Sure, but if qualified people can end up choosing A, B, or C that doesn't mean you should start choosing at random.
Trump started with #1 and almost started a Nuclear war by inflaming tensions with personal insults. Then he switched to #2, but he's doing it on the theory that NK is giving up its Nuclear weapons, which absolutely no expert thinks that's going to happen.
Maybe what you see as random is Trump trying different tactics that he think might work. If one tactic fails to work, do you continue to stick with it? Isn't that one of the primary lesson we have learned in all the wars we have fought. For example a tactic that worked well in Iraq did not work well in Afghanistan. So instead of constantly berating Trump for the mistakes, maybe we should commend him for being flexible and dynamic. In the wall situation, he was flexible in his negotiations, while the other side was not willing to negotiate at all.
So what will happen? Either Trump will keep ignoring the situation, and give NK a deal where they're obviously cheating. Or the deal will fall apart and we'll be back to #1.
I would say at least he tried different approaches. And while doing #1 he tried to get China involved and put pressure on N Korea. And while doing #2 he tried to get South Korea involved and I think there was some hint of progress on this. I don't think it is over yet, and so I guess we will see on this one. Either way, N. Korea is a bad situation (dictatorship with nuclear weapons) and there are not a lot of good options.
So how do you explain my two original examples? Syria and the shutdown. Any informed person knew how they were going to end.
Ok, I am in agreement with you that the Trump administration made a big mistake announcing withdrawal and not preparing our Kurdish allies for this announcement and not preparing them for the Turkey army coming in. So your point on this is taken even though I agree with the overall action.
On the wall issue, it is not over yet and so I guess we will have to see what comes of it. I don't think most Democrats care about fixing the border issue (feel free to show me where they are giving credible counter proposals) and so at the very least, if Trump fails, he will have made this even more apparent to the voters. In the end, he is the commander in chief responsible for enforcing our laws and if there is a significant majority on one side of congress that does not care to help enforce this particular law, the president does not have a lot of options. Maybe you don't agree that enforcing the immigrant laws are important, but assuming you do, what option would you suggest he do instead? My guess is that Trump is not opposed to any approach that will fix the immigration problem even if he currently claims the wall is the only way. However, I have not seen any viable alternatives. The alternatives are complex or expensive; strict national ID laws; pressure Mexico to secure their southern border; fix other countries economies; more border patrol; better border technology. And I think Trump is trying these approaches to some extent. He has tried to work with Mexico to better enforce our border (and I do agree that it was probably not helpful for Trump to say Mexico will pay for the wall). He supports the Democratic Venezuela leader which if successful will probably improve the economic situation South of Mexico. He has tried to temporarily add more border patrol such as calling up the national guard.
ISIS was already collapsing when Trump took office.
It is possible that the actions Trump and his general made no difference to the eventual outcome, but the actions do seem sensible to many military experts; were counter to the previous administration generals who thought overwhelming force would backfire; and seems to have been successful.
How the bigger picture properly works is you go down into the fine details, figure out what is going on, and then you go back out and see the high level details. You then learn to figure out which of the fine details matter and which ones don't, and how to put those details together into getting the big picture right.
While I generally agree with what you are saying I think it is even more complicated. When situations become complex (war, economics, life) you will find experts disagreeing on fundamental courses of action. In the operation Iraqi freedom, it took several years for the military to eventually change their tactics largely based on John Nagl's analysis of a previous successful counter insurgency of Malaysia described in his book "Eating soup with a knife". It took a lot of failure to change the tactics and someone had to choose the right expert to follow. And even then you will get lots of disagreement on whether it worked well. In Afghanistan within weeks the enemy (Al Queda and Taliban) were broken and on the run, but somehow 15 years later with all of our Iraqi counter insurgency knowledge, following the advice of experts who said we shouldn't leave, we are still in a stalemate where Taliban openly control many areas of the country. So my point is that it is hard to find the right expert for a given situation.
Trump doesn't have a clue, he's basically just button mashing.
Despite what you and a large part of the media say, many people that have worked with Trump say he is a good listener and asks good questions and he expects you to be prepared and know your stuff. So I am not convinced that Trump is clueless, but I think that is largely what the left media and Hollywood have conditioned us to believe. With ISIS, Trump asked his chosen expert General Mathis to come up with a plan within 30 days to defeat ISIS. While the strategy did not change drastically, things did change. The military was given the freedom to take action without having to go through layers of decision makers. They surrounded the enemy strongholds and destroyed them rather than allowed them to leave. They were given latitude to work closely with their Iraqi partners. And while there may still be many ISIS terrorists left, they no longer hold any territory and they are scattered and disorganized. Now at this point, I am guessing that Trump realizes we don't want to get drawn into another counter insurgency and rather than fight a counter insurgency again, he is doing the right thing and letting the surrounding countries (Syria, Turkey, and Iraq) deal with a group that they are probably better suited to understand and deal with at that level of conflict.
The reason is that the wall doesn't really do much to stop illegal immigration, it's basically just for show.
I have not tried to investigate this issue very much, but I am not convinced. There are many experienced experts (border patrol) who say the wall helps (though it is hard to get the unbiased information on this). If you were someone trying to get in the US, would you try to go over/under/through the wall? The problem with a wall, is you don't know who or what is behind it. Also, it gives a clear intent when someone is trying to get through a wall or is on the outside of the wall on our borde side, versus someone who just happens to be minding their own business on their side of the border. It also makes it hard for someone who is using a vehicle to get across the border, you can not exactly drive through it with out causing some notice. You would probably have to coordinate with someone on the inside. It also gives something to place sensors on that would be harder to trick or give false positives.
Seriously, I don't understand this big group of his supporters who can't perceive how comically incompetent he is.
Look at Sryia, the Prime Minister of Turkey gets Trump on the phone and convinces Trump to promptly pull out of Syria without any consultation with his military causing his Secretary of Defence to resign!
Because he seems to understand the bigger picture that the US military does not need to be involved in endless policing operations around the world. And maybe Trump made major mistakes in the how the draw down was announced in this case, but it is hard to tell given that a big part of the media tries to report everything he does in a negative light. In the end the policy seems the right one to me and I am glad he is doing the same thing with Afghanistan.
And then the shutdown, he meets with Democratic leaders, "proudly owns the shutdown", gets talked out of it by his advisors who know it's an awful idea, gets talked back into it by right wing pundits riling up their audience, and then shuts down the government with no leverage and no chance of success. His only possible "out" a declaration of emergency. A plan that was just a transparent ploy by his staffers to get him to sign a spending bill and then yell at the courts for blocking him instead.
I don't like what is happening, but at the same time congress has been promising to fix the illegal immigration issue since Reagan. Trump seems to be very determined at fixing it. He is in charge of the executive branch and we expect him to enforce the laws. I am not saying it is justified that he refused to sign the funding bill for border wall funding, but at the same time we expect congress to try to help fix this problem regardless of how big of jerk Trump might be.
If I'm reading this correctly, the blame for these exploits is being squarely placed on this ThreadX RTOS thing.
I think you are reading it incorrectly and the summary is misleading. This is NOT a ThreadX bug:
From https://embedi.org/blog/remote...
So, we have 2 techniques to exploit ThreadX block pool overflow. One is generic and can be applied to any ThreadX-based firmware (in case it has a block pool overflow bug, and the next block is free).
**Emphasis on: "in case it has a block pool overflow bug"
Well, you signed up for proprietary operating system, this is what you get when you do that. This is the downside of using code you can't look at and assess yourself, or have it assessed by professionals.
ThreadX does distribute its source.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
ThreadX is distributed using a marketing model in which source code is provided and licenses are royalty-free.
I think most good parents would agree that self sufficient children make for healthy and happy members of society. Whether we admit it or not, I don't think we truly feel content unless we are reasonably self sufficient and contributing in some way that benefits society.
A better idea than UBI or welfare would be providing a basic level of shelter, food, medical care, safety, and guidance with strict rules and structure. So if you are willing to follow the rules and contribute to the community then government and society will in return provide the basics that will help you grow into a healthy contributing member of society.
At the very least I would like to see something like this tried before UBI.
One big improvement I would like to see is the operating system physically isolated from the rest of the system. In other words the OS would be in its own flash, run in its own physically isolated RAM, own cache, would have its own network stack, would manage its own updates, and would be supported through a single vendor (likely the CPU vendor). So if the rest of the system got a virus, worse case the operating system could pause all running tasks, and perform necessary steps to find and destroy a virus. Sort of like a hardware debugger. Of course it would take a significant CPU architecture redesign for this to happen.
I agree and think this is not a good direction for the USA. Political speech is very subjective. Talk radio and other news outlets are spending a great deal of money influencing the election. Why is it ok for these organizations to spend money on political issues, but I am limited with my own money unless I am rich enough to buy my own radio or tv station?
It has been all the rage to support campaign finance reform (get money out of politics!), but it has always been a bad idea because adding complex laws just makes things more complex and unfair. We should repeal McCain - Feingold because did it really make politics better?
You're mashing up the wave theory of the double-slit experiment that includes interference with wave collapse.
Superposition is another thing outside all that.
I did not say anything about the double-slit experiment and so I don't know where you got that from. I am talking about the wave function (probability amplitude) that when squared gives the probability of a quantum state. Superposition is the summation of the wave function (probability amplitudes) which is what I am talking about.
Again my point is that the Schrodinger cat does not make sense at the quantum level because as soon as a particle's state interacts its superposition has been lost. So it is strange to think of a cat actually being in an alive and dead state, but it is not strange to think of the probability to go to the dead state. Please let me know if you have evidence to suggest I am wrong, but there is only speculation to support the idea that a particle or system is actually in a superposition of multiple states. On the other hand, what I said about a superposition of probability amplitudes is actual fact.
Even at the quantum scale a given particle resolves to a specific state. I would say a particle is never in a superposition of multiple states. The only thing that is in a superposition is the wave function which yields the probability for particle to be in a given state.
When you calculate the probability for a particle to go to a new state you multiply the probability amplitudes unless the new state can happen in multiple ways and in that case you add the probability amplitudes. The case where you add the probability amplitudes is where you get the superposition (wave interference), but this is an interference of probabilities not the particle itself.
Feynman's explanation was that it was the SAME photon. i.e. There was no "spooky action at a distance."
Can you provide a reference to this Feynman explanation? This does not seem like an accurate characterization of him. Generally he avoided interpretation explanations and just stated what actually happens. Feynman was very aware of the "spooky action at a distance" and would not have explained entanglement as the same photon. He was instrumental in the path integral approach which treats the photon as taking all paths, but he is very clear that this is a mathematical construct for calculating the probability that a photon will arrive at a destination and he does not state that a photon really did take all paths.
Here is why I think your explanation is wrong.
If you send photons towards the double slit, but bias the experiment so that one slit is closer to the photon source than the other slit and you only enable the detector at the screen long enough to detect the photons that could have reached the detector via the closer slit at the speed of light, you will not see any double slit interference pattern. In other words, the waves that cause the interference appear to exactly propagate at the speed of light.
As far as I can tell, this experiment is just confirming what we have known for a long time and has the same implications as the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser). This experiment does not disprove causality. It does not rule out causality by instant (faster than speed of light) collapse. For example, in the case of entangled photons, when you measure the polarization state of one of the photons it appears to instantly effect the polarization state of the other photon (no matter the distance). It does not matter what photon you measure first, the state seems to instantly impact the state of the other photon. If this type of causality is happening, it brings back the idea of a universal clock.
Can someone point out what the consumer gains in this case by having the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission regulate the VOIP service?
By avoiding title 2, it seems like this avoids taxes and other requirements such as being forced to have 911 service. I don't have to pay an extra tax for streaming movies or television over IP, why do we want this to be different for phone over IP?
I am not sure if this is what Republicans mean by family values or what Democrats mean by "it takes a village to raise a child", but having a support group around you makes all the difference. If we really want to improve these hard luck situations we should understand why we don't support each other anymore. I suspect we do this more in small towns and is one of the reasons small towns tend to vote Republican and not to vote for Democrats and their government support systems.
It seems like cost of living problem is a much better place to focus efforts than tinkering with wage incentives. We know we should be able to create more efficient, nicer, affordable living spaces.
A simple example, is when you live with many other people you trust, there is much you can share and benefit from each other. Examples:
Take turns watching the kids.
Efficiently, cook a large meal for everyone.
Share appliances and utility bills.
Pool wages towards owning a large living space versus renting many small ones.
Treat our elderly as assets rather than liabilities; like watching the kids, cooking, cleaning, etc.
Besides, the wage thingy has become such a political hot button, and really how much do we expect to actually make things better by this tinkering?
If Mueller finds other crimes in the process, why not prosecute?
Putting aside the issue of whether Mueller should have been investigating these individuals in the first place; if serious crimes are found they should be prosecuted without prejudice.
And if Trump committed no crimes, he has nothing to worry about.
Trump tried to pay women he had affairs with to keep quiet. Normally that is not illegal, but because of the intent maybe it is. My opinion on the matter is that individuals should be free to spend our money on anything that does not infringe on the rights of others. Campaign finance laws infringes on our right to spend our money as we see fit and is already on thin ice as a law.
Trump's own party (if he is actually even a Republican) is in control of this despite Trump constantly calling it a witch hunt and "17 angry Democrats"
The Republican congress is all over the map on Trump and the Mueller investigation. Some strongly dislike Trump (e.g. Lindsay Graham and John McCain), some try to walk a tight rope (Paul Ryan), and some are vocally supportive of Trump's assertion what the FBI is doing is wrong (Rand Paul). I am sure their motivations are all over the map as well. So I don't think there is much unification or control in this matter.
There was clearly something fishy going on before Trump was even elected with his shifting stories about Putin and Russia. A person telling the truth naturally does not change their story.
I would characterize Trump as someone who speaks with his instincts like someone who is playing a sport and trying to win a game. He says a lot of things that seems very contradictory. Think of what he has said about people like Hilary Clinton, Lebron James, and Kim Jong-un. Sometimes he insults them, sometimes he threatens them, and sometimes he praises them. So yes he is shifty as heck, but that is who he is. I remember when Trump was asked about his favorite book and he said the Bible and then he was asked his favorite verse and it was funny as hell to watch him talk his way through that. So does his shifty speech really say anything about some conspiracy with Russia? I don't see it.
Many conservatives believe Mueller is out to "get Trump and will fabricate information to do so, which is ludicrous
Correction, many conservatives believe Mueller is out to get Trump and the investigation was started based largely on false evidence (the Steele Dossier). To date there has not been any evidence that has been publicly released that supports the Steele Dossier. So unless some additional evidence comes out, it amounts to the FBI going after the Trump administration based on rumors and suspicion raised from the opposition party.
Instead of finding any substantial evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, Mueller has found a mix of crimes unrelated to Russia and the election. All reports of what Mueller is doing is that he is trying to get those around Trump to turn on him and trying to get Trump on obstruction of justice for reasons like firing Comey.
So yes, it would be Ludicrous to say Mueller is fabricating evidence, but it is not ludicrous to say that Mueller is trying to trap and bring down Trump based on anything he can use to do so.
If Mueller was truly unbiased, I think he would have stuck to investigating how the Russians stole the emails and how they tried to influence the election and not gone after anyone in the Trump administration unless they had credible evidence that someone in the Trump administration asked Russia for help in the election.
You missed my point. This is not about turning things around on Reaper. My point is that Reaper or anyone on any side that is making an assertion should back up their assertion with evidence.
If you go to the information source that the article used for their assertion that fraud was rare, you would have also seen that while rare it is still cost effective according to those who run and measure the program. Here is a quote from one of employees:
"The Division also tracks savings to ensure cost effectiveness. “Using state provided cost benefit formulas, our division has proven to be very cost effective,” said Shawn Loehr, Assistant Chief Investigator. “With the smart use of technology and careful program controls, our stats validate that we are on the forefront of uncovering fraud.” For every dollar spent, the Division saves an average of $3.74."
The answer is no but, it's the political right's obsession to do it anyway because since they believe it, then it has to be true!. Facts are irrelevant.
You answered definitively no, but provided no facts to back up your position. I suggest you add your own facts if you are going to be critical of others on this.
Maybe you can explain why you think they are of the same nature.
Net neutrality is the government putting rules on how an Internet provider must operate (more restrictions). Pole neutrality is the government allowing Internet providers easier access to a public resource (less restrictions).
However, maybe you are thinking that the Internet is like the pole in that it is a public resource and net neutrality allows less restricted access to this public resource. The problem with this line of thinking is that the Internet is not a public resource, but run by many organizations both public and private. So with net neutrality you are making things less restrictive for the user, but more restrictive for the provider. With pole neutrality you are only making things less restrictive for the provider, but you are not restricting anyone.
The FCC head (I won't say his name for fear of stirring up anger), has stated that the FCC will go after companies that are not transparent with their networking practices. From their own document https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-...
A critical part of Internet openness involves Internet service providers being transparent about their business practices. That's why the FCC has imposed enhanced transparency requirements. Internet service providers must publicly disclose information regarding their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service. These disclosures must be made via a publicly available, easily accessible company website or through the FCC's website. This will discourage harmful practices and help regulators target any problematic conduct.
I can go to the most hated company in the United State and see what ports they are blocking traffic on:
https://www.xfinity.com/suppor...
I expect to get modded down for making the son of Satan look any better than he is portrayed, but I think it is better to have a discussion around facts than generalizations and political hype. Also I am just joking about the son of Satan and I am amazed at the hate directed at him. I wish someone would just explain with facts as why he is so wrong and misguided and then maybe I would understand, but mostly I just see a lot of hate without substance behind it (sometimes modded up to 5, can we stop doing that please!). I liked to read the slashdot comments to learn something new or insightful and not someone's political rant. I think there was a time when any rant got modded down, but maybe I am remembering wrong.
You gave examples of racism that are condemned by the Republican party and any significant conservative leader and most of the population.
I am guessing that you are referring to the Patrick Little who ran for senate in California as a Republican and got 18% approval of likely voters. I don't know the poll and whether the people that were polled were aware of his anti-semitic views and who these people are. I imagine you don't either. Here is a link about it https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... In the link it cites the following statement from the California Republican spokesman Matt Fleming:
Mr. Little has never been an active member of our party. I do not know Mr. Little and I am not familiar with his positions. But in the strongest terms possible, we condemn anti-semitism and any other form of religious bigotry, just as we do with racism, sexism or anything else that can be construed as a hateful point of view.
You told me to shut up, but I am not the one spewing hate.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but if qualified people can end up choosing A, B, or C that doesn't mean you should start choosing at random.
Trump started with #1 and almost started a Nuclear war by inflaming tensions with personal insults. Then he switched to #2, but he's doing it on the theory that NK is giving up its Nuclear weapons, which absolutely no expert thinks that's going to happen.
Maybe what you see as random is Trump trying different tactics that he think might work. If one tactic fails to work, do you continue to stick with it? Isn't that one of the primary lesson we have learned in all the wars we have fought. For example a tactic that worked well in Iraq did not work well in Afghanistan. So instead of constantly berating Trump for the mistakes, maybe we should commend him for being flexible and dynamic. In the wall situation, he was flexible in his negotiations, while the other side was not willing to negotiate at all.
So what will happen? Either Trump will keep ignoring the situation, and give NK a deal where they're obviously cheating. Or the deal will fall apart and we'll be back to #1.
I would say at least he tried different approaches. And while doing #1 he tried to get China involved and put pressure on N Korea. And while doing #2 he tried to get South Korea involved and I think there was some hint of progress on this. I don't think it is over yet, and so I guess we will see on this one. Either way, N. Korea is a bad situation (dictatorship with nuclear weapons) and there are not a lot of good options.
So how do you explain my two original examples? Syria and the shutdown. Any informed person knew how they were going to end.
Ok, I am in agreement with you that the Trump administration made a big mistake announcing withdrawal and not preparing our Kurdish allies for this announcement and not preparing them for the Turkey army coming in. So your point on this is taken even though I agree with the overall action.
On the wall issue, it is not over yet and so I guess we will have to see what comes of it. I don't think most Democrats care about fixing the border issue (feel free to show me where they are giving credible counter proposals) and so at the very least, if Trump fails, he will have made this even more apparent to the voters. In the end, he is the commander in chief responsible for enforcing our laws and if there is a significant majority on one side of congress that does not care to help enforce this particular law, the president does not have a lot of options. Maybe you don't agree that enforcing the immigrant laws are important, but assuming you do, what option would you suggest he do instead? My guess is that Trump is not opposed to any approach that will fix the immigration problem even if he currently claims the wall is the only way. However, I have not seen any viable alternatives. The alternatives are complex or expensive; strict national ID laws; pressure Mexico to secure their southern border; fix other countries economies; more border patrol; better border technology. And I think Trump is trying these approaches to some extent. He has tried to work with Mexico to better enforce our border (and I do agree that it was probably not helpful for Trump to say Mexico will pay for the wall). He supports the Democratic Venezuela leader which if successful will probably improve the economic situation South of Mexico. He has tried to temporarily add more border patrol such as calling up the national guard.
ISIS was already collapsing when Trump took office.
It is possible that the actions Trump and his general made no difference to the eventual outcome, but the actions do seem sensible to many military experts; were counter to the previous administration generals who thought overwhelming force would backfire; and seems to have been successful.
Perhaps he did, now here's a qu
How the bigger picture properly works is you go down into the fine details, figure out what is going on, and then you go back out and see the high level details. You then learn to figure out which of the fine details matter and which ones don't, and how to put those details together into getting the big picture right.
While I generally agree with what you are saying I think it is even more complicated. When situations become complex (war, economics, life) you will find experts disagreeing on fundamental courses of action. In the operation Iraqi freedom, it took several years for the military to eventually change their tactics largely based on John Nagl's analysis of a previous successful counter insurgency of Malaysia described in his book "Eating soup with a knife". It took a lot of failure to change the tactics and someone had to choose the right expert to follow. And even then you will get lots of disagreement on whether it worked well. In Afghanistan within weeks the enemy (Al Queda and Taliban) were broken and on the run, but somehow 15 years later with all of our Iraqi counter insurgency knowledge, following the advice of experts who said we shouldn't leave, we are still in a stalemate where Taliban openly control many areas of the country. So my point is that it is hard to find the right expert for a given situation.
Trump doesn't have a clue, he's basically just button mashing.
Despite what you and a large part of the media say, many people that have worked with Trump say he is a good listener and asks good questions and he expects you to be prepared and know your stuff. So I am not convinced that Trump is clueless, but I think that is largely what the left media and Hollywood have conditioned us to believe. With ISIS, Trump asked his chosen expert General Mathis to come up with a plan within 30 days to defeat ISIS. While the strategy did not change drastically, things did change. The military was given the freedom to take action without having to go through layers of decision makers. They surrounded the enemy strongholds and destroyed them rather than allowed them to leave. They were given latitude to work closely with their Iraqi partners. And while there may still be many ISIS terrorists left, they no longer hold any territory and they are scattered and disorganized. Now at this point, I am guessing that Trump realizes we don't want to get drawn into another counter insurgency and rather than fight a counter insurgency again, he is doing the right thing and letting the surrounding countries (Syria, Turkey, and Iraq) deal with a group that they are probably better suited to understand and deal with at that level of conflict.
The reason is that the wall doesn't really do much to stop illegal immigration, it's basically just for show.
I have not tried to investigate this issue very much, but I am not convinced. There are many experienced experts (border patrol) who say the wall helps (though it is hard to get the unbiased information on this). If you were someone trying to get in the US, would you try to go over/under/through the wall? The problem with a wall, is you don't know who or what is behind it. Also, it gives a clear intent when someone is trying to get through a wall or is on the outside of the wall on our borde side, versus someone who just happens to be minding their own business on their side of the border. It also makes it hard for someone who is using a vehicle to get across the border, you can not exactly drive through it with out causing some notice. You would probably have to coordinate with someone on the inside. It also gives something to place sensors on that would be harder to trick or give false positives.
Seriously, I don't understand this big group of his supporters who can't perceive how comically incompetent he is. Look at Sryia, the Prime Minister of Turkey gets Trump on the phone and convinces Trump to promptly pull out of Syria without any consultation with his military causing his Secretary of Defence to resign!
Because he seems to understand the bigger picture that the US military does not need to be involved in endless policing operations around the world. And maybe Trump made major mistakes in the how the draw down was announced in this case, but it is hard to tell given that a big part of the media tries to report everything he does in a negative light. In the end the policy seems the right one to me and I am glad he is doing the same thing with Afghanistan.
And then the shutdown, he meets with Democratic leaders, "proudly owns the shutdown", gets talked out of it by his advisors who know it's an awful idea, gets talked back into it by right wing pundits riling up their audience, and then shuts down the government with no leverage and no chance of success. His only possible "out" a declaration of emergency. A plan that was just a transparent ploy by his staffers to get him to sign a spending bill and then yell at the courts for blocking him instead.
I don't like what is happening, but at the same time congress has been promising to fix the illegal immigration issue since Reagan. Trump seems to be very determined at fixing it. He is in charge of the executive branch and we expect him to enforce the laws. I am not saying it is justified that he refused to sign the funding bill for border wall funding, but at the same time we expect congress to try to help fix this problem regardless of how big of jerk Trump might be.
If I'm reading this correctly, the blame for these exploits is being squarely placed on this ThreadX RTOS thing.
I think you are reading it incorrectly and the summary is misleading. This is NOT a ThreadX bug:
From https://embedi.org/blog/remote...
So, we have 2 techniques to exploit ThreadX block pool overflow. One is generic and can be applied to any ThreadX-based firmware (in case it has a block pool overflow bug, and the next block is free). **Emphasis on: "in case it has a block pool overflow bug"
Well, you signed up for proprietary operating system, this is what you get when you do that. This is the downside of using code you can't look at and assess yourself, or have it assessed by professionals.
ThreadX does distribute its source.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ThreadX is distributed using a marketing model in which source code is provided and licenses are royalty-free.
I think most good parents would agree that self sufficient children make for healthy and happy members of society. Whether we admit it or not, I don't think we truly feel content unless we are reasonably self sufficient and contributing in some way that benefits society.
A better idea than UBI or welfare would be providing a basic level of shelter, food, medical care, safety, and guidance with strict rules and structure. So if you are willing to follow the rules and contribute to the community then government and society will in return provide the basics that will help you grow into a healthy contributing member of society.
At the very least I would like to see something like this tried before UBI.
One big improvement I would like to see is the operating system physically isolated from the rest of the system. In other words the OS would be in its own flash, run in its own physically isolated RAM, own cache, would have its own network stack, would manage its own updates, and would be supported through a single vendor (likely the CPU vendor). So if the rest of the system got a virus, worse case the operating system could pause all running tasks, and perform necessary steps to find and destroy a virus. Sort of like a hardware debugger. Of course it would take a significant CPU architecture redesign for this to happen.
This seems very strange to me.
I agree and think this is not a good direction for the USA. Political speech is very subjective. Talk radio and other news outlets are spending a great deal of money influencing the election. Why is it ok for these organizations to spend money on political issues, but I am limited with my own money unless I am rich enough to buy my own radio or tv station?
It has been all the rage to support campaign finance reform (get money out of politics!), but it has always been a bad idea because adding complex laws just makes things more complex and unfair. We should repeal McCain - Feingold because did it really make politics better?
You're mashing up the wave theory of the double-slit experiment that includes interference with wave collapse. Superposition is another thing outside all that.
I did not say anything about the double-slit experiment and so I don't know where you got that from. I am talking about the wave function (probability amplitude) that when squared gives the probability of a quantum state. Superposition is the summation of the wave function (probability amplitudes) which is what I am talking about.
Again my point is that the Schrodinger cat does not make sense at the quantum level because as soon as a particle's state interacts its superposition has been lost. So it is strange to think of a cat actually being in an alive and dead state, but it is not strange to think of the probability to go to the dead state. Please let me know if you have evidence to suggest I am wrong, but there is only speculation to support the idea that a particle or system is actually in a superposition of multiple states. On the other hand, what I said about a superposition of probability amplitudes is actual fact.
Even at the quantum scale a given particle resolves to a specific state. I would say a particle is never in a superposition of multiple states. The only thing that is in a superposition is the wave function which yields the probability for particle to be in a given state.
When you calculate the probability for a particle to go to a new state you multiply the probability amplitudes unless the new state can happen in multiple ways and in that case you add the probability amplitudes. The case where you add the probability amplitudes is where you get the superposition (wave interference), but this is an interference of probabilities not the particle itself.
Feynman's explanation was that it was the SAME photon. i.e. There was no "spooky action at a distance."
Can you provide a reference to this Feynman explanation? This does not seem like an accurate characterization of him. Generally he avoided interpretation explanations and just stated what actually happens. Feynman was very aware of the "spooky action at a distance" and would not have explained entanglement as the same photon. He was instrumental in the path integral approach which treats the photon as taking all paths, but he is very clear that this is a mathematical construct for calculating the probability that a photon will arrive at a destination and he does not state that a photon really did take all paths.
Here is why I think your explanation is wrong. If you send photons towards the double slit, but bias the experiment so that one slit is closer to the photon source than the other slit and you only enable the detector at the screen long enough to detect the photons that could have reached the detector via the closer slit at the speed of light, you will not see any double slit interference pattern. In other words, the waves that cause the interference appear to exactly propagate at the speed of light.
As far as I can tell, this experiment is just confirming what we have known for a long time and has the same implications as the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser). This experiment does not disprove causality. It does not rule out causality by instant (faster than speed of light) collapse. For example, in the case of entangled photons, when you measure the polarization state of one of the photons it appears to instantly effect the polarization state of the other photon (no matter the distance). It does not matter what photon you measure first, the state seems to instantly impact the state of the other photon. If this type of causality is happening, it brings back the idea of a universal clock.
Can someone point out what the consumer gains in this case by having the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission regulate the VOIP service?
By avoiding title 2, it seems like this avoids taxes and other requirements such as being forced to have 911 service. I don't have to pay an extra tax for streaming movies or television over IP, why do we want this to be different for phone over IP?
I am not sure if this is what Republicans mean by family values or what Democrats mean by "it takes a village to raise a child", but having a support group around you makes all the difference. If we really want to improve these hard luck situations we should understand why we don't support each other anymore. I suspect we do this more in small towns and is one of the reasons small towns tend to vote Republican and not to vote for Democrats and their government support systems.
It seems like cost of living problem is a much better place to focus efforts than tinkering with wage incentives. We know we should be able to create more efficient, nicer, affordable living spaces.
A simple example, is when you live with many other people you trust, there is much you can share and benefit from each other. Examples: Take turns watching the kids. Efficiently, cook a large meal for everyone. Share appliances and utility bills. Pool wages towards owning a large living space versus renting many small ones. Treat our elderly as assets rather than liabilities; like watching the kids, cooking, cleaning, etc.
Besides, the wage thingy has become such a political hot button, and really how much do we expect to actually make things better by this tinkering?
If Mueller finds other crimes in the process, why not prosecute?
Putting aside the issue of whether Mueller should have been investigating these individuals in the first place; if serious crimes are found they should be prosecuted without prejudice.
And if Trump committed no crimes, he has nothing to worry about.
Trump tried to pay women he had affairs with to keep quiet. Normally that is not illegal, but because of the intent maybe it is. My opinion on the matter is that individuals should be free to spend our money on anything that does not infringe on the rights of others. Campaign finance laws infringes on our right to spend our money as we see fit and is already on thin ice as a law.
Trump's own party (if he is actually even a Republican) is in control of this despite Trump constantly calling it a witch hunt and "17 angry Democrats"
The Republican congress is all over the map on Trump and the Mueller investigation. Some strongly dislike Trump (e.g. Lindsay Graham and John McCain), some try to walk a tight rope (Paul Ryan), and some are vocally supportive of Trump's assertion what the FBI is doing is wrong (Rand Paul). I am sure their motivations are all over the map as well. So I don't think there is much unification or control in this matter.
There was clearly something fishy going on before Trump was even elected with his shifting stories about Putin and Russia. A person telling the truth naturally does not change their story.
I would characterize Trump as someone who speaks with his instincts like someone who is playing a sport and trying to win a game. He says a lot of things that seems very contradictory. Think of what he has said about people like Hilary Clinton, Lebron James, and Kim Jong-un. Sometimes he insults them, sometimes he threatens them, and sometimes he praises them. So yes he is shifty as heck, but that is who he is. I remember when Trump was asked about his favorite book and he said the Bible and then he was asked his favorite verse and it was funny as hell to watch him talk his way through that. So does his shifty speech really say anything about some conspiracy with Russia? I don't see it.
Many conservatives believe Mueller is out to "get Trump and will fabricate information to do so, which is ludicrous
Correction, many conservatives believe Mueller is out to get Trump and the investigation was started based largely on false evidence (the Steele Dossier). To date there has not been any evidence that has been publicly released that supports the Steele Dossier. So unless some additional evidence comes out, it amounts to the FBI going after the Trump administration based on rumors and suspicion raised from the opposition party.
Instead of finding any substantial evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, Mueller has found a mix of crimes unrelated to Russia and the election. All reports of what Mueller is doing is that he is trying to get those around Trump to turn on him and trying to get Trump on obstruction of justice for reasons like firing Comey.
So yes, it would be Ludicrous to say Mueller is fabricating evidence, but it is not ludicrous to say that Mueller is trying to trap and bring down Trump based on anything he can use to do so.
If Mueller was truly unbiased, I think he would have stuck to investigating how the Russians stole the emails and how they tried to influence the election and not gone after anyone in the Trump administration unless they had credible evidence that someone in the Trump administration asked Russia for help in the election.
Another problem is the pen discharges quickly when not being used: https://discussions.apple.com/...
You missed my point. This is not about turning things around on Reaper. My point is that Reaper or anyone on any side that is making an assertion should back up their assertion with evidence.
If you go to the information source that the article used for their assertion that fraud was rare, you would have also seen that while rare it is still cost effective according to those who run and measure the program. Here is a quote from one of employees:
"The Division also tracks savings to ensure cost effectiveness. “Using state provided cost benefit formulas, our division has proven to be very cost effective,” said Shawn Loehr, Assistant Chief Investigator. “With the smart use of technology and careful program controls, our stats validate that we are on the forefront of uncovering fraud.” For every dollar spent, the Division saves an average of $3.74."
Here is the link:
http://www.saccounty.net/news/...
The answer is no but, it's the political right's obsession to do it anyway because since they believe it, then it has to be true!. Facts are irrelevant.
You answered definitively no, but provided no facts to back up your position. I suggest you add your own facts if you are going to be critical of others on this.
Maybe you can explain why you think they are of the same nature.
Net neutrality is the government putting rules on how an Internet provider must operate (more restrictions). Pole neutrality is the government allowing Internet providers easier access to a public resource (less restrictions).
However, maybe you are thinking that the Internet is like the pole in that it is a public resource and net neutrality allows less restricted access to this public resource. The problem with this line of thinking is that the Internet is not a public resource, but run by many organizations both public and private. So with net neutrality you are making things less restrictive for the user, but more restrictive for the provider. With pole neutrality you are only making things less restrictive for the provider, but you are not restricting anyone.
A critical part of Internet openness involves Internet service providers being transparent about their business practices. That's why the FCC has imposed enhanced transparency requirements. Internet service providers must publicly disclose information regarding their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service. These disclosures must be made via a publicly available, easily accessible company website or through the FCC's website. This will discourage harmful practices and help regulators target any problematic conduct.
I can go to the most hated company in the United State and see what ports they are blocking traffic on: https://www.xfinity.com/suppor...
I expect to get modded down for making the son of Satan look any better than he is portrayed, but I think it is better to have a discussion around facts than generalizations and political hype. Also I am just joking about the son of Satan and I am amazed at the hate directed at him. I wish someone would just explain with facts as why he is so wrong and misguided and then maybe I would understand, but mostly I just see a lot of hate without substance behind it (sometimes modded up to 5, can we stop doing that please!). I liked to read the slashdot comments to learn something new or insightful and not someone's political rant. I think there was a time when any rant got modded down, but maybe I am remembering wrong.
You gave examples of racism that are condemned by the Republican party and any significant conservative leader and most of the population.
I am guessing that you are referring to the Patrick Little who ran for senate in California as a Republican and got 18% approval of likely voters. I don't know the poll and whether the people that were polled were aware of his anti-semitic views and who these people are. I imagine you don't either. Here is a link about it https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... In the link it cites the following statement from the California Republican spokesman Matt Fleming:
Mr. Little has never been an active member of our party. I do not know Mr. Little and I am not familiar with his positions. But in the strongest terms possible, we condemn anti-semitism and any other form of religious bigotry, just as we do with racism, sexism or anything else that can be construed as a hateful point of view.
You told me to shut up, but I am not the one spewing hate.