But we don't really know that much about planetary formation. Last I read, none of our planetary formation models generated our own solar system, though there has no doubt been progress since I last read. Still, until we can study some sample of solar systems (note the plural) in detail, we really won't have a very good handle on what's going on. At the moment about all we can detect are bodies too big to really be of interest, unless we're really looking for Endor, and assume it has an interesting moon.
Rare? Maybe, probably, but maybe not. Of course if we had a very long baseline (say, Earth's orbit) telescope we could probably get some interesting answers. But we don't.
Sometimes perception can be more important than reality, and this might be one of them. You need to pass the "duck test". If it looks like a memory leak, acts like a memory leak, and shows up on garden variety monitoring tools like a memory leak, it may not matter that it's really fragmentation. It's perceived as a memory leak. Getting people to perceive it as a fragmentation problem rather than a memory leak is kind of like changing the background screen color on a BSOD. The net is that the session is still slow.
By whatever name it's called, it needs to be fixed. On the good side, it looks like it's being addressed.
I'm not saying I like hot pursuit, I'm just wanting to make sure there's another mechanism for catching whoever is running. What you say about lawsuits is true, but somehow lawsuits are like war - you don't plan for them when budgeting, you just go "oops" and weasel around the regular budget process when they happen. Call it "Excessive best-case planning in the real world."
I'm thinking/fearing that if high-speed flight suddenly becomes a "get away free" card for criminals, because we've told police "no more hot pursuit" then we'll start seeing a heck of a lot of high-speed flight. We might see just about every criminal situation turn into a high-speed flight in this case, simply because of the "guarantee."
I'll take someone else's idea of the "trunk penetrator cannon" and change that to a "dye shooter" to tag the fleeing car.
The mistake is in the words "your mail." It's not Bush's or Cheney's email, it belongs the the USA, and it needs to be kept in accordance with US records retention policies.
When you're at work, you keep or delete email based on your employer's records retention policies, not your own whims.
There is an interesting mix of people at work, some left-leaning, some right-leaning, and some who seem apolitical.
A few years back, the context was appropriate and I mentioned the idea in front of one of the apolitical types, and it "insulted his sense of correctness and dignity in the world." My estimation of his response, not his words. I also have some friends who are by all other measures quite left-leaning, but they don't believe in handouts, (or your "financial aid") and people should "lift themselves up by their bootstraps." If we ever discuss it again, I'll mention that either, "It's hard to pick yourself up by your bootstraps when you had to sell them to buy food/cover medical bills/etc." (or "when someone has their foot on your neck.")
I've grown to believe that while government should be composed of principled people, principles themselves in government frequently are a very dangerous thing. People can do things "for principles" that they wouldn't ordinarily do, and governments can be even more so.
I fear amusing is only the right word if you're not one of those people. I thought/wished that part of the purpose of drug laws was to steer them away from drugs, and to help them leave them behind. This kind of thing is almost as ruinous.
Personally, I think we should end the War on Drugs, and treat them just like alcohol and tobacco. I don't like them, but right now it seems to me that the collateral damage is just too great, and the cost too high. Drugs ruin a life, but as you say, today's penalties for possession and use ruin a life, too.
I guess IMHO the only good thing the War on Drugs does is fun some corporate welfare, and let some folks feel Righteous.
To be honest, I thought about it. Then I decided it would take the post too far into the "left wing diatribe" category, figuring it might have more legs with less content.
The/really/ old people, in addition to being skinny, are usually also short.
At 6'4" I take this personally as a bad sign.
On the other hand, there's some guy who's trying to achieve longevity through calorie restriction. Only problem is that he's cut his diet back so far that he doesn't have the energy to enjoy normal activities. He may live a long time, but he won't have much fun doing so. I'd like to live as long as I can live well, and so far in my 50's I can do all of the things I enjoy.
* Astronaut V is in Nation W's module, and shoots astronaut X, who is in Nation Y's module, but the bullet had to go through Nation Z's module to get there. I forgot the nation that manufactured the gun and bullets, but that shouldn't matter. (None of this should.)
As a resident of one of the states that fought RealID, my license does NOT look like monopoly money. It has my photo, description, select "identity information", a not-really-bar code, but still machine-readable code on the back, organ donor checkboxes, and some anti-counterfeiting measures similar to those on modern money. (But it's laminated plastic, not simple paper, either.)
Your post is a little, but far from entirely unfair.
But at its core there is a fundamental issue about our society, and that is that "Profit is our Highest Achievement." That can be all well and good, but it's not a good thing if you also want to call yourself a "Christian Nation."
But to avoid that issue for a moment, and consider the issue of profit vs medical care...
Using profit as a driving motivation, it means that pharmaceuticals are simply the means to making more money. Presumably, and this is the free-market side speaking, more effective medications will make more money than less-effective medications. One problem with this is the simple corollary that a less-effective medication that costs more is more likely to get developed than a more-effective medication that costs less. Obviously once it got to market, the latter medication would win big, but the process of getting to market is such a barrier that it may never get developed in the first place, especially a cheap medication for a less-common problem.
Hair restoration drugs might be the best example of this. They started out as blood-pressure reduction medications, until someone, somehow discovered that when topically applied they promoted hair growth. Now they're hair-growth medication, with the side-effect of blood-pressure reduction.
>when many of the cost controls in other systems involve refusing care.
And the cost controls in the US don't involve refusing care?
Look again. Part of the cost control in the US seems to be a matter of how determined and how knowledgeable the consumer is in overturning that first refusal by the insurance carrier.
Although IMHO a fundamental part of the solution needs to involve refusing care. We can do stunning things to extend life, the question is really the wisdom of actually doing all of those things in every case. The real wisdom needed is in determining how much care to apply and when. I'm facing these decisions now with an injured elderly parent, so this isn't merely a soapbox question to me.
I have this pet hypothesis that they're really using "spread spectrum" communications with spam. Hide a few, or even one, character per message in spam, and send it to the botnet. Everyone in the world gets the message, but without knowing that it's really secret communication, and without knowing how to grab the few (or one) significant characters and reassemble them, everyone but the knowing recipients deletes the stuff.
Actually, the biggest problem with encrypted email is the number of people who now use webmail. How many people READ the service terms for webmail? Once your email remains on someone else's server, your privacy expectations become much less than even when it simply passes through. I fetch my email regularly, delete it from the server, and place it on my own IMAP server. In order to read my email, an intercept/duplicate decision has to be made prior to my fetching and deleting. With any mail it can be readily monitored during the "resident time" on the server, it's just that with webmail that residence time is much longer. This presumes of course that ISPs are motivated to be DASD (and dollar) efficient by truly deleting your email when you tell them to.
IMHO the way out of this problem is for banks to issue security documents like certificates and keys. To begin with, they're in the security and trust business, in a very fundamental way. Next, they *know* who you are, in a very government-like way. They could also act as an escrow agency assuming the legitimate government need to execute a warrant, and banks would treat this the same as their other financial dealings with you - not available without warrant. Finally, most people deal with banks, and moving their "computer security documents" into the bank would help to properly calibrate their treatment of their keys and/or certificates.
The downside is that it presents too powerful a target for malware writers to ignore, because it would potentially grant even greater access than is available today.
You're absolutely right, and in the Constitution it explicitly states that rights are "not restricted to those herein enumerated," yet somehow "strict constructionists" keep saying, "That right is not specifically stated in the Constitution, therefore it does not exist."
Slashdot Mirror
You might be right. You probably are right.
But we don't really know that much about planetary formation. Last I read, none of our planetary formation models generated our own solar system, though there has no doubt been progress since I last read. Still, until we can study some sample of solar systems (note the plural) in detail, we really won't have a very good handle on what's going on. At the moment about all we can detect are bodies too big to really be of interest, unless we're really looking for Endor, and assume it has an interesting moon.
Rare? Maybe, probably, but maybe not. Of course if we had a very long baseline (say, Earth's orbit) telescope we could probably get some interesting answers. But we don't.
Sometimes perception can be more important than reality, and this might be one of them. You need to pass the "duck test". If it looks like a memory leak, acts like a memory leak, and shows up on garden variety monitoring tools like a memory leak, it may not matter that it's really fragmentation. It's perceived as a memory leak. Getting people to perceive it as a fragmentation problem rather than a memory leak is kind of like changing the background screen color on a BSOD. The net is that the session is still slow.
By whatever name it's called, it needs to be fixed. On the good side, it looks like it's being addressed.
I'm not saying I like hot pursuit, I'm just wanting to make sure there's another mechanism for catching whoever is running. What you say about lawsuits is true, but somehow lawsuits are like war - you don't plan for them when budgeting, you just go "oops" and weasel around the regular budget process when they happen. Call it "Excessive best-case planning in the real world."
I'm thinking/fearing that if high-speed flight suddenly becomes a "get away free" card for criminals, because we've told police "no more hot pursuit" then we'll start seeing a heck of a lot of high-speed flight. We might see just about every criminal situation turn into a high-speed flight in this case, simply because of the "guarantee."
I'll take someone else's idea of the "trunk penetrator cannon" and change that to a "dye shooter" to tag the fleeing car.
There's merit to the idea, but there's an unintended consequence:
"Well gee, if I just drive really fast the cops aren't allowed to do hot pursuit any more, and I'll get away."
What's needed is a way to tag the bad guy's car and set something up down the road to catch him.
The mistake is in the words "your mail." It's not Bush's or Cheney's email, it belongs the the USA, and it needs to be kept in accordance with US records retention policies.
When you're at work, you keep or delete email based on your employer's records retention policies, not your own whims.
When you're at home, go ahead and do as you like.
There is an interesting mix of people at work, some left-leaning, some right-leaning, and some who seem apolitical.
A few years back, the context was appropriate and I mentioned the idea in front of one of the apolitical types, and it "insulted his sense of correctness and dignity in the world." My estimation of his response, not his words. I also have some friends who are by all other measures quite left-leaning, but they don't believe in handouts, (or your "financial aid") and people should "lift themselves up by their bootstraps." If we ever discuss it again, I'll mention that either, "It's hard to pick yourself up by your bootstraps when you had to sell them to buy food/cover medical bills/etc." (or "when someone has their foot on your neck.")
I've grown to believe that while government should be composed of principled people, principles themselves in government frequently are a very dangerous thing. People can do things "for principles" that they wouldn't ordinarily do, and governments can be even more so.
I fear amusing is only the right word if you're not one of those people. I thought/wished that part of the purpose of drug laws was to steer them away from drugs, and to help them leave them behind. This kind of thing is almost as ruinous.
Personally, I think we should end the War on Drugs, and treat them just like alcohol and tobacco. I don't like them, but right now it seems to me that the collateral damage is just too great, and the cost too high. Drugs ruin a life, but as you say, today's penalties for possession and use ruin a life, too.
I guess IMHO the only good thing the War on Drugs does is fun some corporate welfare, and let some folks feel Righteous.
To be honest, I thought about it. Then I decided it would take the post too far into the "left wing diatribe" category, figuring it might have more legs with less content.
Universities should forfeit their federal financial aid if they don't go along with a few other problems:
Abstinence-only approach to sex education, STDs, and birth control.
Just say NO! to drugs.
O heck, that's enough. It's not worth trying to think up any more.
Conservative? This isn't conservative. I'm not sure what it is, but it SURE isn't conservative.
Barry Goldwater was conservative, not this.
The /really/ old people, in addition to being skinny, are usually also short.
At 6'4" I take this personally as a bad sign.
On the other hand, there's some guy who's trying to achieve longevity through calorie restriction. Only problem is that he's cut his diet back so far that he doesn't have the energy to enjoy normal activities. He may live a long time, but he won't have much fun doing so. I'd like to live as long as I can live well, and so far in my 50's I can do all of the things I enjoy.
One could argue that the same question applies here on Earth, especially if biofuels expand their competition with food.
Then there's
* Astronaut V is in Nation W's module, and shoots astronaut X, who is in Nation Y's module, but the bullet had to go through Nation Z's module to get there. I forgot the nation that manufactured the gun and bullets, but that shouldn't matter. (None of this should.)
Ahh, but if this speculation disappears shortly, we'll know.
As a resident of one of the states that fought RealID, my license does NOT look like monopoly money. It has my photo, description, select "identity information", a not-really-bar code, but still machine-readable code on the back, organ donor checkboxes, and some anti-counterfeiting measures similar to those on modern money. (But it's laminated plastic, not simple paper, either.)
Your post is a little, but far from entirely unfair.
But at its core there is a fundamental issue about our society, and that is that "Profit is our Highest Achievement." That can be all well and good, but it's not a good thing if you also want to call yourself a "Christian Nation."
But to avoid that issue for a moment, and consider the issue of profit vs medical care...
Using profit as a driving motivation, it means that pharmaceuticals are simply the means to making more money. Presumably, and this is the free-market side speaking, more effective medications will make more money than less-effective medications. One problem with this is the simple corollary that a less-effective medication that costs more is more likely to get developed than a more-effective medication that costs less. Obviously once it got to market, the latter medication would win big, but the process of getting to market is such a barrier that it may never get developed in the first place, especially a cheap medication for a less-common problem.
Hair restoration drugs might be the best example of this. They started out as blood-pressure reduction medications, until someone, somehow discovered that when topically applied they promoted hair growth. Now they're hair-growth medication, with the side-effect of blood-pressure reduction.
>when many of the cost controls in other systems involve refusing care.
And the cost controls in the US don't involve refusing care?
Look again. Part of the cost control in the US seems to be a matter of how determined and how knowledgeable the consumer is in overturning that first refusal by the insurance carrier.
Although IMHO a fundamental part of the solution needs to involve refusing care. We can do stunning things to extend life, the question is really the wisdom of actually doing all of those things in every case. The real wisdom needed is in determining how much care to apply and when. I'm facing these decisions now with an injured elderly parent, so this isn't merely a soapbox question to me.
Consider the entire article to be (-1) flamebait and move along.
I have this pet hypothesis that they're really using "spread spectrum" communications with spam. Hide a few, or even one, character per message in spam, and send it to the botnet. Everyone in the world gets the message, but without knowing that it's really secret communication, and without knowing how to grab the few (or one) significant characters and reassemble them, everyone but the knowing recipients deletes the stuff.
Actually, the biggest problem with encrypted email is the number of people who now use webmail. How many people READ the service terms for webmail? Once your email remains on someone else's server, your privacy expectations become much less than even when it simply passes through. I fetch my email regularly, delete it from the server, and place it on my own IMAP server. In order to read my email, an intercept/duplicate decision has to be made prior to my fetching and deleting. With any mail it can be readily monitored during the "resident time" on the server, it's just that with webmail that residence time is much longer. This presumes of course that ISPs are motivated to be DASD (and dollar) efficient by truly deleting your email when you tell them to.
IMHO the way out of this problem is for banks to issue security documents like certificates and keys. To begin with, they're in the security and trust business, in a very fundamental way. Next, they *know* who you are, in a very government-like way. They could also act as an escrow agency assuming the legitimate government need to execute a warrant, and banks would treat this the same as their other financial dealings with you - not available without warrant. Finally, most people deal with banks, and moving their "computer security documents" into the bank would help to properly calibrate their treatment of their keys and/or certificates.
The downside is that it presents too powerful a target for malware writers to ignore, because it would potentially grant even greater access than is available today.
You're absolutely right, and in the Constitution it explicitly states that rights are "not restricted to those herein enumerated," yet somehow "strict constructionists" keep saying, "That right is not specifically stated in the Constitution, therefore it does not exist."
Please stop having such reasonable and enlightened attitudes.
People here want to see Red Hat as turning EVIL, and you're making problems with that perception.