Fantastic, common sense (and moral) advice. However, while one can intend to do nothing illegal, it becomes increasingly difficult with the proliferation of laws in today's society coupled with eroding privacy. So, while unfortunately not fool proof, the best strategy, then, is to try to live a good life, but recognize that if some government official with law enforcement powers (or influence over same) were so motivated, s/he could go after you on something. Therefore, the best strategy becomes, "try to live a good life, and keep your head down."
I have no idea what the author is talking about. Here he is posting to an ideas forum on how we're running out of ideas. Bad form. BTW, not all big ideas are good ideas, especially in implementation and outcome: eugenics for one; racism; National Socialism; Marxism; shall we go on? Favorite Huxley quote: "The great tragedy of science -- a beautiful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact!"
Speaking of "fringe," one example would be the Congressional Progressive Caucus, right? Occasionally amused, but never terrified. Then, again I avoid getting stirred up by MSNBC...by flipping away. (You started it.)
So, I'm just wondering, wouldn't adverse encounters with advanced persistent threats be systemically highly classified to protect any notional countermeasures or responses? And, then, wouldn't any intentional public disclosures be, therefore, very highly sanitized, and focused to achieve some specific aim, such as policy or budget justification, perhaps even some subtle diplomatic effect? I wouldn't dream of speculating that governments are always ingenious, but, reality can be complex, and when events are viewed selectively through a soda straw, incomplete or distorted perceptions are possible.
Suppose the contribution is code poisoned with MS IP that can then form the basis for patent suits? Haven't read all the comments. Somebody else must have had these suspicions.
"Profile" is the operative word. Anyone who might otherwise fit a "profile" based on a statistically significant list of common traits ascribable to the vast majority of historical incidents of terrorism over the last 60 years, might also be members of a set of individuals for whom being singled out for attention may be considered as "racial-" or "religious-profiling." Therefore, TSA is constrained by policy to applying only those practices and procedures which are blind to any application of adult human judgment, or in this case, common sense, in order to avoid charges of bias or "discrimination," an otherwise neutral term which has wholly acquired the negative connotation of its worse case application. We see this line of government "reasoning" played out in other areas of public policy, leading to equally interesting, if not nearly as dangerous, outcomes. One example includes elementary schools enforcing "zero tolerance" to behaviors ascribed as "sexual harassment," wherein six year olds might be expelled for hugging his teacher in "suggestive" ways (see the article at: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AsSeenOnGMA/story?id=4585388). At some point the proliferation of self enforced prohibitions against governmental applications of reason and judgment in order to effect the otherwise admirable goal of avoiding unwanted bias may have dangerously negative unintended effects. Such effects may be ultimately corrosive to our ability to self govern, including, but not limited to, eroding public confidence towards government authority overall as these repeated incidents of cognitive dissonance between reason and policies begins to accumulate in the national psyche. At some point, large segments of society become decoupled from participation in citizenship, as evidenced by declining election participation, or in extreme cases may explode in outright rebellion. One problem with the worse case is that rebellion against excess nearly always leads to excesses in the opposite direction, the French revolution being but one extreme example. In short, our government really needs to stop being such G.D. f-king imbeciles or risk consequences none of us want.
Not just timing but performance of dependent AC motors, pumps, machinery, etc.. For example, a 2-pole AC motor powered by 60~ will run at 3600RPM. Just 3 HZ variation changes (+ / -) the speed range from 3420-3780 RPM or a 360 RPM variation. It that a lot? Depends. Also, any mechanically coupled geared system will vary in speed and power according to the various involved gear ratios. Air-conditioning, hydraulics (pumps, remember), lots of interesting potential mechanical effects, for example what SCADA system logic adjustments will need to be made? Given the huge unknown effects across the entire continent, I can see how the only way to really discover the magnitude would be to try it.
"Is it wise to hold majority opinion so high that it slows down progress"? The answer is, maybe, since: (a) majority opinion is self correcting as consequences emerge; and (b), people are indeed very bad at evaluating risk, and will usually only gain sufficient insight after having experienced any cost or benefit - then whatever the subsequent correction results in democratic "buy-in" and more successful implementation. Either way is far better than festering social resentment of top-down decisions imposed by elites - even the "good" ones (decisions or elites).
"CD-9 has one code for a finger amputation [. In contrast,] ICD-10 has a code for every finger and every section of every finger.
Yikes! Perhaps the standards authors should have considered the principle tenet of the hypocrite oath: "First, do no harm!"
Concur that nothing works as expected. I see what they're doing. I get it. I don't like it. For right now, this is no problem, because I just login using Ubuntu Classic, which is Gnome. I'm sorry to say that if Canonical doesn't fix unity before the next release, I'll just choose to go another distro, and say "So long Ubuntu, and thanks for all the fish!"
The common practice before the advent of red-light cameras was an amber signal timed to provide safe warning that the light is about to turn red. This allowed traffic approaching from a distance to begin slowing, and cars already committed due to proximity and speed to expeditiously clear the intersection. When my region (Washington DC metro) began embracing cameras, the practice changed to a very rapid amber that creates a situation where drivers became conditioned to either slam on the brakes immediately or stomp the gas since unless one is already half-way through the intersection it is otherwise impossible to avoid the trap. So, this is a huge annoyance, but nowhere near as pernicious as the ubiquitous DC speed cameras. To understand the game here, one must understand that Washington DC is one of the most oppressive and corrupt city-states on the planet, with an attitude of entitlement. Broad thoroughfares will commonly shift speeds unexpectedly across a broad range of speeds from 55 to 40 to 35 back to 50 with apparent rhyme or reason and no more warning than a single sign obscured by a bush with a speed camera right behind. So, simplistic, "then don't run red lights, dude!" or "don't speed" fails to understand the corrosive effects of nanny state chicanery.
You touch on a logical flaw in the whole information sharing debate. The flaw is that information and data ubiquitously available throughout a system facilitates an information advantage. This is nonsense. "Intelligence failures" are far more often the result of misinterpretation or insufficient understanding than lack of information. One almost always finds in hindsight that the information was there all the time. Anyone who has actually tried to manage a complex operation will tell you that it's more important to ensure that *only* the right information, at the right level of complexity, is shared *when needed* with the right actors, because operators, analysts, decision makers, time, and options are resources in perpetually short supply and who individually and in aggregate have limited coping "bandwidth" relative to the available data. Too much information too widely disseminated becomes background noise very quickly.
Concur on stupid bordering on the insane. Hope this is just FUD. Gotta be. I have an iPad. Let's face it, it's a freakin' toy. I use it less every day, but now mostly to browse while sitting on the commode, where it's now parked. It's good for that and playing Solitaire. Mac, on the other hand, is a serious tool and my primary business machine. If Apple phases out Mac and OSX they will have murdered a huge and growing portion of their customer base. is the theory that they're aspiring to become another Tandy? I find the whole thing just too hard to believe.
(a) Category "Palin Fan" is not a reference category being documented and tracked -- I read your link, he doesn't self identify as a "Palin Fan" -- He's holding a cat for Pete sake!
(b) I beg to differ.
I would recommend caution in allowing this forum to be co-opted for disseminating political dirty tricks. I mean, really, (a) how does anyone know that the defacement, if even true, was executed by "Palin fans," and (b) isn't it just a bit too convenient that this is inserted on a site known to harbor trolls who will be all too ready to spread any gossip that feeds their predilections and prejudices? Unless, of course, one is all to happy be a political party's bitch. Some people just love dressing up, I guess.
But in the meantime you should wear a hemet, with full face protection...and shoulder pads, because they have really sharp claws. Good old fashioned pikes come in handy to fend them of as they swoop down at you. Nasty business damn raptors.
Were I in a cryptologic division of some security service, I would certainly wish to consider ensuring that the cellular infrastructure be maintained during an insurgency; especially where insurgents might be naive enough to not realize that I could thus not only sniff their voice and data traffic, but also triangulate locations, and through traffic analysis, discern their strength, force array and command structure.
Slashdot Mirror
One more good reason to never leave your access points unsecured.
Fantastic, common sense (and moral) advice. However, while one can intend to do nothing illegal, it becomes increasingly difficult with the proliferation of laws in today's society coupled with eroding privacy. So, while unfortunately not fool proof, the best strategy, then, is to try to live a good life, but recognize that if some government official with law enforcement powers (or influence over same) were so motivated, s/he could go after you on something. Therefore, the best strategy becomes, "try to live a good life, and keep your head down."
I have no idea what the author is talking about. Here he is posting to an ideas forum on how we're running out of ideas. Bad form. BTW, not all big ideas are good ideas, especially in implementation and outcome: eugenics for one; racism; National Socialism; Marxism; shall we go on? Favorite Huxley quote: "The great tragedy of science -- a beautiful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact!"
Speak for yourself Hu-mahn!
Johnson, L. (1969, July). America, we just landed on the friggin' moon! Houston, TX.
Life expends carbon, Hu-mahn! Carbon based lifeforms must die!
Speaking of "fringe," one example would be the Congressional Progressive Caucus, right? Occasionally amused, but never terrified. Then, again I avoid getting stirred up by MSNBC...by flipping away. (You started it.)
So, I'm just wondering, wouldn't adverse encounters with advanced persistent threats be systemically highly classified to protect any notional countermeasures or responses? And, then, wouldn't any intentional public disclosures be, therefore, very highly sanitized, and focused to achieve some specific aim, such as policy or budget justification, perhaps even some subtle diplomatic effect? I wouldn't dream of speculating that governments are always ingenious, but, reality can be complex, and when events are viewed selectively through a soda straw, incomplete or distorted perceptions are possible.
Yup. Looks like Chrome.
Suppose the contribution is code poisoned with MS IP that can then form the basis for patent suits? Haven't read all the comments. Somebody else must have had these suspicions.
"Profile" is the operative word. Anyone who might otherwise fit a "profile" based on a statistically significant list of common traits ascribable to the vast majority of historical incidents of terrorism over the last 60 years, might also be members of a set of individuals for whom being singled out for attention may be considered as "racial-" or "religious-profiling." Therefore, TSA is constrained by policy to applying only those practices and procedures which are blind to any application of adult human judgment, or in this case, common sense, in order to avoid charges of bias or "discrimination," an otherwise neutral term which has wholly acquired the negative connotation of its worse case application. We see this line of government "reasoning" played out in other areas of public policy, leading to equally interesting, if not nearly as dangerous, outcomes. One example includes elementary schools enforcing "zero tolerance" to behaviors ascribed as "sexual harassment," wherein six year olds might be expelled for hugging his teacher in "suggestive" ways (see the article at: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AsSeenOnGMA/story?id=4585388). At some point the proliferation of self enforced prohibitions against governmental applications of reason and judgment in order to effect the otherwise admirable goal of avoiding unwanted bias may have dangerously negative unintended effects. Such effects may be ultimately corrosive to our ability to self govern, including, but not limited to, eroding public confidence towards government authority overall as these repeated incidents of cognitive dissonance between reason and policies begins to accumulate in the national psyche. At some point, large segments of society become decoupled from participation in citizenship, as evidenced by declining election participation, or in extreme cases may explode in outright rebellion. One problem with the worse case is that rebellion against excess nearly always leads to excesses in the opposite direction, the French revolution being but one extreme example. In short, our government really needs to stop being such G.D. f-king imbeciles or risk consequences none of us want.
Not just timing but performance of dependent AC motors, pumps, machinery, etc.. For example, a 2-pole AC motor powered by 60~ will run at 3600RPM. Just 3 HZ variation changes (+ / -) the speed range from 3420-3780 RPM or a 360 RPM variation. It that a lot? Depends. Also, any mechanically coupled geared system will vary in speed and power according to the various involved gear ratios. Air-conditioning, hydraulics (pumps, remember), lots of interesting potential mechanical effects, for example what SCADA system logic adjustments will need to be made? Given the huge unknown effects across the entire continent, I can see how the only way to really discover the magnitude would be to try it.
Meant "hippocratic oath" but got strangely auto-spell-corrected...
"Is it wise to hold majority opinion so high that it slows down progress"? The answer is, maybe, since: (a) majority opinion is self correcting as consequences emerge; and (b), people are indeed very bad at evaluating risk, and will usually only gain sufficient insight after having experienced any cost or benefit - then whatever the subsequent correction results in democratic "buy-in" and more successful implementation. Either way is far better than festering social resentment of top-down decisions imposed by elites - even the "good" ones (decisions or elites).
"CD-9 has one code for a finger amputation [. In contrast,] ICD-10 has a code for every finger and every section of every finger. Yikes! Perhaps the standards authors should have considered the principle tenet of the hypocrite oath: "First, do no harm!"
Concur that nothing works as expected. I see what they're doing. I get it. I don't like it. For right now, this is no problem, because I just login using Ubuntu Classic, which is Gnome. I'm sorry to say that if Canonical doesn't fix unity before the next release, I'll just choose to go another distro, and say "So long Ubuntu, and thanks for all the fish!"
Sheeple crowd-source most of their opinions. This is just a more open and focused example.
The common practice before the advent of red-light cameras was an amber signal timed to provide safe warning that the light is about to turn red. This allowed traffic approaching from a distance to begin slowing, and cars already committed due to proximity and speed to expeditiously clear the intersection. When my region (Washington DC metro) began embracing cameras, the practice changed to a very rapid amber that creates a situation where drivers became conditioned to either slam on the brakes immediately or stomp the gas since unless one is already half-way through the intersection it is otherwise impossible to avoid the trap. So, this is a huge annoyance, but nowhere near as pernicious as the ubiquitous DC speed cameras. To understand the game here, one must understand that Washington DC is one of the most oppressive and corrupt city-states on the planet, with an attitude of entitlement. Broad thoroughfares will commonly shift speeds unexpectedly across a broad range of speeds from 55 to 40 to 35 back to 50 with apparent rhyme or reason and no more warning than a single sign obscured by a bush with a speed camera right behind. So, simplistic, "then don't run red lights, dude!" or "don't speed" fails to understand the corrosive effects of nanny state chicanery.
You touch on a logical flaw in the whole information sharing debate. The flaw is that information and data ubiquitously available throughout a system facilitates an information advantage. This is nonsense. "Intelligence failures" are far more often the result of misinterpretation or insufficient understanding than lack of information. One almost always finds in hindsight that the information was there all the time. Anyone who has actually tried to manage a complex operation will tell you that it's more important to ensure that *only* the right information, at the right level of complexity, is shared *when needed* with the right actors, because operators, analysts, decision makers, time, and options are resources in perpetually short supply and who individually and in aggregate have limited coping "bandwidth" relative to the available data. Too much information too widely disseminated becomes background noise very quickly.
Concur on stupid bordering on the insane. Hope this is just FUD. Gotta be. I have an iPad. Let's face it, it's a freakin' toy. I use it less every day, but now mostly to browse while sitting on the commode, where it's now parked. It's good for that and playing Solitaire. Mac, on the other hand, is a serious tool and my primary business machine. If Apple phases out Mac and OSX they will have murdered a huge and growing portion of their customer base. is the theory that they're aspiring to become another Tandy? I find the whole thing just too hard to believe.
(a) Category "Palin Fan" is not a reference category being documented and tracked -- I read your link, he doesn't self identify as a "Palin Fan" -- He's holding a cat for Pete sake! (b) I beg to differ.
I would recommend caution in allowing this forum to be co-opted for disseminating political dirty tricks. I mean, really, (a) how does anyone know that the defacement, if even true, was executed by "Palin fans," and (b) isn't it just a bit too convenient that this is inserted on a site known to harbor trolls who will be all too ready to spread any gossip that feeds their predilections and prejudices? Unless, of course, one is all to happy be a political party's bitch. Some people just love dressing up, I guess.
But in the meantime you should wear a hemet, with full face protection...and shoulder pads, because they have really sharp claws. Good old fashioned pikes come in handy to fend them of as they swoop down at you. Nasty business damn raptors.
Were I in a cryptologic division of some security service, I would certainly wish to consider ensuring that the cellular infrastructure be maintained during an insurgency; especially where insurgents might be naive enough to not realize that I could thus not only sniff their voice and data traffic, but also triangulate locations, and through traffic analysis, discern their strength, force array and command structure.
This is one of those subjects where if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd be in no position to comment. Keep that in mind.