is it so actually so terrible for democracy that both of them will waffle and follow the popular opinion of their constituents?
Depends on how insane or transient popular opinion is... it can swing suddenly to really dumb shit, and then back in a matter of months. Also it is important to have a good grasp of which popular opinions are abandoned once a holder is fully informed, which can be statistically ascertained through focus groups. You don't want a leader who will order lead put into all water supplies because the public got some crazy idea that lead was good for you, and you don't want a leader who lays uncertainty at the feet of the economy by changing policy too rapidly just because the public cannot make up its mind.
Then there's demagoguery, where a preexisting ill-informed popular opinion is pimped into a frenzy by the politician. Or in other words, Trump, who would not be where he is without standing on the shoulders of those who did it before him.
Hillary's opposition to TPP goes back to when Trump started using it against her a couple months ago; before then she supported it
Actually, she announced this posture in October of last year.
The truth, of course, is actually quite more nuanced than that, and had little to do with Trump. During her tenure as secretary of state, though, she did her job and represented the view of the administration that was employing her. After leaving that job, in 2014, she started to say she'd reserve judgment until the final deal was announced.
Only calculations that consist of certain combinations of certain operations can be "solved all at once". Most specifically, you cannot read the state of a qbit and see whether it contains both a 1 and a 0, just a 1, or just a 0. You'll either get a 1 or a 0. Second you cannot copy a qbit's "state" over to another qbit to try to work around this. Because of these limitations (and probably some others I won't understand unless/until I have a long stay in a hospital bed or prison with nothing better to do than learn hamiltonians) it is possible to design problems that confound quantum computation. The people that do this could probably be called crazy smart geniuses, but probably also have trouble making change or crossing the street or something.
I could see an argument to the point that calling a medium that can be DoSd "secure" does not meet muster if you consider reliability part of "security."
But for common use cases "secure" just means aaa, integrity, and confidentiality are protected, and modern crypto suites guarantee this against all known non-quantum attack mechanisms, and the new stuff rolling out is a first shot at killing all known quantum-computing-based mechanisms. For any use case where the security only needs to last a couple decades, the state of the art, if not the state of the installed base, is doing pretty well.
Science-wise, there's a good chance quantum encryption will develop faster than quantum computing as well, which will render it possible to transmit across untrusted nodes without breaking these security guarantees on a raw physics level. Economically, though, the case for wide-scale deployment will be weaker probably than it will with quantum computing capabilities -- basically, the financial sector will likely be the only ones willing to pay for it.
Criminals probably wouldn't, but "hackers" -- or security researchers -- might do it just for the challenge, and criminals might get a hold of that code.
I wonder if small compensating/ripple movements of the torso are enough the extract keylogging from a cell phone in a pocket, though, given a large enough sample.
Consider yourself lucky you even have such materials to refer users to. Most of the "manuals" and "training material" I see today, even for products from well established technology leaders are complete unintelligible/unhelpful crap. I'm always having to file tickets (or in some lucky cases just ask my SE) whether some weird behavior or another is intentional, or a bug, because the manual for feature "foobar" just says "makes a foobar".
People already complain that nutrition labels and ingredient lists are overwhelming and confusing.
My only complaint about current nutrition labels is the ridiculous dividing all the numbers by "17 servings per container" on a bag of chips to make the numbers look better. Well, they could be organized better, probably, to extract the top-lines. So who are these "people"? Now, if we could guarantee every citizen had ready, user-friendly access to a QR code reader + Internet, we could do away with all but the top-line numbers and provide an informative website for drill-down into whatever the consumer is interested in knowing, I'd be for that. Remember "may contain" is an option, within reason (e.g. "may contain any vegetable" would not be reasonable.)
Only "major" food allergens are required to be listed. If you are one of the 10% of food allergen sufferers who has an allergy to something other than the major ones that require listing, you're pretty much out of luck trying to figure out whether what is in a can at the grocery store will make you sick.
The fear over GMOs will fade over time, but it would be a benefit overall if consumer access to detailed information improved over that same time-frame, rather than deteriorating while lawyers and lobbyists get rich.
Funny, but also pertinent -- perspective matters. While in a horrible disciplinary/authoritarian environment and despite being assholes, the empire's soldiers were well fed, well equipped, and probably had holodecks, where conditions were depicted somewhat worse on rogue Klingon vessels opposed to the federation, or on prison planets in ST. Just, less time was spent in those settings in ST. Not to say that the OP does not have a point nonetheless, but life could quite possibly have been more horrible for the larger population in ST because the larger population would have been civilizations that were pre-lightspeed and thus each suffering from their own private wars and atrocity, or not in federation space where some other large interstellar power was enslaving them.
On the other hand it might be able to wear-level better by choosing different patches of the tire to ride on. This looks like an idea waiting for materials science and manufacturing application thereof to catch up to it, though. Needs treads, too.
The news, if you read the TFA, is that scientists figured out a way to clean up the data: they were measuring the hole at its peak, but there are often weather conditions that time of year that add noise to the measurements. Instead, they measured the rate of the growth of the hole at a different time of year, when there are usually no such weather conditions. That gave them a much smoother look at the trend and the affect of volcanic activity.
Of course, the whole ozone thing must be completely a hoax made up by China because humans are too tiny to cause effects on as massive a creation of God as the earth derpy derpy derp. Derp!
There is some benefit to contention issues from packets taking a smaller time. However, peak bandwidth is mostly worthless (as well as rarely achieved in RF) when put shoulder to shoulder with latency and packet loss. Which is why 11ac has fallback provisions for reducing the bandwidth, cutting slices out of channels to deal with interference. When you have a residential area where spectrum is not planned, or not enough staff/money to throw at really tuning things, contention mechanisms won't always work due to hidden nodes/APs Really the "160Mbps" is mostly a selling point for PHBs. Personally if they can get away with it, I can totally see network admins only turning on 160MHz channels near the CIO's office and the meeting rooms were they go the most, There are plenty of nice features in wave 2 which make it desireable to have (in about 5-10 years depending on the age of your client mix), 160MHz channels are not one of them.
Huh? The news programs I watch all preempted their planned stories and covered Turkey non-stop for the whole show. Don't automatically assume the world actually behaves to match your cynicism, check first.
It's about to be true for 5GHz as well, with Wave 2. The "Extended 5 GHz channel support" feature they are touting is carefully worded to whitewash the fact that 160MHz channels ruin channel plans by reducing the number of available non-interfering channels down to (with new FCC regulations) 4, only one more than 2.5GHz. Of course, nobody will be bonding 320G channel groups, so at least there won't be that part of the problem, and the additional channels are certainly welcome for 80MHz purposes, bringing the number up from 5 to 9. And 4 channels is certainly topologically much more than 33% better than 3 channels. It is a big relief that wave 2 didn't have to roll in on a 2 channel plan.
Wave 1 did indeed encourage device makers to actually put the 5GHz antennas back in, and wave 2 certification would encourage them not to leave any channels out (a.k.a. the "crummy hardware is why you cannot use 144 in a BYOD channel plan even though most systems support it" problem) and you don't *have* to turn on 80MHz, so there is some benefit to wave 2. Just, the hazard that prosumer equipment will come configured out of the box to run 160 puts us in a 4 channel universe when you don't have the authority to control spectrum use in a premises. Fortunately the standard also has some better avoidance/graceful-downgrade paths, whose full functionality I certainly hope are *required* for certification.
You do realize you just described the behavior of the Federal government as pathological, right?
The legislature is, arguably, on balance. It's hard to make such a call on the other branches; they are such a mixed bag.
Don't know what insurance you have, but mine pays out pretty well for non-catastrophic, non-prescription purposes -- to our mutual benefit. I don't particularly mind paying more in premiums than I receive in services some years, the security is worth it. They probably saved themselves from substantial risk of treating me for a life-threatening illness years earlier than they now face.
Simply anonymizing data sets is no longer sufficient. There's so much data out there that medical records can be linked to individuals with a high degree of certainty.
Honestly I don't believe Pandora has done much of anything to improve the classification engine, which is supposedly their core product, since they started. If they had, you'd think new options would have appeared for tweaking. They seem to have been entirely focused on making apps for every conceivable platform.
My money would be on a better educated population realizing that a larger proportion of available software is utter crap, and not wanting it in the first place.
Really I think people personalize this issue way too much. Some aggregate data sets could be just as dangerous to society at large as individual records could be to an individual. A powerful and unprincipled entity running a big data operation could find various ways to manipulate sub-populations to their own advantage or according to some perverse ideology, and the more data they have the more likely this will happen. Even well meaning entities could manage to royally screw things up through unintended consequences, but if the data is first acquired by taking advantage of lax security or IT bugs, odds are higher the agency doing so has few good principles, much less a competent organizational structure supervising use of the data.
The justification for the health insurance mandate is that society isn't willing to let the uninsured die.
And even in the self-serving viewpoint, this still applies, as care for the uninsured drains the important resource of people who feel morally obliged to help the sick or wounded for everyone, including premium payers. Except for the pathological cases, most people get this and don't think that punishing doctors and nurses to de-incentivise charity in the medical occupation is a worthwhile societal endeavor. So below a certain baseline of care, it is indeed like automotive liability insurance.
All analogies break down eventually, of course.
Proper administration of insurance programs is a fine balancing act between limiting moral hazard and providing the financial security necessary for a modern economy. Trying to apply simple first principles of political agendas directly to an advanced ethical system is a sophomoric exercise in futility, which is why, even were it not for greed and corruption, the general public would still be left out of the loop.
That... really depends on the distro. There are plenty of unnecessary discovery services distros can be tempted to install because they want their product to satisfy users who expect their OS to "see their printer" and such crap without being told to. All such services offer more potential code surface for network-borne attacks.
What happens is very predictable: the isolated apps eventually need to be integrated. This integration spawns a crapload of reinvented wheels -- protocols/daemons/formats which repeat design mistakes that were well known to be dead ends decades ago, and the layers just keep building up until it collapses under its own weight.
Slashdot Mirror
is it so actually so terrible for democracy that both of them will waffle and follow the popular opinion of their constituents?
Depends on how insane or transient popular opinion is... it can swing suddenly to really dumb shit, and then back in a matter of months. Also it is important to have a good grasp of which popular opinions are abandoned once a holder is fully informed, which can be statistically ascertained through focus groups. You don't want a leader who will order lead put into all water supplies because the public got some crazy idea that lead was good for you, and you don't want a leader who lays uncertainty at the feet of the economy by changing policy too rapidly just because the public cannot make up its mind.
Then there's demagoguery, where a preexisting ill-informed popular opinion is pimped into a frenzy by the politician. Or in other words, Trump, who would not be where he is without standing on the shoulders of those who did it before him.
Hillary's opposition to TPP goes back to when Trump started using it against her a couple months ago; before then she supported it
Actually, she announced this posture in October of last year.
The truth, of course, is actually quite more nuanced than that, and had little to do with Trump. During her tenure as secretary of state, though, she did her job and represented the view of the administration that was employing her. After leaving that job, in 2014, she started to say she'd reserve judgment until the final deal was announced.
Only calculations that consist of certain combinations of certain operations can be "solved all at once". Most specifically, you cannot read the state of a qbit and see whether it contains both a 1 and a 0, just a 1, or just a 0. You'll either get a 1 or a 0. Second you cannot copy a qbit's "state" over to another qbit to try to work around this. Because of these limitations (and probably some others I won't understand unless/until I have a long stay in a hospital bed or prison with nothing better to do than learn hamiltonians) it is possible to design problems that confound quantum computation. The people that do this could probably be called crazy smart geniuses, but probably also have trouble making change or crossing the street or something.
I could see an argument to the point that calling a medium that can be DoSd "secure" does not meet muster if you consider reliability part of "security."
But for common use cases "secure" just means aaa, integrity, and confidentiality are protected, and modern crypto suites guarantee this against all known non-quantum attack mechanisms, and the new stuff rolling out is a first shot at killing all known quantum-computing-based mechanisms. For any use case where the security only needs to last a couple decades, the state of the art, if not the state of the installed base, is doing pretty well.
Science-wise, there's a good chance quantum encryption will develop faster than quantum computing as well, which will render it possible to transmit across untrusted nodes without breaking these security guarantees on a raw physics level. Economically, though, the case for wide-scale deployment will be weaker probably than it will with quantum computing capabilities -- basically, the financial sector will likely be the only ones willing to pay for it.
Criminals probably wouldn't, but "hackers" -- or security researchers -- might do it just for the challenge, and criminals might get a hold of that code.
I wonder if small compensating/ripple movements of the torso are enough the extract keylogging from a cell phone in a pocket, though, given a large enough sample.
Yeah, they should have used a cray logo. Because this is cray cray.
they'll still be haggling with you to try rebooting it and doing tests you've already done.
Yup...and asking for tech support dumps that expose device crypto keys and credentials.
Consider yourself lucky you even have such materials to refer users to. Most of the "manuals" and "training material" I see today, even for products from well established technology leaders are complete unintelligible/unhelpful crap. I'm always having to file tickets (or in some lucky cases just ask my SE) whether some weird behavior or another is intentional, or a bug, because the manual for feature "foobar" just says "makes a foobar".
People already complain that nutrition labels and ingredient lists are overwhelming and confusing.
My only complaint about current nutrition labels is the ridiculous dividing all the numbers by "17 servings per container" on a bag of chips to make the numbers look better. Well, they could be organized better, probably, to extract the top-lines. So who are these "people"? Now, if we could guarantee every citizen had ready, user-friendly access to a QR code reader + Internet, we could do away with all but the top-line numbers and provide an informative website for drill-down into whatever the consumer is interested in knowing, I'd be for that. Remember "may contain" is an option, within reason (e.g. "may contain any vegetable" would not be reasonable.)
Only "major" food allergens are required to be listed. If you are one of the 10% of food allergen sufferers who has an allergy to something other than the major ones that require listing, you're pretty much out of luck trying to figure out whether what is in a can at the grocery store will make you sick.
The fear over GMOs will fade over time, but it would be a benefit overall if consumer access to detailed information improved over that same time-frame, rather than deteriorating while lawyers and lobbyists get rich.
Funny, but also pertinent -- perspective matters. While in a horrible disciplinary/authoritarian environment and despite being assholes, the empire's soldiers were well fed, well equipped, and probably had holodecks, where conditions were depicted somewhat worse on rogue Klingon vessels opposed to the federation, or on prison planets in ST. Just, less time was spent in those settings in ST. Not to say that the OP does not have a point nonetheless, but life could quite possibly have been more horrible for the larger population in ST because the larger population would have been civilizations that were pre-lightspeed and thus each suffering from their own private wars and atrocity, or not in federation space where some other large interstellar power was enslaving them.
On the other hand it might be able to wear-level better by choosing different patches of the tire to ride on. This looks like an idea waiting for materials science and manufacturing application thereof to catch up to it, though. Needs treads, too.
Magnetic levitation. Which will work wonderfully... until small fragments of ferromagnetic material get up in there.
The news, if you read the TFA, is that scientists figured out a way to clean up the data: they were measuring the hole at its peak, but there are often weather conditions that time of year that add noise to the measurements. Instead, they measured the rate of the growth of the hole at a different time of year, when there are usually no such weather conditions. That gave them a much smoother look at the trend and the affect of volcanic activity.
Of course, the whole ozone thing must be completely a hoax made up by China because humans are too tiny to cause effects on as massive a creation of God as the earth derpy derpy derp. Derp!
There is some benefit to contention issues from packets taking a smaller time. However, peak bandwidth is mostly worthless (as well as rarely achieved in RF) when put shoulder to shoulder with latency and packet loss. Which is why 11ac has fallback provisions for reducing the bandwidth, cutting slices out of channels to deal with interference. When you have a residential area where spectrum is not planned, or not enough staff/money to throw at really tuning things, contention mechanisms won't always work due to hidden nodes/APs Really the "160Mbps" is mostly a selling point for PHBs. Personally if they can get away with it, I can totally see network admins only turning on 160MHz channels near the CIO's office and the meeting rooms were they go the most, There are plenty of nice features in wave 2 which make it desireable to have (in about 5-10 years depending on the age of your client mix), 160MHz channels are not one of them.
Huh? The news programs I watch all preempted their planned stories and covered Turkey non-stop for the whole show. Don't automatically assume the world actually behaves to match your cynicism, check first.
It's about to be true for 5GHz as well, with Wave 2. The "Extended 5 GHz channel support" feature they are touting is carefully worded to whitewash the fact that 160MHz channels ruin channel plans by reducing the number of available non-interfering channels down to (with new FCC regulations) 4, only one more than 2.5GHz. Of course, nobody will be bonding 320G channel groups, so at least there won't be that part of the problem, and the additional channels are certainly welcome for 80MHz purposes, bringing the number up from 5 to 9. And 4 channels is certainly topologically much more than 33% better than 3 channels. It is a big relief that wave 2 didn't have to roll in on a 2 channel plan.
Wave 1 did indeed encourage device makers to actually put the 5GHz antennas back in, and wave 2 certification would encourage them not to leave any channels out (a.k.a. the "crummy hardware is why you cannot use 144 in a BYOD channel plan even though most systems support it" problem) and you don't *have* to turn on 80MHz, so there is some benefit to wave 2. Just, the hazard that prosumer equipment will come configured out of the box to run 160 puts us in a 4 channel universe when you don't have the authority to control spectrum use in a premises. Fortunately the standard also has some better avoidance/graceful-downgrade paths, whose full functionality I certainly hope are *required* for certification.
You do realize you just described the behavior of the Federal government as pathological, right?
The legislature is, arguably, on balance. It's hard to make such a call on the other branches; they are such a mixed bag.
Don't know what insurance you have, but mine pays out pretty well for non-catastrophic, non-prescription purposes -- to our mutual benefit. I don't particularly mind paying more in premiums than I receive in services some years, the security is worth it. They probably saved themselves from substantial risk of treating me for a life-threatening illness years earlier than they now face.
Simply anonymizing data sets is no longer sufficient. There's so much data out there that medical records can be linked to individuals with a high degree of certainty.
Honestly I don't believe Pandora has done much of anything to improve the classification engine, which is supposedly their core product, since they started. If they had, you'd think new options would have appeared for tweaking. They seem to have been entirely focused on making apps for every conceivable platform.
My money would be on a better educated population realizing that a larger proportion of available software is utter crap, and not wanting it in the first place.
Really I think people personalize this issue way too much. Some aggregate data sets could be just as dangerous to society at large as individual records could be to an individual. A powerful and unprincipled entity running a big data operation could find various ways to manipulate sub-populations to their own advantage or according to some perverse ideology, and the more data they have the more likely this will happen. Even well meaning entities could manage to royally screw things up through unintended consequences, but if the data is first acquired by taking advantage of lax security or IT bugs, odds are higher the agency doing so has few good principles, much less a competent organizational structure supervising use of the data.
The justification for the health insurance mandate is that society isn't willing to let the uninsured die.
And even in the self-serving viewpoint, this still applies, as care for the uninsured drains the important resource of people who feel morally obliged to help the sick or wounded for everyone, including premium payers. Except for the pathological cases, most people get this and don't think that punishing doctors and nurses to de-incentivise charity in the medical occupation is a worthwhile societal endeavor. So below a certain baseline of care, it is indeed like automotive liability insurance.
All analogies break down eventually, of course.
Proper administration of insurance programs is a fine balancing act between limiting moral hazard and providing the financial security necessary for a modern economy. Trying to apply simple first principles of political agendas directly to an advanced ethical system is a sophomoric exercise in futility, which is why, even were it not for greed and corruption, the general public would still be left out of the loop.
That... really depends on the distro. There are plenty of unnecessary discovery services distros can be tempted to install because they want their product to satisfy users who expect their OS to "see their printer" and such crap without being told to. All such services offer more potential code surface for network-borne attacks.
What happens is very predictable: the isolated apps eventually need to be integrated. This integration spawns a crapload of reinvented wheels -- protocols/daemons/formats which repeat design mistakes that were well known to be dead ends decades ago, and the layers just keep building up until it collapses under its own weight.
Sorry, cut-pasto, dot1Qbg. Though my understanding is a lot of places these days throw that in the trash and just fire up a bunch of GRE tunnels.