Even if you get your electricity from the grid I think electric is more environmentally friendly. The electric grid is supplied by central stations that produce electricity on mass and divide it between customers. In a car, every individual produces electricity with their own tiny engine. Even if the electric companies produced electricity using gasoline, I think it would be more efficient due to the size of the engine they can create. They wouldnt be generating electricity from a bunch of small car engines as we are.
Furthermore, there are many existing ways to produce electricity in completely environmentally friendly ways. In my neighbourhood, we have water flow and hydro to do the job. Creating a demand on electricity now will give reason for other areas to invest in solar, wind or hydro to meet demand. Even if the transition is equilevent in environmental damage... we are far better moving to electricity now as it has a path to a green future. There is no known mechanism for putting solar panels on the roof of your gasoline car or using the output from a personal wind turbine in order to fuel up a gas car.
Finally... its way cheaper to run your car on electricity then gasoline. The only cost right now is sticker price and eventually battery replacement costs. These costs do not have anything to do with environmental cost of fueling the motion of the vehicle. So on a purely cost basis, you know that electricity is better on the environment then gasoline is. The cost of running my electric vehicle is 1/10th the cost of running it on gasoline. Do you believe that my electric vehicle is 10 times more polluting then my gasoline vehicle? So think for a minute where that cost savings is coming from. It is coming from the fact that it takes less energy to supply locomotion to my electric vehicle. If you doubt this, then you do not believe the free market system is working. And this is not even counting all the subsidise that governments tend to apply to the oil industry.
I realize an electric car will have a larger battery. But right now, the total amount of batteries in gas cars is far greater. And if battery production is so terrible on the environment, where are the enviromentalist who say: get rid of cell phones, tablets and laptops?
Maybe we should start running cell phones on gasoline to save the environment? Seems like a joke because of all the noise, stink and pollution. But one day when we have a fully electric economy we will look back at a time when we polluted our own streets with fumes, noise and the stink of gasoline and wonder what we were ever thinking. Of course there are problems to overcome, but moving the pollution from the individuals and isolating it to concentrated collected industrial complexes will allow us to better control the amount of pollution we create and control its release into the environment.
I am not even begging to get into all the other waste built into a gasoline vehicle. The gasoline engine requires oil, antifreeze and transmission fluid... much of which can be eliminated or reduced in simple electric motors. A gasoline car is a production hog... its main purpose is to get you into recurring expenses of repair and refueling it. The car companies are largely dependant on this cycle of constant cash flow. An electric vehicle can be made where the electric motor resides in the wheel wells. In this case, the car largely becomes a simply suspension chasy that carries your batteries and some wires to connect your controls to the motors and batteries. There is far less waste in the production of such a car.
The probability that NSA can/will put a back door in a protocol standard: LOW
Probability that NSA can put a back door in open sourced software: HIGH
IMO: most attacks against encrypted systems are keyloggers. This would be the most appropriate attack vector against any encryption software. The keylogger would likely be installed by software other then the encryption software. Device drivers would be an ideal candidate. The printer drivers are large and complex and installed on every computer regardless of whether you have a printer connected or not. If I was the NSA, I wouldn't spend all my time trying to hide malicious code in areas where encryption specialists would be looking for it. I would hide it in the background and simply track keystrokes to gain direct access using their passphrase.
Backdoors do not care about standards. They are applied to implementations. Although AES has not been proven to be mathematically hard to break, so far it seems good. But if the NSA wanted a backdoor into AES, it certainly wouldnt go in the standards section. It would just join the open source group on a AES implementation and then provide useful updates and bug fixes while also introducing a new vulnerability. This scenario is entirely plausible as I see this happen all the time during the regular course of application development in business. Programmers mean to fix things and do so, but in the meantime it produces some unexpected consequence. Often times the problem with the changes are not discovered until well after the code has been verified by multiple programmers and put into usage.
The question of whether NSA has a mathematical solution to reversing the AES process in linear time is probably: NO.
But the question of whether NSA could place a backdoor into some software implementations of AES if they wanted to is most likely: YES.
Who knows whether the NSA wants to backdoor AES anyways. Because all they need is a passphrase to access the data directly and in linear time. I think the most direct attack route would be keyloggers. If I wanted to keep my data out of reach from NSA, I would be more concerned about the software running in the background and the hardware Im using while I type my passphrase into the computer.
Inflamitory remarks get more readers. I cant imagine many people feel this way, so people will tend to read articles like this simply to understand where such remote opinions come from. Im not going to bother reading it, so I can not debate the issues around it. I will simply say that I believe the Internet provides massive educational potential for the majority of people living in poor countries. That alone makes me feel that those who do not like the Internet come from a priveledge society and may not have empathy for the majority of citizens on this earth.
... I find this hard to believe considering how many vote and the fact that right wing states are morons, they bitch about government and there rights but there politicians allowed this to happen...
Some people like coke, while others drink pepsi. The important thing for freedom lovers is for everyone to drink the same cola brand. Because true freedom can only be achieved by picking A and rejecting B or vice-versa. Its clear freedom is just a 50/50 coin toss away.
Here's a guess: its just the bitcoin code with new blocks assigned to a limited set of inside corporations.
ie: Its the same as bitcoin but only the owners can make new coins.
Reasoning: bitcoin works. Paypal is interested in bitcoin. But bitcoin removes the means of production away from central authority. With coin production centralized, these corporations could ensure eternal significance and revenue through generation of bitcoins and transaction fees. And this group would estabilish the rules of the blockchain, such as rate of coin production, validation of transactions and transaction fees. They would also have the ability to reject processing certain transactions at their discretion... so they could provide a sense of security against black market trades and trades from black listed coutries and companies. In this way they could "claim" to counter some of the concerns with bitcoin: tax evasion, illegal pornography, drugs and money laundering.
Nothing on an Android or iPhone device is ever secure; it's too easy for the NSA or other organizations to install Trojan horses. And installing a crypto app from the market is like painting a red bulls eye on your phone.
Any door can be broken down with enough force and putting a lock on it is like painting a red bulls eye for burglars. Better to not install a lock on the front of your home or put an alarm in your car.
Simple code is harder to write, because it is hard to define. I dont know of any filter to put code into and get back a value on "the simplicity scale". That said, some code is easier to follow (read) and does not contain unnecessary variables and routines. In general, I would say that the shortest amount of code to accomplish the intended goal is the simplest... but there is a limit to this. One code may be easier to debug and reproduce errors and output important values during execution.
When most programmers and debuggers look at 'complex' code... they are usually talking about the format and choice of loops and iterations. Or that the code has been upgraded and modified so many times, that the style no longer flows in a natural and readable way.
In summary: simple code takes longer to produce because it all needs to follow a single style and it needs to be created with a mindset for future developers who will be upgrading and debugging the code. And the total logical flow of the program needs to be considered in order to reduce and remove useless iterations. It is easier and faster to modify existing code without these considerations. The resulting code of fast upgrades without consideration for future changes is what programmers sometimes call: spagetti code. It is spagetti code that I would suggest is what most programmers think of when they call some code "complex".
the one geologist to land on the Moon managed to learn more (and faster) in his one short trip than all of the Mars rovers combined.
Manned space missions are a terrible waste of money. I think people who support them dream of one day being able to fly out into space like in Star Trek. We can explore far more and at much less cost using rovers, satellites and probes. Expecting to fly men to Mars is a horrible waste of resources and will stall progress and funding spent on missions impossible for men. We would know far less about the planets and commets if we felt a need to put a person on every spaceship.
My 1000 year dream of space exploration is to one day have a probe fly to another star. It may be an outrageous idea, but certainly isnt something we should hope to achieve with a crew on board. My immediate dream is to never put another man in outer space and instead spend resources more wisely.
Does it bother anyone else that NSA wrote code that is in the kernel of most linux distributions? I dont know what it does, but it has something to do with basic security. I think it is called Selinux. I am not saying it is a backdoor, just that the NSA wrote it and last time I checked the default kernel settings for compiling a Ubuntu kernel, all the NSA modules had checkboxes next to them.
Can someone assure me that this code is "safe"? Or do all linux kernels have code in them that allows the NSA to do as it likes with my security?
Yes you do. From the perspective of men who did not travel it would take 382122 years (using the above posters estimate). But from the perspective on the ship it would take less time. The people on earth would see the people on the ship move and age much slower then if they had stayed on earth. On the ship, everything would seem normal and they wouldnt feel like they are aging slower, but looking back to earth it would appear that everyone else is aging much faster. So it would not take 5307 Lorne Greene lifetimes (from above post). It would take less lifetimes on the ship.
You cannot have relativity work both ways to deny time dilation. Either you look from the perspective of earth and observe the aging process is slowed in the ship. Or you look from the perspective of the ship and see that people on earth age much more quickly. The natural perspective is from earth as that is where most of us would be and so... the people on the ship WILL age more slowly.
It seems whenever this comes up. Some people want to deny the time dilation effect as a perspective issue. But it is not just a consequence of the time for light to travel between distances. It is real in that when the ship returns far less generations will have expired on the travellers then those remaining on earth. So in effect, the travellers will have travelled into the future using accelleration.
I think it is telling that the tor browser bundle uses firefox.
Also, firefox is the only browser I know of where the application takes responsibility for securely encrypting saved passwords.
Firefox is the only browser that securely lets you transfer all of your passwords, bookmarks, etc from one device to another without revealing it to a corporation or moving it in an insecure fashion.
My answer is that the best browser is: the tor bundle (using firefox)
I am also looking into iceweasle... which seems very secure so far.
IE10 and 11 are superb browses. They containing many very good tactics to secure the browser and computer, for example, true sandboxing and JIT hardening. Most other browsers don't come even close.
Did you bother to read the EULA for IE or even worse the one for Windows OS? Microsoft is not a secure haven from mass surveillance. And you are only mentioning protection from rogue attacks... not protection from government spying which would be less likely to use application weaknesses and instead go directly to the corporation providing the software for access.
In general... if you are forced to run a MS windows operating system, then you are not protected from surveillance.
I claim to know as little as you do about the situation.
However, I can guess that she didnt file a report with the police because the rape did not occur. If that happened, then there would be more reason for her to stay in Poland for a long time and remain as a witness. Also, she probably recognizes that she does not have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction for assual.
But its interesting to note that she is the only one publicly stating how injuries occurred to both of them and a story of what occurred in the room and apparently the only one who contacted the police. You would think if some girl at a conference clocked you in the head with a mug without good reason and hard enough to make you bleed, that the first think you would do is contact the police.
She has stated publicly enough for this man to charge her with liable. So the ball is in his court. I certainly wouldnt stand for someone accussing me of attempted rape. But to do this, he would need to prove that what she claims happened did not happen. Both parties would have to state the events of the night under oath. Something one of the parties does not want to do... because one of them is lying and could be found out.
So in the court of public opinion, it certainly doesnt look good for him. She has stated enough for him to bring her to court, and yet he only says "she wants attention". And it appears he will do nothing to defend his good name.
I know nothing about either of them. But my opinion is: she is telling the truth and he is behaving as if she is too.
"will not be treated as a United States person, unless such person can be positively identified as such, or the nature or circumstances of the person's communications give rise to a reasonable belief that such person is a United States person,"
The question is, how can you make it clear that you are a US citizen without giving away your identity?
Are they saying that the evidence will be inadmissible in courts if it turns out to decrypt illegal activities from a US citizen? Otherwise, this statement is meaningless.
The entire reason you might use Tor is because you want to hide what you're doing from the authorities... They have suspicion that something dodgy is going on, and they're investigating it, that's what we pay them to do.
Choosing to be private is not "dodgy" behaviour. Your private words and images can be used against you by those who wish you harm or to steal your property. Taking precaution to keep your communication private from people other then your intended target is not suspicious behaviour at all... and it should be the standard for all communication online.
Likewise, choosing to be anonymous is not dodgy. I wouldnt feel comfortable having to swipe my id into a computer every time I walk into a store or restaurant to buy something. I wouldnt feel comfortable carrying a cell phone that tracks my movement around a city. I wouldnt feel comfortable having credit cards that broadcast some of my personal information using RFID tags. So why should my exact location and viewing behaviour be tracked when I walk around sites online?
Currently we live in a world where things we intend to keep private are broadcast to many other parties. There is no reason for this, except to allow authority to perform mass surveillance and make it easier for those who wish to do harm to us by using our own private information against us. Using encryption and remaining private is not at all dodgy... it is natural and should be the practice of any good citizens wishing to reduce crime and unreasonable searches.
I guess to some it would seem the more time and money spent on this... the more guilty Assange becomes. Others may wonder why any government would waste £3.8 million trying to send someone to another country to talk about accusations for which he is not charged. If this was at all normal, the UK would be bankrupt.
In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author
If you want credit for your work then do it yourself and dont have a company pay you money for it. Hiring companies should know this and not expect your name to be on the work that you made while employed. If a hiring company questions you on it, then tell them to phone the company directly and confirm the claims in your resume. That is what references are for.
The solution is not to have your name on every piece of code you ever did. The solution is to inform the interviewer that another company owns the code you wrote for them and you do not have any control over the copyright statement.
If you think the company has a responsibility to attach your name to your work... youre nuts
US carriers route their long distance through Canada and calls from Canada route through the US. I forget the name of this process, but companies say it has to do with bandwidth rates. It seems to me that it is more likely a way to allow domestic only calls to be intercepted by a foreign nation.
If you understand "God" well enough to declare that it doesn't exist.
its not the same God as mine.
You have absolutely no idea what you believe in.
You only know that whatever could ever be possibly known is not your god. Sounds like you dont know your god very well.
Sounds to me like a shadow god. He exists in the shadows where we havent looked yet. As soon as we look and see he isnt there... then you know that he was never in that shadow begin with. Oh yes, this is a useful god. He will always exist for you and no one can take that away from you.
Exactly. Religion is less interesting then the common human need to ask the questions that cannot be answered. And often they will fancy a more rediculous and outrageous tale then logic would naturally dictate. The historical need for man to fill in the blanks with fantasy is more interesting then the current flavors of organised religion that happen to be popular in this age.
I believe that all people are mentally ill. Obsessing about what cannot be known... like what happens after your brain dies and you can no longer think. Seems fairly obvious that according to occam's razor, that it is complete and permanent lack of conciousness... ie: nothing. Yet we cannot except this. In a foxhole, the mental illness is probably rampant where the threat of death is constant and the visual impact of dead bodies and other parts tests the limits of sanity. Of course, the mind will seek to escape reality and search for a calm and rational thought. Naturally, the mind will go to thoughts that have been repeated to you to think about in times of stress, even if you know that these thoughts have no logical basis and do not reflect your true beliefs about reality.
Many things in religious practice appear beneficial to the user. For example, prayer is simply a mechanism of visualization often used by non religious sports athletes. Public prayer is a means to express to those in attendance what you wish to say but may be more embarrassing to say directly. Although I never heard the voice of god guiding me... I can tell you that I do have a conscience... and I speculate it is the same thing.
My point is, I believe all people are slightly mentally ill. Religion is a good way to allow us to deal with it. But a better way is to just accept this and not worry about creating a fantasy to rationalize it.
Its certainly worth a try. It definately would remove one of the causes... or at least would remove one of the excuses for war.
One of the worst mechanism of manipulation of faith, is to use it to defend a moral injustice. Removing the ability to justify war in the name of religion would at least require citizens and soldiers to find a more rational justification for their motivations and actions.
Why is it that religious people like to label everyone under a religion or define them as 'atheist' or 'agnostic'? As if everyone in the world is forced to listen to this and make a decision on it. Should we start labelling everyone in the world according to their opinions on whether aliens exist or whether UFO's have visited earth? Its ridiculous to assume everyone in the world has to have an opinion on something which they may not find worthy of the time to consider. Religion is one topic in the world that apparently everyone has to consider... while in reality, it may not be as significant as you find it and want it to be.
I think you may find by scratching under the surface that most people do not really believe anything. And only think about it because the idea was forced apon them by others and at an early age. They simply state their religion as the one they were told that they were as a child in order to fit into their societal norms. Its not like people go around stating their religion when they first meet you, but will answer it when forced by others into defining themselves as a class.
If you want to "know" what religion someone is, you can get it right 90% of the time by simply asking what country they are from. Do you really think this is an informed choice or desire to search for a real belief?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you get your electricity from the grid I think electric is more environmentally friendly. The electric grid is supplied by central stations that produce electricity on mass and divide it between customers. In a car, every individual produces electricity with their own tiny engine. Even if the electric companies produced electricity using gasoline, I think it would be more efficient due to the size of the engine they can create. They wouldnt be generating electricity from a bunch of small car engines as we are.
Furthermore, there are many existing ways to produce electricity in completely environmentally friendly ways. In my neighbourhood, we have water flow and hydro to do the job. Creating a demand on electricity now will give reason for other areas to invest in solar, wind or hydro to meet demand. Even if the transition is equilevent in environmental damage... we are far better moving to electricity now as it has a path to a green future. There is no known mechanism for putting solar panels on the roof of your gasoline car or using the output from a personal wind turbine in order to fuel up a gas car.
Finally... its way cheaper to run your car on electricity then gasoline. The only cost right now is sticker price and eventually battery replacement costs. These costs do not have anything to do with environmental cost of fueling the motion of the vehicle. So on a purely cost basis, you know that electricity is better on the environment then gasoline is. The cost of running my electric vehicle is 1/10th the cost of running it on gasoline. Do you believe that my electric vehicle is 10 times more polluting then my gasoline vehicle? So think for a minute where that cost savings is coming from. It is coming from the fact that it takes less energy to supply locomotion to my electric vehicle. If you doubt this, then you do not believe the free market system is working. And this is not even counting all the subsidise that governments tend to apply to the oil industry.
So your gas car does not have a battery?
I realize an electric car will have a larger battery. But right now, the total amount of batteries in gas cars is far greater. And if battery production is so terrible on the environment, where are the enviromentalist who say: get rid of cell phones, tablets and laptops?
Maybe we should start running cell phones on gasoline to save the environment? Seems like a joke because of all the noise, stink and pollution. But one day when we have a fully electric economy we will look back at a time when we polluted our own streets with fumes, noise and the stink of gasoline and wonder what we were ever thinking. Of course there are problems to overcome, but moving the pollution from the individuals and isolating it to concentrated collected industrial complexes will allow us to better control the amount of pollution we create and control its release into the environment.
I am not even begging to get into all the other waste built into a gasoline vehicle. The gasoline engine requires oil, antifreeze and transmission fluid... much of which can be eliminated or reduced in simple electric motors. A gasoline car is a production hog... its main purpose is to get you into recurring expenses of repair and refueling it. The car companies are largely dependant on this cycle of constant cash flow. An electric vehicle can be made where the electric motor resides in the wheel wells. In this case, the car largely becomes a simply suspension chasy that carries your batteries and some wires to connect your controls to the motors and batteries. There is far less waste in the production of such a car.
The probability that NSA can/will put a back door in a protocol standard: LOW
Probability that NSA can put a back door in open sourced software: HIGH
IMO: most attacks against encrypted systems are keyloggers. This would be the most appropriate attack vector against any encryption software. The keylogger would likely be installed by software other then the encryption software. Device drivers would be an ideal candidate. The printer drivers are large and complex and installed on every computer regardless of whether you have a printer connected or not. If I was the NSA, I wouldn't spend all my time trying to hide malicious code in areas where encryption specialists would be looking for it. I would hide it in the background and simply track keystrokes to gain direct access using their passphrase.
Backdoors do not care about standards. They are applied to implementations. Although AES has not been proven to be mathematically hard to break, so far it seems good. But if the NSA wanted a backdoor into AES, it certainly wouldnt go in the standards section. It would just join the open source group on a AES implementation and then provide useful updates and bug fixes while also introducing a new vulnerability. This scenario is entirely plausible as I see this happen all the time during the regular course of application development in business. Programmers mean to fix things and do so, but in the meantime it produces some unexpected consequence. Often times the problem with the changes are not discovered until well after the code has been verified by multiple programmers and put into usage.
The question of whether NSA has a mathematical solution to reversing the AES process in linear time is probably: NO.
But the question of whether NSA could place a backdoor into some software implementations of AES if they wanted to is most likely: YES.
Who knows whether the NSA wants to backdoor AES anyways. Because all they need is a passphrase to access the data directly and in linear time. I think the most direct attack route would be keyloggers. If I wanted to keep my data out of reach from NSA, I would be more concerned about the software running in the background and the hardware Im using while I type my passphrase into the computer.
Inflamitory remarks get more readers. I cant imagine many people feel this way, so people will tend to read articles like this simply to understand where such remote opinions come from. Im not going to bother reading it, so I can not debate the issues around it. I will simply say that I believe the Internet provides massive educational potential for the majority of people living in poor countries. That alone makes me feel that those who do not like the Internet come from a priveledge society and may not have empathy for the majority of citizens on this earth.
... I find this hard to believe considering how many vote and the fact that right wing states are morons, they bitch about government and there rights but there politicians allowed this to happen...
Some people like coke, while others drink pepsi. The important thing for freedom lovers is for everyone to drink the same cola brand. Because true freedom can only be achieved by picking A and rejecting B or vice-versa. Its clear freedom is just a 50/50 coin toss away.
Here's a guess: its just the bitcoin code with new blocks assigned to a limited set of inside corporations. ie: Its the same as bitcoin but only the owners can make new coins. Reasoning: bitcoin works. Paypal is interested in bitcoin. But bitcoin removes the means of production away from central authority. With coin production centralized, these corporations could ensure eternal significance and revenue through generation of bitcoins and transaction fees. And this group would estabilish the rules of the blockchain, such as rate of coin production, validation of transactions and transaction fees. They would also have the ability to reject processing certain transactions at their discretion... so they could provide a sense of security against black market trades and trades from black listed coutries and companies. In this way they could "claim" to counter some of the concerns with bitcoin: tax evasion, illegal pornography, drugs and money laundering.
Nothing on an Android or iPhone device is ever secure; it's too easy for the NSA or other organizations to install Trojan horses. And installing a crypto app from the market is like painting a red bulls eye on your phone.
Any door can be broken down with enough force and putting a lock on it is like painting a red bulls eye for burglars. Better to not install a lock on the front of your home or put an alarm in your car.
Simple code is harder to write, because it is hard to define. I dont know of any filter to put code into and get back a value on "the simplicity scale". That said, some code is easier to follow (read) and does not contain unnecessary variables and routines. In general, I would say that the shortest amount of code to accomplish the intended goal is the simplest... but there is a limit to this. One code may be easier to debug and reproduce errors and output important values during execution.
When most programmers and debuggers look at 'complex' code... they are usually talking about the format and choice of loops and iterations. Or that the code has been upgraded and modified so many times, that the style no longer flows in a natural and readable way.
In summary: simple code takes longer to produce because it all needs to follow a single style and it needs to be created with a mindset for future developers who will be upgrading and debugging the code. And the total logical flow of the program needs to be considered in order to reduce and remove useless iterations. It is easier and faster to modify existing code without these considerations. The resulting code of fast upgrades without consideration for future changes is what programmers sometimes call: spagetti code. It is spagetti code that I would suggest is what most programmers think of when they call some code "complex".
the one geologist to land on the Moon managed to learn more (and faster) in his one short trip than all of the Mars rovers combined.
Manned space missions are a terrible waste of money. I think people who support them dream of one day being able to fly out into space like in Star Trek. We can explore far more and at much less cost using rovers, satellites and probes. Expecting to fly men to Mars is a horrible waste of resources and will stall progress and funding spent on missions impossible for men. We would know far less about the planets and commets if we felt a need to put a person on every spaceship.
My 1000 year dream of space exploration is to one day have a probe fly to another star. It may be an outrageous idea, but certainly isnt something we should hope to achieve with a crew on board. My immediate dream is to never put another man in outer space and instead spend resources more wisely.
Does it bother anyone else that NSA wrote code that is in the kernel of most linux distributions? I dont know what it does, but it has something to do with basic security. I think it is called Selinux. I am not saying it is a backdoor, just that the NSA wrote it and last time I checked the default kernel settings for compiling a Ubuntu kernel, all the NSA modules had checkboxes next to them.
Can someone assure me that this code is "safe"? Or do all linux kernels have code in them that allows the NSA to do as it likes with my security?
You don't age slower.
Yes you do. From the perspective of men who did not travel it would take 382122 years (using the above posters estimate). But from the perspective on the ship it would take less time. The people on earth would see the people on the ship move and age much slower then if they had stayed on earth. On the ship, everything would seem normal and they wouldnt feel like they are aging slower, but looking back to earth it would appear that everyone else is aging much faster. So it would not take 5307 Lorne Greene lifetimes (from above post). It would take less lifetimes on the ship.
You cannot have relativity work both ways to deny time dilation. Either you look from the perspective of earth and observe the aging process is slowed in the ship. Or you look from the perspective of the ship and see that people on earth age much more quickly. The natural perspective is from earth as that is where most of us would be and so... the people on the ship WILL age more slowly.
It seems whenever this comes up. Some people want to deny the time dilation effect as a perspective issue. But it is not just a consequence of the time for light to travel between distances. It is real in that when the ship returns far less generations will have expired on the travellers then those remaining on earth. So in effect, the travellers will have travelled into the future using accelleration.
I would not want to be on that plane when it is diverted mid-flight to a secret European prison.
If the press knows he is flying to Moscow, you can be certain that there are certain paid agents who will also be attending that flight.
I think it is telling that the tor browser bundle uses firefox.
Also, firefox is the only browser I know of where the application takes responsibility for securely encrypting saved passwords.
Firefox is the only browser that securely lets you transfer all of your passwords, bookmarks, etc from one device to another without revealing it to a corporation or moving it in an insecure fashion.
My answer is that the best browser is: the tor bundle (using firefox)
I am also looking into iceweasle... which seems very secure so far.
IE10 and 11 are superb browses. They containing many very good tactics to secure the browser and computer, for example, true sandboxing and JIT hardening. Most other browsers don't come even close.
Did you bother to read the EULA for IE or even worse the one for Windows OS? Microsoft is not a secure haven from mass surveillance. And you are only mentioning protection from rogue attacks... not protection from government spying which would be less likely to use application weaknesses and instead go directly to the corporation providing the software for access.
In general... if you are forced to run a MS windows operating system, then you are not protected from surveillance.
I claim to know as little as you do about the situation.
However, I can guess that she didnt file a report with the police because the rape did not occur. If that happened, then there would be more reason for her to stay in Poland for a long time and remain as a witness. Also, she probably recognizes that she does not have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction for assual.
But its interesting to note that she is the only one publicly stating how injuries occurred to both of them and a story of what occurred in the room and apparently the only one who contacted the police. You would think if some girl at a conference clocked you in the head with a mug without good reason and hard enough to make you bleed, that the first think you would do is contact the police.
She has stated publicly enough for this man to charge her with liable. So the ball is in his court. I certainly wouldnt stand for someone accussing me of attempted rape. But to do this, he would need to prove that what she claims happened did not happen. Both parties would have to state the events of the night under oath. Something one of the parties does not want to do... because one of them is lying and could be found out.
So in the court of public opinion, it certainly doesnt look good for him. She has stated enough for him to bring her to court, and yet he only says "she wants attention". And it appears he will do nothing to defend his good name.
I know nothing about either of them. But my opinion is: she is telling the truth and he is behaving as if she is too.
"will not be treated as a United States person, unless such person can be positively identified as such, or the nature or circumstances of the person's communications give rise to a reasonable belief that such person is a United States person,"
The question is, how can you make it clear that you are a US citizen without giving away your identity?
Are they saying that the evidence will be inadmissible in courts if it turns out to decrypt illegal activities from a US citizen? Otherwise, this statement is meaningless.
The entire reason you might use Tor is because you want to hide what you're doing from the authorities... They have suspicion that something dodgy is going on, and they're investigating it, that's what we pay them to do.
Choosing to be private is not "dodgy" behaviour. Your private words and images can be used against you by those who wish you harm or to steal your property. Taking precaution to keep your communication private from people other then your intended target is not suspicious behaviour at all... and it should be the standard for all communication online.
Likewise, choosing to be anonymous is not dodgy. I wouldnt feel comfortable having to swipe my id into a computer every time I walk into a store or restaurant to buy something. I wouldnt feel comfortable carrying a cell phone that tracks my movement around a city. I wouldnt feel comfortable having credit cards that broadcast some of my personal information using RFID tags. So why should my exact location and viewing behaviour be tracked when I walk around sites online?
Currently we live in a world where things we intend to keep private are broadcast to many other parties. There is no reason for this, except to allow authority to perform mass surveillance and make it easier for those who wish to do harm to us by using our own private information against us. Using encryption and remaining private is not at all dodgy... it is natural and should be the practice of any good citizens wishing to reduce crime and unreasonable searches.
Well, it's obvious
Is it?
the State must throw itself
Must it?
Any other armchair justice opinions?
I guess to some it would seem the more time and money spent on this... the more guilty Assange becomes. Others may wonder why any government would waste £3.8 million trying to send someone to another country to talk about accusations for which he is not charged. If this was at all normal, the UK would be bankrupt.
In the U.S.
In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author
If you want credit for your work then do it yourself and dont have a company pay you money for it. Hiring companies should know this and not expect your name to be on the work that you made while employed. If a hiring company questions you on it, then tell them to phone the company directly and confirm the claims in your resume. That is what references are for.
The solution is not to have your name on every piece of code you ever did. The solution is to inform the interviewer that another company owns the code you wrote for them and you do not have any control over the copyright statement.
If you think the company has a responsibility to attach your name to your work... youre nuts
US carriers route their long distance through Canada and calls from Canada route through the US. I forget the name of this process, but companies say it has to do with bandwidth rates. It seems to me that it is more likely a way to allow domestic only calls to be intercepted by a foreign nation.
If you understand "God" well enough to declare that it doesn't exist. its not the same God as mine.
You have absolutely no idea what you believe in.
You only know that whatever could ever be possibly known is not your god. Sounds like you dont know your god very well.
Sounds to me like a shadow god. He exists in the shadows where we havent looked yet. As soon as we look and see he isnt there... then you know that he was never in that shadow begin with. Oh yes, this is a useful god. He will always exist for you and no one can take that away from you.
Exactly. Religion is less interesting then the common human need to ask the questions that cannot be answered. And often they will fancy a more rediculous and outrageous tale then logic would naturally dictate. The historical need for man to fill in the blanks with fantasy is more interesting then the current flavors of organised religion that happen to be popular in this age.
I believe that all people are mentally ill. Obsessing about what cannot be known... like what happens after your brain dies and you can no longer think. Seems fairly obvious that according to occam's razor, that it is complete and permanent lack of conciousness... ie: nothing. Yet we cannot except this. In a foxhole, the mental illness is probably rampant where the threat of death is constant and the visual impact of dead bodies and other parts tests the limits of sanity. Of course, the mind will seek to escape reality and search for a calm and rational thought. Naturally, the mind will go to thoughts that have been repeated to you to think about in times of stress, even if you know that these thoughts have no logical basis and do not reflect your true beliefs about reality.
Many things in religious practice appear beneficial to the user. For example, prayer is simply a mechanism of visualization often used by non religious sports athletes. Public prayer is a means to express to those in attendance what you wish to say but may be more embarrassing to say directly. Although I never heard the voice of god guiding me... I can tell you that I do have a conscience. .. and I speculate it is the same thing.
My point is, I believe all people are slightly mentally ill. Religion is a good way to allow us to deal with it. But a better way is to just accept this and not worry about creating a fantasy to rationalize it.
Its certainly worth a try. It definately would remove one of the causes... or at least would remove one of the excuses for war.
One of the worst mechanism of manipulation of faith, is to use it to defend a moral injustice. Removing the ability to justify war in the name of religion would at least require citizens and soldiers to find a more rational justification for their motivations and actions.
'There are no atheists in foxholes'
Why is it that religious people like to label everyone under a religion or define them as 'atheist' or 'agnostic'? As if everyone in the world is forced to listen to this and make a decision on it. Should we start labelling everyone in the world according to their opinions on whether aliens exist or whether UFO's have visited earth? Its ridiculous to assume everyone in the world has to have an opinion on something which they may not find worthy of the time to consider. Religion is one topic in the world that apparently everyone has to consider... while in reality, it may not be as significant as you find it and want it to be.
I think you may find by scratching under the surface that most people do not really believe anything. And only think about it because the idea was forced apon them by others and at an early age. They simply state their religion as the one they were told that they were as a child in order to fit into their societal norms. Its not like people go around stating their religion when they first meet you, but will answer it when forced by others into defining themselves as a class.
If you want to "know" what religion someone is, you can get it right 90% of the time by simply asking what country they are from. Do you really think this is an informed choice or desire to search for a real belief?