Recipient not there to sign ? No proof of personal delivery.
IIRC, this is not true. In particular the kind of mails that involve legal proceedings can be considered as delivered even if you weren't there. It sometimes is even written explicitly on top that for legal purposes you were there personally. German laws are strange.
Mail delivered to these accounts will count as delivered to the recipient, so any respite associated with the delivery starts running. Don't read your email regularly - miss deadlines.
How is this different from mail delivered to your snailmail box? "I wasn't at home" has not been a particularly good excuse for a very long time.
The lack of end-to-end encryption is another matter entirely, and a rather obvious strategy to ensure that the government can eavesdrop. So much is clear.
The only moron I see here is someone who thinks any images put online without an authentication barrier are in fact really hidden... the ultimate security through obscurity.
Believing security through obscurity does not work at all is a pretty limited point of view. Sure it is not the strongest possible type of security, but there is a huge difference between it and no security. Enough in a case like this to make all the difference that is needed. Your leak scenarios are laughable and your assumptions extreme. You have no argument.
Spoken like a truly dense technical nerd. Normally that's a good thing, but not in this case. Most people don't want to access password protected galleries - especially older people
Spoken like a true world class moron. The alternative to posting it on a blog is not limited to password protection. You can share a lot of things from google or yahoo's photo sites WITHOUT using a password or making them public. People using these sites have access to these techniques via helpful buttons that are there in plain sight. But no, they wanted it world-readable.
Who cares if your photo ends up in a billboard in prague or elsewhere!
Well, THEY seemed to care. That's what this is about.
You missed the whole world part. Your a) or B) can be accomodated perfectly well without putting the picture on a blog for the rest of the planet to see.
Do you really think this will help to keep the Internet free and open!! get a grip!
You are so bloody right, it hurts. It is also probably going to lead to a clampdown on the press. The real question is whether that "free and open"-ness was worth much to begin with, considering that it seems that it was guaranteed only as long as we used it for farmville and stuff, chat about sports, or just to hail our dear leaders. As a certain mr. Assange said a few days ago:
Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free. [...] We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope, speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade.
So you got like 2 or 3 examples for and pretty much the rest of bankrupting 1st world showing the opposite. You call that proof?
Frankly, what parallel universe do you live in? Are you reading too many libertarian blogs? Come back to planet earth.
and why exactly banking sector grew so much in Ireland that it threatens the very existence of the country? Because everybody and his mother took loans to buy stuff - rampant consumption today at the expense of tomorrow at inflated prices thanks to the cheap credit.
Well, first, that is not the origin of the crisis. Go read up on proper, curated information, not the libertarian fairy tales. There was a lot of financial engineering that went out of control. CDS and what not. The people that cannot pay their mortgages are, by numbers, a minuscule part of the problem.
Besides, most people now saddled with loans they cannot pay were convinced by smiling, eloquent MBAs or whatnot that sure, they could pay. In fact, they would also get a pony. And everyone, up and down the press, was saying that that was ok. They were fooled. You hardly can blame them.
Germany introduced health care at the end of the 19th century to ensure the productivity of the country. You see, people where getting sick and couldn't afford medication, which was a problem for everyone, and incidentally continues to be a problem for everyone in places that have ramshackle social systems (US).
Countries with social systems pay for them with the money of their children and unborn grandsons.
No, they pay for them with the money from taxes. For some reason (I suspect it is propaganda) accounting has shifted in such a way that now all the money alotted to someone due to his retirement, for example, has to be counted as one huge lump sum, which does not make any sense, but sounds like a huge fucking lot. You will always have current taxes going to current expenses. Usually what govs have to borrow goes to prestige projects of the government, and subventions for corporate interests. Social security is usually very cheap. Just look at the relative numbers, not the absolute ones, which are always going to sound huge.
We got nothing on greeks who spent the shit out on freebies for their citizens while cheating the whole EU. Certainly social system worked so well for them, didn't it.
There was massive fraud, corruption, and tax evasion. In particular the last one did the trick. The big slice was taken by the criminal government and their corrupt elites, not so much the social system.
Giving people something for nothing is never a good deal.
You definitively lack fantasy. It can be a fantastic deal. For example, if you provide free vaccination, no strings attached, you get...? Right. Same thing with social security in general. The trick is to realize that you are not alone on the planet.
And stop reading that "road to serfdom" bullshit. It never went that way. Instead, you have that land of the free with the moniker US, where a lot of people are in debt to their eyeballs, liable to being fired at any moment for whatever reason, without recourse to anything. At the complete and utter mercy of their employers (well, sure, they are "free" to quit and starve if they don't like it). That sounds a lot like serfdom to me.
Germany has its productivity in place and is somewhat able to support all the social obligations though it's entirely possible it would be better without them (they already started to introduce unpopular reforms to cut costs of welfare).
It is entirely possible, of course, but I very much doubt it.
Ireland on the other hand experienced unmatched growth with low taxes in last 2 decades which was definitely ok for them but the problem is that they felt too rich and simply overconsumed basing everything on rosy projections.
Your theory is also contradicted by the facts. Ireland is in the mess it is due to a banking crisis of huge proportions. This has very little to do with overconsumption by the masses. It is a disaster brought forth by the certain economic elites.
If you want to call bullshit, please compare apples to apples - show examples of Germany-like countries with and without social burdens and examples of Ireland-like countries with and without.
This is not possible. Germany and its social system are not just a car and a tire. The social security system is a pretty much defining part of Germany.
But since you asked. There are the Scandinavian countries, which have high taxes and even stronger social systems, and they are doing even better. The evidence is overwhelming: a strong social system produces prosperity. Contempt and cruelty for the weak, and rewarding predatory behaviour of the elites leads to economic misery. Wake up.
Faith means not rushing to a judgement based on a usenet posting constructed by a simple Human - God has a bigger plan.
Faith means continuing to believe whatever it is despite the odds, despite the costs, despite the evidence. But of course trusting the priest. If what he says does not make sense, well, you haven't understood yet. It's a mystery/miracle, etc etc etc.
Faith is a great way to fall pray to manipulators and abusers.
The philosophy behind the God-concept is much richer and more subtle.
It's rich and subtle, in particular it is rich in subterfuge. People believe in god because the cant/don't want to face reality. That religion is elaborate, laberynthine, probably well decorated, poetic in places, filled with some wisdom, etc. granted. But all of this would actually make more sense without the make-believe
No, if you had an IQ over 5, you'd notice that the necessary programs are ones that are best provided by government (such as roads, because it's too much of a hassle to have priviately owned roads) and ones that everyone equally has access to. Unnecessary ones are ones that serve no purpose but to take money from person A's wallet and put it in person B's wallet. However, you're a greedy bastard who thinks that you should be able to steal all you want from people just because they worked harder and have more money than you.
The problem with your view is the definition of "necessary". Is it necessary to keep people in hardship from drowning in their tragedy? Same thing for programs that are best provided by government. Healthcare seems to be one, for example, and a good argument can be made for education to be in the same category. One can even make an argument that giving enough money to poor people to guarantee a minimum of quality of life is a great way of mitigating public health and crime problems.
Your tone of discussion ("if you had an IQ over 5...", "you're a greedy bastard...") does not have the effect you may have intended.
However, unlike you, I understand that just because my life sucks it doesn't give me the right to steal money from other people to get treatment.
Most people think paying taxes so the state can help people like you is a great idea, and do not consider it theft. Who is going to help you when the shit hits the fan if it is not us, your fellow humans?
So everyone's trying to make a big, fast computer.
What's at stake? What does the winner win?
A big, fast computer
More like a big, very expensive, very unreliable, energy hog of a computer.
Actual yields (i.e., portion of theoretical peak that can actually be used in apps) is less than 6 percent. The huge number of components makes this type of computer crash all the time, Energy costs are huge. And it is actually very difficult to find problems that warrant that much power. Either you can do with less, which holds for the vast majority of cases, or the whole thing is basically hopeless anyway. Only for a few problems it makes sense to use a machine like this.
The only way we can make String Theory etc testable is by further research. If you dislike, please propose a better solution rather than just complaining.
Here is a better solution. Stop beating up that dead horse, abandon the field and do research in something that actually has a better chance of producing interesting, meaningful, and perhaps even useful results. How about that?
Well, on the downside, you will have to go to a casino, and more importantly, you will have to leave again after four tries. I see a very obvious problem here, in particular if you won thrice in a row and then lost everything in the forth try. Don't you? The two-lottery-tickets-a-year approach seems more realistic in that regard.
Full disclosure: I actually am a mathematician:-) and I hope you enjoy this exchange (I am enjoying it).
A good mathematician would notice that he's going to be phenomenally better off if he places long-odds bets on sports at his local bookies (~10% house edge?), or going to a real casino (0% - ~6% house edge, depending on the game, with craps being the 0% edge if you play a perfect game, which no-one can for any reasonable length of time, which is how long it takes to average out)
You are talking about asymptotic behavior of those games, and for the player that always implies that the best strategy is not to play. But how about preasymptotic regimes?
Gambling is always a waste of money. Buying a lottery ticket twice a year ensures that you do not waste too much money (it's spare change, and a good part goes to charity), but that at the same time your chance of making it big is above zero.
Insofar as fusion power is concerned, its certainly a myth that environmental organizations are holding us back. Nobody knows what a commercially viable fusion plant would look like.
Good point. I completely miss from the discussion the fact that not only nobody really knows how such a plant would be able to work, but also that there are good arguments pointing towards it being completely impossible to build one that works in any reasonable way. Having to be able to recover every neutron is one issue. Designing materials that can withstand the stresses long enough and reliably enough for production use is another one.
Here is a nice article covering the arguments against it (Unfortunately it is paywalled. Also, the lead-in sounds way more optimistic than the rest of text).
In sum, there are lots of very good reasons to cancel ITER and use the money for something else.
The point of C as a teaching language is that hardware does not bound arrays, it does not protect memory, all data is just bits and can be arbitrarily converted to anything (even if it makes no sense to do so).
Basically, if you grok C then you are an effective programmer but if you can only program in a "safe" language then you likely don't understand how anything works and it all seems 'like magic' and there's already enough pseudo-science in the world.
There is a fallacy in there. A safe language just tells you when you are doing crap, so that you learn not to do it or so that it doesn't shoot you in the foot. It doesn't make your errors go away, it just makes them explicit.
If you are good at programming in Pascal, it is not a big problem to learn C.
What is more, people who learn with C often develop a control-freak attitude that hinders them in the adoption of such sensible things as e.g. garbage collectors.
Only if you decide in advance that they're guilty.
well, they certainly engaged in instigation of public unrest on a large scale, etc. There is simply no doubt on that. If they end up in a court in a place where there are laws against that (that includes almost all of the world, btw) they will be convicted. That's as clear as the light of day. In Germany, they would have ended in jail for a lot less.
Are you a Chavez supporter, by any chance?
No. But neither am I in favour of that kind of blind opposition that simply can't accept facts, and thus always ends up loosing and embarrassing itself.
No it wouldn't. It would have landed them in a courtroom, where a free and independent trial would occur.
What are you trying to imply?
Well if you want: It would have landed them in a courtroom, where a free and independent trial would occur. And then they would have been sent to jail for years. That's what I meant. Better?
Slashdot Mirror
Recipient not there to sign ? No proof of personal delivery.
IIRC, this is not true. In particular the kind of mails that involve legal proceedings can be considered as delivered even if you weren't there. It sometimes is even written explicitly on top that for legal purposes you were there personally. German laws are strange.
Mail delivered to these accounts will count as delivered to the recipient, so any respite associated with the delivery starts running. Don't read your email regularly - miss deadlines.
How is this different from mail delivered to your snailmail box? "I wasn't at home" has not been a particularly good excuse for a very long time.
The lack of end-to-end encryption is another matter entirely, and a rather obvious strategy to ensure that the government can eavesdrop. So much is clear.
Believing security through obscurity does not work at all is a pretty limited point of view. Sure it is not the strongest possible type of security, but there is a huge difference between it and no security. Enough in a case like this to make all the difference that is needed. Your leak scenarios are laughable and your assumptions extreme. You have no argument.
Spoken like a true world class moron. The alternative to posting it on a blog is not limited to password protection. You can share a lot of things from google or yahoo's photo sites WITHOUT using a password or making them public. People using these sites have access to these techniques via helpful buttons that are there in plain sight. But no, they wanted it world-readable.
Well, THEY seemed to care. That's what this is about.
You missed the whole world part. Your a) or B) can be accomodated perfectly well without putting the picture on a blog for the rest of the planet to see.
Very good question. Given how almost everybody does that, it should not be difficult to find out. Maybe someone who does can enlighten us? Here on /.?
I fear, however, that the answer will lead to even more troubling questions.
The result would most probably be that Palin/ eb Bush would win.
Oil deposits in the North sea have been propping up the British economy for decades now.
Did you know that the British oil industry is subsidized by tax money?
Outside of the US, the picture you paint is more or less the picture of the US everyone has, and has had for many decades.
Do you really think this will help to keep the Internet free and open!! get a grip!
You are so bloody right, it hurts. It is also probably going to lead to a clampdown on the press. The real question is whether that "free and open"-ness was worth much to begin with, considering that it seems that it was guaranteed only as long as we used it for farmville and stuff, chat about sports, or just to hail our dear leaders.
As a certain mr. Assange said a few days ago:
(You can read the whole thing here)
So you got like 2 or 3 examples for and pretty much the rest of bankrupting 1st world showing the opposite. You call that proof?
Frankly, what parallel universe do you live in? Are you reading too many libertarian blogs? Come back to planet earth.
and why exactly banking sector grew so much in Ireland that it threatens the very existence of the country? Because everybody and his mother took loans to buy stuff - rampant consumption today at the expense of tomorrow at inflated prices thanks to the cheap credit.
Well, first, that is not the origin of the crisis. Go read up on proper, curated information, not the libertarian fairy tales. There was a lot of financial engineering that went out of control. CDS and what not. The people that cannot pay their mortgages are, by numbers, a minuscule part of the problem.
Besides, most people now saddled with loans they cannot pay were convinced by smiling, eloquent MBAs or whatnot that sure, they could pay. In fact, they would also get a pony. And everyone, up and down the press, was saying that that was ok. They were fooled. You hardly can blame them.
Germany introduced health care at the end of the 19th century to ensure the productivity of the country. You see, people where getting sick and couldn't afford medication, which was a problem for everyone, and incidentally continues to be a problem for everyone in places that have ramshackle social systems (US).
Countries with social systems pay for them with the money of their children and unborn grandsons.
No, they pay for them with the money from taxes. For some reason (I suspect it is propaganda) accounting has shifted in such a way that now all the money alotted to someone due to his retirement, for example, has to be counted as one huge lump sum, which does not make any sense, but sounds like a huge fucking lot. You will always have current taxes going to current expenses. Usually what govs have to borrow goes to prestige projects of the government, and subventions for corporate interests. Social security is usually very cheap. Just look at the relative numbers, not the absolute ones, which are always going to sound huge.
We got nothing on greeks who spent the shit out on freebies for their citizens while cheating the whole EU. Certainly social system worked so well for them, didn't it.
There was massive fraud, corruption, and tax evasion. In particular the last one did the trick. The big slice was taken by the criminal government and their corrupt elites, not so much the social system.
Giving people something for nothing is never a good deal.
You definitively lack fantasy. It can be a fantastic deal. For example, if you provide free vaccination, no strings attached, you get...? Right. Same thing with social security in general. The trick is to realize that you are not alone on the planet.
And stop reading that "road to serfdom" bullshit. It never went that way. Instead, you have that land of the free with the moniker US, where a lot of people are in debt to their eyeballs, liable to being fired at any moment for whatever reason, without recourse to anything. At the complete and utter mercy of their employers (well, sure, they are "free" to quit and starve if they don't like it). That sounds a lot like serfdom to me.
Germany has its productivity in place and is somewhat able to support all the social obligations though it's entirely possible it would be better without them (they already started to introduce unpopular reforms to cut costs of welfare).
It is entirely possible, of course, but I very much doubt it.
Ireland on the other hand experienced unmatched growth with low taxes in last 2 decades which was definitely ok for them but the problem is that they felt too rich and simply overconsumed basing everything on rosy projections.
Your theory is also contradicted by the facts. Ireland is in the mess it is due to a banking crisis of huge proportions. This has very little to do with overconsumption by the masses. It is a disaster brought forth by the certain economic elites.
If you want to call bullshit, please compare apples to apples - show examples of Germany-like countries with and without social burdens and examples of Ireland-like countries with and without.
This is not possible. Germany and its social system are not just a car and a tire. The social security system is a pretty much defining part of Germany.
But since you asked. There are the Scandinavian countries, which have high taxes and even stronger social systems, and they are doing even better. The evidence is overwhelming: a strong social system produces prosperity. Contempt and cruelty for the weak, and rewarding predatory behaviour of the elites leads to economic misery. Wake up.
Faith means not rushing to a judgement based on a usenet posting constructed by a simple Human - God has a bigger plan.
Faith means continuing to believe whatever it is despite the odds, despite the costs, despite the evidence. But of course trusting the priest. If what he says does not make sense, well, you haven't understood yet. It's a mystery/miracle, etc etc etc.
Faith is a great way to fall pray to manipulators and abusers.
The philosophy behind the God-concept is much richer and more subtle.
It's rich and subtle, in particular it is rich in subterfuge. People believe in god because the cant/don't want to face reality. That religion is elaborate, laberynthine, probably well decorated, poetic in places, filled with some wisdom, etc. granted. But all of this would actually make more sense without the make-believe
The problem with your view is the definition of "necessary". Is it necessary to keep people in hardship from drowning in their tragedy? Same thing for programs that are best provided by government. Healthcare seems to be one, for example, and a good argument can be made for education to be in the same category. One can even make an argument that giving enough money to poor people to guarantee a minimum of quality of life is a great way of mitigating public health and crime problems.
Your tone of discussion ("if you had an IQ over 5...", "you're a greedy bastard...") does not have the effect you may have intended.
Most people think paying taxes so the state can help people like you is a great idea, and do not consider it theft. Who is going to help you when the shit hits the fan if it is not us, your fellow humans?
More like a big, very expensive, very unreliable, energy hog of a computer.
Actual yields (i.e., portion of theoretical peak that can actually be used in apps) is less than 6 percent. The huge number of components makes this type of computer crash all the time, Energy costs are huge. And it is actually very difficult to find problems that warrant that much power. Either you can do with less, which holds for the vast majority of cases, or the whole thing is basically hopeless anyway. Only for a few problems it makes sense to use a machine like this.
The only way we can make String Theory etc testable is by further research. If you dislike, please propose a better solution rather than just complaining.
Here is a better solution. Stop beating up that dead horse, abandon the field and do research in something that actually has a better chance of producing interesting, meaningful, and perhaps even useful results. How about that?
All of them make liberals look like superheroes and conservatives like devil spawn.
Well, I mostly agree with you here. The superhero part is definitively an exaggeration!
You are right!
Well, on the downside, you will have to go to a casino, and more importantly, you will have to leave again after four tries. I see a very obvious problem here, in particular if you won thrice in a row and then lost everything in the forth try. Don't you? The two-lottery-tickets-a-year approach seems more realistic in that regard.
Full disclosure: I actually am a mathematician :-) and I hope you enjoy this exchange (I am enjoying it).
A good mathematician would notice that he's going to be phenomenally better off if he places long-odds bets on sports at his local bookies (~10% house edge?), or going to a real casino (0% - ~6% house edge, depending on the game, with craps being the 0% edge if you play a perfect game, which no-one can for any reasonable length of time, which is how long it takes to average out)
You are talking about asymptotic behavior of those games, and for the player that always implies that the best strategy is not to play. But how about preasymptotic regimes?
Gambling is always a waste of money. Buying a lottery ticket twice a year ensures that you do not waste too much money (it's spare change, and a good part goes to charity), but that at the same time your chance of making it big is above zero.
How about that reasoning? :-)
A) a lucky member of the set of bad mathematicians who think they can win
Everybody can win, it just rather improbable. And if you don't play, you won't win. What has ''being a bad mathematician'' to do with all this?
Insofar as fusion power is concerned, its certainly a myth that environmental organizations are holding us back. Nobody knows what a commercially viable fusion plant would look like.
Good point. I completely miss from the discussion the fact that not only nobody really knows how such a plant would be able to work, but also that there are good arguments pointing towards it being completely impossible to build one that works in any reasonable way. Having to be able to recover every neutron is one issue. Designing materials that can withstand the stresses long enough and reliably enough for production use is another one.
Here is a nice article covering the arguments against it (Unfortunately it is paywalled. Also, the lead-in sounds way more optimistic than the rest of text).
In sum, there are lots of very good reasons to cancel ITER and use the money for something else.
This is not "-1, Offtopic". It is "+5, sadly true". Please remoderate.
The point of C as a teaching language is that hardware does not bound arrays, it does not protect memory, all data is just bits and can be arbitrarily converted to anything (even if it makes no sense to do so).
Basically, if you grok C then you are an effective programmer but if you can only program in a "safe" language then you likely don't understand how anything works and it all seems 'like magic' and there's already enough pseudo-science in the world.
There is a fallacy in there. A safe language just tells you when you are doing crap, so that you learn not to do it or so that it doesn't shoot you in the foot. It doesn't make your errors go away, it just makes them explicit.
If you are good at programming in Pascal, it is not a big problem to learn C.
What is more, people who learn with C often develop a control-freak attitude that hinders them in the adoption of such sensible things as e.g. garbage collectors.
Only if you decide in advance that they're guilty.
well, they certainly engaged in instigation of public unrest on a large scale, etc. There is simply no doubt on that. If they end up in a court in a place where there are laws against that (that includes almost all of the world, btw) they will be convicted. That's as clear as the light of day. In Germany, they would have ended in jail for a lot less.
Are you a Chavez supporter, by any chance?
No. But neither am I in favour of that kind of blind opposition that simply can't accept facts, and thus always ends up loosing and embarrassing itself.
No it wouldn't. It would have landed them in a courtroom, where a free and independent trial would occur.
What are you trying to imply?
Well if you want: It would have landed them in a courtroom, where a free and independent trial would occur. And then they would have been sent to jail for years. That's what I meant. Better?