In what way did the Republicans have anything, whatsoever, to do with how the web site was built?
Many IT professionals worship Ayn Rand or follow similar currents. It seems to me perfectly plausible to think that such IT professionals sabotaged the construction of the site. In fact, I would be surprised if they didn't.
How does the decision by some states to not take on the risk of an unfunded Medicare mandate expansion cause the site's architecture to fail?
Sabotage by uncooperative, even hostile state governments? "Unthinkable".
Let's face it, automated cars is a fundamentally easier to solve problem, due to far fewer variables and complications, and weaker forces involved.
Cars=moving in X and Y axis... Aircraft=moving in X, Y AND Z axis...
AND on top of it, it has to keep moving at a speed above some minimum velocity with respect to the surrounding air. A car can just stop. It may be dangerous, but not as much as when a plane just stops in the middle of the air.
the request, itself, is out of line. does not matter if sugar coated or not.
As has been explained in a lot of posts, the request is appropriate and without alternative for canonical. Oh and the usual alternative to sugar-coated, in this context, is napalm-coated. Just so you know.
Also, the letter they sent him is extremely nice, especially considering the usal tone of this type of document. It really is very different from the standard "nastygram".
Please, people, keep it real. Also, don't be such fucking ingrates. Without ubuntu, linux would not be in such a good shape.
Disclosure: I use xubuntu and don't plan to switch.
It's an interesting twist: instead of claiming spying is essential for the nation's foreign intelligence capabilities and security when faced with nation state adversaries, they are now claiming spying is needed to combat internal, run-of-the mill criminals.
It also seems a little desperate. That argument doesn't have a history of working too well.
I'm arguing that there is a grey area that must be recognized before we just assume it's okay to be "disgusted by crimes that harm others". [...] how about we acknowledge the grey area with a matching grey area of punishment, letting our disgust scale according to how much actual harm was done?
The laws in most civilized countries reflect that to some degree. There is necessarily a degree of arbitrarieness, but laws tend to be different for kids less than 16, for kids between 16 and 18, and for those adults 18 and over. And the penal code in those countries reflects that.
Exactly! How will you ever know for sure that the program won't send your private key to the server - encrypted with another key so you will never see it if you would try to monitor traffic? I think it's impossible with hundreds of gigabytes of traffic.
You need an open source client, and you have to build it yourself.
That said - this slashdot news item looks like a psyop to me. Why would a halfway decent cloud storage provider botch up data integrity so badly? This isn't rocket science after all. I suspect this is FUD to keep people from using these encrypted storage solutions.
I do not agree with this simplistic view. The guy may think you are evil and decide to share your data, it is all left to his own appreciation and judgement. A single guy may destroy a lot of other guys because he believes it is the right thing to do.
The solution of this riddle is that you cannot judge without context. Snowden, for example, betrayed the NSA. Judging by the information he uncovered, he is obviously a very good guy. A real hero. There is really very little to discuss here.
In some sense, your data is better in the hands of the NSA than in the hands of a free-electron you don't know really what he is thinking and cannot predict what he will do with it..
Sometimes yes, sometimes not. If what you want people who just follow orders without having a concience - well, that doesn't say much good about you.
I'm not sure about the loser paying when the loser is the defendant. That means you can pay arbitrarily high fees to a lawyer to sue someone as long as you think you'll win.
What happens in places where 'loser pays' is the law (I think that's most places in Europe) is that lawyer's fees are regulated, and the loser only pays according to the regulations.
The effect of this is that the big massive company suing the little guy may have to pay all the legal expenses of the little guy if the corp loses, but if the little guy loses he does not pay all of the expenses of the corp, only a reasonable ammount, computed in terms of what was at stake, and the regulated price list.
This way, the balance is tipped in favor of the little guy, who wouldn't have paid a super expensive lawyer to begin with.
Hydrogen gas is quite safe, if a tank is just punctured, it will remove itself harmlessly from the vicinity.
Not really. Among other things, the flame is invisible, which surprisingly is a major safety issue.
Beyond that, the main problems are storing enough of it (because it is so light) for reasonably long times (because it leaks through normal metal tanks).
So I unfortunately end up using IE to work in these
The effect this will have is that the security issues will concentrate again in IE, giving it another good dose of bad reputation. Perhaps MS has the clout to convince Oracle to fix its steaming mess. Or perhaps they will do the same and block Java.
Rather than spend a lot of money to make medical care more expensive (via the large health insurance subsidies plus those mandates on insurers)
Serious numbers on this speak a different language. Health care will be a lot cheaper (and better) for the vast majority of people, and only a little bit more expensive for those well off. The right is just making shit up. I don't really understand the motives - perhaps they like it when other people suffer? Perhaps they are just crazy? Most likely both.
Obamacare's trade off is to offer cheap health insurance in exchange for the violation of law, degradation and grow in cost of health care, and a weakening of society.
How does it weaken society? By reducing suffering?
The answer is to find a better model for how government operates. 17 trillion is a problem for more than just science.
17 trillion dollars sounds like a shipload of money, but you have to put in perspective: It's not that much compared with the GDP of the US. Given how gigantic the US is in terms of assets and operations, and in political and economic power, 17 trillion is quite ok.
The biggest structural problem the US has is its insane right. The debt ceiling standoff was very, very dangerous, far more dangerous than even 20 trillion $ of debt would be. It would have taken very little additional bad luck to triger a financial calamity of biblical proportions.
Re:This is a real problem and conflict of interest
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 1
But you gain recognition and get published if you prove someone else wrong. And your academic progress is hampered if someone shows your results to be flawed.
In practice, if you prove other peoples' results wrong, you tend to be marginalized. A lot of articles proving someone wrong are ignored and never cited. The reason for both is that politics plays a very important role.
I think you are ignoring the competitive element.
Science is very competitive - but for what? Primarily for positions and for recognition. This does not mean that people aren't in it for love of science, just that there is a strong incentive system in place that can skew results. There is an incentive for not publishing to much bulshit (because you make your position very weak), counteracted by one for publishing flashy stuff. There is also one for not rocking the boat too hard. How much emphasis is on what depends a lot on the culture and history of a given field.
Some areas of biology are so out of whack with reality that the sensible people leave before obtaining a PhD, either because they can't stand the madness, or because they "fail to understand" the absurdities of the system and are thus gently bullied out. Since nobody else understands what the particular field, the careers of those that stay happen in a beautifully crazy and isolated ecosystem.
Forget the science. Forget the magic. How about this? (from that link)
The Hobbits both 1) refuse to wear shoes and 2) run a livestock-based farming economy. Wouldn't they constantly be stepping in feces? Why doesn't the movie address this issue?
Also, a large number of them are libertarians who hate something like the ACA. I would expect them to try to sabotage a government ("oh the horror") trying to implement universal healthcare ("for parasites! OH THE HORROR!").
Not directly. Indirectly, it helped create a nice big honeypot where now lots of people got caught. This is not unlike the childporn exchanges on the tor network. Pervs flock to these sites, and create a big juicy target for law enforcement.
You have to realize that it is far more cost effective for law enforcement to break silk road and get the adresses of lots of dealers than to chase them one by one. It is so cost effective that they can use a well funded crack team (no pun intended) to do it.
So in a way, this technology is in fact helping law enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
Many IT professionals worship Ayn Rand or follow similar currents. It seems to me perfectly plausible to think that such IT professionals sabotaged the construction of the site. In fact, I would be surprised if they didn't.
Sabotage by uncooperative, even hostile state governments? "Unthinkable".
AND on top of it, it has to keep moving at a speed above some minimum velocity with respect to the surrounding air. A car can just stop. It may be dangerous, but not as much as when a plane just stops in the middle of the air.
There is a lot of market potential in air-gapped hosting!
As has been explained in a lot of posts, the request is appropriate and without alternative for canonical. Oh and the usual alternative to sugar-coated, in this context, is napalm-coated. Just so you know.
Correct.
Also, the letter they sent him is extremely nice, especially considering the usal tone of this type of document. It really is very different from the standard "nastygram".
Please, people, keep it real. Also, don't be such fucking ingrates. Without ubuntu, linux would not be in such a good shape.
Disclosure: I use xubuntu and don't plan to switch.
Do you even know what a definition is?
That's quite a moronic thought and completely false.
It also seems a little desperate. That argument doesn't have a history of working too well.
The laws in most civilized countries reflect that to some degree. There is necessarily a degree of arbitrarieness, but laws tend to be different for kids less than 16, for kids between 16 and 18, and for those adults 18 and over. And the penal code in those countries reflects that.
You need an open source client, and you have to build it yourself.
That said - this slashdot news item looks like a psyop to me. Why would a halfway decent cloud storage provider botch up data integrity so badly? This isn't rocket science after all. I suspect this is FUD to keep people from using these encrypted storage solutions.
The solution of this riddle is that you cannot judge without context. Snowden, for example, betrayed the NSA. Judging by the information he uncovered, he is obviously a very good guy. A real hero. There is really very little to discuss here.
Sometimes yes, sometimes not. If what you want people who just follow orders without having a concience - well, that doesn't say much good about you.
That's not entirely correct. When caught, spies go to jail.
IIRC, the spies fled the country at the very last moment, otherwise they would have rotten in prison.
He enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
As an example: a while ago, russian spies where caught in germany; they do sit in jail.
What happens in places where 'loser pays' is the law (I think that's most places in Europe) is that lawyer's fees are regulated, and the loser only pays according to the regulations.
The effect of this is that the big massive company suing the little guy may have to pay all the legal expenses of the little guy if the corp loses, but if the little guy loses he does not pay all of the expenses of the corp, only a reasonable ammount, computed in terms of what was at stake, and the regulated price list.
This way, the balance is tipped in favor of the little guy, who wouldn't have paid a super expensive lawyer to begin with.
Not really. Among other things, the flame is invisible, which surprisingly is a major safety issue.
Beyond that, the main problems are storing enough of it (because it is so light) for reasonably long times (because it leaks through normal metal tanks).
The effect this will have is that the security issues will concentrate again in IE, giving it another good dose of bad reputation. Perhaps MS has the clout to convince Oracle to fix its steaming mess. Or perhaps they will do the same and block Java.
Serious numbers on this speak a different language. Health care will be a lot cheaper (and better) for the vast majority of people, and only a little bit more expensive for those well off. The right is just making shit up. I don't really understand the motives - perhaps they like it when other people suffer? Perhaps they are just crazy? Most likely both.
No, 17 trillion is a good estimate. See here. That's about GDP, and the interest payments are much less.
How does it weaken society? By reducing suffering?
Thinking of spending without thinking of revenue is just plain stupid.
Government shutdown, by hurting revenues, actually increases deficit and exacerbates the problem.
17 trillion dollars sounds like a shipload of money, but you have to put in perspective: It's not that much compared with the GDP of the US. Given how gigantic the US is in terms of assets and operations, and in political and economic power, 17 trillion is quite ok.
The biggest structural problem the US has is its insane right. The debt ceiling standoff was very, very dangerous, far more dangerous than even 20 trillion $ of debt would be. It would have taken very little additional bad luck to triger a financial calamity of biblical proportions.
In practice, if you prove other peoples' results wrong, you tend to be marginalized. A lot of articles proving someone wrong are ignored and never cited. The reason for both is that politics plays a very important role.
Science is very competitive - but for what? Primarily for positions and for recognition. This does not mean that people aren't in it for love of science, just that there is a strong incentive system in place that can skew results. There is an incentive for not publishing to much bulshit (because you make your position very weak), counteracted by one for publishing flashy stuff. There is also one for not rocking the boat too hard. How much emphasis is on what depends a lot on the culture and history of a given field.
Some areas of biology are so out of whack with reality that the sensible people leave before obtaining a PhD, either because they can't stand the madness, or because they "fail to understand" the absurdities of the system and are thus gently bullied out. Since nobody else understands what the particular field, the careers of those that stay happen in a beautifully crazy and isolated ecosystem.
No, actually. Where should it be? It's all the fault of the reckless hostage takers, and these are all teabaggers.
Forget the science. Forget the magic. How about this? (from that link)
Fantastic!
Also, a large number of them are libertarians who hate something like the ACA. I would expect them to try to sabotage a government ("oh the horror") trying to implement universal healthcare ("for parasites! OH THE HORROR!").
Perhaps that's the explanation: sabotage.
I've heard it looks like a pie,
and floats high up in the sky.
Not directly. Indirectly, it helped create a nice big honeypot where now lots of people got caught. This is not unlike the childporn exchanges on the tor network. Pervs flock to these sites, and create a big juicy target for law enforcement.
You have to realize that it is far more cost effective for law enforcement to break silk road and get the adresses of lots of dealers than to chase them one by one. It is so cost effective that they can use a well funded crack team (no pun intended) to do it.
So in a way, this technology is in fact helping law enforcement.