This has happened. Today, Social Security Administration expenses as a percentage of the trust fund are less than one third what they are today. (source [ssa.gov]) But that doesn't fit into your pretty little narrative, does it?
I'm giving up mod points to reply this because this is the stupidest BS I've read all day.
1. We were working to send a man to the moon (300,000+ people involved) which was NOT just some guys in "bunny suits" prepping astronauts and rockets in clean rooms at the cape... there were facilities being designed and built and staffed in many states. (it takes far fewer to maintain and use the stuff in later years)
I don't think you understand what "government employee" means. The vast majority of those 300,000 people worked at private companies that were completing government contracts related to the space program.
2. We were doing major construction on the creation of the interstate highway system (passed by Eisenhower in 1956, activity was very high in the 60's) It takes lots more people to plan and build such a system than to maintain it later.
Again, it's not as if the government went out and bought a bunch of backhoes and bulldozers to do the construction itself. Those highways were built by people working at private construction firms, not government employees.
3. We were fighting in Vietnam and at a very high Cold War strategic military posture with lots of HUGE highly-staffed bases all over the world; The US military used to do all its own work for things like base security, base food prep, grounds keeping, supply chain operation, troop transport, etc.... but now days many of these things are "outsourced" to civilian firms, and even the military itself is FAR smaller (the US navy, for example has fewer than HALF the ships it had under Reagan in the 80's and while THAT was higher than under Carter it was still historically lower than at many points).
You just proved the point of the Atlantic. You said that since the 1960s the military has vastly cut down the number of people it employs by outsourcing to private contractors and eliminating inefficiencies. Isn't this exactly what it means to have a small government?
4. Technology was SUPPOSED to reduce the workforce. Where Social Security checks required armies of federal workers to do the processing in the 1940's, it's now largely a computer task now with the payments often handled by automated "electronic funds transfers" (so the workers on-staff handle the human-interface functions and SHOULD be fewer than the number who used to work at SS). Given that much of what government does involves paper, records, and money, a big bloated government SHOULD require a fraction of the workers of decades ago, since all the work of computing numbers, moving and storing money, data, etc should be done my machines now.
This has happened. Today, Social Security Administration expenses as a percentage of the trust fund are less than one third what they are today. (source) But that doesn't fit into your pretty little narrative, does it?
Also, I'm sorry, but anyone who uses the Park Service as an example of big government is a fucking idiot. The Park Service gets.06% of the US federal budget. But wait, it adds up, doesn't it? What if we closed 500 agencies like the Park Service? We would cut government spending by 30%. Oh wait, no we wouldn't. Because the total of all non-defense, non-debt, non-healthcare, non-benefits spending adds up to 9% of the federal government. That's right, even if we shut down every "dispensable" agency -- from the FCC to the FAA, the DoE to the DoJ, the National Park Service to the Internal Revenue Service, the USDA, the USPS, the NIH, the NSF, the FDA, the FHA, NASA, the State Department, SCOTUS, POTUS -- we would only save 9% of the budget.
This is what all republicans conveniently ignore when they talk about big government. Big government isn't caused by all the agencies they love to complain about.
At least Obama was trying to chip away at the real problem with health care reform. No, it isn't
I understand why worms are used as research models. I'm not bashing the study, but complaining about TFS (not TFA), which does seem to imply that there will be applications for humans in the near future.
Nematodes and certain flatworms that have their gonads removed can live for twice the normal lifespan. Do eunuchs live to be 150 years old? No? Then I don't think aging studies in worms translate very well to humans. This paper is an interesting bit of insight into cellular metabolic processes, but the main factors that drive aging (metabolism, sex hormones) in worms seem to be only secondary factors in human aging. TFS's claim that this might translate to humans in a tangible way is overblown. It's just another piece of a puzzle that has millions of parts.
The issue here isn't the stupidity of the users, but the article written by an uninformed author and an equally misleading/. summary.
The real issue is that whenever a page includes a Facebook like button, it has to reference the requisite Javascript files that are hosted on Facebook servers. So whenever you load a Hulu video page, your browser pings Facebook with information about which Hulu page you are visiting simply to render the button. It doesn't matter whether or not you click the like button: Facebook knows which Hulu page you watched either way. And since Facebook keeps track of this information even when you are logged out of your account, there is definitely no opt-in on the part of the user. IMHO, this lawsuit is completely justified.
Okay, I guess I misunderstood parts of your post, but I still see some issues.
First, you're assuming that the only consideration for people that find security vulnerabilities is money, so that if the potential illicit earnings from exploiting the bug are greater than the bounty, they will exploit the bug. This is definitely not true in practice. Some people just want to do good things. And even for people with no conscience whatsoever, they have to deal with the fact that doing something puts you into a high stress defensive stance where you constantly have to cover your tracks. Most people wouldn't want that kind of lifestyle.
Second, you're assuming that the number of bugs found increases linearly with the dollar amount of bug bounties, but my gut instinct is that it is an asymptotic function. Increased bug bounties offer diminishing returns because after a certain point the limiting factor becomes the fact that bugs are really darn hard to find. (Case in point, OpenSSL. Every major tech company uses OpenSSL and several have conducted regular audits of it. Even with all that effort, no one was able to uncover the Heartbleed bug until earlier this year.) So even if Microsoft were to offer $10 million per bug, I don't think they would start finding more bugs than they could fix.
Then that is simply a false assumption. If you have a finite amount of code, there can only be a finite number of bugs in it. If I were to write a "hello, world" program and then pay $500k for each bug report, would I uncover an infinite number of bugs? What about/bin/true or/bin/false or/bin/cat?
Car analogy: Cars will break down an average of one time for every X days of use, so if you have a car for an infinite period of time, it will break down an infinite number of times. Does this mean that you should never take it to the mechanic? Absolutely not. You take it to the mechanic as quickly as possible so that you can minimize the number of days that your car is unusable and maximize the number of days that it is usable.
Even ignoring the ridiculous jumps and assumptions in your reasoning, your logic is absurdly inconsistent and contradictory. At any given moment, the amount of criminals is finite just as the number of bugs is finite. But it seems that you are not talking about a given point in time. Over an infinite period of time, criminals are also infinite because for ever X new births, some percentage of those people are pretty much guaranteed to become criminals. And every arrest has the potential of creating a new criminal by leaving an empty position in a gang that will be filled with a new initiate or leaving a child without a father/mother/proper role model.
The same applies thing to bugs: For every X lines of new code that is written, some percentage of it is pretty much guaranteed to have bugs. This means that over an infinite period of time, there will be an infinite number of bugs. And just as every arrest has the potential of creating a new criminal, every bug fix has the potential of accidentally introducing a new bug.
So I think the AC's analogy is very accurate. The job of the police is to arrest criminals quickly so that the number of criminals on the streets at any given point in time remains low. The job of bug bounty programs is to find bugs quickly so that the number of vulnerabilities of a program at any given point in time remains low.
To look at things another way, it's just like password security: the idea is not to create an uncrackable password or encryption scheme, but to make one that is resilient enough that by the time a would-be hacker has cracked it, the user has already replaced his or her password with a new one. It's the same deal with bugs. It will take a would-be hacker N days to exploit a vulnerability. If you manage to patch the vulnerability in less than N days, you have won the battle. It doesn't matter that a new bug will pop up the next day, because the hacker will be back to square one and it will take him another N days to exploit it.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that if they are using the backend they are skipping the lexing and parsing steps and going straight to the generation of the intermediate representation. That would mean that there is no generated C++ code to see.
Well, Chechen is a Russian territory, so again, non of US business
There are only two ways to look at the Chechen War. Either you believe that Chechnya was an independent country, in which case Russia attacked a foreign nation unprovoked, ala Iraq, or you believe that Chechnya did not have the authority to declare independence and was a component of the Russian Federation, in which case Russia massacred tens of thousands of its own citizens ala Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Turks in Armenia, etc. Either way, this is illegal and very much the business of the international community. The crime is that other nations (including the US and nations of the EU) chose to remain quiet because they did not want to upset Russia.
I'm saying that before US (or EU) have the moral right to criticize Russia for its actions they should show how they have changed to prevent actions they've themselves made in the past. Otherwise it's like thieve criticizing other thieve: yes, stealing is wrong, but is a thieve the right person to tell anybody that?
As I already said, if you subscribe to this point of view, every country in the world is a thief. If a thief robs someone and the only others to witness it are also thieves, is it better for them to say something or to remain quiet? Ideally you could have someone pure to criticize the thief, but a critic who is also a thief is better than no critic at all.
Besides, Russia is has much more of a history of thievery than the US. Remember Georgia? Remember the assassination attempt on Yushchenko? How about defending al-Assad after he used snipers to kill peaceful protesters? How about continuing to defend al-Assad now that the Syrian situation has devolved into a full scale war in which entire cities are being leveled?
And when the Continental Congress met, only 13 out of 16+ colonies were represented and they tried to invade at least one of those colonies to force it to join and afterwards the Articles included that the other colony was automatically allowed to join.
(British N. American colonies in 1776 included New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Canada, as well as Bermuda and various Caribbean colonies)
This is complete BS. Even in 1776, no one considered Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Georgia to be part of the same group as Bermuda, Quebec, and Hudson Bay. Need proof? Take a look at Benjamin Franklin's join or die political cartoon from 1754, when the idea of rebellion was still a whisper. He lists the components of the America as South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England. Nowhere did he mention Quebec, Newfoundland, Hudson Bay, Bermuda, or the Bahamas.
The 13 colonies were historically considered a single unit even before 1776 because they were the original mainland colonies and they were the only colonies to be inhabited chiefly by English-speaking whites and not by natives or slaves. The colonies of modern day Canada, meanwhile, were brand new components of the British Empire, having been held by the British for only about a decade, and were composed mostly natives or French speaking whites. (With the exception of Hudson Bay Colony, but that was 99% natives and just a few British fur trappers.) The Caribbean colonies were mostly African slaves, and even the British who lived there very rarely traveled back and forth between the mainland. In short, even in 1776, the British Americas were divided into three culturally distinct sections.
With this in mind, it should be obvious that saying that the 13 colonies and Canada/Bermuda were a single unit just because they are close to each other and both belonged to the British is like saying that Nigeria and Ghana or India and Burma were single units because they border each other and both belonged to the British. That is to say, it is total BS.
they tried to invade at least one of those colonies to force it to join and afterwards
The British opted to attack Boston and New York and thus turned what had been a few isolated acts of local farmers skirmishing with British troops (Lexington, Concord), into a full scale war. Once war has been declared, all stops are off. The invasion/planned annexation of Quebec is the sort of thing that happens during a war. It's that simple. No one bats an eye about the fact that Russia currently occupies Königsberg and Sakhalin: That is what one country stands to lose when it declares war on another.
As far as the Canadian clause of the Articles of Confederation, I agree. It was wrong. The founding fathers made mistakes from time to time just as anyone else did.
What will America do if Quebec votes to separate? As it stands they vote and a simple majority of Quebecois means they leave Canada, the rest of Canada has no say.
I completely agree with this sentiment. Unlike the 13 colonies and the Caribbean/Canadian provinces in 1776, modern-day Quebec and the rest of Canada have long been a single cultural unit. It would be wrong for Quebec to secede when the rest of Canada is against it, just like it is wrong for Crimea to secede when the rest of Ukraine is against it.
1) the Russians held a poll in which the two options were vote to join Russia now, or vote for increased autonomy that allows the Crimean assembly (which has already announced that they wish to join Russia) to vote on joining Russia. That's not a poll, it's a sham and a mockery of democracy. Which is why the Tartars boycotted the polls. And, yes, normally 90% is effectively unanimous, but not when the third largest ethnic group of the region has boycotted the polls because they are blatantly unfair.
2) I already went over this in my previous post: Two wrongs does not make a right. Okay, so you believe that the US steamrolled Iraq. Fine. That means that the US should allow Russia to steamroll Ukraine to "even the score"? Bullshit. In that case, there is no country in the world that is free from guilt. Literally every country in the world has at one point colonized another, attacked another unprovoked, massacred certain ethnic groups, etc. You could then go back to to the invasion of Iraq and say that it is hypocritical for Russia to criticize the US because of what the Russians did in the Chechen War.
Yes, 90% after a boycott of the polls by the Tartars. And there were Russian troops at the polling stations, many of which did not offer a secret ballot.
Let me start off by saying that I do not think the invasion of Iraq was justified, but IMO, it is time for these Russian apologist arguments to end.
1. Even if you think Iraq == Crimea, two wrongs do not make a right. We cannot excuse what Russia is doing now just because other countries have done similar things. China killed their own citizens in Tienanmen. Does that mean it should be okay for the US or Russia to do this as well?
2. The above point really doesn't matter because Iraq != Crimea. The referendum in Crimea had only two options: 1) join Russia or 2) return Crimea to it's older legal status where it had much more autonomy, including the ability to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Since the Crimean government had already made it's intentions clear, option 2 was no different from option 1. This resulted in the group that had the most to lose from a merger with Russia (the Tartars) boycotting the election. Yes, in Iraq, the US did some filtering of the candidates to remove Ba'athists, Al-Queda members, and so on, but in the end, there was still a wide range of candidates for Iraqis to choose from. Furthermore, Iraq was not annexed into the US. While US oil companies certainly were the winners of the Iraq war, Iraq is still a sovereign nation and has declined to follow the lead of the US on many points, such as relations with Iran.
3. A referendum on independence is not a typical vote. It is a vote that is too important and too wide-reaching in its consequences to be decided by a simple majority. Just look at what is happening to the Tartars: They are about to be enslaved by the tyranny of the majority. When the Continental Congress met in 1776 to vote on independence, they decided for exactly this reason that any vote in favor of independence had to be unanimous. The US did not declare independence until delegates from all thirteen states voted in favor of independence.
Notice that the article specifically mentioned top-tier state universities. Berkley, U Michigan, Georgia Tech, Chapel Hill: these are all state schools that are as good as or better than many elite private schools. Their CS programs might not be quite as strong as Harvard's or MIT's, but the quality to tuition ratio is definitely higher.
Also, while it is likely that Crimeans would have voted to secede even without Russian coercian, the entire idea that one nation can move troops into another country and then call for a referendum on independence kind of flies in the face of the whole idea of sovereign nations having control over their internal affairs. I mean, what happens tomorrow? Will China move troops into northern Vietnam and call for a referendum? Will the US move troops into the Philippines and call for closed US air bases to be reopened?
Yes, this is truly a devastating blow to Russia. As a result of being kicked of of the G8, Russia will no longer...... be able to send delegates to G8 summits. I think that about sums it up. And considering the fact that Putin skipped the 2012 G8 summit, I don't think he gives a damn.
It's funny because in Kosovo, there was no referendum at all, it became independent just by bombing.
Ukrainiane didn't attempt to ethnically cleanse Crimea of Russians. That is the critical difference.
The alaska thing is straw man, it was sold to the US.
No, it is a spot on analogy. Crimea was legally transferred from Russia to Ukraine in the 1950s. Alaska was legally transferred from Russia to to the US during the 1860s. Both transfers were approved by the Russian legislative body of the time. The only differences are 1) that the US paid two cents per acre while Ukraine paid nothing (but this is irrelevant to the legality/sanctity of the transaction), and 2) Putin knows that if he ever landed troops in Alaska, it would set off a new world war.
Yeast and bacteria are single celled organisms. For them, reproducing means undergoing cell division (mitosis), and the single longest step of the preparation for mitosis is synthesizing a new copy of the DNA. I don't know the specifics of how bigger genomes make plants reproduce more quickly, but I can at least say that for large, multicellular organisms like plants and animals the rate limiting step in reproduction is not cell division. In animals, for example, a lot of the "waiting time" for gestation involves the production and secretion of inter-cellular signals that tell cells how to differentiate, where to go, and when to pause or completely stop dividing. And there is also the fact that animals are not fertile right away. Human men have to develop for about 13 - 15 years before they are biologically able to have kids. I'd assume that similar things apply to plants.
The real issue is that Europe has been slowly encroaching on Russia's borders
Utter nonsense. This is the post-Soviet area. Ukraine is no longer a buffer state or the "Russian border." It is a sovereign nation and can mold its foreign policy as it sees fit, whether or not those interests align with Russia.
with a warm water port used by the Russian Navy to align itself with Europe.
Russia has been moving more and more of it's Black Sea naval operations to Novorossiysk, so Sevastopol is not nearly as important to Russia as it was a decade ago. No Russia's Crimean intervention is about money. The Russian oil oligarchs want the natural gas deposits in Crimean waters (there is between 4 trillion and 13 trillion cubic meters to be had), and unlike Ukrainians, they have money to build the infrastructure needed to harvest those deposits. They afraid that Ukrainian integration into the European Union with open a flood of British, French, German, and Italian investment in Ukranian natural gas, eventually allowing the nations of the EU to wean themselves off Russian oil. That's bad for business.
Why is this modded up? First it is wrong even on the surface. Chordates (the phylum containing humans) first appeared around 550 million years ago. Conifers (the division -- plant equivalent of phylum -- containing pines) first appeared around 300 million years ago. Second, even trees and humans are descended from a single common ancestor, so how can trees be "evolutionarily" older than humans? Third, more time does not equal bigger genome. Genomes can shrink over time. This has happened in many species of yeast and bacteria, as smaller genomes allow them to replicate faster. Even macroscopic organisms such as birds have had their genomes shrink over time.
They even monetise your content without your consent
I know it's hip and all to say that Google can do only evil, but when you upload a video, you have the option to disable ads on that video. And if someone else uploads your content without your permission and enables ads, you can have it taken down.
Slashdot Mirror
This has happened. Today, Social Security Administration expenses as a percentage of the trust fund are less than one third what they are today. (source [ssa.gov]) But that doesn't fit into your pretty little narrative, does it?
One third what they were in 1968, sorry.
1. We were working to send a man to the moon (300,000+ people involved) which was NOT just some guys in "bunny suits" prepping astronauts and rockets in clean rooms at the cape... there were facilities being designed and built and staffed in many states. (it takes far fewer to maintain and use the stuff in later years)
I don't think you understand what "government employee" means. The vast majority of those 300,000 people worked at private companies that were completing government contracts related to the space program.
2. We were doing major construction on the creation of the interstate highway system (passed by Eisenhower in 1956, activity was very high in the 60's) It takes lots more people to plan and build such a system than to maintain it later.
Again, it's not as if the government went out and bought a bunch of backhoes and bulldozers to do the construction itself. Those highways were built by people working at private construction firms, not government employees.
3. We were fighting in Vietnam and at a very high Cold War strategic military posture with lots of HUGE highly-staffed bases all over the world; The US military used to do all its own work for things like base security, base food prep, grounds keeping, supply chain operation, troop transport, etc .... but now days many of these things are "outsourced" to civilian firms, and even the military itself is FAR smaller (the US navy, for example has fewer than HALF the ships it had under Reagan in the 80's and while THAT was higher than under Carter it was still historically lower than at many points).
You just proved the point of the Atlantic. You said that since the 1960s the military has vastly cut down the number of people it employs by outsourcing to private contractors and eliminating inefficiencies. Isn't this exactly what it means to have a small government?
4. Technology was SUPPOSED to reduce the workforce. Where Social Security checks required armies of federal workers to do the processing in the 1940's, it's now largely a computer task now with the payments often handled by automated "electronic funds transfers" (so the workers on-staff handle the human-interface functions and SHOULD be fewer than the number who used to work at SS). Given that much of what government does involves paper, records, and money, a big bloated government SHOULD require a fraction of the workers of decades ago, since all the work of computing numbers, moving and storing money, data, etc should be done my machines now.
This has happened. Today, Social Security Administration expenses as a percentage of the trust fund are less than one third what they are today. (source) But that doesn't fit into your pretty little narrative, does it?
Also, I'm sorry, but anyone who uses the Park Service as an example of big government is a fucking idiot. The Park Service gets .06% of the US federal budget. But wait, it adds up, doesn't it? What if we closed 500 agencies like the Park Service? We would cut government spending by 30%. Oh wait, no we wouldn't. Because the total of all non-defense, non-debt, non-healthcare, non-benefits spending adds up to 9% of the federal government. That's right, even if we shut down every "dispensable" agency -- from the FCC to the FAA, the DoE to the DoJ, the National Park Service to the Internal Revenue Service, the USDA, the USPS, the NIH, the NSF, the FDA, the FHA, NASA, the State Department, SCOTUS, POTUS -- we would only save 9% of the budget.
This is what all republicans conveniently ignore when they talk about big government. Big government isn't caused by all the agencies they love to complain about.
At least Obama was trying to chip away at the real problem with health care reform. No, it isn't
I understand why worms are used as research models. I'm not bashing the study, but complaining about TFS (not TFA), which does seem to imply that there will be applications for humans in the near future.
Nematodes and certain flatworms that have their gonads removed can live for twice the normal lifespan. Do eunuchs live to be 150 years old? No? Then I don't think aging studies in worms translate very well to humans. This paper is an interesting bit of insight into cellular metabolic processes, but the main factors that drive aging (metabolism, sex hormones) in worms seem to be only secondary factors in human aging. TFS's claim that this might translate to humans in a tangible way is overblown. It's just another piece of a puzzle that has millions of parts.
Yes, because that is something that is happening right now and not 100 years ago. It is completely relevent to the conversation.
The issue here isn't the stupidity of the users, but the article written by an uninformed author and an equally misleading /. summary.
The real issue is that whenever a page includes a Facebook like button, it has to reference the requisite Javascript files that are hosted on Facebook servers. So whenever you load a Hulu video page, your browser pings Facebook with information about which Hulu page you are visiting simply to render the button. It doesn't matter whether or not you click the like button: Facebook knows which Hulu page you watched either way. And since Facebook keeps track of this information even when you are logged out of your account, there is definitely no opt-in on the part of the user. IMHO, this lawsuit is completely justified.
Okay, I guess I misunderstood parts of your post, but I still see some issues.
First, you're assuming that the only consideration for people that find security vulnerabilities is money, so that if the potential illicit earnings from exploiting the bug are greater than the bounty, they will exploit the bug. This is definitely not true in practice. Some people just want to do good things. And even for people with no conscience whatsoever, they have to deal with the fact that doing something puts you into a high stress defensive stance where you constantly have to cover your tracks. Most people wouldn't want that kind of lifestyle.
Second, you're assuming that the number of bugs found increases linearly with the dollar amount of bug bounties, but my gut instinct is that it is an asymptotic function. Increased bug bounties offer diminishing returns because after a certain point the limiting factor becomes the fact that bugs are really darn hard to find. (Case in point, OpenSSL. Every major tech company uses OpenSSL and several have conducted regular audits of it. Even with all that effort, no one was able to uncover the Heartbleed bug until earlier this year.) So even if Microsoft were to offer $10 million per bug, I don't think they would start finding more bugs than they could fix.
Then that is simply a false assumption. If you have a finite amount of code, there can only be a finite number of bugs in it. If I were to write a "hello, world" program and then pay $500k for each bug report, would I uncover an infinite number of bugs? What about /bin/true or /bin/false or /bin/cat?
Car analogy: Cars will break down an average of one time for every X days of use, so if you have a car for an infinite period of time, it will break down an infinite number of times. Does this mean that you should never take it to the mechanic? Absolutely not. You take it to the mechanic as quickly as possible so that you can minimize the number of days that your car is unusable and maximize the number of days that it is usable.
Even ignoring the ridiculous jumps and assumptions in your reasoning, your logic is absurdly inconsistent and contradictory. At any given moment, the amount of criminals is finite just as the number of bugs is finite. But it seems that you are not talking about a given point in time. Over an infinite period of time, criminals are also infinite because for ever X new births, some percentage of those people are pretty much guaranteed to become criminals. And every arrest has the potential of creating a new criminal by leaving an empty position in a gang that will be filled with a new initiate or leaving a child without a father/mother/proper role model.
The same applies thing to bugs: For every X lines of new code that is written, some percentage of it is pretty much guaranteed to have bugs. This means that over an infinite period of time, there will be an infinite number of bugs. And just as every arrest has the potential of creating a new criminal, every bug fix has the potential of accidentally introducing a new bug.
So I think the AC's analogy is very accurate. The job of the police is to arrest criminals quickly so that the number of criminals on the streets at any given point in time remains low. The job of bug bounty programs is to find bugs quickly so that the number of vulnerabilities of a program at any given point in time remains low.
To look at things another way, it's just like password security: the idea is not to create an uncrackable password or encryption scheme, but to make one that is resilient enough that by the time a would-be hacker has cracked it, the user has already replaced his or her password with a new one. It's the same deal with bugs. It will take a would-be hacker N days to exploit a vulnerability. If you manage to patch the vulnerability in less than N days, you have won the battle. It doesn't matter that a new bug will pop up the next day, because the hacker will be back to square one and it will take him another N days to exploit it.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that if they are using the backend they are skipping the lexing and parsing steps and going straight to the generation of the intermediate representation. That would mean that there is no generated C++ code to see.
Well, Chechen is a Russian territory, so again, non of US business
There are only two ways to look at the Chechen War. Either you believe that Chechnya was an independent country, in which case Russia attacked a foreign nation unprovoked, ala Iraq, or you believe that Chechnya did not have the authority to declare independence and was a component of the Russian Federation, in which case Russia massacred tens of thousands of its own citizens ala Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Turks in Armenia, etc. Either way, this is illegal and very much the business of the international community. The crime is that other nations (including the US and nations of the EU) chose to remain quiet because they did not want to upset Russia.
I'm saying that before US (or EU) have the moral right to criticize Russia for its actions they should show how they have changed to prevent actions they've themselves made in the past. Otherwise it's like thieve criticizing other thieve: yes, stealing is wrong, but is a thieve the right person to tell anybody that?
As I already said, if you subscribe to this point of view, every country in the world is a thief. If a thief robs someone and the only others to witness it are also thieves, is it better for them to say something or to remain quiet? Ideally you could have someone pure to criticize the thief, but a critic who is also a thief is better than no critic at all.
Besides, Russia is has much more of a history of thievery than the US. Remember Georgia? Remember the assassination attempt on Yushchenko? How about defending al-Assad after he used snipers to kill peaceful protesters? How about continuing to defend al-Assad now that the Syrian situation has devolved into a full scale war in which entire cities are being leveled?
And when the Continental Congress met, only 13 out of 16+ colonies were represented and they tried to invade at least one of those colonies to force it to join and afterwards the Articles included that the other colony was automatically allowed to join. (British N. American colonies in 1776 included New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Canada, as well as Bermuda and various Caribbean colonies)
This is complete BS. Even in 1776, no one considered Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Georgia to be part of the same group as Bermuda, Quebec, and Hudson Bay. Need proof? Take a look at Benjamin Franklin's join or die political cartoon from 1754, when the idea of rebellion was still a whisper. He lists the components of the America as South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England. Nowhere did he mention Quebec, Newfoundland, Hudson Bay, Bermuda, or the Bahamas.
The 13 colonies were historically considered a single unit even before 1776 because they were the original mainland colonies and they were the only colonies to be inhabited chiefly by English-speaking whites and not by natives or slaves. The colonies of modern day Canada, meanwhile, were brand new components of the British Empire, having been held by the British for only about a decade, and were composed mostly natives or French speaking whites. (With the exception of Hudson Bay Colony, but that was 99% natives and just a few British fur trappers.) The Caribbean colonies were mostly African slaves, and even the British who lived there very rarely traveled back and forth between the mainland. In short, even in 1776, the British Americas were divided into three culturally distinct sections.
With this in mind, it should be obvious that saying that the 13 colonies and Canada/Bermuda were a single unit just because they are close to each other and both belonged to the British is like saying that Nigeria and Ghana or India and Burma were single units because they border each other and both belonged to the British. That is to say, it is total BS.
they tried to invade at least one of those colonies to force it to join and afterwards
The British opted to attack Boston and New York and thus turned what had been a few isolated acts of local farmers skirmishing with British troops (Lexington, Concord), into a full scale war. Once war has been declared, all stops are off. The invasion/planned annexation of Quebec is the sort of thing that happens during a war. It's that simple. No one bats an eye about the fact that Russia currently occupies Königsberg and Sakhalin: That is what one country stands to lose when it declares war on another.
As far as the Canadian clause of the Articles of Confederation, I agree. It was wrong. The founding fathers made mistakes from time to time just as anyone else did.
What will America do if Quebec votes to separate? As it stands they vote and a simple majority of Quebecois means they leave Canada, the rest of Canada has no say.
I completely agree with this sentiment. Unlike the 13 colonies and the Caribbean/Canadian provinces in 1776, modern-day Quebec and the rest of Canada have long been a single cultural unit. It would be wrong for Quebec to secede when the rest of Canada is against it, just like it is wrong for Crimea to secede when the rest of Ukraine is against it.
1) the Russians held a poll in which the two options were vote to join Russia now, or vote for increased autonomy that allows the Crimean assembly (which has already announced that they wish to join Russia) to vote on joining Russia. That's not a poll, it's a sham and a mockery of democracy. Which is why the Tartars boycotted the polls. And, yes, normally 90% is effectively unanimous, but not when the third largest ethnic group of the region has boycotted the polls because they are blatantly unfair.
2) I already went over this in my previous post: Two wrongs does not make a right. Okay, so you believe that the US steamrolled Iraq. Fine. That means that the US should allow Russia to steamroll Ukraine to "even the score"? Bullshit. In that case, there is no country in the world that is free from guilt. Literally every country in the world has at one point colonized another, attacked another unprovoked, massacred certain ethnic groups, etc. You could then go back to to the invasion of Iraq and say that it is hypocritical for Russia to criticize the US because of what the Russians did in the Chechen War.
Yes, 90% after a boycott of the polls by the Tartars. And there were Russian troops at the polling stations, many of which did not offer a secret ballot.
Let me start off by saying that I do not think the invasion of Iraq was justified, but IMO, it is time for these Russian apologist arguments to end.
1. Even if you think Iraq == Crimea, two wrongs do not make a right. We cannot excuse what Russia is doing now just because other countries have done similar things. China killed their own citizens in Tienanmen. Does that mean it should be okay for the US or Russia to do this as well?
2. The above point really doesn't matter because Iraq != Crimea. The referendum in Crimea had only two options: 1) join Russia or 2) return Crimea to it's older legal status where it had much more autonomy, including the ability to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Since the Crimean government had already made it's intentions clear, option 2 was no different from option 1. This resulted in the group that had the most to lose from a merger with Russia (the Tartars) boycotting the election. Yes, in Iraq, the US did some filtering of the candidates to remove Ba'athists, Al-Queda members, and so on, but in the end, there was still a wide range of candidates for Iraqis to choose from. Furthermore, Iraq was not annexed into the US. While US oil companies certainly were the winners of the Iraq war, Iraq is still a sovereign nation and has declined to follow the lead of the US on many points, such as relations with Iran.
3. A referendum on independence is not a typical vote. It is a vote that is too important and too wide-reaching in its consequences to be decided by a simple majority. Just look at what is happening to the Tartars: They are about to be enslaved by the tyranny of the majority. When the Continental Congress met in 1776 to vote on independence, they decided for exactly this reason that any vote in favor of independence had to be unanimous. The US did not declare independence until delegates from all thirteen states voted in favor of independence.
Notice that the article specifically mentioned top-tier state universities. Berkley, U Michigan, Georgia Tech, Chapel Hill: these are all state schools that are as good as or better than many elite private schools. Their CS programs might not be quite as strong as Harvard's or MIT's, but the quality to tuition ratio is definitely higher.
Also, while it is likely that Crimeans would have voted to secede even without Russian coercian, the entire idea that one nation can move troops into another country and then call for a referendum on independence kind of flies in the face of the whole idea of sovereign nations having control over their internal affairs. I mean, what happens tomorrow? Will China move troops into northern Vietnam and call for a referendum? Will the US move troops into the Philippines and call for closed US air bases to be reopened?
Forget about Russian troops on the border. There were Russian troops at the polling stations: http://nymag.com/daily/intelli....
Yes, this is truly a devastating blow to Russia. As a result of being kicked of of the G8, Russia will no longer...... be able to send delegates to G8 summits. I think that about sums it up. And considering the fact that Putin skipped the 2012 G8 summit, I don't think he gives a damn.
Ukrainiane didn't attempt to ethnically cleanse Crimea of Russians. That is the critical difference.
No, it is a spot on analogy. Crimea was legally transferred from Russia to Ukraine in the 1950s. Alaska was legally transferred from Russia to to the US during the 1860s. Both transfers were approved by the Russian legislative body of the time. The only differences are 1) that the US paid two cents per acre while Ukraine paid nothing (but this is irrelevant to the legality/sanctity of the transaction), and 2) Putin knows that if he ever landed troops in Alaska, it would set off a new world war.
Yeast and bacteria are single celled organisms. For them, reproducing means undergoing cell division (mitosis), and the single longest step of the preparation for mitosis is synthesizing a new copy of the DNA. I don't know the specifics of how bigger genomes make plants reproduce more quickly, but I can at least say that for large, multicellular organisms like plants and animals the rate limiting step in reproduction is not cell division. In animals, for example, a lot of the "waiting time" for gestation involves the production and secretion of inter-cellular signals that tell cells how to differentiate, where to go, and when to pause or completely stop dividing. And there is also the fact that animals are not fertile right away. Human men have to develop for about 13 - 15 years before they are biologically able to have kids. I'd assume that similar things apply to plants.
Utter nonsense. This is the post-Soviet area. Ukraine is no longer a buffer state or the "Russian border." It is a sovereign nation and can mold its foreign policy as it sees fit, whether or not those interests align with Russia.
Russia has been moving more and more of it's Black Sea naval operations to Novorossiysk, so Sevastopol is not nearly as important to Russia as it was a decade ago. No Russia's Crimean intervention is about money. The Russian oil oligarchs want the natural gas deposits in Crimean waters (there is between 4 trillion and 13 trillion cubic meters to be had), and unlike Ukrainians, they have money to build the infrastructure needed to harvest those deposits. They afraid that Ukrainian integration into the European Union with open a flood of British, French, German, and Italian investment in Ukranian natural gas, eventually allowing the nations of the EU to wean themselves off Russian oil. That's bad for business.
Why is this modded up? First it is wrong even on the surface. Chordates (the phylum containing humans) first appeared around 550 million years ago. Conifers (the division -- plant equivalent of phylum -- containing pines) first appeared around 300 million years ago. Second, even trees and humans are descended from a single common ancestor, so how can trees be "evolutionarily" older than humans? Third, more time does not equal bigger genome. Genomes can shrink over time. This has happened in many species of yeast and bacteria, as smaller genomes allow them to replicate faster. Even macroscopic organisms such as birds have had their genomes shrink over time.
I know it's hip and all to say that Google can do only evil, but when you upload a video, you have the option to disable ads on that video. And if someone else uploads your content without your permission and enables ads, you can have it taken down.