or Snowden-Obama: 1 Military-industrial Complex: 0.9. Unlike some other posters you do appear to have some inkling that democrats, including Obama, can't just do anything they please and still get elected. A lot of the things left-leaning independents would like them to do don't get done simply because distortions of those actions could be easily used to whip the ignorant masses into foaming fury with a few deceptive commercials. It turns out keeping power away from the dishonest madmen is pretty tricky with an ignorant electorate. And I totally agree voting reforms would help, but until then...
disaster? Because McCain starting a war with Iran with one hand and letting the country slide into another great depression with the other would have been sooo much better. Amazing how fast people forget reality.
2.4/5/6/7 are more different than you might think. Some of the things that were "added" were already there in a preliminary form and therefore had their names and interfaces changed.
Why is there no remote manipulator robot to do this? Is the goal here to test space suits or maintain a space station?
The space station should have the most advanced remote manipulator system available. Deep-sea work is not done by guys in complex suits, it is done by remotely controlled manipulator robots. The continued dependence on space suits for basic construction/repair/maintenence operation just seems like a bad idea given current remote maniplulation technology.
Once again a bitcoiner doesn't understand that the ever-increasing value of a bitcoin is a primary problem with it as a currency. Nobody is saying its not working out as a great speculative investment vehicle. Currently the fed is fighting deflation like crazy to keep the economy stable. Currency and investment are different things.
Wow, free marketer fail. Regulation has fairly little to do with why I have only one power company. That has to do with the fact that it would be insanely disruptive to run multiple power companies' lines all over the place. Most of the regulation is to counteract this factor driving toward a natural monopoly.
Have you aver heard of H-index. It combines rate and impact (measured by number of citations) in a way that also de-emphasizes one off flukes. I actually tend to compare H-index per year, which is a useful measure of contribution rate. But, that said, there are massive variations between even sub-fields in the same discipline due to different publishing and citation culture.
How would he sign the TOS without a linkedin account? The point is that people are saying you have a choice, but if your friend uses gmail, which you may not even be able to tell if their mail is forwarded, you don't have much of a choice but to be spied on by google. At least with the government your data is not for sale to the highest bidder.
As far as I know, the main terms the Japanese wanted for the surrender were to keep the same people who started the whole thing in power. That was absolutely unacceptable to the allies, and I would say for good reason.
Honestly I never would have thought he needed to qualify that with "assuming your insurance company continues to offer it." I thought that would be obvious. I'm sure a lot of plans are being discontinued because they existed under the assumptions of a lifetime maximum and being able to drop coverage if you get sick. Those things are not allowed now, so some insurance plans are going just going away. What you want the government to FORCE those companies to continue to offer insurance?
It does sound like this shouldn't have made it past the referee, and so should be retracted for that reason. If the paper itself said the results were interesting but statistically inconclusive that would be one thing, but it sounds like it is completely obvlivious to the flaws of the study.
Actually check out friendica. Much more reasonable than diaspora.
But the problem with social networks is that people have accepted the panopticon that is facebook. If you even try to talk to a facebooker about why facebook is bad they fall all over themselves to rationalize why its okay.
My question is why would the black market settle on a currency in which all transactions are public record? At some point, after enough busts, the black market people will figure out that bitcoin is the opposite of anonymous. Its enough to make you wonder if it was invented by the NSA.
Of course this doesn't prevent its use as a speculative investment item in the mean time. Funny that something can have value because it is a high-risk investment and for no other reason.
Though it sounds like the current bubble is being driven by Chinese evading their government's currency controls, which I gather could be stopped at any moment by the Chinese government. Presumably when that happens it will be the first big crash of bitcoin.
any bitcoins used during the process of ANY CRIME are subject to seizure!
I am actually a bitcoin doubter, but I don't think this is a flaw. You are claiming that if law enforcement finds that Criminal Z had a particular bitcoin, and the block-chain says that bitcoin is currently in my wallet, that they can compel me (say by court order) to transfer that bitcoin to the state, despite the fact that the block-chain says that coin was transferred from Criminal Z to person A, then B, then C, then D, then... then to me. I have a tough time believing that would work in court. Though I agree that it would kill bitcoin on the spot.
I think bitcoin won't work because it will become unstable like any limited currency. The proponents don't seem to understand that bitcoins becoming "more valuable" is exactly a prediction of this instability. They tout it as "success" when in fact it is direct evidence of a deflationary runaway that makes bitcoin non-viable as a widespread currency.
Whether corporation tax is even a good idea at all is a matter of some debate in academic circles - the fact that you're trying to tax an entity that doesn't actually have any specific physical location is one reason why everyone ends up feeling like it's "not fair".
Well they receive protection from law enforcement and enjoy the privilege of appeal to the courts, separately from the individuals who own interest in the corporation, so why should they not pay taxes?
As hoarding grows, the value of the currency grows, and so incentive to spend increases.
No, as hoarding grows, value grows and the incentive to spend DECREASES. It is startling how clueless about macroeconomics most bitcoin proponents are.
Hoarding currency is bad because currency itself has no value, it is only valuable as a means of exchange. Monetary policy exists to prevent individuals from hoarding so much in aggregate that it hurts the overall economy (including them). Excessive hoarding causes currency instability. If nobody can buy/sell goods, including food, because the value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month or year to year, everyone starves, including the "rich" (i.e. the hoarders).
It's easy to tell someone using a device to turn it off. How do they easily tell if the cellular radio is off? The press release says "no bars displayed". So now the flight attendant has to confirm the absence of one of the smallest icons on the screen?
Even more crazy, this changes the very definition of "airplane mode" from "all radios off" to "cell radio off, but wifi and bluetooth radio okay". Current devices don't even have such a mode! And how many non-techies even have a clear idea of the distinction?
Not paying for contracted work is still default. Or worse.
This is one of the great hypocrisies of people who say it would be okay to hit the debt ceiling. They claim that government should be fiscally responsible while simultaneously claiming it would be okay for the government to not pay its bills, which is the most fiscally irresponsible thing that could happen. If you want to change something, change the budget -- future commitments -- don't default on past commitments. (See how "default" doesn't apply to just debts.) If you don't have enough votes to get your way, wake up and realize that you live in a democracy, speak your mind and compromise.
The stores slowly realized that they could make just about the same amount of money without investing into often costly DRM schemes
But the problem is that putting DRM in the standard shifts the cost of the DRM from the vendor to the community. Now there is no cost for them implementiing DRM. WE pay for it by having to have a standard-compliant client. The feedback mechanism you give is broken by putting DRM in the public standard.
No. I owned a Palm Pilot. It was a very different device from an iPhone.
Of course... it had a resistive touchscreen. Modern smartphones are capacative touchscreen devices. That is THE difference between smartphones available from the late '90's through late 00's and current-day smartphones. There are plenty of previous examples of things like the app store. Most of the "innovative" UI interactions that people like you credit to Apple are just things that work on capacative touchscreens but not on resistive ones. Have you every tried swipe-based gestures on a resistive touchscreen? It just doesn't work. Also, no mult-touch on resistive touchscreens.
I give big credit to Apple for being the first to get a capacitve touchscreen phone to market, and making it a really quality product at the same time. That is really hard. But the "revolutionary" thing has nothing to do with apple - it is the capacative touchscreen and the low-power portable hardware.
From reading the descriptions on the sync site... no. Anyone with the key can access the files. This provides some security, but it is pretty brittle. As long as everyone using it understands the level of security that should be applied to that key. i.e. anyone who steals the key can access the files. So, for example, never send the key over email.
This seems like a reasonable solution for either just syncing personal files, where one individual has control of the key(s). Or syncing among a small technical group where everyone understands the relevance of the security of the key(s). Or syncing low-risk files among a less formal group. So it provides "some security" but you shouldn't really call it "secure", where "secure" would be per-user authenticated based on unique, private credentials for each user that they will not, in practice, give to others.
Slashdot Mirror
or Snowden-Obama: 1 Military-industrial Complex: 0.9. Unlike some other posters you do appear to have some inkling that democrats, including Obama, can't just do anything they please and still get elected. A lot of the things left-leaning independents would like them to do don't get done simply because distortions of those actions could be easily used to whip the ignorant masses into foaming fury with a few deceptive commercials. It turns out keeping power away from the dishonest madmen is pretty tricky with an ignorant electorate. And I totally agree voting reforms would help, but until then...
disaster? Because McCain starting a war with Iran with one hand and letting the country slide into another great depression with the other would have been sooo much better. Amazing how fast people forget reality.
2.4/5/6/7 are more different than you might think. Some of the things that were "added" were already there in a preliminary form and therefore had their names and interfaces changed.
Why is there no remote manipulator robot to do this? Is the goal here to test space suits or maintain a space station?
The space station should have the most advanced remote manipulator system available. Deep-sea work is not done by guys in complex suits, it is done by remotely controlled manipulator robots. The continued dependence on space suits for basic construction/repair/maintenence operation just seems like a bad idea given current remote maniplulation technology.
Once again a bitcoiner doesn't understand that the ever-increasing value of a bitcoin is a primary problem with it as a currency. Nobody is saying its not working out as a great speculative investment vehicle. Currently the fed is fighting deflation like crazy to keep the economy stable. Currency and investment are different things.
Wow, free marketer fail. Regulation has fairly little to do with why I have only one power company. That has to do with the fact that it would be insanely disruptive to run multiple power companies' lines all over the place. Most of the regulation is to counteract this factor driving toward a natural monopoly.
Have you aver heard of H-index. It combines rate and impact (measured by number of citations) in a way that also de-emphasizes one off flukes. I actually tend to compare H-index per year, which is a useful measure of contribution rate. But, that said, there are massive variations between even sub-fields in the same discipline due to different publishing and citation culture.
How would he sign the TOS without a linkedin account? The point is that people are saying you have a choice, but if your friend uses gmail, which you may not even be able to tell if their mail is forwarded, you don't have much of a choice but to be spied on by google. At least with the government your data is not for sale to the highest bidder.
As far as I know, the main terms the Japanese wanted for the surrender were to keep the same people who started the whole thing in power. That was absolutely unacceptable to the allies, and I would say for good reason.
Honestly I never would have thought he needed to qualify that with "assuming your insurance company continues to offer it." I thought that would be obvious. I'm sure a lot of plans are being discontinued because they existed under the assumptions of a lifetime maximum and being able to drop coverage if you get sick. Those things are not allowed now, so some insurance plans are going just going away. What you want the government to FORCE those companies to continue to offer insurance?
Why is it anyone's business what type of insurance I choose for myself?
Because if you can't pay because you didn't get good enough insurance, everyone has to kick in because the hospitil won't just let you die.
That depends on what you mean by "harm". The ecosystem harm of the associated extensive use of herbicides is obvious.
It does sound like this shouldn't have made it past the referee, and so should be retracted for that reason. If the paper itself said the results were interesting but statistically inconclusive that would be one thing, but it sounds like it is completely obvlivious to the flaws of the study.
Actually check out friendica. Much more reasonable than diaspora.
But the problem with social networks is that people have accepted the panopticon that is facebook. If you even try to talk to a facebooker about why facebook is bad they fall all over themselves to rationalize why its okay.
My question is why would the black market settle on a currency in which all transactions are public record? At some point, after enough busts, the black market people will figure out that bitcoin is the opposite of anonymous. Its enough to make you wonder if it was invented by the NSA.
Of course this doesn't prevent its use as a speculative investment item in the mean time. Funny that something can have value because it is a high-risk investment and for no other reason.
Though it sounds like the current bubble is being driven by Chinese evading their government's currency controls, which I gather could be stopped at any moment by the Chinese government. Presumably when that happens it will be the first big crash of bitcoin.
any bitcoins used during the process of ANY CRIME are subject to seizure!
I am actually a bitcoin doubter, but I don't think this is a flaw. You are claiming that if law enforcement finds that Criminal Z had a particular bitcoin, and the block-chain says that bitcoin is currently in my wallet, that they can compel me (say by court order) to transfer that bitcoin to the state, despite the fact that the block-chain says that coin was transferred from Criminal Z to person A, then B, then C, then D, then ... then to me. I have a tough time believing that would work in court. Though I agree that it would kill bitcoin on the spot.
I think bitcoin won't work because it will become unstable like any limited currency. The proponents don't seem to understand that bitcoins becoming "more valuable" is exactly a prediction of this instability. They tout it as "success" when in fact it is direct evidence of a deflationary runaway that makes bitcoin non-viable as a widespread currency.
Whether corporation tax is even a good idea at all is a matter of some debate in academic circles - the fact that you're trying to tax an entity that doesn't actually have any specific physical location is one reason why everyone ends up feeling like it's "not fair".
Well they receive protection from law enforcement and enjoy the privilege of appeal to the courts, separately from the individuals who own interest in the corporation, so why should they not pay taxes?
As hoarding grows, the value of the currency grows, and so incentive to spend increases.
No, as hoarding grows, value grows and the incentive to spend DECREASES. It is startling how clueless about macroeconomics most bitcoin proponents are.
Hoarding currency is bad because currency itself has no value, it is only valuable as a means of exchange. Monetary policy exists to prevent individuals from hoarding so much in aggregate that it hurts the overall economy (including them). Excessive hoarding causes currency instability. If nobody can buy/sell goods, including food, because the value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month or year to year, everyone starves, including the "rich" (i.e. the hoarders).
It's easy to tell someone using a device to turn it off. How do they easily tell if the cellular radio is off? The press release says "no bars displayed". So now the flight attendant has to confirm the absence of one of the smallest icons on the screen?
Even more crazy, this changes the very definition of "airplane mode" from "all radios off" to "cell radio off, but wifi and bluetooth radio okay". Current devices don't even have such a mode! And how many non-techies even have a clear idea of the distinction?
If they get adopted as a major international currency, ...
There will never be enough Bitcoins for everyone to have one.
Do you know what currency is?
Not paying for contracted work is still default. Or worse.
This is one of the great hypocrisies of people who say it would be okay to hit the debt ceiling. They claim that government should be fiscally responsible while simultaneously claiming it would be okay for the government to not pay its bills, which is the most fiscally irresponsible thing that could happen. If you want to change something, change the budget -- future commitments -- don't default on past commitments. (See how "default" doesn't apply to just debts.) If you don't have enough votes to get your way, wake up and realize that you live in a democracy, speak your mind and compromise.
So what you're saying is that an app is a glorified bookmark. wow.
The stores slowly realized that they could make just about the same amount of money without investing into often costly DRM schemes
But the problem is that putting DRM in the standard shifts the cost of the DRM from the vendor to the community. Now there is no cost for them implementiing DRM. WE pay for it by having to have a standard-compliant client. The feedback mechanism you give is broken by putting DRM in the public standard.
No. I owned a Palm Pilot. It was a very different device from an iPhone.
Of course... it had a resistive touchscreen. Modern smartphones are capacative touchscreen devices. That is THE difference between smartphones available from the late '90's through late 00's and current-day smartphones. There are plenty of previous examples of things like the app store. Most of the "innovative" UI interactions that people like you credit to Apple are just things that work on capacative touchscreens but not on resistive ones. Have you every tried swipe-based gestures on a resistive touchscreen? It just doesn't work. Also, no mult-touch on resistive touchscreens.
I give big credit to Apple for being the first to get a capacitve touchscreen phone to market, and making it a really quality product at the same time. That is really hard. But the "revolutionary" thing has nothing to do with apple - it is the capacative touchscreen and the low-power portable hardware.
From reading the descriptions on the sync site... no. Anyone with the key can access the files. This provides some security, but it is pretty brittle. As long as everyone using it understands the level of security that should be applied to that key. i.e. anyone who steals the key can access the files. So, for example, never send the key over email.
This seems like a reasonable solution for either just syncing personal files, where one individual has control of the key(s). Or syncing among a small technical group where everyone understands the relevance of the security of the key(s). Or syncing low-risk files among a less formal group. So it provides "some security" but you shouldn't really call it "secure", where "secure" would be per-user authenticated based on unique, private credentials for each user that they will not, in practice, give to others.