The problem is that the current president has shown no signs of reversing damage that the last administration had done and is starting to add more things which may or may not be bad on top of that. I don't consider opposition to the government expansion that Bush did to be an extreme position. Nor criticism of state spending habits when the maintenance of bridges and roads take a back seat to everything else. Bush exploited the power given to him through government; he was a warning sign that something is very wrong with the system.
I think you'll find that the people who actually make the decisions are decidedly not strictly anti-government types. They're whatever benefits me at the moment types and if weaker government furthers that then they'll push for it and if stronger government furthers their goals, they'll push for that. Everyone to some extent is the same way, they try to further their own interests in the ways that they can. The problem comes when the two major power groups feed off of one another and screw the populace. The lesson here is that concentrated power in both its major forms is generally dangerous.
I always found it odd that people are pushing for more government when they've just been victimized by the last one. Massive corporate welfare, war and rampant waste. Bush was one of the greatest examples of government gone wrong and people actually believe that more of that is a good thing. These corporations are using the power of government to rob the people. Bush wasn't anti-government. After all, his administration passed the patriot act, instituted torture, started two wars, began a massive trillion dollar bank bailout, increased spending more than LBJ... What did he do exactly that makes people believe that he in any way represented the view that "government doesn't work." If anything, it's one of the examples of government that doesn't serve the people by violating rights and through sheer incompetence.
welds, even properly done welds, tend to be significantly weaker and more brittle than a typical solid piece of unwelded material. The subsequent temporary fixes that they tried failed before they were designed to which suggests that they may not have built in enough redundancy on the structure as they should have. It could just be a case where they over-estimated the strength of these welds and decided to cut a few corners on the design its self.
Of course, P2P software is entirely at fault for this incident
No it isn't. Any document of importance should be encrypted. Anyone who has access to sensitive files is responsible for securing those files. That includes making sure that the system they are accessing these files on does not share these files because of a setting in file sharing software.
Most of the problems with ATMs that I've heard of involve hacking into the system, and utilising social engineering attacks. Electronic voting machines have had problems that go far beyong those: *social engineering attacks *weak physical security to the point of being able to access the machines' innards with a hotel key *federally illegal code used on sequoia voting machines leaked to the public *errors in tabulating votes sometimes in the thousands There are more but I think I've already made my point. The string of failures and bafflingly simple errors in basic security of these voting machines leads one to wonder just how much corruption has overridden technical prowess in the making of these machines. They can do it right, there is just a huge incentive not to.
The simplist explanation is that corruption is the problem not the technical aspects of these voting machines. These errors wouldn't be tolerated with ATM machines because the public seems to care a lot more if their bank account is fraked with but not so much their vote for some reason... That's the only real way to clean up the corruption; get the public to put real pressure on the entities involved in the voting process.
An unrestricted "capitalist" economy is anarchocapitalist not a free market. Some restrictions on "freedom" are necessary; for example, most societies restrict one's freedom to kill or defraud others. That doesn't mean that that society isn't free, in fact those restrictions mean the difference between a shattered country like Somalia and pretty much anywhere else with the vaguest sense of individual rights protection. btw I am a supporter of competition; the GPL, BSD, MPL and other open-source licenses just happen to be very effective tools in stimulating innovation through robust competition. If there was a license that was comparitively free and more efficient at stimulating innovation in the software market then I'd support that as well.
I never claiemd that it was ok, I did say that the punishment if any should be up to the court trying the civil case. Personally, I think copyright law has become a liability for society. It's nigh unenforceable for small acts of infringement and is becoming a very major reason why corporations are lobbying governments to crack down in such a way to protect corporate interests. To me, the whole system looks a lot like the drug war; just as unwinnable and is also harmful to those who can not put up the legal fight that larger corporations can.
How about not punishing people who presumably have not been found guilty of breaking the law? If they broke the law and were found guilty, they'd be subject to the ruling of the court. If they haven't been found guilty or for that matter given no trial then the whole thing is a violation of due process.
The government's fundamental purpose is to at least restrain individuals from harming other individuals. Anything less than that is not a free market by its very definition. A free market is not anarchic in nature but is instead the minimum intervention required to protect individual rights against various forms of violence. Environmental damage like this is a perfect example of a case where the government must intervene on behalf of those whose rights were abused. You are arguing against corporatism which is a perfectly reasonable position to have on the matter.
I don't buy that excuse. If Hulu couldn't make enough from ad revenue overseas then they should offer a paid subscription. They have no shortage of people trying to see what they offer and I'd bet that by continually making efforts to stop fans from accessing the site from outside the US they're only encouraging people to go elsewhere, even piracy.
Well actually it does, it's just that media corporations aren't getting the message. They fought tooth and nail to maintain their control at every step in the advancement of media technology. The problem is that there are no technical limitations preventing these shows from going global, it's purely limited by the media corporations' need for control over their media. People can still access these shows through other means, they jsut aren't legal means. Which is really too bad; the media companies had an opportunity to expand the reach of their media to a world-wide audience and they can't think past their fears of piracy and supposedly low revenue opportunity from doing so.
Because Clearview was created by a bunch of people that know what they are doing.
That is no deterrent. Many programs are made by reasonably intelligent people who "know what they're doing" software is complex, especially for something like this.
Because Clearview is likely to be a much smaller target than the monitored software packages.
Why? Antivirus programs serve a very similar function and yet they are under attack all the time.
Because Clearview is not directly connected to the web.
neither are other programs that have exploitable flaws.
Because Clearview may not even be easily detectable.
You could say the same for other programs. It's naive to believe that Clearview is a magic bullet here, every program has flaws and a flaw in this program could prove disastrous.
Plus there's no expectation that FedEx would (or should) have access to the *contents* of your mail, but an ISP-hosted email account, currently, does have full access to the content, with your tacit approval.
So does the phone company regarding your phone calls. That doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If the programs that Clearview is monitering/patching are the target, wouldn't it make sense for an attacker to focus on Clearview first? Perhaps even alter its function to serve the purposes of the attacker instead of the user. Why attack the programs it is patching when you could hit Clearview and gain the ability to hijack everything it is patching?
None of the sources I've found on the subject have any real information beyond what TFA says but by the sound of it, a nuclear thermal engine is likely.
given a proper genetic repair mechanism, improved and redundant cell cycle regulator genes and telomerase then sure, you could increase human lifespan. These cells only need to replicate themselves to replace damaged cells so hardening cells against genetic damage in of its self significantly reduces the need for the cell divisions that degrade the telomeres in the first place.
every time a cell divides, there's a chance that the DNA won't get copied quite correctly. The error rate is around 1 in 10^9 for humans and varies from species to species. The more times the cell divides, the more errors accumulate. Immortalization doesn't just switch off the damage as it seems that you are thinking that it would. It just means that the number of times the cell can divide isn't limited by telomere length any more.
That telomeric shortening does not occur in many different species. They age just like every other species does. But that is all beside the point. You can't just shut off aging just by fixing the telomeres; aging is a much more complicated problem than that.
They serve as a longevity boundry. That is why they are important. However, their continued presence does not play as large a role in aging as was once believed.
It's a toy. Quite a sophisticated one. It used cameras for its basic vision system, several sensors for detecting various things about its surroundings and it could sense a musical beat and dance to it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the current president has shown no signs of reversing damage that the last administration had done and is starting to add more things which may or may not be bad on top of that. I don't consider opposition to the government expansion that Bush did to be an extreme position. Nor criticism of state spending habits when the maintenance of bridges and roads take a back seat to everything else. Bush exploited the power given to him through government; he was a warning sign that something is very wrong with the system.
I think you'll find that the people who actually make the decisions are decidedly not strictly anti-government types. They're whatever benefits me at the moment types and if weaker government furthers that then they'll push for it and if stronger government furthers their goals, they'll push for that. Everyone to some extent is the same way, they try to further their own interests in the ways that they can. The problem comes when the two major power groups feed off of one another and screw the populace. The lesson here is that concentrated power in both its major forms is generally dangerous.
I always found it odd that people are pushing for more government when they've just been victimized by the last one. Massive corporate welfare, war and rampant waste. Bush was one of the greatest examples of government gone wrong and people actually believe that more of that is a good thing. These corporations are using the power of government to rob the people. Bush wasn't anti-government. After all, his administration passed the patriot act, instituted torture, started two wars, began a massive trillion dollar bank bailout, increased spending more than LBJ... What did he do exactly that makes people believe that he in any way represented the view that "government doesn't work." If anything, it's one of the examples of government that doesn't serve the people by violating rights and through sheer incompetence.
welds, even properly done welds, tend to be significantly weaker and more brittle than a typical solid piece of unwelded material. The subsequent temporary fixes that they tried failed before they were designed to which suggests that they may not have built in enough redundancy on the structure as they should have. It could just be a case where they over-estimated the strength of these welds and decided to cut a few corners on the design its self.
No it isn't. Any document of importance should be encrypted. Anyone who has access to sensitive files is responsible for securing those files. That includes making sure that the system they are accessing these files on does not share these files because of a setting in file sharing software.
Most of the problems with ATMs that I've heard of involve hacking into the system, and utilising social engineering attacks. Electronic voting machines have had problems that go far beyong those:
*social engineering attacks
*weak physical security to the point of being able to access the machines' innards with a hotel key
*federally illegal code used on sequoia voting machines leaked to the public
*errors in tabulating votes sometimes in the thousands
There are more but I think I've already made my point. The string of failures and bafflingly simple errors in basic security of these voting machines leads one to wonder just how much corruption has overridden technical prowess in the making of these machines. They can do it right, there is just a huge incentive not to.
The simplist explanation is that corruption is the problem not the technical aspects of these voting machines. These errors wouldn't be tolerated with ATM machines because the public seems to care a lot more if their bank account is fraked with but not so much their vote for some reason... That's the only real way to clean up the corruption; get the public to put real pressure on the entities involved in the voting process.
When you add restrictions, its no longer free.
An unrestricted "capitalist" economy is anarchocapitalist not a free market. Some restrictions on "freedom" are necessary; for example, most societies restrict one's freedom to kill or defraud others. That doesn't mean that that society isn't free, in fact those restrictions mean the difference between a shattered country like Somalia and pretty much anywhere else with the vaguest sense of individual rights protection. btw I am a supporter of competition; the GPL, BSD, MPL and other open-source licenses just happen to be very effective tools in stimulating innovation through robust competition. If there was a license that was comparitively free and more efficient at stimulating innovation in the software market then I'd support that as well.
I never claiemd that it was ok, I did say that the punishment if any should be up to the court trying the civil case. Personally, I think copyright law has become a liability for society. It's nigh unenforceable for small acts of infringement and is becoming a very major reason why corporations are lobbying governments to crack down in such a way to protect corporate interests. To me, the whole system looks a lot like the drug war; just as unwinnable and is also harmful to those who can not put up the legal fight that larger corporations can.
How about not punishing people who presumably have not been found guilty of breaking the law? If they broke the law and were found guilty, they'd be subject to the ruling of the court. If they haven't been found guilty or for that matter given no trial then the whole thing is a violation of due process.
The government's fundamental purpose is to at least restrain individuals from harming other individuals. Anything less than that is not a free market by its very definition. A free market is not anarchic in nature but is instead the minimum intervention required to protect individual rights against various forms of violence. Environmental damage like this is a perfect example of a case where the government must intervene on behalf of those whose rights were abused. You are arguing against corporatism which is a perfectly reasonable position to have on the matter.
I don't buy that excuse. If Hulu couldn't make enough from ad revenue overseas then they should offer a paid subscription. They have no shortage of people trying to see what they offer and I'd bet that by continually making efforts to stop fans from accessing the site from outside the US they're only encouraging people to go elsewhere, even piracy.
Well actually it does, it's just that media corporations aren't getting the message. They fought tooth and nail to maintain their control at every step in the advancement of media technology. The problem is that there are no technical limitations preventing these shows from going global, it's purely limited by the media corporations' need for control over their media. People can still access these shows through other means, they jsut aren't legal means. Which is really too bad; the media companies had an opportunity to expand the reach of their media to a world-wide audience and they can't think past their fears of piracy and supposedly low revenue opportunity from doing so.
That is no deterrent. Many programs are made by reasonably intelligent people who "know what they're doing" software is complex, especially for something like this.
Why? Antivirus programs serve a very similar function and yet they are under attack all the time.
neither are other programs that have exploitable flaws.
You could say the same for other programs. It's naive to believe that Clearview is a magic bullet here, every program has flaws and a flaw in this program could prove disastrous.
So does the phone company regarding your phone calls. That doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If the programs that Clearview is monitering/patching are the target, wouldn't it make sense for an attacker to focus on Clearview first? Perhaps even alter its function to serve the purposes of the attacker instead of the user. Why attack the programs it is patching when you could hit Clearview and gain the ability to hijack everything it is patching?
All news has a certain degree of "spin" to it. It's always the readers' job to challenge what they read and thus think for themselves.
None of the sources I've found on the subject have any real information beyond what TFA says but by the sound of it, a nuclear thermal engine is likely.
yeah they already know how absurd the law is; hence they'll make sure to include an exemption for themselves.
given a proper genetic repair mechanism, improved and redundant cell cycle regulator genes and telomerase then sure, you could increase human lifespan. These cells only need to replicate themselves to replace damaged cells so hardening cells against genetic damage in of its self significantly reduces the need for the cell divisions that degrade the telomeres in the first place.
every time a cell divides, there's a chance that the DNA won't get copied quite correctly. The error rate is around 1 in 10^9 for humans and varies from species to species. The more times the cell divides, the more errors accumulate. Immortalization doesn't just switch off the damage as it seems that you are thinking that it would. It just means that the number of times the cell can divide isn't limited by telomere length any more.
assuming that you could preserve the methylation of your DNA for various tissues and safely repair the damage aging has done, then yes.
That telomeric shortening does not occur in many different species. They age just like every other species does. But that is all beside the point. You can't just shut off aging just by fixing the telomeres; aging is a much more complicated problem than that.
They serve as a longevity boundry. That is why they are important. However, their continued presence does not play as large a role in aging as was once believed.
It's a toy. Quite a sophisticated one. It used cameras for its basic vision system, several sensors for detecting various things about its surroundings and it could sense a musical beat and dance to it.