Yup, and this is what happened to the Angers Bridge back in 1850 too, or at least something similar. And yet for more than a century French physics teachers used it as a spectacular illustration of resonance, even though it's not that simple.
It's a bit exaggerated to state it so, but not by much. By every account of knowledgeable people, security forces don't have a need for more ability to collect data, but for more manpower to exploit data. None of the attackers in Paris were unknown to the security agencies. Their radicalization was right there, registered in the files. But the files have grown too huge for the available personnel to handle properly.
How has this been voted as "Troll"? I'm not quite as optimistic about Google and its use of user data, but some people are pathologically trigger-happy with downvotes.
The power of emergency capitulation has been removed from the French military command decades before the USA capitulated in Vietnam. Your quips are literally retarded. I advise you update them, you moron.
Okay, actually I do think there should be some exceptions, but there should be legally sanctioned means to obtain the informations for those cases, and only those cases.
Actually, ISIS is a secondary target for Russia, who didn't strike it as much as they stroke some of its opponents. ISIS is way too convenient as a bogeyman for Assad. As long as ISIS stands, Assad can pretend he's a shield against terrorism.
or the good guys had the data but couldn't sort the wheat from the chaff (in which case, laws to further expand the dragnet of surveillance against the general population will reduce our security, not enhance it, by enlarging the haystack of data through which they're trying to search for the terorist needle.)
Which is exactly what happened, and has been pointed at in an editorial in the Guardian that used the exact same metaphor you did: "When the intelligence agencies are looking for a needle in a haystack, they shouldn’t be adding more hay."
Basically, it's a manpower problem, not a legal one. But every government jumps on that pretext to expand surveillance.
And as of today we haven't found any other technology that preserves both the integrity of the ballot and the secrecy of the vote (when implemented properly). With numeric voting, you can have one or the other, not both, as far as I know.
Numeric voting can still be useful when it comes to votes from representatives in parliaments (because secrecy is not a concern, so you can focus on integrity), but as far as citizens' votes go, I'm not aware of any algorithm that would cover both imperatives.
And when a successful businessman is fond of science, he sponsors academical labs on his personal funds, often through a foundation. Sometimes in domains practically unrelated to his business.
Government funding and corporate funding both have their perks and their shortcomings. But it's not such a strict divide as some paint it to be. Just like the divide between fundamental science and applied science isn't as clear cut as some like to narrate as. The late Pierre-Gilles de Gennes stated many times how he loathed that later distinction. He stated that his work with industry development departments helped him spot practical issues that had to be systematically examined, which led him to theoretical breakthroughs that would later help feed new industries.
Innovation is totally different from discovery. Innovation is, at best, a clever application of the current state of available knowledges, and may actually turn out useful, if only marginally, At worst, it's a marketing buzzword aimed at milking schmucks intoxicated with a modernist way of thinking.
I can see you typed your post in a fit of rage, given how you garbled it. You really should take a deep breath and take the time to laugh at those idiots before posting. It would do a lot of good to your syntax and, more importantly, your blood pressure. That being said, I totally agree with you.
Not a libertarian myself. Like, not at all really. But I've discussed with many non-nuts libertarians who, if I got correctly their way of thinking, would find the statements of this guy preposterous, if not outrageous. Then again, none of them were randian...
My bad, then. He didn't engage in intercourse while she was asleep, after all? Because without prior agreement, it's rape, on every jurisdiction I know of. Yes, in France too.
Assange hasn't been charged for "inappropriate sexual conduct" but for rape. He even admitted to the facts. Aside from that, honestly, I really admire the Swedes' tranquil and laid-back democracy, their ability for dialog, the relative humility of their politicians. But I'm French. It's not a good idea to try to hijack France. It may result in uncanny alliances of angry people.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, if the legislations are in tune, denunciation across borders.
Yup, and this is what happened to the Angers Bridge back in 1850 too, or at least something similar. And yet for more than a century French physics teachers used it as a spectacular illustration of resonance, even though it's not that simple.
It's a bit exaggerated to state it so, but not by much. By every account of knowledgeable people, security forces don't have a need for more ability to collect data, but for more manpower to exploit data. None of the attackers in Paris were unknown to the security agencies. Their radicalization was right there, registered in the files. But the files have grown too huge for the available personnel to handle properly.
How has this been voted as "Troll"? I'm not quite as optimistic about Google and its use of user data, but some people are pathologically trigger-happy with downvotes.
At some point they really need to send them all elsewhere. I suggest Planet Claire.
The power of emergency capitulation has been removed from the French military command decades before the USA capitulated in Vietnam. Your quips are literally retarded. I advise you update them, you moron.
So, they are basically reinventing education funded by income tax? What a novelty!
And nothing of value will be lost.
Okay, actually I do think there should be some exceptions, but there should be legally sanctioned means to obtain the informations for those cases, and only those cases.
Why civil courts? What he's doing is a criminal offense.
Actually, ISIS is a secondary target for Russia, who didn't strike it as much as they stroke some of its opponents. ISIS is way too convenient as a bogeyman for Assad. As long as ISIS stands, Assad can pretend he's a shield against terrorism.
or the good guys had the data but couldn't sort the wheat from the chaff (in which case, laws to further expand the dragnet of surveillance against the general population will reduce our security, not enhance it, by enlarging the haystack of data through which they're trying to search for the terorist needle.)
Which is exactly what happened, and has been pointed at in an editorial in the Guardian that used the exact same metaphor you did: "When the intelligence agencies are looking for a needle in a haystack, they shouldn’t be adding more hay."
Basically, it's a manpower problem, not a legal one. But every government jumps on that pretext to expand surveillance.
So, basically, you're against census even existing. Because the alternative is no census at all. A non-mandatory census is an absurdity.
And as of today we haven't found any other technology that preserves both the integrity of the ballot and the secrecy of the vote (when implemented properly). With numeric voting, you can have one or the other, not both, as far as I know.
Numeric voting can still be useful when it comes to votes from representatives in parliaments (because secrecy is not a concern, so you can focus on integrity), but as far as citizens' votes go, I'm not aware of any algorithm that would cover both imperatives.
Oooh, good! That joke was getting old. Nice way to milk it.
Mostly the US government's dollar.
Citation needed.
And when a successful businessman is fond of science, he sponsors academical labs on his personal funds, often through a foundation. Sometimes in domains practically unrelated to his business.
Government funding and corporate funding both have their perks and their shortcomings. But it's not such a strict divide as some paint it to be. Just like the divide between fundamental science and applied science isn't as clear cut as some like to narrate as. The late Pierre-Gilles de Gennes stated many times how he loathed that later distinction. He stated that his work with industry development departments helped him spot practical issues that had to be systematically examined, which led him to theoretical breakthroughs that would later help feed new industries.
Innovation is totally different from discovery. Innovation is, at best, a clever application of the current state of available knowledges, and may actually turn out useful, if only marginally, At worst, it's a marketing buzzword aimed at milking schmucks intoxicated with a modernist way of thinking.
I can see you typed your post in a fit of rage, given how you garbled it. You really should take a deep breath and take the time to laugh at those idiots before posting. It would do a lot of good to your syntax and, more importantly, your blood pressure. That being said, I totally agree with you.
Not a libertarian myself. Like, not at all really. But I've discussed with many non-nuts libertarians who, if I got correctly their way of thinking, would find the statements of this guy preposterous, if not outrageous. Then again, none of them were randian...
My bad, then. He didn't engage in intercourse while she was asleep, after all? Because without prior agreement, it's rape, on every jurisdiction I know of. Yes, in France too.
Assange hasn't been charged for "inappropriate sexual conduct" but for rape. He even admitted to the facts. Aside from that, honestly, I really admire the Swedes' tranquil and laid-back democracy, their ability for dialog, the relative humility of their politicians. But I'm French. It's not a good idea to try to hijack France. It may result in uncanny alliances of angry people.
There's more to an economy than material resources. Look at Africa for an example.
Actually, I think the EU might fare better than the USA in such a scenario, by virtue of not treating (any more) every ally it has as subservient.
You're speaking like Mutual Economic Destruction would be a victory. You're funny.
Will an EU company be allowed to manage US data?
In compliance of US laws and regulations, of course. For example, by following US data privacy laws... oh, right, there's no such thing, my bad.
Except we still have vestiges of due process here in the EU.