3 MPH is a typical hiking speed. Hiking 10 hours isn't terribly hard, even with a light pack. Armies, especially legionnaires and modern soldiers, do not carry light packs. They carry about 50 lbs or more.
Horses are really beasts of burden, not suitable for speed. In 14th century Europe, they were most useful for trading caravans, whose profit was based on how much they could carry in one trip. They were also useful for nobles, who had to carry all of their regalia. It'd be pretty hard for anybody else to justify the expense of buying a horse just to carry more while traveling.
In a capitalist society, it is the excess money that should be devoted to improving society
That's more communist, where someone who has more than he needs gives it back to help those that don't have enough.
In a capitalist society, his excess money goes anywhere he wants to do anything he wants, and anyone who can provide what he wants gets paid for it, and can in turn spend it however they like, and so on. It will certainly take a good deal of money to turn this car into a submarine, and that means more paychecks for manufacturers and engineers on the project, who can then spend those paychecks on whatever they want, and so on.
That is, after all, the purpose of capitalist commerce: people getting things they want.
And this is another illustration of why you should know your license agreements! Don't just rely on summaries or pick-your-features selectors. If you care where your software goes or what it's used for, take the time to do the research and know what your license says.
Horses are expensive to maintain, and have a rough daily limit of about 30 miles. In comparison, a human walking at 3 mph can go the same distance in only 10 hours. The difference, of course, is that horses can carry more and get there faster, before taking more time to rest.
For the peasants who made up the majority of the population during the 14th century, a horse was a good tool for farmers or messengers, but regular travel would best be done on foot with a light pack and a steady pace.
An excellent explanation. The only thing I'll add is that also, these traders aren't even working in a single exchange. A buyer might make an offer in New York, and end up getting the security from a seller in Chicago. Instead of having a millisecond granularity, they're bound by the speed of light to having a bigger window (and bigger risk). That's why they're so interested in low-latency connections.
No, you see, my kid is special. All those other kids of those other parents aren't nearly as smart as mine. My kid's already so much ahead of everyone else because of his natural talents, that he can afford to waste time while the others catch up! My kid is also immune to all preventable disease, completely safe in a car, a champion at every sport (except the ones where the opponents have to cheat to beat him), and next year he's probably going to start modeling. So go ahead, and give your blanket advice to those moronic other parents, who really should follow it like sheep just so their kids have a chance to keep up with my little Carlos, but my parenting has worked out well so far!
Jokes aside, I'm sadly not even exaggerating too much. So often, parents believe their children are miracles, and they don't understand that the risks can affect their own kid until it's too late. Regarding mental capability, it could be a simple decision to let the kid shirk math homework in favor of getting extra football practice, because "he's just so talented, he doesn't need math".
It's only when faced with a direct actual threat assessment specific to their child that they care - and even then, there's always the hope and expectation that their kid will be the miracle who beats the odds.
any of them that doesn't have a completely inept intelligence agency of their own will already have the information he's released.
But that's not the concern. Anyone with an intelligence agency capable of getting the information directly from the NSA would probably also have the resources to have a custom encryption mechanism that the NSA can't read, anyway, and enough steganography to avoid suspicion.
The enemies that the NSA's mechanism is effective against are the poorly-funded individuals and small groups who don't have their own sophisticated intelligence agency, which means they're also not the big and easy-to-find groups. They're just regular schmucks who want to blow up a building or kill some random people. You know... those terrorists the government keeps telling us about.
It's not about scaring your kid for 65 years. It's about having 65 years of warning. Perhaps just a nudge in the right direction now, like a focus on cognitive endeavors rather than keeping up on the latest Disney drivel, can encourage a life of improvement to the brain. When Alzheimers' does come around, there's ample cognitive ability to spare, so the gradual decline toward incapability might just outlast your kid's life.
So as new coins become rarer with the diminishing rate, there will be fewer miners, and that means more validating workload dumped on the miners still running, increasing their costs as their expected profit diminishes, right?
I have not paid much attention to the implementation of Bitcoin, rather focusing on the economic implications. What happens as miners drop off the network?
Imaginary does not necessarily mean nonexistent. It exists in somebody's mind, probably the person who paid for all that real work, and that person then feels wronged. The whole point of the justice system is to remedy that feeling, fairly.
Frankly, I haven't seen much happen besides a new flood of how-to articles describing, effectively, just how to change the mechanism by which you're tracked. The population at large doesn't understand why writing down passwords is a bad idea, and you think that people are now going to embrace proper security because the government might be watching?
The only people that are actually paying attention to the NSA story are politicians, enemies, and paranoids. The politicians want ammunition for the next election cycle, and the enemies want to hide, leaving only the paranoids (including professionals like myself) as the ones who actually want to improve security. That's not really "leaps and bounds" as much as it is just that the ever-present drive to improve has an actual entity behind it.
I do hope that you didn't use two diferent meanings for "the public" in those two sentences!
You may have missed this, but since World War II the US and the UK have been pretty good friends. The American efforts to protect the American public from those sneaky terrorists also benefits the UK public by protecting the from the same sneaky terrorists, or so believes the governments. Yes, this implies that the American government is acting as the investigative authority for the UK, which probably is indeed the case, and probably even with the UK's permission.
In "it's helping criminals evade detection", I completely disagree:
Of course you do, but that's just, like, your opinion, man. The point of my post was to illustrate how the UK government can indeed see a double standard, not to ascribe any particular ethical standpoint to the situation.
Isn't the man paid to protect the security of the UK public?
No. The man is paid to lead the UK government that protects the UK public as best it can, and in the opinion of many people within that UK government, the biggest threat is not the UK government itself or the US government, but rather the non-allied foreigners who want to cause harm to the UK and US public.
In absolute terms, there isn't one. The Guardian published information, because that's what journalists do.
From the perspective of a government, though, the situations as complete opposites. In the case of phone hacking, the Guardian supported the security of the public by exposing and denouncing a crime. In the case of the Snowden documents, the Guardian is exposing and denouncing a legal operation protecting the security of the public, and in doing so it's helping criminals evade detection.
To Cameron, it looks like the Guardian is acting inconsistently, publishing whatever it wants not based on ethics, but rather based on the potential for public outrage.
...the same thing they've always done with raiding parties, spies, bombers, and strike fighters, but now they're doing it more accurately and with no risk to the pilots?
As a point of reference, at a financial company I worked at, the audit logs for several decades of account data came in at just about 1 GB. That particular system only logged changes to clients' accounts, but still... audit logs can be pretty small, and storage is cheap.
Or, with less tinfoil headgear, we could consider that it was probably suspected enough to get response teams in place, but not reliably confirmed enough to justify the panic a closure would cause. When it then turned out to be real, the response turned out to be inadequate.
A minor act of rebellion is shopping elsewhere, writing a letter, or complaining to the store manager. I don't think we should consider "normal" behavior to include assault with a deadly weapon.
For a fair comparison, it should be compared to their dedicated EV battery research budget before this project.
If you looked at most companies' budgets, you'd find that payroll and materials are important, with liability coverage (legal and insurance) ranking highly, too. Somewhere down near the bottom you find things like "research", not because they aren't important, but because it just doesn't cost as much as the mandatory things like "pay the employees".
Spray-painting would still be vandalism, just like it would be if you painted the cash register displays, store windows, or product packaging. It's just vandalism with less shrapnel and more odor.
So let me get this straight... anyone you think is acting like a dickhead no longer has the right to own property? Well gee, with such defined morality as that, I guess we can dispense with the whole "rule of law" thing outright.
Slashdot Mirror
3 MPH is a typical hiking speed. Hiking 10 hours isn't terribly hard, even with a light pack. Armies, especially legionnaires and modern soldiers, do not carry light packs. They carry about 50 lbs or more.
Horses are really beasts of burden, not suitable for speed. In 14th century Europe, they were most useful for trading caravans, whose profit was based on how much they could carry in one trip. They were also useful for nobles, who had to carry all of their regalia. It'd be pretty hard for anybody else to justify the expense of buying a horse just to carry more while traveling.
RTFA? WTF?
In a capitalist society, it is the excess money that should be devoted to improving society
That's more communist, where someone who has more than he needs gives it back to help those that don't have enough.
In a capitalist society, his excess money goes anywhere he wants to do anything he wants, and anyone who can provide what he wants gets paid for it, and can in turn spend it however they like, and so on. It will certainly take a good deal of money to turn this car into a submarine, and that means more paychecks for manufacturers and engineers on the project, who can then spend those paychecks on whatever they want, and so on.
That is, after all, the purpose of capitalist commerce: people getting things they want.
Clearly, the military has beaten all sense out of him.
And this is another illustration of why you should know your license agreements! Don't just rely on summaries or pick-your-features selectors. If you care where your software goes or what it's used for, take the time to do the research and know what your license says.
Citation no longer needed.
That's pretty awesome.
Horses are expensive to maintain, and have a rough daily limit of about 30 miles. In comparison, a human walking at 3 mph can go the same distance in only 10 hours. The difference, of course, is that horses can carry more and get there faster, before taking more time to rest.
For the peasants who made up the majority of the population during the 14th century, a horse was a good tool for farmers or messengers, but regular travel would best be done on foot with a light pack and a steady pace.
An excellent explanation. The only thing I'll add is that also, these traders aren't even working in a single exchange. A buyer might make an offer in New York, and end up getting the security from a seller in Chicago. Instead of having a millisecond granularity, they're bound by the speed of light to having a bigger window (and bigger risk). That's why they're so interested in low-latency connections.
No, you see, my kid is special. All those other kids of those other parents aren't nearly as smart as mine. My kid's already so much ahead of everyone else because of his natural talents, that he can afford to waste time while the others catch up! My kid is also immune to all preventable disease, completely safe in a car, a champion at every sport (except the ones where the opponents have to cheat to beat him), and next year he's probably going to start modeling. So go ahead, and give your blanket advice to those moronic other parents, who really should follow it like sheep just so their kids have a chance to keep up with my little Carlos, but my parenting has worked out well so far!
Jokes aside, I'm sadly not even exaggerating too much. So often, parents believe their children are miracles, and they don't understand that the risks can affect their own kid until it's too late. Regarding mental capability, it could be a simple decision to let the kid shirk math homework in favor of getting extra football practice, because "he's just so talented, he doesn't need math".
It's only when faced with a direct actual threat assessment specific to their child that they care - and even then, there's always the hope and expectation that their kid will be the miracle who beats the odds.
any of them that doesn't have a completely inept intelligence agency of their own will already have the information he's released.
But that's not the concern. Anyone with an intelligence agency capable of getting the information directly from the NSA would probably also have the resources to have a custom encryption mechanism that the NSA can't read, anyway, and enough steganography to avoid suspicion.
The enemies that the NSA's mechanism is effective against are the poorly-funded individuals and small groups who don't have their own sophisticated intelligence agency, which means they're also not the big and easy-to-find groups. They're just regular schmucks who want to blow up a building or kill some random people. You know... those terrorists the government keeps telling us about.
It's not about scaring your kid for 65 years. It's about having 65 years of warning. Perhaps just a nudge in the right direction now, like a focus on cognitive endeavors rather than keeping up on the latest Disney drivel, can encourage a life of improvement to the brain. When Alzheimers' does come around, there's ample cognitive ability to spare, so the gradual decline toward incapability might just outlast your kid's life.
So as new coins become rarer with the diminishing rate, there will be fewer miners, and that means more validating workload dumped on the miners still running, increasing their costs as their expected profit diminishes, right?
I have not paid much attention to the implementation of Bitcoin, rather focusing on the economic implications. What happens as miners drop off the network?
Imaginary does not necessarily mean nonexistent. It exists in somebody's mind, probably the person who paid for all that real work, and that person then feels wronged. The whole point of the justice system is to remedy that feeling, fairly.
Imaginary damage done to imaginary property that was made with real effort for a real result taking real skill and real investment by real people.
[citation needed]
Frankly, I haven't seen much happen besides a new flood of how-to articles describing, effectively, just how to change the mechanism by which you're tracked. The population at large doesn't understand why writing down passwords is a bad idea, and you think that people are now going to embrace proper security because the government might be watching?
The only people that are actually paying attention to the NSA story are politicians, enemies, and paranoids. The politicians want ammunition for the next election cycle, and the enemies want to hide, leaving only the paranoids (including professionals like myself) as the ones who actually want to improve security. That's not really "leaps and bounds" as much as it is just that the ever-present drive to improve has an actual entity behind it.
I do hope that you didn't use two diferent meanings for "the public" in those two sentences!
You may have missed this, but since World War II the US and the UK have been pretty good friends. The American efforts to protect the American public from those sneaky terrorists also benefits the UK public by protecting the from the same sneaky terrorists, or so believes the governments. Yes, this implies that the American government is acting as the investigative authority for the UK, which probably is indeed the case, and probably even with the UK's permission.
In "it's helping criminals evade detection", I completely disagree:
Of course you do, but that's just, like, your opinion, man. The point of my post was to illustrate how the UK government can indeed see a double standard, not to ascribe any particular ethical standpoint to the situation.
Isn't the man paid to protect the security of the UK public?
No. The man is paid to lead the UK government that protects the UK public as best it can, and in the opinion of many people within that UK government, the biggest threat is not the UK government itself or the US government, but rather the non-allied foreigners who want to cause harm to the UK and US public.
In absolute terms, there isn't one. The Guardian published information, because that's what journalists do.
From the perspective of a government, though, the situations as complete opposites. In the case of phone hacking, the Guardian supported the security of the public by exposing and denouncing a crime. In the case of the Snowden documents, the Guardian is exposing and denouncing a legal operation protecting the security of the public, and in doing so it's helping criminals evade detection.
To Cameron, it looks like the Guardian is acting inconsistently, publishing whatever it wants not based on ethics, but rather based on the potential for public outrage.
Your perspective and sense of ethics may differ.
If the police need to get through a locked door, they can get a court order to do so. Then yes, you have to open the door for them.
...the same thing they've always done with raiding parties, spies, bombers, and strike fighters, but now they're doing it more accurately and with no risk to the pilots?
As a point of reference, at a financial company I worked at, the audit logs for several decades of account data came in at just about 1 GB. That particular system only logged changes to clients' accounts, but still... audit logs can be pretty small, and storage is cheap.
Or, with less tinfoil headgear, we could consider that it was probably suspected enough to get response teams in place, but not reliably confirmed enough to justify the panic a closure would cause. When it then turned out to be real, the response turned out to be inadequate.
A minor act of rebellion is shopping elsewhere, writing a letter, or complaining to the store manager. I don't think we should consider "normal" behavior to include assault with a deadly weapon.
For a fair comparison, it should be compared to their dedicated EV battery research budget before this project.
If you looked at most companies' budgets, you'd find that payroll and materials are important, with liability coverage (legal and insurance) ranking highly, too. Somewhere down near the bottom you find things like "research", not because they aren't important, but because it just doesn't cost as much as the mandatory things like "pay the employees".
Spray-painting would still be vandalism, just like it would be if you painted the cash register displays, store windows, or product packaging. It's just vandalism with less shrapnel and more odor.
So let me get this straight... anyone you think is acting like a dickhead no longer has the right to own property? Well gee, with such defined morality as that, I guess we can dispense with the whole "rule of law" thing outright.