealed-indictment/

An indictment is a formal accusation of a felony, issued by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). It is the grand jury's determination that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial voted by a grand jury. In order to issue an indictment, the grand jury doesn't make a determination of guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it and that he/she should be tried. District Attorneys do not present a full case to the grand jury, but often only introduce key facts sufficient to show the probability that the accused committed a crime.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment of a Grand Jury." . Therefore grand juries are often used in charging federal crimes. However, states often use a "preliminary hearing" held by a lower court judge or other magistrate in place of a grand jury to determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence that the accused has committed a felony. If the judge finds enough evidence that the accused committed a crime, the case will be ordered to be sent to the appropriate court for trial.

A sealed indictment an indictment that is sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested.

The following is an example of a federal rule dealing with sealed indictments:

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.

Sealed. It means it's not opened yet. Even a retarded Republican traitor can understand how this works, one imagines...

The campaigns who funded the research, both Republicans and Democrats, hoped to learn how to campaign against Trump

That is a lie, and you know it. It was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and the Washington Free Beacon - a new site, NOT a campaign - hired Fusion GPS for some intel but it was not the Steele Dossier.

Quit lying.

Not remembering a secondary detail isn't a lie.

The Washington Free Beacon wasn't affiliated with a specific campaign but they were "anti-Trump", and they were paying for opposition research on Trump.

Steele didn't show up until after the DNC started paying the bills. But he was hired because the research initially funded by the Beacon, and later by the DNC, picked up evidence of Trump/Russia connections.

Maybe because right up until Election night, the Democrats were 93% certain to win the whole thing? Why use it and open up the can-of-worms

Really? Not even when Comey re-opened the email investigation days before the election?

Any why create a fake dossier when there were so many legitimate Trump controversies to dig into? Instead of a story line that keeps supplying dirt and hurting Trump (ie, TrumpU) you end up with a story line that fizzles out with no evidence and discredits all your legitimate dirt.

, especially since it did its job to get the FISA warrants to spy in the first place...

Uhhh, I won't accuse you of lying... but surely you now remember that Carter Page was first subject to a FISA warrant in 2014. He was a target again in 2016 because he kept having contacts with Russian Intelligence recruiters.

Soo.... you claim that the dossier, that has generated massive news coverage, wasn't leaked because the press would find it uninteresting???

It wasn't news. Unsubstantiated allegations aren't news. Buzzfeed published it. They have zero standards.

Read Rathergate for the last time someone tried a similar thing before an election. It ended several careers.

To which I repeat the question... why write a fake dossier to win an election if you're not going to leak it?

He wrote it because the Hilary campaign paid him to write it. Maybe they thought they could use it. Maybe they thought they could get an investigation started and the investigators would find something real — they didn't.

Hopefully we will hear testimony under oath about it.

How this type of scheme could be worth a free movie ticket is beyond me. But, I suppose some people will do anything.

Anyway... yep... Black Mirror season 1 episode 2 "Fifteen Million Merits" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...