The demographic trend is strong. The bookstore will go the way of the print newspaper, one generation later. Hell, I have ~1000 books but even I realize it's time to switch. Ink smeared on bound paper has a certain appeal, but there's nothing really better about it.
There's nothing fundamental to the TCP transport to make "several files in parallel" faster than "several files serially" between two endpoints. It's frankly bizarre that you're addressing that problem by discarding TCP.
And anyone who does invent a better protocol and doesn't work "TRUCK" into the acronym gets no respect from me!
Sadly ports are dead, and we're watching them get re-invented. We've gone from the web being a service built on the internet, to the internet being a service build on the web (well, on port 80/443). Security idiots who mistook port-based firewalling for something useful have killed the port concept, and now that we're converging on all-443-all-the-time, we have to re-invent several wheels.
OK, sure, if you're not making that distinction than it's easy: yes, absolutely, and without question. We should absolutely subvert the enemy, even though (especially because) they're bad people. If it's a real terrorist cell (or enemy nation with hostile plans), then we're legitimately avoiding catastrophe. If it's not, and they weren't bad people after all, hey, no harm done and it's cheap at the price.
That's not really what the CIA does. They aren't James Bond-style spies. They hire or subvert locals into being spies, often by posing as a member of some different intelligence org entirely.
Should a government employee become a terrorist? No. Should someone in the CIA subvert someone already in a terrorist org (perhaps they pose as a leader of that terrorist org, if the org is so cell-based that the terrorist wouldn't know)? Certainly. Turing bad people who belong to bad organizations into informants is the heart of HUMINT, and it's also very cost-effective compared to the NSA, and easy to insure you don't snoop on innocent Americans.
If all the politicians lose their jobs as a side effect, it's win-win! Hey, I didn't say it was likely, I said we should do it. (And, realistically, if we did fire everyone, making a bunch of new enemies is a poor way to begin one's job hunt.)
President Carter make a rule that the CIA can't employ unsavory characters as local operatives (e.g., we can't have an actual terrorist as a mole in a terrorist organization). Our human intelligence took a nosedive and never really recovered. Maybe it's time to fix that (if we haven't already), and just live without the NSA for a while.
I've said it before but: defund the NSA, fire everyone, bulldoze the buildings, and let it serve as an example to other agencies about overreach. Sure, loss of SIGINT will be a problem, but the NSA has become a bigger problem. End it, and start over once you're sure it's really gone.
The thing is, people make their own guns all the time in gun fans' equivalent to makers meets. They use a combination of tecniques. You really want the barrel and receiver to be forged, not cast. But you can take roughed-out forged parts and them CnC mill them to perfection, and get the strength easily enough.
There's little point in trying to CnC mill the entire gun, but a combination of forged blanks, a rolled tube for a barrel, some milling, and simply buying all the other pieces mail order (they sell kits for this), and you have a perfectly serviceable AR15 with no serial number. In most places that's perfectly legal, as long as you've avoided any legal landmines along the way and especially that you never sell it.
That's the thing, legally. In most places in the US you can legally make your own gun, but making a gun for someone else makes you a firearms dealer. People are arguing over where selling the code to allow someone to make a gun automatically lands, legally (if you follow kit cars at all, you'll find this all familiar).
Outside the US, in places where you can't legally make your own gun, this is a much bugger deal.
I wonder how people would take Stranger in a Strange Land after reading the book. Woo free love between everybody and what looks a little like communist ideas!
Why wonder? My old college roommate belongs to the religion it created. They have fun orgies - it's really a good recruiting strategy if you ask me.
I think "Heinlein's ultimate beliefs" are pretty well set out in his non-fiction, including the freaking full page ad in the NYT he paid for warning of the Communist Threat (plus Spider Robinson wrote a bunch about him). But I've always felt that if you avoid an author or band because their beliefs (outside of their media) offend you, you'll soon have no one to read and no music to listen to.
Take for example the book 1984. Was also written by the same guy who wrote Animal Farm. Two very different takes on different ends of the political spectrum.
Both books were straightforward warning stories about how things can go wrong after your socialist revolution, written after Orwell saw things going horribly wrong after a socialist revolution. Two very different takes, but the same morality play.
Hipsters have re-defined fascism to explain that it's all about Evil Corporations. Whatever. It was on the opposite end of the totalitarian-libertarian axis, was the point (and in the movie the leadership dressed like Nazis).
The movie was made to be as anti-military as possible, so of course it showed the soldiers as ineffective, and thoughtlessly so. I expect no better from Hollywood, so I still enjoyed it. Still, the animated series was better, horrific early CGI and all, it at least had some heavy armor in the mix.
Oh, and $$$. Chobham or boron-carbide faced case-hardened steel would cost more than the car.
Yes, that was my point. All engineering is trade-offs. You don't design a car with infinite safety, you design it with reasonable safety against likely threats as best you can for the trade-off for cost and weight. Designing a main battle tank is not the point of the exercise.
No, that's not reasonable. Let me illustrate with 2 examples. Once I had the underbody of my car damaged by road debris at quite moderate speed (30 mph maybe), because the truck in front of me drove over it without incident without in any way trying to avoid it, so in the brief time between the truck ahead of me clearing it and it hitting me, I only had time to start braking. We drive close enough to the car in front of us to avoid hitting that car if it brakes, not to avoid a fixed obstacle that appears where the car is.
In another case I was behind a semi when it violently swerved into the next lane (faster than I would have guessed possible). I also moved into that lane as fast as my reaction time permitted, figuring anything that scares a big rig terrifies me. There was a freaking 50 foot tree in the lane. You never know what sort of road debris you'll be faced with.
OK, use 12" of case-hardened steel plate with boron carbide facing. Oh, wait, that might fail if hit by a HESH round, better use Chobham armor instead of solid steel!
The Tesla seems pretty well armored to me, though the 2 ply solution is amusingly similar to Chobham armor in principle.
People frequently misunderstood Heinlein. He wrote about many fictional societies in which he took some idea that sort of sounded good, and pursued it to its logical extreme where it broke.
People read Starship Troopers and see Heinlein as a fascist, instead of seeing the book as illustrating the good and bad sides to such a society from the point of view of someone living there. We're all brainwashed by our culture to some extent, after all, because that's what culture is.
People read Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and see Heinlein as a Libertarian (gotta watch those libertarian fascists!), instead of seeing the book as illustrating the good and bad sides to such a society from the point of view of someone living there.
In both books our heroes defeat the major dramatic conflict, but also find that society did not become utopia as a result.
The movie was a shallow satire. The book was a thoughtful morality play. I still like the movie though, as was far more annoyed by the lack of jumpsuits than the political fun.
In this case you won't need much money, as TrueCrypt is so high profile and lots of security experts use it personally. If this approach catches on, and the novelty wears off, then you'd need more money to be sure.
Setting up a false gender dichotomy between "how boys behave" and "how girls behave"
You lost me at androgeny. Boys and girls mostly behave differently (like everything, it's a bell curve and there's some overlap). But my point was: the behavior the schools seem to want out of all young students is the traditional gender-approved behavior for girls.
Yes, not saying every last advance was from America, just that most biochem research companies and most medical device research companies are here, and early adopters foot the bill for research. National plans don't usually pay for new expensive treatments that have only worked in trials, they usually wait for the other guy to be the early adopter.
Not to say we won't still have early adopters, as the most likely outcome in America is that everyone who can afford it will move to cash-only "boutique healthcare" with better care than the rest of the system, but insurance won't help there so there will be less money for that research (not none, but less).
OK, but don't higher deductables make that worse? Don't higher plan premiums make insurance harder to afford?
Noble intentions count for nothing here. It seems like in practice, things got worse, not better. (I want to live in theory, everything works perfectly there!)
Slashdot Mirror
The demographic trend is strong. The bookstore will go the way of the print newspaper, one generation later. Hell, I have ~1000 books but even I realize it's time to switch. Ink smeared on bound paper has a certain appeal, but there's nothing really better about it.
There's nothing fundamental to the TCP transport to make "several files in parallel" faster than "several files serially" between two endpoints. It's frankly bizarre that you're addressing that problem by discarding TCP.
And anyone who does invent a better protocol and doesn't work "TRUCK" into the acronym gets no respect from me!
Sadly ports are dead, and we're watching them get re-invented. We've gone from the web being a service built on the internet, to the internet being a service build on the web (well, on port 80/443). Security idiots who mistook port-based firewalling for something useful have killed the port concept, and now that we're converging on all-443-all-the-time, we have to re-invent several wheels.
I know a shipping solution, commonly deployed, that already meets the goal of not being worse than TCP in any way. You can probably guess what it is.
OK, sure, if you're not making that distinction than it's easy: yes, absolutely, and without question. We should absolutely subvert the enemy, even though (especially because) they're bad people. If it's a real terrorist cell (or enemy nation with hostile plans), then we're legitimately avoiding catastrophe. If it's not, and they weren't bad people after all, hey, no harm done and it's cheap at the price.
It's win-win.
That's not really what the CIA does. They aren't James Bond-style spies. They hire or subvert locals into being spies, often by posing as a member of some different intelligence org entirely.
Should a government employee become a terrorist? No. Should someone in the CIA subvert someone already in a terrorist org (perhaps they pose as a leader of that terrorist org, if the org is so cell-based that the terrorist wouldn't know)? Certainly. Turing bad people who belong to bad organizations into informants is the heart of HUMINT, and it's also very cost-effective compared to the NSA, and easy to insure you don't snoop on innocent Americans.
If all the politicians lose their jobs as a side effect, it's win-win! Hey, I didn't say it was likely, I said we should do it. (And, realistically, if we did fire everyone, making a bunch of new enemies is a poor way to begin one's job hunt.)
Finally they can stop scratching at doors until you let them through. Best invention ever!
President Carter make a rule that the CIA can't employ unsavory characters as local operatives (e.g., we can't have an actual terrorist as a mole in a terrorist organization). Our human intelligence took a nosedive and never really recovered. Maybe it's time to fix that (if we haven't already), and just live without the NSA for a while.
I've said it before but: defund the NSA, fire everyone, bulldoze the buildings, and let it serve as an example to other agencies about overreach. Sure, loss of SIGINT will be a problem, but the NSA has become a bigger problem. End it, and start over once you're sure it's really gone.
The thing is, people make their own guns all the time in gun fans' equivalent to makers meets. They use a combination of tecniques. You really want the barrel and receiver to be forged, not cast. But you can take roughed-out forged parts and them CnC mill them to perfection, and get the strength easily enough.
There's little point in trying to CnC mill the entire gun, but a combination of forged blanks, a rolled tube for a barrel, some milling, and simply buying all the other pieces mail order (they sell kits for this), and you have a perfectly serviceable AR15 with no serial number. In most places that's perfectly legal, as long as you've avoided any legal landmines along the way and especially that you never sell it.
That's the thing, legally. In most places in the US you can legally make your own gun, but making a gun for someone else makes you a firearms dealer. People are arguing over where selling the code to allow someone to make a gun automatically lands, legally (if you follow kit cars at all, you'll find this all familiar).
Outside the US, in places where you can't legally make your own gun, this is a much bugger deal.
Trying all the reasonable expiration dates will quickly get a card locked down for fraud. It's reliable DOS attack.
I wonder how people would take Stranger in a Strange Land after reading the book. Woo free love between everybody and what looks a little like communist ideas!
Why wonder? My old college roommate belongs to the religion it created. They have fun orgies - it's really a good recruiting strategy if you ask me.
I think "Heinlein's ultimate beliefs" are pretty well set out in his non-fiction, including the freaking full page ad in the NYT he paid for warning of the Communist Threat (plus Spider Robinson wrote a bunch about him). But I've always felt that if you avoid an author or band because their beliefs (outside of their media) offend you, you'll soon have no one to read and no music to listen to.
Take for example the book 1984. Was also written by the same guy who wrote Animal Farm. Two very different takes on different ends of the political spectrum.
Both books were straightforward warning stories about how things can go wrong after your socialist revolution, written after Orwell saw things going horribly wrong after a socialist revolution. Two very different takes, but the same morality play.
Hipsters have re-defined fascism to explain that it's all about Evil Corporations. Whatever. It was on the opposite end of the totalitarian-libertarian axis, was the point (and in the movie the leadership dressed like Nazis).
The movie was made to be as anti-military as possible, so of course it showed the soldiers as ineffective, and thoughtlessly so. I expect no better from Hollywood, so I still enjoyed it. Still, the animated series was better, horrific early CGI and all, it at least had some heavy armor in the mix.
Oh, and $$$. Chobham or boron-carbide faced case-hardened steel would cost more than the car.
Yes, that was my point. All engineering is trade-offs. You don't design a car with infinite safety, you design it with reasonable safety against likely threats as best you can for the trade-off for cost and weight. Designing a main battle tank is not the point of the exercise.
No, that's not reasonable. Let me illustrate with 2 examples. Once I had the underbody of my car damaged by road debris at quite moderate speed (30 mph maybe), because the truck in front of me drove over it without incident without in any way trying to avoid it, so in the brief time between the truck ahead of me clearing it and it hitting me, I only had time to start braking. We drive close enough to the car in front of us to avoid hitting that car if it brakes, not to avoid a fixed obstacle that appears where the car is.
In another case I was behind a semi when it violently swerved into the next lane (faster than I would have guessed possible). I also moved into that lane as fast as my reaction time permitted, figuring anything that scares a big rig terrifies me. There was a freaking 50 foot tree in the lane. You never know what sort of road debris you'll be faced with.
Far as I can tell, less than 10% of people have the option. I don't - the fuckers stopped about 100 yards away.
OK, use 12" of case-hardened steel plate with boron carbide facing. Oh, wait, that might fail if hit by a HESH round, better use Chobham armor instead of solid steel!
The Tesla seems pretty well armored to me, though the 2 ply solution is amusingly similar to Chobham armor in principle.
People frequently misunderstood Heinlein. He wrote about many fictional societies in which he took some idea that sort of sounded good, and pursued it to its logical extreme where it broke.
People read Starship Troopers and see Heinlein as a fascist, instead of seeing the book as illustrating the good and bad sides to such a society from the point of view of someone living there. We're all brainwashed by our culture to some extent, after all, because that's what culture is.
People read Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and see Heinlein as a Libertarian (gotta watch those libertarian fascists!), instead of seeing the book as illustrating the good and bad sides to such a society from the point of view of someone living there.
In both books our heroes defeat the major dramatic conflict, but also find that society did not become utopia as a result.
The movie was a shallow satire. The book was a thoughtful morality play. I still like the movie though, as was far more annoyed by the lack of jumpsuits than the political fun.
In this case you won't need much money, as TrueCrypt is so high profile and lots of security experts use it personally. If this approach catches on, and the novelty wears off, then you'd need more money to be sure.
But then we'll know. If Bruce Schneier is an NSA plant, and he and at least one smart non-NSA plant routinely audit software, the pattern will emerge.
Like I said, nothing is perfect, but this is pretty good.
Setting up a false gender dichotomy between "how boys behave" and "how girls behave"
You lost me at androgeny. Boys and girls mostly behave differently (like everything, it's a bell curve and there's some overlap). But my point was: the behavior the schools seem to want out of all young students is the traditional gender-approved behavior for girls.
Really, and Netflix sub on top of that, I assume (otherwise it would be a great deal)?
Yes, not saying every last advance was from America, just that most biochem research companies and most medical device research companies are here, and early adopters foot the bill for research. National plans don't usually pay for new expensive treatments that have only worked in trials, they usually wait for the other guy to be the early adopter.
Not to say we won't still have early adopters, as the most likely outcome in America is that everyone who can afford it will move to cash-only "boutique healthcare" with better care than the rest of the system, but insurance won't help there so there will be less money for that research (not none, but less).
OK, but don't higher deductables make that worse? Don't higher plan premiums make insurance harder to afford?
Noble intentions count for nothing here. It seems like in practice, things got worse, not better. (I want to live in theory, everything works perfectly there!)