I don't trust the NSA to honor any rule or commitment in the future. Dust off and nuke em from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.
Let other US intel agencies already charged with spying on ferners with no history of spying internally have the job. If we defunded and destroyed, permanently, any org that crossed the line, they'd eventually learn.
Well, if we still had a representative democracy, we'd just set NSAs budget to 0 and the problem would vanish. But half the congresscritters would shriek at any suggestion of reducing any government spending in any way, and the other half would claim that would mean the terrists win, so we'll just continue our slide into totalitarianism.
Yes, that's the real scandal here: your line have plenty of headroom, but they're going to further saturate their backend at everyone's expense.
If Comcast is your only broadband choice, at least switch to Comcast business service - it's worlds better (not good, mind you, but still vastly better than the foul pit of Comcast residential).
Wait, you keep asserting the physical-world problem is trivial to solve, but that flies in the face of the evidence. The world is full of problems that could be "trivially" solved by writing a check with enough 0s on the end, but that's not often helpful. Solving a problem more cheaply than the problem is obviously important.
Yes, they magically double the connection speed, because the highest bandwidth available for home Comcast internet is typically a small percentage of what the line can carry.
The problem here, as I see it, is that the caps are low to begin with only because Comcast oversubscribes its backend hardware significantly. I'm betting the recently upgraded the back end, but rather than backing off caps they offer this new service instead.
Well, it's quite similar to democracy-as-practice in most times and places in history. At least we don't have a Roman-style formal wealth requirement to run for office.
But the amazing thing here is that anyone, regardless of birth, is legally allowed to become wealthy (and that's only been true here for 150 years, after all). For all that it's less than ideal, it's progress. And, really, building wealth is just a matter of impulse control and setting priorities in life, so while the problem of a few people getting lots of control is real, getting one "fair share" of control just isn't that hard.
You can also make your own gun (from a kit, with a real C&C milling machine, not a 3D printer), with no docs, and such "makers parties" have recently become common with the "Obama gun panic".
Tax evasion is a worse crime than mass murder, in the eyes of the state. They got Capone for the worst crime of all, by government measure, not some petty trick.
If you can't handle the responsibility of being self-sufficient in regard to supplying your own safety/defense, don't try to demean others who are grown men and can do so.
Hey! Plenty of grown women are self-sufficient for their own defense thanks to gun ownership too!
There's certainly not a registration of every gun buyer in the US. Whatever gave you that idea? Did you imagine that the only way to buy a gun is from a FFL dealer? Private sales and gifts are perfectly legal and paperwork free in any sane state (excepting automatic weapons).
Why is there any dispute? In the cities, it's crack cocaine. The various people who mugged me when I used to be the pizza guy were all getting money for a fix. And, thanks to their own success, they're all dead now. Some problems solve themselves. Meth is nasty, but crack was nuts.
Different topic, but you are the batshit craziest poster on Slashdot
Wow, you must be new here. Jane barely moves the needle, by/. standards! The batshit crazy people around here have been perma-banned and post anyway as AC, stalk people and post dozens of replies to their foes. I miss the GNAA trolls, they were mild by comparison.
Maybe the "simple right answer" for a datacanter just doesn't work I the world of stuff? I'm shocked that the answer you spent 5 minutes thinking about wasn't the brilliant solution to all the problems of an industry.
ATMs have 2 big problems right now: they're too easy to replace the firmware on, as they need strong signed boot images, and they're too easy to hack remotely. I saw a talk by a "security researcher" on this, and he mentioned the remote auth was a fundamentally flawed design, giving him 100% success in remote hacking all brands of ATMs. They've got deeper issues than the default password. These are fixable issues in the digital world. The key isn't - there's no good answer to that one.
You do realize all ATMs (from a given vendor) are keyed alike, right? You can buy the key for the front panel for most brands of ATM online. The money, of course, is in a vault inside the ATM with its own security, as the banks don't trust their service techs with access to the ATM vault. And, of course, the cost of managing a collection of per-ATM physical keys would (substantially) exceed the total cost of losses so that's not changing.
You can buy partial ownership, but you can't buy partial control. Groups of people can buy partial control, but it takes large groups, and they have to act through delegated representatives
So, no worse than democracy then? Since it's a (representative) democracy of shareholders, it's of course going to have all the flaws of democracy. 1/300,000,000th piece of control isn't much, after all, but it's each of our fair share.
Prices for everything one needs to live are lower than ever. Subsistence food was over half of family budgets 100 years ago.
Meanwhile, if you're well off and not giving to charity, you're a total dick, that's an inescapable fact. But individual assholes aside, collectively the well-off in America give quite a bit to help the needy.
Furthermore, one can buy partial ownership of these corporations for money. If corporations control everything, just buy your fair share (1/300,000,000th) of all US corps and you've got your proportional vote (and that's only like $50k).
Have you seen a group take down an elephant with spears? There are a few videos. Dangerous stuff. A tiger trap would make short work of an elephant - heck, a covered pit about 3 feet deep would do it IIRC. Just as well - I like elephants.
Hmm, give the elephants the elusive "shovel" technology and the world would be a more interesting place.
You canâ(TM)t hide secrets from the future with math.
You can try, but I bet that in the future they laugh
at the half-assed schemes and algorithms amassed
to enforce cryptographs in the past.
Humans lived successfully in each region for millennia, and eventually learned to hunt just about anything. No firearm required. The shovel would have been an amazingly useful tool for the primitive man faced with a large aggressor, however. Now, sans firearm, it's just a matter of a tiger trap and patience.
The Turing test is a great test if done properly (Turing wasn't envisioning Twitter). While it's hard to pin down a good definition of sapience/intelligence (people want to keep redefining it to what humans have and no computer or animal has demonstrated this year), a good answer comes from studying communication. Intelligence in that sense is the ability to resolve the ambiguity of natural language by interaction as well as context.
In a very shallow way, search engines do that now - with a big enough data set they don't need an abstract mental model to ask "did you mean X?" But that's not really interactive - it's a single suggestion, with nowhere to go from there. When you're walking your dog and someone greets you with "hey, that's a nice dog" is that a content-free politeness, a flirtation, a discussion about dog breeding, a polite reminder that your neighbors are watching to make sure you clean up after the dog?
Part of being a socialized human is resolving that sort of ambiguity gracefully. We have an abstract mental model of other people and their motivations (learned from growing up with others) and we can use it without even noticing how neat that is that we can do that. Posing as someone young and socially awkward precisely defeats the purpose of the test.
Another sort of conversation that's hard to simulate is the way enthusiasts about something technical will talk. While it's easy for the computer to have all the technical details handy for something like a sports car enthusiast and tuner, or a baseball stats hound, the test is in the way people actually talk about that stuff. You see a lot of it on/.. Broad, passionate over-generalizations challenged, emotional argument becoming hot as first but then cooling as you discover that what you're really talking about is two different specific data points, and don't really disagree about anything important, just were over-generalizing from different things. That sort of conversation require both a social abstraction and an abstraction of the topic at hand. E.g. "you think Honda engines are better because you think X is important in an engine, while I think Toyota engines are better because I think Y is important" to mutually understand that requires more than just a knowledge of parts lists, you have to understand why someone would care.
IMO, if you have an abstract mental model of both people and the meaningful objects in the world (and, critically, yourself), and you make decisions based on modeling the hypothetical results of those choices, you are sapient/intelligent. Without invoking the supernatural, that's all there is to have.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't trust the NSA to honor any rule or commitment in the future. Dust off and nuke em from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.
Let other US intel agencies already charged with spying on ferners with no history of spying internally have the job. If we defunded and destroyed, permanently, any org that crossed the line, they'd eventually learn.
Well, if we still had a representative democracy, we'd just set NSAs budget to 0 and the problem would vanish. But half the congresscritters would shriek at any suggestion of reducing any government spending in any way, and the other half would claim that would mean the terrists win, so we'll just continue our slide into totalitarianism.
Yes, that's the real scandal here: your line have plenty of headroom, but they're going to further saturate their backend at everyone's expense.
If Comcast is your only broadband choice, at least switch to Comcast business service - it's worlds better (not good, mind you, but still vastly better than the foul pit of Comcast residential).
Basic math?
Also, Comcast currently offers 150 down for business customers, and I'm sure there's headroom in that.
Wait, you keep asserting the physical-world problem is trivial to solve, but that flies in the face of the evidence. The world is full of problems that could be "trivially" solved by writing a check with enough 0s on the end, but that's not often helpful. Solving a problem more cheaply than the problem is obviously important.
Yes, they magically double the connection speed, because the highest bandwidth available for home Comcast internet is typically a small percentage of what the line can carry.
The problem here, as I see it, is that the caps are low to begin with only because Comcast oversubscribes its backend hardware significantly. I'm betting the recently upgraded the back end, but rather than backing off caps they offer this new service instead.
Well, it's quite similar to democracy-as-practice in most times and places in history. At least we don't have a Roman-style formal wealth requirement to run for office.
But the amazing thing here is that anyone, regardless of birth, is legally allowed to become wealthy (and that's only been true here for 150 years, after all). For all that it's less than ideal, it's progress. And, really, building wealth is just a matter of impulse control and setting priorities in life, so while the problem of a few people getting lots of control is real, getting one "fair share" of control just isn't that hard.
You can also make your own gun (from a kit, with a real C&C milling machine, not a 3D printer), with no docs, and such "makers parties" have recently become common with the "Obama gun panic".
Tax evasion is a worse crime than mass murder, in the eyes of the state. They got Capone for the worst crime of all, by government measure, not some petty trick.
If you can't handle the responsibility of being self-sufficient in regard to supplying your own safety/defense, don't try to demean others who are grown men and can do so.
Hey! Plenty of grown women are self-sufficient for their own defense thanks to gun ownership too!
There's certainly not a registration of every gun buyer in the US. Whatever gave you that idea? Did you imagine that the only way to buy a gun is from a FFL dealer? Private sales and gifts are perfectly legal and paperwork free in any sane state (excepting automatic weapons).
Why is there any dispute? In the cities, it's crack cocaine. The various people who mugged me when I used to be the pizza guy were all getting money for a fix. And, thanks to their own success, they're all dead now. Some problems solve themselves. Meth is nasty, but crack was nuts.
Different topic, but you are the batshit craziest poster on Slashdot
Wow, you must be new here. Jane barely moves the needle, by /. standards! The batshit crazy people around here have been perma-banned and post anyway as AC, stalk people and post dozens of replies to their foes. I miss the GNAA trolls, they were mild by comparison.
Maybe the "simple right answer" for a datacanter just doesn't work I the world of stuff? I'm shocked that the answer you spent 5 minutes thinking about wasn't the brilliant solution to all the problems of an industry.
ATMs have 2 big problems right now: they're too easy to replace the firmware on, as they need strong signed boot images, and they're too easy to hack remotely. I saw a talk by a "security researcher" on this, and he mentioned the remote auth was a fundamentally flawed design, giving him 100% success in remote hacking all brands of ATMs. They've got deeper issues than the default password. These are fixable issues in the digital world. The key isn't - there's no good answer to that one.
You do realize all ATMs (from a given vendor) are keyed alike, right? You can buy the key for the front panel for most brands of ATM online. The money, of course, is in a vault inside the ATM with its own security, as the banks don't trust their service techs with access to the ATM vault. And, of course, the cost of managing a collection of per-ATM physical keys would (substantially) exceed the total cost of losses so that's not changing.
If you're affirming the consequent, then you're probably an asshole.
Neat. So are the classic Mario games etc available? (Weren't they downloads for the Wii, not discs?)
You can buy partial ownership, but you can't buy partial control. Groups of people can buy partial control, but it takes large groups, and they have to act through delegated representatives
So, no worse than democracy then? Since it's a (representative) democracy of shareholders, it's of course going to have all the flaws of democracy. 1/300,000,000th piece of control isn't much, after all, but it's each of our fair share.
Prices for everything one needs to live are lower than ever. Subsistence food was over half of family budgets 100 years ago.
Meanwhile, if you're well off and not giving to charity, you're a total dick, that's an inescapable fact. But individual assholes aside, collectively the well-off in America give quite a bit to help the needy.
Furthermore, one can buy partial ownership of these corporations for money. If corporations control everything, just buy your fair share (1/300,000,000th) of all US corps and you've got your proportional vote (and that's only like $50k).
Have you seen a group take down an elephant with spears? There are a few videos. Dangerous stuff. A tiger trap would make short work of an elephant - heck, a covered pit about 3 feet deep would do it IIRC. Just as well - I like elephants.
Hmm, give the elephants the elusive "shovel" technology and the world would be a more interesting place.
I don't keep up with this stuff: does the Wii U play all the Wii titles? Or is it like the other two with no backwards compatibility?
To quote MC Frontalot
You canâ(TM)t hide secrets from the future with math.
You can try, but I bet that in the future they laugh
at the half-assed schemes and algorithms amassed
to enforce cryptographs in the past.
Humans lived successfully in each region for millennia, and eventually learned to hunt just about anything. No firearm required. The shovel would have been an amazingly useful tool for the primitive man faced with a large aggressor, however. Now, sans firearm, it's just a matter of a tiger trap and patience.
The Turing test is a great test if done properly (Turing wasn't envisioning Twitter). While it's hard to pin down a good definition of sapience/intelligence (people want to keep redefining it to what humans have and no computer or animal has demonstrated this year), a good answer comes from studying communication. Intelligence in that sense is the ability to resolve the ambiguity of natural language by interaction as well as context.
In a very shallow way, search engines do that now - with a big enough data set they don't need an abstract mental model to ask "did you mean X?" But that's not really interactive - it's a single suggestion, with nowhere to go from there. When you're walking your dog and someone greets you with "hey, that's a nice dog" is that a content-free politeness, a flirtation, a discussion about dog breeding, a polite reminder that your neighbors are watching to make sure you clean up after the dog?
Part of being a socialized human is resolving that sort of ambiguity gracefully. We have an abstract mental model of other people and their motivations (learned from growing up with others) and we can use it without even noticing how neat that is that we can do that. Posing as someone young and socially awkward precisely defeats the purpose of the test.
Another sort of conversation that's hard to simulate is the way enthusiasts about something technical will talk. While it's easy for the computer to have all the technical details handy for something like a sports car enthusiast and tuner, or a baseball stats hound, the test is in the way people actually talk about that stuff. You see a lot of it on /.. Broad, passionate over-generalizations challenged, emotional argument becoming hot as first but then cooling as you discover that what you're really talking about is two different specific data points, and don't really disagree about anything important, just were over-generalizing from different things. That sort of conversation require both a social abstraction and an abstraction of the topic at hand. E.g. "you think Honda engines are better because you think X is important in an engine, while I think Toyota engines are better because I think Y is important" to mutually understand that requires more than just a knowledge of parts lists, you have to understand why someone would care.
IMO, if you have an abstract mental model of both people and the meaningful objects in the world (and, critically, yourself), and you make decisions based on modeling the hypothetical results of those choices, you are sapient/intelligent. Without invoking the supernatural, that's all there is to have.