"Whenever you create a system which covers people's basic needs without asking anything in return you'll create a bunch of people who'll take what's offered then dedicate their free time to wheeling and dealing for beer money (usually doing 'easy money' stuff which is detrimental to society...)"
Um...
In my state, unemployment is an INSURANCE program that you pay into when you are working. You can only collect if you have paid into it. And you ALSO have to fulfill certain requirements, such as applying for a certain number of jobs per week and turning in those records so they can check up on you.
"No it's not, regular RAM retains memory for up to a few minutes (sort of) with no refreshes at regular temperatures. Freeze the memory and it's a lot longer than that."
I stand corrected. I remember reading about that a while ago.
Others have mentioned that it does not attack the actual encryption, but they did not summarize what it does do:
This only works if the encrypted item (drive or file) is in a mounted state at the time of "attack". And that applies if it is in a mounted state when the machine goes into hibernation. It gathers the encryption key from memory (or resume file if hibernating), it does not even try to "break" the encryption.
Still, it must be said that this is a clever approach, and could be a nice tool in some (very limited) circumstances.
I should add that we have had experimental thorium reactors here in the U.S. in the past, and we learned at lot. And India has approved the build of a thorium reactor for electricity generation.
I'm with you on that. Thorium really seems to be the way to go. Safer, simpler, more plentiful, not as prone to "nuclear proliferation" (i.e., fuel for warheads), more useful byproducts, and much less waste product.
"...and we just hope that there is no coolant leak."
If there is a coolant leak, you just pump in more coolant. Or hava a passive reservoir supply more. If it is a REALLY major breach, you're probably SOL anyway.
"So which story are you standing behind: Is IQ a single real thing which can be directly measured, or is it a statistical analysis of a variety of different factors like the researchers in this story are claiming?"
That's a nonsensical question. There is no "either / or" here. IQ tests measure several factors that are known to be correlated with general intelligence. And -- surprise -- that is exactly what the people in TFA do. Not only that, but the things they say make up intelligence are the same things that make up most IQ tests!
I took their test last night. I'll be damned if I could distinguish it from an IQ test in any significant way, and I have taken many. With the sole exception that it barely touches verbal skills at all... yet that is one of the major things they claime measures intelligence.
"But a high IQ - however measured - has no bearing on whether this brain power is used right."
That's quite true. However, that was not the point of TFA. They claim that IQ is just plain nonsense. When in fact their own test (I took it last night, and their software is buggy) measures pretty much the same things that IQ tests do.
The missing name in the list above is Duncan, and there are a few more. Names you see again and again on the "anti-gun" side of the argument. And the Brady campaign has never had any real credibility. In fact, I know of a YouTube video clip in which they are shown trying to mislead (I might go so far as to even say "lie") in testimony before Congress.
That New Republic article you cite (and the articles IT cites) are full of claims of "false claims", coming from mainly sources like university newspapers. This is no surprise, but neither is it credible refutation. We already know that academia in general has historically had an anti-bun bias. In particular, you repeatedly see names like Miller, Ayres, Donohue, and , who are known to foster rather rabid anti-gun biases.
The one study that can be said to have "debunked" Lott to any degree was the Ayres-Donahue review of his book which said that his conclusions that more guns equal less crime was unfounded. Yet it is important to note what they did NOT say: they did not say that the opposite was true. And if the math had shown that it was, those two most definitely would have said so.
Further, the New Republic leaves a lot of things out (no pun intended), and distorts a few others. For example, Lott worked as a researcher for several universities, not as a professor or teacher there. So it is rather hard to blame him for not getting in the "tenure track" in those places, as the article does. Also, while that article and several of its references mention that one of his studies was rather "iffy" because the data was lost in a computer crash, they ALL neglect to mention that he later carried out the study all over again, and publicly published his data and results. Nobody has successfully refuted his re-done study. So that criticism carries no weight.
Further yet, the very much non-controversial statistics kept by the Department of Justice (not Lott) also very clearly show that there is no positive correlation between per-capita gun ownership and per-capita crime. Over the last 30 years, per-capita crime has steadily gone down, and very significantly. During that same time, per-capita firearms ownership has gone steadily up. And they ALSO show that both mass- and school-shootings, such as the one at Sandy Hook, are actually DOWN from what they were 3 decades ago. These numbers from government and law enforcement itself are pretty much irrefutable.
It should also be pointed out that the article is criticizing a book that was written 14 years ago, and does not take into account more recent research. I really have to ask: sine the article is so recent, WHY did they not see fit to mention the newer study that Lott published? The answer is simple: they are only reporting the negative, no matter how tenuous it is.
All in all, it is a smear piece. Something that we have rather learned to expect from the New Republic. Another example: the cited article in MediaMatters, quoting the Piers Morgan show on CNN, July 14, 2012. The headline in the article reads: "Lott Routinely Appears In Media To Downplay The Gun Violence Epidemic In The US". But wait... WHAT "epidemic"??? As I mentioned before: the government's own statistics say that crime -- including firearms crime -- is way DOWN from what it was 30 or even 20 years ago. That hardly constitutes an "epidemic". Rather, I would say it is healing. But what else can you expect from these biased media-mongers?
All in all, it is a smear piece. Something that we have rather learned to expect from the New Republic and its ilk.
This is ironic because statistics show that gunshot victims survive as much as 90% of the time, while knife-wound victims bleed out before assistance can arrive about 90% of the time.
"Every other western nation has seriously controlled guns and their level of gun violence is dramatically lower than in the US."
While that is technically true, it leads to false conclusions based on a false premise.
The issue at hand isn't whether other countries have less crime, because a lot of factors come into play there: the culture of the people in that country, things like the way crimes are reported (significantly different in the UK than in the United States, for example), and many other things.
The real issue is whether fewer guns leads to lower crime. And the fact is, it doesn't. Even in those "other western nations" you mention. Check it out.
When they took away the guns in the UK and Australia, crime did not go down. It went UP. And not just a little, but A LOT. And it has continued to go up.
In contrast, here in the U.S., per-capita crime has been going steadily and significantly down (according to the Department of Justice) for the last 30 years. And during that entire time, per-capita firearms ownership has been going up.
There is no genuine correlation like the one you imagine. The fact is -- in the U.S., Australia, AND the UK -- that more guns means LESS crime. We have the history, experience, and statistics to prove it. Over a period of about 80 years, during which every conceivable kind of "gun control" measure has been tried, in one area or another.
"Shotguns are supposed to be folded open so that the cartridges are visible and only armed when about to be shot."
"Supposed to"? According to whom? That practice promotes corrosion, unless you are sure it stays in a cool, very dry place.
Besides: many shotguns -- probably the majority today -- don't even break open.
Aside from that: many guns DO have indicators of a chambered round. It is usually in the form of a pin that protrudes from the rear, which can be seen or felt.
" (A Youtube video comes to mind where someone is going bat crazy at a police officer for writing her a ticket. She starts slapping him so he tases her.)"
See, this is what is wrong. That is an inappropriate, abusive use of the Taser.
Tasers are not "non-lethal". They are "less lethal". They are only supposed to be used in lieu of deadly force (i.e., as an alternative to shooting the person). Anything less than that calls for different measures.
In the case of the slapping woman, she should have been physically detained (whether by wrestling with her or with police club or tonfa if necessary... that's even MORE "less lethal") and handcuffed. But a Taser is grossly inappropriate at that point.
As I have said before: I know that some law enforcement agencies use them that way, but that does not make it right or proper.
"Even so, I wish that research into reliable non-lethal disabling weapons would increase tenfold."
Regular "stun guns" are not always reliable, and the more specific "Taser" type of stun gun is not "non lethal". It is "less lethal". That is why they are only supposed to be used when the only alternative is deadly force (shooting the suspect).
Granted, many law enforcement agencies have abused them, and used them in lieu of any kind of physical confrontation rather than only in lieu of deadly force; nevertheless, the latter is the way they are supposed to be used.
According to Amnesty International, Tasers are responsible for at least 10,000 deaths.
"The supreme requirement in a firearm is RELIABILITY. "
Absolutely. And the system described, according to their paper, in it's own words,
"The average success rate is 89.44%."
That's with a huge box of electronics attached to the gun via wires, in ideal, controlled conditions.
The ONLY way I would even begin to want to own such a thing is if there were NO external encumbrances, and it worked at least 99.9999% of the time, under varied and chaotic conditions, and doesn't rely on flaky batteries.
"To see how free information wants to be, just wait till other naughty objects show up in thingiverse."
It depends on what you mean by "naughty objects".
Apparently, they had an existing rule against uploading parts for weapons. I would not have a similar rule if I were in charge, but I am not. Since they are enforcing an existing rule, not just some knee-jerk over-reactive new rule in response to the shooting, I have a hard time objecting to their actions.
If it had been a new rule, however, I would have written a letter of protest to Makerbot. Policy decisions made as reactions to disaster have an extremely strong tendency to be bad decisions. That applies not just to corporate policies, but to law as well.
"People who get lost in the wilderness are usually not in a municipality with an office full of prosecutors who can draft up warrant requests and then find the only judge for the county to sign it."
That hardly matters, since it isn't people in the wilderness who will be going out to find them. It will be those people in that office (or one near it), putting on warm clothes and getting out their snowmobiles.
Further, people lost in the wilderness are seldom within range of cell phone reception.
"What jeopardy does getting this information put someone in?"
The jeopardy is if the people in question are actually NOT lost in the wilderness. Authorities will have obtained location data on an innocent (and not endangered) party. That may not be a big deal to you, but it is to me.
Whenever you give authorities the power to do something without oversight, it WILL eventually be abused. It always has been.
"If the deception isn't detected, then a good faith exemption isn't necessary and is, in fact, irrelevant."
The exemption would not be necessary, agreed, but I would hardly call it "irrelevant". It is very relevant. It has happened. Far more than once, or even a few times.
"Yes, one has to assume that the defense council is capable and actually doing his job. If he is, the deception will be uncovered in the course of discovery and the next motion filed will be to exclude that evidence."
That's a really HUGE assumption, and I do not agree that it is anywhere near that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
"Whenever you create a system which covers people's basic needs without asking anything in return you'll create a bunch of people who'll take what's offered then dedicate their free time to wheeling and dealing for beer money (usually doing 'easy money' stuff which is detrimental to society...)"
Um...
In my state, unemployment is an INSURANCE program that you pay into when you are working. You can only collect if you have paid into it. And you ALSO have to fulfill certain requirements, such as applying for a certain number of jobs per week and turning in those records so they can check up on you.
"No it's not, regular RAM retains memory for up to a few minutes (sort of) with no refreshes at regular temperatures. Freeze the memory and it's a lot longer than that."
I stand corrected. I remember reading about that a while ago.
Others have mentioned that it does not attack the actual encryption, but they did not summarize what it does do:
This only works if the encrypted item (drive or file) is in a mounted state at the time of "attack". And that applies if it is in a mounted state when the machine goes into hibernation. It gathers the encryption key from memory (or resume file if hibernating), it does not even try to "break" the encryption.
Still, it must be said that this is a clever approach, and could be a nice tool in some (very limited) circumstances.
"memory retains data for a while after the PC is powered off creating some interesting situations if the feds are banging on your door"
"A while" is generally limited to a few seconds: the amount of time it takes for your power supply and/or capacitors on the board to discharge.
I don't have recommendations for anything specific, but or a geek dad, you might browse InnovaToys or probably more appropriately ThinkGeek.
I should add that we have had experimental thorium reactors here in the U.S. in the past, and we learned at lot. And India has approved the build of a thorium reactor for electricity generation.
I'm with you on that. Thorium really seems to be the way to go. Safer, simpler, more plentiful, not as prone to "nuclear proliferation" (i.e., fuel for warheads), more useful byproducts, and much less waste product.
"...and we just hope that there is no coolant leak."
If there is a coolant leak, you just pump in more coolant. Or hava a passive reservoir supply more. If it is a REALLY major breach, you're probably SOL anyway.
"So which story are you standing behind: Is IQ a single real thing which can be directly measured, or is it a statistical analysis of a variety of different factors like the researchers in this story are claiming?"
That's a nonsensical question. There is no "either / or" here. IQ tests measure several factors that are known to be correlated with general intelligence. And -- surprise -- that is exactly what the people in TFA do. Not only that, but the things they say make up intelligence are the same things that make up most IQ tests!
I took their test last night. I'll be damned if I could distinguish it from an IQ test in any significant way, and I have taken many. With the sole exception that it barely touches verbal skills at all... yet that is one of the major things they claime measures intelligence.
All in all, I think TFA is a crock of sh*t.
"But a high IQ - however measured - has no bearing on whether this brain power is used right."
That's quite true. However, that was not the point of TFA. They claim that IQ is just plain nonsense. When in fact their own test (I took it last night, and their software is buggy) measures pretty much the same things that IQ tests do.
The missing name in the list above is Duncan, and there are a few more. Names you see again and again on the "anti-gun" side of the argument. And the Brady campaign has never had any real credibility. In fact, I know of a YouTube video clip in which they are shown trying to mislead (I might go so far as to even say "lie") in testimony before Congress.
"Lott has been debunked a few times."
Unfortunately, his debunking has been debunked.
That New Republic article you cite (and the articles IT cites) are full of claims of "false claims", coming from mainly sources like university newspapers. This is no surprise, but neither is it credible refutation. We already know that academia in general has historically had an anti-bun bias. In particular, you repeatedly see names like Miller, Ayres, Donohue, and , who are known to foster rather rabid anti-gun biases.
The one study that can be said to have "debunked" Lott to any degree was the Ayres-Donahue review of his book which said that his conclusions that more guns equal less crime was unfounded. Yet it is important to note what they did NOT say: they did not say that the opposite was true. And if the math had shown that it was, those two most definitely would have said so.
Further, the New Republic leaves a lot of things out (no pun intended), and distorts a few others. For example, Lott worked as a researcher for several universities, not as a professor or teacher there. So it is rather hard to blame him for not getting in the "tenure track" in those places, as the article does. Also, while that article and several of its references mention that one of his studies was rather "iffy" because the data was lost in a computer crash, they ALL neglect to mention that he later carried out the study all over again, and publicly published his data and results. Nobody has successfully refuted his re-done study. So that criticism carries no weight.
Further yet, the very much non-controversial statistics kept by the Department of Justice (not Lott) also very clearly show that there is no positive correlation between per-capita gun ownership and per-capita crime. Over the last 30 years, per-capita crime has steadily gone down, and very significantly. During that same time, per-capita firearms ownership has gone steadily up. And they ALSO show that both mass- and school-shootings, such as the one at Sandy Hook, are actually DOWN from what they were 3 decades ago. These numbers from government and law enforcement itself are pretty much irrefutable.
It should also be pointed out that the article is criticizing a book that was written 14 years ago, and does not take into account more recent research. I really have to ask: sine the article is so recent, WHY did they not see fit to mention the newer study that Lott published? The answer is simple: they are only reporting the negative, no matter how tenuous it is.
All in all, it is a smear piece. Something that we have rather learned to expect from the New Republic. Another example: the cited article in MediaMatters, quoting the Piers Morgan show on CNN, July 14, 2012. The headline in the article reads: "Lott Routinely Appears In Media To Downplay The Gun Violence Epidemic In The US". But wait... WHAT "epidemic"??? As I mentioned before: the government's own statistics say that crime -- including firearms crime -- is way DOWN from what it was 30 or even 20 years ago. That hardly constitutes an "epidemic". Rather, I would say it is healing. But what else can you expect from these biased media-mongers?
All in all, it is a smear piece. Something that we have rather learned to expect from the New Republic and its ilk.
This is ironic because statistics show that gunshot victims survive as much as 90% of the time, while knife-wound victims bleed out before assistance can arrive about 90% of the time.
"The U.S. doesn't even make it in the top 37 on a per-capita basis..."
Um... not to burst your bubble, but that list specifically excludes the United States.
"Every other western nation has seriously controlled guns and their level of gun violence is dramatically lower than in the US."
While that is technically true, it leads to false conclusions based on a false premise.
The issue at hand isn't whether other countries have less crime, because a lot of factors come into play there: the culture of the people in that country, things like the way crimes are reported (significantly different in the UK than in the United States, for example), and many other things.
The real issue is whether fewer guns leads to lower crime. And the fact is, it doesn't. Even in those "other western nations" you mention. Check it out.
When they took away the guns in the UK and Australia, crime did not go down. It went UP. And not just a little, but A LOT. And it has continued to go up.
In contrast, here in the U.S., per-capita crime has been going steadily and significantly down (according to the Department of Justice) for the last 30 years. And during that entire time, per-capita firearms ownership has been going up.
There is no genuine correlation like the one you imagine. The fact is -- in the U.S., Australia, AND the UK -- that more guns means LESS crime. We have the history, experience, and statistics to prove it. Over a period of about 80 years, during which every conceivable kind of "gun control" measure has been tried, in one area or another.
"Shotguns are supposed to be folded open so that the cartridges are visible and only armed when about to be shot."
"Supposed to"? According to whom? That practice promotes corrosion, unless you are sure it stays in a cool, very dry place.
Besides: many shotguns -- probably the majority today -- don't even break open.
Aside from that: many guns DO have indicators of a chambered round. It is usually in the form of a pin that protrudes from the rear, which can be seen or felt.
" (A Youtube video comes to mind where someone is going bat crazy at a police officer for writing her a ticket. She starts slapping him so he tases her.)"
See, this is what is wrong. That is an inappropriate, abusive use of the Taser.
Tasers are not "non-lethal". They are "less lethal". They are only supposed to be used in lieu of deadly force (i.e., as an alternative to shooting the person). Anything less than that calls for different measures.
In the case of the slapping woman, she should have been physically detained (whether by wrestling with her or with police club or tonfa if necessary... that's even MORE "less lethal") and handcuffed. But a Taser is grossly inappropriate at that point.
As I have said before: I know that some law enforcement agencies use them that way, but that does not make it right or proper.
"The technical term is "Less than Lethal"...
No, the technical term is "Less Lethal". Not less than lethal.
"Even so, I wish that research into reliable non-lethal disabling weapons would increase tenfold."
Regular "stun guns" are not always reliable, and the more specific "Taser" type of stun gun is not "non lethal". It is "less lethal". That is why they are only supposed to be used when the only alternative is deadly force (shooting the suspect).
Granted, many law enforcement agencies have abused them, and used them in lieu of any kind of physical confrontation rather than only in lieu of deadly force; nevertheless, the latter is the way they are supposed to be used.
According to Amnesty International, Tasers are responsible for at least 10,000 deaths.
"The supreme requirement in a firearm is RELIABILITY. "
Absolutely. And the system described, according to their paper, in it's own words,
"The average success rate is 89.44%."
That's with a huge box of electronics attached to the gun via wires, in ideal, controlled conditions.
The ONLY way I would even begin to want to own such a thing is if there were NO external encumbrances, and it worked at least 99.9999% of the time, under varied and chaotic conditions, and doesn't rely on flaky batteries.
"To see how free information wants to be, just wait till other naughty objects show up in thingiverse."
It depends on what you mean by "naughty objects".
Apparently, they had an existing rule against uploading parts for weapons. I would not have a similar rule if I were in charge, but I am not. Since they are enforcing an existing rule, not just some knee-jerk over-reactive new rule in response to the shooting, I have a hard time objecting to their actions.
If it had been a new rule, however, I would have written a letter of protest to Makerbot. Policy decisions made as reactions to disaster have an extremely strong tendency to be bad decisions. That applies not just to corporate policies, but to law as well.
"Well, Blair was one of the bigger assholes. He was effective and essentially had basically no morals."
Blair was a direct clone of Bush in disguise.
"People who get lost in the wilderness are usually not in a municipality with an office full of prosecutors who can draft up warrant requests and then find the only judge for the county to sign it."
That hardly matters, since it isn't people in the wilderness who will be going out to find them. It will be those people in that office (or one near it), putting on warm clothes and getting out their snowmobiles.
Further, people lost in the wilderness are seldom within range of cell phone reception.
"What jeopardy does getting this information put someone in?"
The jeopardy is if the people in question are actually NOT lost in the wilderness. Authorities will have obtained location data on an innocent (and not endangered) party. That may not be a big deal to you, but it is to me.
Whenever you give authorities the power to do something without oversight, it WILL eventually be abused. It always has been.
"If the deception isn't detected, then a good faith exemption isn't necessary and is, in fact, irrelevant."
The exemption would not be necessary, agreed, but I would hardly call it "irrelevant". It is very relevant. It has happened. Far more than once, or even a few times.
"Yes, one has to assume that the defense council is capable and actually doing his job. If he is, the deception will be uncovered in the course of discovery and the next motion filed will be to exclude that evidence."
That's a really HUGE assumption, and I do not agree that it is anywhere near that simple.
To clarify a bit more: the phrase frequently used in legal circles is "a reasonable person of average intelligence".