So we are on conspiracy theory territory now: "We know that every politican will lie, cheat and steal their way to riches, but because not every politician is rich or will become rich during his careerl, there must be secret ways to lie, cheat, steal and become rich."
Sorry, but being a politician means just working to further your goals and objectives in the society. You are already a politician if you post on slashdot with the intention to at least change some peoples views to adhere more to yours.
The claims, the experiments of the climate science could not be reproduced, could not be reproduced. In fact, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was a successful reproduction of the experiments of climate science.
In this case, you have to balance the right of the public to know with the right of the person to stay private.
Hitler would be considered a "person of public interest", and thus the right for the public to know would prevail.
It's basicly the same with current journalism. You can't put an article in a journal about your neighbour with full name and address, and detailling every step he takes, free speech issues be damned. And EU data privacy laws just do the same for data. There are other rights that are present in the offline world for a long time (right to the own picture, covering for instance pictures others take of you), and the "right to be forgotten" is just an online version of the same rights.
And the huge, intrusive, abusive government is a direct result of people actually wanting it that way. Democracy means that you get the government you deserve. If one can get elected on a "tough on crime" platform, and demanding stronger laws and harsher sentences secure votes, I don't see this as a problem of the government, but a problem of the people.
Actually, no.
Phone numbers contain much context (e.g. area code), and they have a very limited alphabet (just the numbers 0-9). A random password can use a much larger alphabet and contains much less context. So, memorizing a ten character password is definitely harder than a ten digit phone number.
I never understood the burglar example. If I was a burglar, I would at first check if no one is in the house before breaking in. And if I made a mistake, and someone is there, I would try to run as fast as possible. There is really no point in turning an heist into an armed robbery, and the risk of being found out is just to high. If just some glas shards are lying around and some money is missing, the investigations in the crime will be much less intensive as if there were serious injuries or even deaths involved.
(Where I live, most burglaries happen during the day, when people are away at work, or during the weekends in the industrial zones, when no one is working there. Buying weapons in both cases is one of the most ineffective ways to fight burglaries -- you just spend money on stuff you will probably never use in a good cause.)
So this is something we were using in LPC 20 years ago without knowing it had to have a special name. We just said, we were calling the method in the object - all objects being from the same type object anyway.
My point exactly - this will probably end in a big lawsuit and the verdict to either stop hiding the identities of the customers behind a single NAT ip, or provide an extensive user monitoring to provide information which user was doing what at a given point in time.
If you make your users indistinguishable from the outside, you are basicly acting on behalf of your users. So yes, put to the extreme, it would mean that you are responsible for all the stuff your users do.
Normal "dumb pipes" don't hide the identity of their users. They are just a means to an end, a tool the user wield to reach a goal.
That will be a problem of the ISP then, if their customers can't use legitimate services because the ISP can't differentiate between the culprit and the innocent customers, the ISP has a problem. The ISP then has to have either a very good customer management which allows to disconnect culprits very fast without too many false positives, or the ISP has to introduce some kind of class ips, where the customers without complains share the "good ip", and customers with some bad stains get degraded to other, partly blacklisted IPs.
This is the mantra of civilization in general. One of the big advantages of being in a civilisation are the famous shoulders of giants. You don't need to invent a way to store speech in a durable way, you can use paper, pen and an alphabet. You don't even need to invent speech, you can use the language of your environment. You don't need to invent iron casting and forging, you can go to Home Depot and buy nails and screws.
And yes, at first you look if you can borrow something (if it was in use before, it is probably usuable), then you look if you get it for free (with no guarantee that it works), then try to buy it somewhere and only if it is really not available at a price you see fit, you do it yourself.
In this case, we have a foreign abreviation of a foreign word (Nazi from Nationalsozialist). If you modify the word due to the english grammar, you can denote the original core by separating the word and the grammar endings with an apostrophe.
They have to convince enough shareholders to sell. If they manage to get a majority of shares, they can replace the board of directors, and then they can change the direction of the company so other shareholders will sell out too.
And if they then get a very big majority of shares, they can squeeze out the remaining shareholders (the actual cap depends on the legislation, but it is about 95%).
Governments are the most miserable owners of infrastructure -- except all others.
I don't know of any case of a public infrastructure going over to private owners and then improving with better services, more complete coverage and lower prices. Even privatizing telecommunication infrastructures in Europa was no privatization of a public infrastructure, it was just allowing private companies to compete either on the shared infrastructure still owned by a company whose majority owner in turn was the government, or with their own infrastructure they had to built themselves.
I didn't say anything about crimes. But if you insist: The person most likely to kill you is yourself, followed by your mother, your stepfather, your biological father, your significant other, your siblings and your children. If you have weapons in your home, those weapons are easily available to the persons most likely to kill you.
For some irrational reasons, people fear the weapons in the hands of strangers much more (and try to defend against them) than the weapons in the hands of people most likely to kill you.
If there weren't that many firearms available in private homes, the suicide rate by firearms would also be lower. And I am not sure if the suicide rate by other means would increase. It's been shown that there are different types of suicidal persons, and they don't switch the means of (attempted) suicides - people prone to kill themselves with pills are not very likely to jump in front of an oncoming train and vice versa.
But the numbers of death by firearm is five times as high in the U.S. than in any other of the 17 countries.
This sounds like a fact. And the most likely reason for that fact is easy availability of firearms to everyone in the U.S., which has probably to do with a) the high numbers of firearms in the first place and b) with the easy availability of those to people who gonna go shooting.
Or put it in more scientific terms: "widespread possession of firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home".
Interestingly though (and contrairy to your comment), most of the reasons why life expectancy is lower in the U.S. happens before the age of 50. So the probability of a newborn child to even come to an age of 50 is lower than in any other of the 17 countries.
So it's not the last 5 years that are important here (if you ever get 75 in the U.S., your life expectancy is on par with the rest of the countries), it's the deaths occuring before the age of 50 that make the numbers so miserable.
Not exactly, Barium is an alkaline earth metal, related to Magnesium and Calcium. Interestingly though, the U.S. are one of the largest producers of Barium, accounting for about 8% of the world wide barium output. It's mainly mined as barit, or heavy spar.
"Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt."
(Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.)
Albert Einstein in a letter to Max Born, 1926
This is not just disagreeing regarding certain aspects of the correct interpretation. This is a general criticism of the whole concept of QM.
No, it's defined as "the mass of the international kilogram prototype". There are alternative proposals (the Avogadro Project, counting the Silicon-28-atoms in a defined sphere of Silicon-28 and the Watt balance), but none of them is ready yet to replace the Kilogram prototype.
Yes and no. According to Thomas S. Kuhn, Einstein's death marks the time when QM was finally accepted by most physicists, while Albert Einstein until his death was fully opposed to QM - famously quoted (and often misunderstood) as "God doesn't play dice". QM had to have been developped before as a paradigm, but only when all classical physicists did no longer work in Physics (which was more drastically described by Th.S.Kuhn as "had died out"), it became an accepted practice in Physics to view the world through QM's glasses.
The first generally accepted QM theory was Quantumelectrodynamics, and when this one gave convincing results, physicists tried to take this as a template for other QM theories (so called Gauge Theories), and we got QCD, an extension of QED to the electroweak interaction (SWT), and finally the Standard Model of Particle Physics (which just recently triumphed with correctly predicting the Higgs boson).
Slashdot Mirror
So we are on conspiracy theory territory now: "We know that every politican will lie, cheat and steal their way to riches, but because not every politician is rich or will become rich during his careerl, there must be secret ways to lie, cheat, steal and become rich." Sorry, but being a politician means just working to further your goals and objectives in the society. You are already a politician if you post on slashdot with the intention to at least change some peoples views to adhere more to yours.
The claims, the experiments of the climate science could not be reproduced, could not be reproduced. In fact, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was a successful reproduction of the experiments of climate science.
In this case, you have to balance the right of the public to know with the right of the person to stay private. Hitler would be considered a "person of public interest", and thus the right for the public to know would prevail. It's basicly the same with current journalism. You can't put an article in a journal about your neighbour with full name and address, and detailling every step he takes, free speech issues be damned. And EU data privacy laws just do the same for data. There are other rights that are present in the offline world for a long time (right to the own picture, covering for instance pictures others take of you), and the "right to be forgotten" is just an online version of the same rights.
And the huge, intrusive, abusive government is a direct result of people actually wanting it that way. Democracy means that you get the government you deserve. If one can get elected on a "tough on crime" platform, and demanding stronger laws and harsher sentences secure votes, I don't see this as a problem of the government, but a problem of the people.
Actually, no. Phone numbers contain much context (e.g. area code), and they have a very limited alphabet (just the numbers 0-9). A random password can use a much larger alphabet and contains much less context. So, memorizing a ten character password is definitely harder than a ten digit phone number.
I never understood the burglar example. If I was a burglar, I would at first check if no one is in the house before breaking in. And if I made a mistake, and someone is there, I would try to run as fast as possible. There is really no point in turning an heist into an armed robbery, and the risk of being found out is just to high. If just some glas shards are lying around and some money is missing, the investigations in the crime will be much less intensive as if there were serious injuries or even deaths involved. (Where I live, most burglaries happen during the day, when people are away at work, or during the weekends in the industrial zones, when no one is working there. Buying weapons in both cases is one of the most ineffective ways to fight burglaries -- you just spend money on stuff you will probably never use in a good cause.)
So this is something we were using in LPC 20 years ago without knowing it had to have a special name. We just said, we were calling the method in the object - all objects being from the same type object anyway.
My point exactly - this will probably end in a big lawsuit and the verdict to either stop hiding the identities of the customers behind a single NAT ip, or provide an extensive user monitoring to provide information which user was doing what at a given point in time.
If you make your users indistinguishable from the outside, you are basicly acting on behalf of your users. So yes, put to the extreme, it would mean that you are responsible for all the stuff your users do. Normal "dumb pipes" don't hide the identity of their users. They are just a means to an end, a tool the user wield to reach a goal.
That will be a problem of the ISP then, if their customers can't use legitimate services because the ISP can't differentiate between the culprit and the innocent customers, the ISP has a problem. The ISP then has to have either a very good customer management which allows to disconnect culprits very fast without too many false positives, or the ISP has to introduce some kind of class ips, where the customers without complains share the "good ip", and customers with some bad stains get degraded to other, partly blacklisted IPs.
This is the mantra of civilization in general. One of the big advantages of being in a civilisation are the famous shoulders of giants. You don't need to invent a way to store speech in a durable way, you can use paper, pen and an alphabet. You don't even need to invent speech, you can use the language of your environment. You don't need to invent iron casting and forging, you can go to Home Depot and buy nails and screws. And yes, at first you look if you can borrow something (if it was in use before, it is probably usuable), then you look if you get it for free (with no guarantee that it works), then try to buy it somewhere and only if it is really not available at a price you see fit, you do it yourself.
In this case, we have a foreign abreviation of a foreign word (Nazi from Nationalsozialist). If you modify the word due to the english grammar, you can denote the original core by separating the word and the grammar endings with an apostrophe.
They have to convince enough shareholders to sell. If they manage to get a majority of shares, they can replace the board of directors, and then they can change the direction of the company so other shareholders will sell out too. And if they then get a very big majority of shares, they can squeeze out the remaining shareholders (the actual cap depends on the legislation, but it is about 95%).
The ARPAnet was never a public infrastructure. Thus the example is not valid.
If he had, the next season, all time race machines would have used this design. They didn't, thus we know he didn't win.
Governments are the most miserable owners of infrastructure -- except all others. I don't know of any case of a public infrastructure going over to private owners and then improving with better services, more complete coverage and lower prices. Even privatizing telecommunication infrastructures in Europa was no privatization of a public infrastructure, it was just allowing private companies to compete either on the shared infrastructure still owned by a company whose majority owner in turn was the government, or with their own infrastructure they had to built themselves.
Don't forget Geyer, Germany, which has a town wide fiber network since 25 years now.
I didn't say anything about crimes. But if you insist: The person most likely to kill you is yourself, followed by your mother, your stepfather, your biological father, your significant other, your siblings and your children. If you have weapons in your home, those weapons are easily available to the persons most likely to kill you. For some irrational reasons, people fear the weapons in the hands of strangers much more (and try to defend against them) than the weapons in the hands of people most likely to kill you.
If there weren't that many firearms available in private homes, the suicide rate by firearms would also be lower. And I am not sure if the suicide rate by other means would increase. It's been shown that there are different types of suicidal persons, and they don't switch the means of (attempted) suicides - people prone to kill themselves with pills are not very likely to jump in front of an oncoming train and vice versa.
But the numbers of death by firearm is five times as high in the U.S. than in any other of the 17 countries. This sounds like a fact. And the most likely reason for that fact is easy availability of firearms to everyone in the U.S., which has probably to do with a) the high numbers of firearms in the first place and b) with the easy availability of those to people who gonna go shooting. Or put it in more scientific terms: "widespread possession of firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home".
Interestingly though (and contrairy to your comment), most of the reasons why life expectancy is lower in the U.S. happens before the age of 50. So the probability of a newborn child to even come to an age of 50 is lower than in any other of the 17 countries. So it's not the last 5 years that are important here (if you ever get 75 in the U.S., your life expectancy is on par with the rest of the countries), it's the deaths occuring before the age of 50 that make the numbers so miserable.
Barium is a rare earth metal.
Not exactly, Barium is an alkaline earth metal, related to Magnesium and Calcium. Interestingly though, the U.S. are one of the largest producers of Barium, accounting for about 8% of the world wide barium output. It's mainly mined as barit, or heavy spar.
"Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt."
(Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.)
Albert Einstein in a letter to Max Born, 1926
This is not just disagreeing regarding certain aspects of the correct interpretation. This is a general criticism of the whole concept of QM.
No, it's defined as "the mass of the international kilogram prototype". There are alternative proposals (the Avogadro Project, counting the Silicon-28-atoms in a defined sphere of Silicon-28 and the Watt balance), but none of them is ready yet to replace the Kilogram prototype.
Yes and no. According to Thomas S. Kuhn, Einstein's death marks the time when QM was finally accepted by most physicists, while Albert Einstein until his death was fully opposed to QM - famously quoted (and often misunderstood) as "God doesn't play dice". QM had to have been developped before as a paradigm, but only when all classical physicists did no longer work in Physics (which was more drastically described by Th.S.Kuhn as "had died out"), it became an accepted practice in Physics to view the world through QM's glasses. The first generally accepted QM theory was Quantumelectrodynamics, and when this one gave convincing results, physicists tried to take this as a template for other QM theories (so called Gauge Theories), and we got QCD, an extension of QED to the electroweak interaction (SWT), and finally the Standard Model of Particle Physics (which just recently triumphed with correctly predicting the Higgs boson).