The big thing about being an entrepreneur is that if you can do it right, you can extract ALL of your value. Normally the company paying your salary is benefiting more from your work than you are; as an entrepreneur you can capture that value, and you can also chart your own growth.
This is possibly the most deliberately confusing way to try to explain our chances of war to anyone. Twenty minutes to midnight means a 0% chance? Why are we restricting a scale designed to have 720 minutes to just 20? This is just designed to scare people (for whatever reason) into thinking war is more probable than it really is. I have no problem with the panel, just the manner in which they displayed their results.
Part of it is that when you inflate an asset class domestically, there will be a reaction abroad. Let's say the real asset value of a house in the US is $X, and an equivalent property elsewhere is $Y. If in the US $X house is overpriced to, say aX where a>1, we would expect to see an equivalent investment abroad rise to bY, where there is a function f(a) = b (as there won't be a perfect correlation). HOWEVER, the net result is that one could hedge out most of the location/currency risk and be left purely investing on the value of the home. So, abroad people start buying houses at bY, which appears to be the rational price. Then, when everyone finds out that in the US the real value of the home is $X, prices fall, and pull down houses abroad to $Y. TLDR: housing abroad is affected because housing getting more expensive in the US makes housing more attractive elsewhere, and investors will try to arbitrage that.
Because the encryption technology currently available to the average user is pretty much useless if the NSA or other government agency takes an interest in your e-mail..
THIS is misleading. Maximum strength PGP encryption is virtually uncrackable, first of all. Second, the laws concerning cracking encrypted files are different from the authority necessary to get emails without a court order.
I fault the courts here - make the court order process easier, but never, ever let anything be done without the approval of the justice system.
As a University of Chicago student, something that I think many people won't take into consideration here is how the library is geared toward the student body. The majority of students use the library as a place to work, rather than a place to get books. And honestly, as someone who does a fair amount of (economic) research, I don't even go to the library until I know what book I'm going to get (I have access to the online library catalog). I think most students view the new library as a cool new place to do work, rather than another place to find books at.
Clearly, all customers who consume electricity more than one standard deviation above the norm should be eligible for a warrantless search of their house.
These are what keep us SAFE because it lets power companies notify law enforcement when our neighbors are growing marijuana! We NEED these to keep us SAFE!
I remember reading an interview with a Prison Break executive who said "So and so died in the 2nd season but we found a way to plausibly bring her back." Although I don't watch that show, if I did something like that would be a deal breaker for my continued viewership. I hate, hate HATE cheap plot toys to keep characters around.
On the other hand, sometimes a show like Fringe comes up with a clever way of retaining a character, e.g. flashbacks or alternate reality where a character is still alive.
But what can one legally do? I wish there was a career path or something that I could do to stop this and similar abuses of power by the government, but short of spending 30 years entrenching myself in the system (at which point I'm sure the economic benefits of prolonging corruption will outweigh any lasting moral compulsions not to) to right some minor wrongs, what can a citizen do? Sadly, I think nothing. Most people I speak to about their rights either don't understand what the rights are, or why we need them, and some think that less privacy means more safety. I don't think the masses can comprehend what is occurring, and the educated few don't have the manpower or public outrage to take a stand. It's depressing, really...
If I were tasked with hiring someone for a post in higher education, belief in intelligent design would be a criterion for not getting the job. Why would a university want to hire someone who thinks that an entire department's work is total bogus? Not believing in the scientific methods that demonstrate evolution and Earth's 4 billion year history is a clear red flag for academic trustworthiness. If you don't believe in a field of science, what else can you choose not to accept? "Oh no, mathematics is entirely false, I reject numbers!" I can't see any university eager to hire someone who goes against everything they stand for. To throw in a car analogy, it's like Ford hiring a sales manager who believes that cars run on magic and unicorn dust.
New slashdot:
You may also like to read,
Book Reviews: Godel, Escher, Bach -- 20th Anniversary Edition 123 comments
Painfully pretentious guff by Sinner (3398)
Hardware: Linux Support for Riva TNT2 110 comments
I have to agree with Crow by Anonymous Coward
Linux: ZD on Red Hat 37 comments
No good deed goes unpunished. by toriver (11308)
Linux: RedHat 6.0 is Out 237 comments
upgrade path by MikeTurk (18201)
I think the big difference here is that the financial crimes that were committed stemmed from behavior that was initially within the law before greed took over. On the other hand, hacking another country's government has never been within the law.
All the news of China's hacking attempts, compounded with the links many of those have to government, begs the question: "How far is too far?" When will the US (or the international community) hold China accountable and force them to stop these actions? The way I see it, what they are doing is worse than firing shells over a border. This could easily be a buildup for a larger attack, yet no one has done anything substantial yet.
"Tellingly, Greenwald never misses a chance to mention Poulsen’s history as a hacker, events that transpired nearly two decades ago and have absolutely no bearing on the current case. This is nothing more than a despicable smear campaign based on the oldest misdirection in the book: Shoot the messenger."
Followed by:
"Similarly, when Assange complained that journalists were violating his privacy by reporting the details of rape and molestation allegations against him in Sweden, Greenwald agreed, writing: “Simultaneously advocating government transparency and individual privacy isn’t hypocritical or inconsistent; it’s a key for basic liberty.”
With Manning, Greenwald adopts the polar opposite opinions. “Journalists should be about disclosing facts, not protecting anyone.” This dissonance in his views has only grown in the wake of reports that Manning might be offered a plea deal in exchange for testimony against Assange."
....Is that not the same thing? These two are not opposites; It is merely an attempt to attack Greenwald. Exactly what Hansen is accusing him of.
There's another group: the dumb kid who is really more of a diversity/sponsored program/goodwill acceptance. At my university (one of the "elite" ones) I have met maybe 10 or so strikingly stupid people in my few years here. For the most part, people are intelligent and able thinkers in most subjects, and while there are people who are skilled in some areas and lagging in others, there are some people who are just plain dumb. These people are lacking common logic, they can't understand basic concepts, and surprisingly (or maybe not), they are mainly from underprivileged areas, usually racially ethnic but culturally white, with no other really identifying features to this group. This isn't to say there aren't rich stupid people or smart people from underprivileged areas or stupid white people (there are) but the the general idiots I see around campus most often tend to be admissions statistic boosters. Then again, I am biased, as I don't hang around rich kids, so I'm probably missing out on that whole rich white dumb kid stereotype.
Slashdot Mirror
The big thing about being an entrepreneur is that if you can do it right, you can extract ALL of your value. Normally the company paying your salary is benefiting more from your work than you are; as an entrepreneur you can capture that value, and you can also chart your own growth.
Sony's most profitable business? Life insurance. I kid you not.
I knew that already just was too lazy to change it. It's funny, not relevant.
This is possibly the most deliberately confusing way to try to explain our chances of war to anyone. Twenty minutes to midnight means a 0% chance? Why are we restricting a scale designed to have 720 minutes to just 20? This is just designed to scare people (for whatever reason) into thinking war is more probable than it really is. I have no problem with the panel, just the manner in which they displayed their results.
Part of it is that when you inflate an asset class domestically, there will be a reaction abroad. Let's say the real asset value of a house in the US is $X, and an equivalent property elsewhere is $Y. If in the US $X house is overpriced to, say aX where a>1, we would expect to see an equivalent investment abroad rise to bY, where there is a function f(a) = b (as there won't be a perfect correlation). HOWEVER, the net result is that one could hedge out most of the location/currency risk and be left purely investing on the value of the home. So, abroad people start buying houses at bY, which appears to be the rational price. Then, when everyone finds out that in the US the real value of the home is $X, prices fall, and pull down houses abroad to $Y. TLDR: housing abroad is affected because housing getting more expensive in the US makes housing more attractive elsewhere, and investors will try to arbitrage that.
Because the encryption technology currently available to the average user is pretty much useless if the NSA or other government agency takes an interest in your e-mail..
THIS is misleading. Maximum strength PGP encryption is virtually uncrackable, first of all. Second, the laws concerning cracking encrypted files are different from the authority necessary to get emails without a court order. I fault the courts here - make the court order process easier, but never, ever let anything be done without the approval of the justice system.
As a University of Chicago student, something that I think many people won't take into consideration here is how the library is geared toward the student body. The majority of students use the library as a place to work, rather than a place to get books. And honestly, as someone who does a fair amount of (economic) research, I don't even go to the library until I know what book I'm going to get (I have access to the online library catalog). I think most students view the new library as a cool new place to do work, rather than another place to find books at.
Clearly, all customers who consume electricity more than one standard deviation above the norm should be eligible for a warrantless search of their house.
These are what keep us SAFE because it lets power companies notify law enforcement when our neighbors are growing marijuana! We NEED these to keep us SAFE!
And until Sony announces that the data was stolen, you don't know that it was. Wait, we've heard this before.
I remember reading an interview with a Prison Break executive who said "So and so died in the 2nd season but we found a way to plausibly bring her back." Although I don't watch that show, if I did something like that would be a deal breaker for my continued viewership. I hate, hate HATE cheap plot toys to keep characters around.
On the other hand, sometimes a show like Fringe comes up with a clever way of retaining a character, e.g. flashbacks or alternate reality where a character is still alive.
But what can one legally do? I wish there was a career path or something that I could do to stop this and similar abuses of power by the government, but short of spending 30 years entrenching myself in the system (at which point I'm sure the economic benefits of prolonging corruption will outweigh any lasting moral compulsions not to) to right some minor wrongs, what can a citizen do? Sadly, I think nothing. Most people I speak to about their rights either don't understand what the rights are, or why we need them, and some think that less privacy means more safety. I don't think the masses can comprehend what is occurring, and the educated few don't have the manpower or public outrage to take a stand. It's depressing, really...
No, they wear jeans with a black turtleneck.
Back into the dark ages with you, Americans! you've never been very bright anyway...
FTFY
If I were tasked with hiring someone for a post in higher education, belief in intelligent design would be a criterion for not getting the job. Why would a university want to hire someone who thinks that an entire department's work is total bogus? Not believing in the scientific methods that demonstrate evolution and Earth's 4 billion year history is a clear red flag for academic trustworthiness. If you don't believe in a field of science, what else can you choose not to accept? "Oh no, mathematics is entirely false, I reject numbers!" I can't see any university eager to hire someone who goes against everything they stand for. To throw in a car analogy, it's like Ford hiring a sales manager who believes that cars run on magic and unicorn dust.
New slashdot: You may also like to read, Book Reviews: Godel, Escher, Bach -- 20th Anniversary Edition 123 comments Painfully pretentious guff by Sinner (3398) Hardware: Linux Support for Riva TNT2 110 comments I have to agree with Crow by Anonymous Coward Linux: ZD on Red Hat 37 comments No good deed goes unpunished. by toriver (11308) Linux: RedHat 6.0 is Out 237 comments upgrade path by MikeTurk (18201)
This sounds interesting. Does anyone know of a good book that would help teach me this technique?
I think the big difference here is that the financial crimes that were committed stemmed from behavior that was initially within the law before greed took over. On the other hand, hacking another country's government has never been within the law.
All the news of China's hacking attempts, compounded with the links many of those have to government, begs the question: "How far is too far?" When will the US (or the international community) hold China accountable and force them to stop these actions? The way I see it, what they are doing is worse than firing shells over a border. This could easily be a buildup for a larger attack, yet no one has done anything substantial yet.
Since when has Fox employed "news reporters?"
Unfortunately wireless carriers were disabling phone use across the board.
"Tellingly, Greenwald never misses a chance to mention Poulsen’s history as a hacker, events that transpired nearly two decades ago and have absolutely no bearing on the current case. This is nothing more than a despicable smear campaign based on the oldest misdirection in the book: Shoot the messenger."
Followed by:
"Similarly, when Assange complained that journalists were violating his privacy by reporting the details of rape and molestation allegations against him in Sweden, Greenwald agreed, writing: “Simultaneously advocating government transparency and individual privacy isn’t hypocritical or inconsistent; it’s a key for basic liberty.” With Manning, Greenwald adopts the polar opposite opinions. “Journalists should be about disclosing facts, not protecting anyone.” This dissonance in his views has only grown in the wake of reports that Manning might be offered a plea deal in exchange for testimony against Assange."
....Is that not the same thing? These two are not opposites; It is merely an attempt to attack Greenwald. Exactly what Hansen is accusing him of.
Dear FBI, please stop by sometime later this week. As you can see, I am at home at 7:12pm CST. Thanks!
FTFY
Agreed. As a former Java coder who had to move to C++, moving to C# after those two makes it so much simpler.
There's another group: the dumb kid who is really more of a diversity/sponsored program/goodwill acceptance. At my university (one of the "elite" ones) I have met maybe 10 or so strikingly stupid people in my few years here. For the most part, people are intelligent and able thinkers in most subjects, and while there are people who are skilled in some areas and lagging in others, there are some people who are just plain dumb. These people are lacking common logic, they can't understand basic concepts, and surprisingly (or maybe not), they are mainly from underprivileged areas, usually racially ethnic but culturally white, with no other really identifying features to this group. This isn't to say there aren't rich stupid people or smart people from underprivileged areas or stupid white people (there are) but the the general idiots I see around campus most often tend to be admissions statistic boosters. Then again, I am biased, as I don't hang around rich kids, so I'm probably missing out on that whole rich white dumb kid stereotype.