If it gets too bad, I'll just stop coming. A pity, really, as there doesn't seem to be any reasonable replacement, but they are within their legal rights to change to the design to be unusable.
The FCC *could* decide to regulate things that way. They're quite unlikely to. Congress *could* write a law that said that. They, also, are quite unlikely to.
Just because you strongly believe that things should be done in some partiular way doesn't mean you have any faith that the government will do it in that way. But the judge appears to have been correct in ruling that the FCCs current (now recinded) regulations were not in accordance with law. He even indicated how the FCC could correct the regulations. They'll probably decide to ignore his suggestion, and leave it to the rule of the strong and ruthless. (But this is just my reading based on what people have written about the composition of the current FCC. FWIW, I haven't though very well of them for the last couple of decades...and before that I pretty much ignored them. But so far they've been better than a total lack of regulation. Faint praise, but that's all I've got for them.)
I don't think there is sufficient trustworthy evidence to show that you are wrong, but there certainly isn't enough to show that you are correct.
What is clear is that the US Govt. either knew, or should have known, about the attack (though perhaps not its specifics) in advance. This is a very different statement.
The thing is, the ISPs SHOULD be treated like phone companies Including common carrier status, with the restrictions that that imposes. When you let them act as if they were common carriers, but don't impose the restrictions of such, you are asking for malicious behavior.
OTOH, the Great Wall of China *WAS* built with slave labor...i.e., with labor of political prisoners. IIUC it was often intended that they be worked to death, unlike many other projects where a high death rate was accepted as "the cost of doing business". I include in this latter group the Grand Canal. That was built by conscripted peasants, but it really was desired that they survive. Many of them didn't, but that wasn't really intended. But the Great Wall was an intentional sentence of internal exile, and many of those working on it were intentionally worked to death.
Measurement in this sense does not imply conscious awareness. An earlier post claimed that it wasn't measurement, but rather irreversible thermodynamic change. I find that difficult to accept, because thermodynamics is only statistically irreversible. (The statistics can get pretty impressive, but still...) OTOH, I am not an expert in the field.
Still, arguments like this are why I prever the EGW multi-world interpretation of quantum mechanics (which has it's own places where things are difficult to swallow). But it eliminates the problem under discussion.
No. You can say that you can only reveal infromation related to that topic in a closed session. You don't have to lie.
Of course, if you only reveal things in a closed session, people will doubt that you said them. So, perhaps, his intent was to use the testimony in open session to lie to the public, and to the non-cleared members of Congress. He still lied to Congress under oath, and that makes him a criminal. One who remains curiously unprosecuted.
How do you get from those deep subway tunnels to the surface? Also, since Rome is fairly near sea level, and near the sea, those deep subway tunnels are also going to be underwater. This makes things much more expensive.
The solution in Roman times was, IIRC, to ban vehicles on the streets during daylight hours. I don't really think you need to ban bicycles, but Rome *is* the city on seven hills, so I doubt that bicycle use will be a popular as in flatter cities.
Perhaps an elevated railway could be made to work. You would need to design it with light vehicles, so that you would have considerable latitude as to where you placed the support pylons.
??? If you don't have the lights timed, then you can't design to allow flow. It just doesn't work. Even with timed lights it's quite difficult to have good flow in two different directions. (You *can* do it if you'ver very careful about the timing...or if you allow the flow to be broken around every 10 blocks...and only have about one street out of 10 timed for flow.) Note that even so if you want flow in two orthogonal directions, you may need to be very careful with the speeds that you allow to flow.
But you can't allow lights to change at other than the specified times. I suppose you could decide to skip an entire cycle, but that usually wouldn't speed up the traffic flow. Somewhere along the route someone would be on a cross street, and their light would change...which would mean that the street that they crossed would change out of sequence with the other lights, and.... it's just a bad idea.
If there were good public transit, and secure long-term storage places (wherre, e.g., the battery could be kept charged) then they might be interested. Particularly if sensible parking regulations were enforced. This, however, looks like putting enforcement before the alternative. OTOH, it's a Slashdot summary, so who knows what's really going on.
Did you notice that "congestion pricing" was only a part of the solution. Another part was providing places to park away from the center, with good transit connections to good transit. There are other parts to making it a good solution, which basicly come under the ruberic of "pedestrian amenities", though you could include bicycles, too. Do note, however, that bicycle amenities are often very different from pedestrian amenities.
He's a politician. You can tell he's lying if you see his lips move.
P.S.: I don't follow British politics. If that's an overstatement in British politics, I appologize. I'm assuming that in it's broad aspects it resembles US politics.
That's if you think "enshrine it clearly in law" will act as a protection against misuse. Unfortunately, recent history casts derision upon that point of view. (I was going to be more "polite" and say "casts doubts", but reviewing recent history, I couldn't justify that more moderate statement.)
That wouldn't work...well, it conceivably COULD, but currently all data stored to a drive is "encrypted" to compact the storage, so you probably need to piece together an entire sector in order to recover any of it. And IIUC different disks have different sizes of sectors, so you need to know how the disk was formatted to know how much you need to piece together.
You left out reaction time. Even at 55 mph most people are often overdriving their reaction time. How long does it take to stop? How long does it take you to decide to stop? How far have you gone in that amount of time?
The only thing that makes driving in fast traffic even approximately safe is that most of the traffic is usually moving at the same speed, so it take them time to stop too. This, however, can lead to pileups when there is a sudden accident. This can be caused by a blowout, or nervous twitch or several other uncommon things, but when a lot of traffic is involved and a lot of time, uncommon things happen with uncomfortable frequency.
FWIW, I've stopped driving because I don't consider myself a safe enough driver. I also don't consider about half of the other drivers on the road to be safe enough. I'm not that bad a driver, but after I tail-ended another car on a freeway in the fog I reconsidered my capabilities. The law found me not at fault. I didn't. But driving slower would have been as dangerous, because of the other traffic. The only safe thing to do would have been to stop at a motel and wait for the fog to lift...but getting to that motel.... (And, to be honest, I didn't even consider that I shouldn't be on the road in that kind of weather.) (P.S.: I was driving slower than most of the traffic, but the car I hit had stopped on the freeway. Yah, he shouldn't have done that. But if I'd been driving safely, I could have avoided him, or stopped before I got there. As it was, by the time I could tell he was stopped, I couldn't stop.)
FWIW, there are also private regulatory bodies, like the Western College Association, that regulate Colleges and Universities. They have MUCH stricter rules than does the state of California. But they can't put you out of business if you don't meet them, only forbid you from using certain terms to describe your product. (I think that's trademark law, but I'm not sure.)
Have you looked at what the requirements for compliance are? The requirements that I saw would not be violated by any honest training course. These groups are violating requirements like "Don't promise a job unless you can deliver one, and don't lie by implication and give them a job as a janitor after a course on firewalls."
I'm sure that there are requirements that I didn't read, as I only read the first 10, and then skimmed, but every one that I noticed would not be violated by any honest class. I didn't even notice a requirement that they register with the state, though I wouldn't be surprised if it existed. (I'm sure the Franchise Tax Board has such a requirement.)
Mod up. This probably isn't a complete list of all they must do, e.g. I expect they need to file papers with the state, etc., but....
FWIW, I've taken classes from various "unregulated" institutions in California, and from one that transitioned from unregulated to regulated while I was there. (Never, however, for that absurd amount of money. Usually it was around $35 for 12 once a week meetings. I felt I got my money's worth...but I never expected a job.) The one that became regulated wasn't the most effective, though I didn't regret attending. (I got a degree from it...but nobody would ever care, nor did I expect that they ever would.) These places went by names like "the Free University", etc. Some of them gave some attention to the qualifications of their instructors, but it's better to think of them as a combination of an academic social evening and an on-line tutorial. (They weren't online, this was before wide internet access.)
AFAICT, California regualtes education that is cheap in a quite minimal manner. I think every one of those groups I attended did more than they were legally required in regulating the classes. If you want to see regulation, consider serving food, even for free. THAT gets a bit excessive and inflexible, even if I understand that there are valid reasons.
I wish it were that simple. I am, indeed, suspicious of an centralization of power, but that's not because some such centralizations aren't necessary, but rather because they have an unpleasant tendency to spread. You need centralized authorities to enable basic infrastructure. This isn't an argument of statist vs. private, as either is, in principle, capable of such activity, and in the past many such endeavors were done by private organizations acting with minimal government support. But you can't build a road system on that basis, because someone will own property in a place that the road must pass through, and refuse to sell it...or sell it to speculators who will see how high they can drive the price. This applies to all physical infrastructure, and even to the EM spectum. (I may not be happy with the way the government is managing control of the EM spectum, but it is largely operable.)
Perhaps there isn't a desireable form of stability for a society controlled by humans. Corruption appears to be endemic...and strongly defended by those who benefit from it. For this reason I'm in favor of a minimal government, but this doesn't mean I think I can define one that will maintain itself as a minimal government. The original US Articles of Confederation was an attempt to do so which quickly failed. Many of those defining the US Constitution were attempting to replace it with one that would succeed. It didn't stay minimal. (To be fair, many of the designers wanted a stronger government from the start...there was a conflict of interest even among the designers.)
P.S.: As a note of historical interest, always remember that the adopters of the US Constitution vastly (and arguably illegally) exceeded the authority granted them by the states they purportedly represented. There just wasn't anyone to stop them. This is a constant danger among systems without a central authority. That is worked out fairly well that time isn't an argument for next time.
From one study of quite awhile back, one reason for Neanderthals dying out was that the heads of Cro-Magnon babies were shaped differently, meaning that Neanderthal mothers with Cro-Magnon fathers tended to die in childbirth, while the reverse wasn't true. There have also been some studies that suggested that their shoulders weren't as well adapted to throwing, so they needed to get close-in with spears, which was more dangerous.
I can't recall any studies that found that they were stupider than Cro-Magnons which didn't start out by assuming the conclusion. (There have been a few that concluded that their range of vocalizations was smaller, but that's not intelligence, per se.)
But even that requires that the human have an easy way to tell whether the result returned was valid. In the case of a password, this may be simple, but relatively time consuming...or it may be difficult. Of course, in other circumstances, it could automatically try the result against a test, and quickly determine whether or not it was correct.
Slashdot Mirror
If it gets too bad, I'll just stop coming. A pity, really, as there doesn't seem to be any reasonable replacement, but they are within their legal rights to change to the design to be unusable.
The FCC *could* decide to regulate things that way. They're quite unlikely to. Congress *could* write a law that said that. They, also, are quite unlikely to.
Just because you strongly believe that things should be done in some partiular way doesn't mean you have any faith that the government will do it in that way. But the judge appears to have been correct in ruling that the FCCs current (now recinded) regulations were not in accordance with law. He even indicated how the FCC could correct the regulations. They'll probably decide to ignore his suggestion, and leave it to the rule of the strong and ruthless. (But this is just my reading based on what people have written about the composition of the current FCC. FWIW, I haven't though very well of them for the last couple of decades...and before that I pretty much ignored them. But so far they've been better than a total lack of regulation. Faint praise, but that's all I've got for them.)
Bingo!
Not Proven.
I don't think there is sufficient trustworthy evidence to show that you are wrong, but there certainly isn't enough to show that you are correct.
What is clear is that the US Govt. either knew, or should have known, about the attack (though perhaps not its specifics) in advance. This is a very different statement.
The thing is, the ISPs SHOULD be treated like phone companies Including common carrier status, with the restrictions that that imposes. When you let them act as if they were common carriers, but don't impose the restrictions of such, you are asking for malicious behavior.
OTOH, the Great Wall of China *WAS* built with slave labor...i.e., with labor of political prisoners. IIUC it was often intended that they be worked to death, unlike many other projects where a high death rate was accepted as "the cost of doing business". I include in this latter group the Grand Canal. That was built by conscripted peasants, but it really was desired that they survive. Many of them didn't, but that wasn't really intended. But the Great Wall was an intentional sentence of internal exile, and many of those working on it were intentionally worked to death.
Measurement in this sense does not imply conscious awareness. An earlier post claimed that it wasn't measurement, but rather irreversible thermodynamic change. I find that difficult to accept, because thermodynamics is only statistically irreversible. (The statistics can get pretty impressive, but still...) OTOH, I am not an expert in the field.
Still, arguments like this are why I prever the EGW multi-world interpretation of quantum mechanics (which has it's own places where things are difficult to swallow). But it eliminates the problem under discussion.
No. You can say that you can only reveal infromation related to that topic in a closed session. You don't have to lie.
Of course, if you only reveal things in a closed session, people will doubt that you said them. So, perhaps, his intent was to use the testimony in open session to lie to the public, and to the non-cleared members of Congress. He still lied to Congress under oath, and that makes him a criminal. One who remains curiously unprosecuted.
How do you get from those deep subway tunnels to the surface? Also, since Rome is fairly near sea level, and near the sea, those deep subway tunnels are also going to be underwater. This makes things much more expensive.
The solution in Roman times was, IIRC, to ban vehicles on the streets during daylight hours. I don't really think you need to ban bicycles, but Rome *is* the city on seven hills, so I doubt that bicycle use will be a popular as in flatter cities.
Perhaps an elevated railway could be made to work. You would need to design it with light vehicles, so that you would have considerable latitude as to where you placed the support pylons.
??? If you don't have the lights timed, then you can't design to allow flow. It just doesn't work. Even with timed lights it's quite difficult to have good flow in two different directions. (You *can* do it if you'ver very careful about the timing...or if you allow the flow to be broken around every 10 blocks...and only have about one street out of 10 timed for flow.) Note that even so if you want flow in two orthogonal directions, you may need to be very careful with the speeds that you allow to flow.
But you can't allow lights to change at other than the specified times. I suppose you could decide to skip an entire cycle, but that usually wouldn't speed up the traffic flow. Somewhere along the route someone would be on a cross street, and their light would change...which would mean that the street that they crossed would change out of sequence with the other lights, and .... it's just a bad idea.
If there were good public transit, and secure long-term storage places (wherre, e.g., the battery could be kept charged) then they might be interested. Particularly if sensible parking regulations were enforced. This, however, looks like putting enforcement before the alternative. OTOH, it's a Slashdot summary, so who knows what's really going on.
Did you notice that "congestion pricing" was only a part of the solution. Another part was providing places to park away from the center, with good transit connections to good transit. There are other parts to making it a good solution, which basicly come under the ruberic of "pedestrian amenities", though you could include bicycles, too. Do note, however, that bicycle amenities are often very different from pedestrian amenities.
He's a politician. You can tell he's lying if you see his lips move.
P.S.: I don't follow British politics. If that's an overstatement in British politics, I appologize. I'm assuming that in it's broad aspects it resembles US politics.
That's if you think "enshrine it clearly in law" will act as a protection against misuse. Unfortunately, recent history casts derision upon that point of view. (I was going to be more "polite" and say "casts doubts", but reviewing recent history, I couldn't justify that more moderate statement.)
That wouldn't work...well, it conceivably COULD, but currently all data stored to a drive is "encrypted" to compact the storage, so you probably need to piece together an entire sector in order to recover any of it. And IIUC different disks have different sizes of sectors, so you need to know how the disk was formatted to know how much you need to piece together.
I don't know about you, but my fingernails are brittle, so I ALWAYS have nail clippers with me. Not having them can be both annoying and painful.
I doubt that my sister would agree with you. And don't try to convince me that she was "trying to take a stand", I know her better than that.
You left out reaction time. Even at 55 mph most people are often overdriving their reaction time. How long does it take to stop? How long does it take you to decide to stop? How far have you gone in that amount of time?
The only thing that makes driving in fast traffic even approximately safe is that most of the traffic is usually moving at the same speed, so it take them time to stop too. This, however, can lead to pileups when there is a sudden accident. This can be caused by a blowout, or nervous twitch or several other uncommon things, but when a lot of traffic is involved and a lot of time, uncommon things happen with uncomfortable frequency.
FWIW, I've stopped driving because I don't consider myself a safe enough driver. I also don't consider about half of the other drivers on the road to be safe enough. I'm not that bad a driver, but after I tail-ended another car on a freeway in the fog I reconsidered my capabilities. The law found me not at fault. I didn't. But driving slower would have been as dangerous, because of the other traffic. The only safe thing to do would have been to stop at a motel and wait for the fog to lift...but getting to that motel.... (And, to be honest, I didn't even consider that I shouldn't be on the road in that kind of weather.)
(P.S.: I was driving slower than most of the traffic, but the car I hit had stopped on the freeway. Yah, he shouldn't have done that. But if I'd been driving safely, I could have avoided him, or stopped before I got there. As it was, by the time I could tell he was stopped, I couldn't stop.)
FWIW, there are also private regulatory bodies, like the Western College Association, that regulate Colleges and Universities. They have MUCH stricter rules than does the state of California. But they can't put you out of business if you don't meet them, only forbid you from using certain terms to describe your product. (I think that's trademark law, but I'm not sure.)
Have you looked at what the requirements for compliance are?
The requirements that I saw would not be violated by any honest training course. These groups are violating requirements like "Don't promise a job unless you can deliver one, and don't lie by implication and give them a job as a janitor after a course on firewalls."
I'm sure that there are requirements that I didn't read, as I only read the first 10, and then skimmed, but every one that I noticed would not be violated by any honest class. I didn't even notice a requirement that they register with the state, though I wouldn't be surprised if it existed. (I'm sure the Franchise Tax Board has such a requirement.)
Mod up. This probably isn't a complete list of all they must do, e.g. I expect they need to file papers with the state, etc., but....
FWIW, I've taken classes from various "unregulated" institutions in California, and from one that transitioned from unregulated to regulated while I was there. (Never, however, for that absurd amount of money. Usually it was around $35 for 12 once a week meetings. I felt I got my money's worth...but I never expected a job.) The one that became regulated wasn't the most effective, though I didn't regret attending. (I got a degree from it...but nobody would ever care, nor did I expect that they ever would.) These places went by names like "the Free University", etc. Some of them gave some attention to the qualifications of their instructors, but it's better to think of them as a combination of an academic social evening and an on-line tutorial. (They weren't online, this was before wide internet access.)
AFAICT, California regualtes education that is cheap in a quite minimal manner. I think every one of those groups I attended did more than they were legally required in regulating the classes. If you want to see regulation, consider serving food, even for free. THAT gets a bit excessive and inflexible, even if I understand that there are valid reasons.
I wish it were that simple. I am, indeed, suspicious of an centralization of power, but that's not because some such centralizations aren't necessary, but rather because they have an unpleasant tendency to spread. You need centralized authorities to enable basic infrastructure. This isn't an argument of statist vs. private, as either is, in principle, capable of such activity, and in the past many such endeavors were done by private organizations acting with minimal government support. But you can't build a road system on that basis, because someone will own property in a place that the road must pass through, and refuse to sell it...or sell it to speculators who will see how high they can drive the price. This applies to all physical infrastructure, and even to the EM spectum. (I may not be happy with the way the government is managing control of the EM spectum, but it is largely operable.)
Perhaps there isn't a desireable form of stability for a society controlled by humans. Corruption appears to be endemic...and strongly defended by those who benefit from it. For this reason I'm in favor of a minimal government, but this doesn't mean I think I can define one that will maintain itself as a minimal government. The original US Articles of Confederation was an attempt to do so which quickly failed. Many of those defining the US Constitution were attempting to replace it with one that would succeed. It didn't stay minimal. (To be fair, many of the designers wanted a stronger government from the start...there was a conflict of interest even among the designers.)
P.S.: As a note of historical interest, always remember that the adopters of the US Constitution vastly (and arguably illegally) exceeded the authority granted them by the states they purportedly represented. There just wasn't anyone to stop them. This is a constant danger among systems without a central authority. That is worked out fairly well that time isn't an argument for next time.
Somehow I think you are refering to a 19th century European definition of enlightenment.
From one study of quite awhile back, one reason for Neanderthals dying out was that the heads of Cro-Magnon babies were shaped differently, meaning that Neanderthal mothers with Cro-Magnon fathers tended to die in childbirth, while the reverse wasn't true. There have also been some studies that suggested that their shoulders weren't as well adapted to throwing, so they needed to get close-in with spears, which was more dangerous.
I can't recall any studies that found that they were stupider than Cro-Magnons which didn't start out by assuming the conclusion. (There have been a few that concluded that their range of vocalizations was smaller, but that's not intelligence, per se.)
But even that requires that the human have an easy way to tell whether the result returned was valid. In the case of a password, this may be simple, but relatively time consuming...or it may be difficult. Of course, in other circumstances, it could automatically try the result against a test, and quickly determine whether or not it was correct.