Oceans have life at different layers, so why not gaseous atmospheres of varying densities?
Unless there is something magical about life, its seeds are embedded in the fabric of the universe. Earth coalesced out of a dust cloud and without any human intervention, life appeared and evolved to what we have today. This is a natural process. That it could occur in circumstances other than earthlike does not strike me as farfetched. OTOH, we still can't spontaneously make life in the lab so we don't know all its secrets, and perhaps in reality, our knowledge is very limited (you don't know what you don't know).
Lessig's big TED talk was on "Lesterland" - about how big money in the primaries selects the two parties' candidates. His focus was reforming that process so that the will of the people would be the primary deciding factor.
Trump was opposed by the big money in the primaries.
I heard a Democrat complaining that Trump received a disproportionate share of favorable media coverage and a high volume of media coverage during the primaries. It is my sincere belief the big media was trying to help select the most unelectable candidate for the Republicans.
I am frankly baffled why Lessig is supporting Clinton. She is the epitomy of what he railed against. I guess he has unspoken views which are more important than his stated ones (money in politics).
I've been reading/hearing about people wanting to gatekeep/curate the news for the masses for many years now. This latest election will push that effort into overdrive.
Educate people about what the Internet is, but don't allow greater controls on the flow of public information.
Anonymity is important on the web. Powerful political or business figures won't take kindly to Joe Average posting unflattering information about them. Anonymity facilitates the flow of information. Also it provides a modicum of protection from the unhinged or stalkers.
Now, must it be absolute? No. If someone is engaging in criminal activity, a warrant should be able to unseal the owner's name. Otherwise, I don't see a societal benefit from forcing domain name registrants to be public information.
There's going to be more howling to "curate" the news and muzzle the Internet as a result of the latest election. One side was the establishment candidate, and that candidate lost. Many very powerful people supported that candidate. They're not going to shrug and walk away from something they perceive thwarted their efforts. That's not how they became powerful.
"Perfect Privacy LLC" - if you look up clintonemail.com, you'll see them. I've looked up various site owners and their name has popped up before. When you search for the owner of the domain, instead of the true registrant, you'll find this company. There are probably others like it.
"That doesn't sound good at all. Clinton's private email system added third parties into the equation, meaning that a hacker could effectively snoop on US government mail without directly hacking US government servers. Nielsen explained that the domain Clinton used for her private email service—clintonemail.com—is owned by a Florida company called "Perfect Privacy, LLC" and registered to another private company called Network Solutions. The relationship between the two companies is unclear since some details have been masked." -- Gizmodo
So now imagine being exposed to that in larger doses for an extended period of time. I have no idea what killed this fellow, but certainly playing with something that's constantly generating tiny, invisible shrapnel might have had something to do with it.
This may all be true. HOWEVER: The people who rise into power are not infrequently sociopaths, narcissistic and low empathy. Some cover it well, some cover it poorly. But in order to effectively lead a large organization, one cannot be too focused on the stresses felt by the machine's cogs.
THUS: allowing the grunts to have a say in their welfare may - MAY - limit the power of the leadership to engage in too much self-aggrandizement, which can sometimes take the form of empire-building. The grunts aren't very good at academics but they often are socially intelligent enough.
The grunts may vote themselves their chains - see large swaths of the Middle East and Asia. However, in modern times, with it's higher level of information and the evolutionary shaping by prior conflict in which large numbers of combatants were killed by industrial war machinery, it can likely also prevent large scale military adventures.
There are two common threads running through politics:
1) Making the population easier to govern. 2) Retaining incumbent power.
Focusing on divisive issues (important/necessary though they may be) makes the natives restless and more difficult to govern, thus undermining 1 above.
Divisive issues forces incumbents to pick a side which might cause them to lose votes ("I was for it before I was against it"), thus undermining 2 above.
Firefly's backstory contains an element about the US and China being the powers that drove into space:
"The show blended elements from the space opera and Western genres, depicting humanity's future in a manner different from most contemporary science fiction programs in that there are no large space battles. Firefly takes place in a multi-cultural future, primarily a fusion of Western and East Asian cultures, where there is a significant division between the rich and poor. As a result of the Sino-American Alliance, Mandarin Chinese is a common second language; it is used in advertisements, and characters in the show frequently use Chinese words as curses. According to the DVD commentary on the episode "Serenity", this was explained as being the result of China and the United States being the two superpowers that expanded into space."
"Tech giants have been particularly successful in getting their voices heard. They were originally reluctant to play the lobbying game, but soon realised that was a mistake: Microsoft’s prolonged legal battle with the Department of Justice over whether its was abusing its dominant position in the software market, which was finally settled in 2001, persuaded the whole industry that it pays to have friends in Washington. Since then tech companies have turned into some of America’s most assiduous lobbyists and most enthusiastic employers of Washington insiders." -- The Economist, "Dark Arts", September 17th, 2016
from which their operators lost and the perpetrators gained.
Not perpetrators, opponents. This is a game, and they're playing for money. Just like in Las Vegas, if an individual extracts too much money from the house, he's out of the establishment, or worse, as in this case.
Trump supporters are absolutely vilified online and in the main stream media ("deplorables"). Yet a sizable segment does support Trump. This might suggest the polls are not accurate because people don't want to be publicly state they support Trump, when in fact they actually do.
The Brexit polling was an example. And this is just one factor. Another factor could be that with increased use of social media, people are getting their RDA of human interaction, and are less inclined to speak with anonymous callers on the telephone, thus skewing polls again.
The way politicians work is via quid pro quos. A large donor gives them (specifically a shell organization) money or other enticements, and they provide favorable legislation for the donor. I don't think there were entities large enough to rival countries back in the days of the Constituion, so this threat to the republic is a new one. There was that Oxfam study earlier this year which stated 62 people own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world. WalMart has more revenue than Norway's GDP, for example.
So, I don't think the Founders saw this coming. Might need a carefully crafted amendment to deal with this issue.
This is like the "American Trial Lawyers Association" (ATLA) renaming itself to the "American Association For Justice". And it wasn't really trial lawyers to begin with, but specifically plaintiff lawyers.
Asphyxiation via C02 is an absolutely HORRIBLE way to die, regardless of the creature. There's a reason Carbogen (C02/Oxygen mix) is used to induce anxiety to test out anxiolytics. I mean I get that they need to solve the infestation problem but can't we choose a method that isn't also a completely inhumane method?
This is just not true. Low concentrations of CO2 can cause distress. High concentrations are fast and painless.
There have been lake and volcanic outgassing events which release massive amounts of CO2 and it kills people and animals where they stand, in seconds.
Also: "Additionally, many victims were found in their beds still covered by bed clothing. Victims found outside appeared to have collapsed suddenly without substantial movement. Animals were described as "dead in their tracks" in herds rather than dispersed." - page 17
An accepted humane way to kill lab animals is with high concentrations of CO2. The key is "high concentrations."
This concept, of dry ice generating carbon dioxide which flows down into holes at high concentrations, is actually brilliant and humane.
I don't really care about more surveillance if it means people's lives will be saved. I've concluded the people who have the most to lose from increased surveillance are drug users, pedophiles and those paranoid of the government. I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.
Yeah, I get the typical standard response of wrapping oneself in the 13-starred early American flag wearing a 3 pointed hat, and shouting, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety!" I'm not giving up any freedom. I'm still covered by the Constitution.
If there is a compelling national security interest to tap my phone or monitor my communications - I won't like it (obviously) but I'm okay with it. But there isn't so I feel comfortable communicating embarrassing information and even communicating thoughtcrime from time to time. But if someone did get on the government's national security radar, I'd want the government to be able to surveil them in the hope that it might save lives. And in saying I'm okay with it for another means I must accept that risk/inconvenience for myself. Because, like I said, I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.
Having said all that, I do respect Edward Snowden for his courage and for bringing this out into the light, and not letting the program run away. I wouldn't want to see NSA employees using the infrastructure to gather LOVEINT, i.e. stalk ex-girlfriends, or politicians using the infrastructure to gather opposition research and the like. On the other hand I personally wouldn't hire Snowden because I get the impression if he saw something that went against his grain, he'd divulge company secrets in a heartbeat.
About those cell phones the poor have - they're "Obama-phones" - and I suppose we should be thankful because it does increase the market for our wares. I've seen this effect in person:
I have an acquaintance - an engineer with an engineering degree - who married a woman from a poor background. His big complaint? While he was working and saving, she'd (marginally employed) spend money continuously on idiotic trinkets. He tried to teach her the importance of saving and fiscal prudence but it was lost on her. They eventually divorced.
it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse
What creates chilling effect on dissent and discourse is tyranny and political correctness. When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist" or any number of other terms that are designed for ONE thing, to quell the voices of those opposed to the march towards tyranny. ONLY Approved voices need to speak, all others will be punished mercilessly.
Agreed. However, posting PII/PHI of private citizens should be illegal. Just as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. Because the social and personal cost is greater than any conceivable benefit.
I was always puzzled about the outrageous rates at which companies billed out software engineers. But when I got into consulting, I found out the hard way how important lawyers are. And then the larger the company gets, the more specialized people are needed. Contracting officers, accountants, site security, hardware, health insurance, unemployment insurance, taxes. All of those costs have to be covered by the revenue from products, services and billed-to-the-client staff. That made the hourly rates suddenly seem much less dazzling, and let me understand why I got such a small slice of them.
You have to get senior database and programming and UI architects in some of these decisions to reintroduce some sanity and control over the complexity of the solutions.
And when I say "senior", I mean SENIOR. Like 15 to 20 years of experience working with databases with lots of tables and millions of rows. Someone who's actually been around the block and understands how things work and don't work. At a minimum, that's the database person necessary. Also having true senior programmers and UI types would be very useful it seems to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Oceans have life at different layers, so why not gaseous atmospheres of varying densities?
Unless there is something magical about life, its seeds are embedded in the fabric of the universe. Earth coalesced out of a dust cloud and without any human intervention, life appeared and evolved to what we have today. This is a natural process. That it could occur in circumstances other than earthlike does not strike me as farfetched. OTOH, we still can't spontaneously make life in the lab so we don't know all its secrets, and perhaps in reality, our knowledge is very limited (you don't know what you don't know).
Lessig's big TED talk was on "Lesterland" - about how big money in the primaries selects the two parties' candidates. His focus was reforming that process so that the will of the people would be the primary deciding factor.
Trump was opposed by the big money in the primaries.
I heard a Democrat complaining that Trump received a disproportionate share of favorable media coverage and a high volume of media coverage during the primaries. It is my sincere belief the big media was trying to help select the most unelectable candidate for the Republicans.
I am frankly baffled why Lessig is supporting Clinton. She is the epitomy of what he railed against. I guess he has unspoken views which are more important than his stated ones (money in politics).
I've been reading/hearing about people wanting to gatekeep/curate the news for the masses for many years now. This latest election will push that effort into overdrive.
Educate people about what the Internet is, but don't allow greater controls on the flow of public information.
Anonymity is important on the web. Powerful political or business figures won't take kindly to Joe Average posting unflattering information about them. Anonymity facilitates the flow of information. Also it provides a modicum of protection from the unhinged or stalkers.
Now, must it be absolute? No. If someone is engaging in criminal activity, a warrant should be able to unseal the owner's name. Otherwise, I don't see a societal benefit from forcing domain name registrants to be public information.
There's going to be more howling to "curate" the news and muzzle the Internet as a result of the latest election. One side was the establishment candidate, and that candidate lost. Many very powerful people supported that candidate. They're not going to shrug and walk away from something they perceive thwarted their efforts. That's not how they became powerful.
"Perfect Privacy LLC" - if you look up clintonemail.com, you'll see them. I've looked up various site owners and their name has popped up before. When you search for the owner of the domain, instead of the true registrant, you'll find this company. There are probably others like it.
"That doesn't sound good at all. Clinton's private email system added third parties into the equation, meaning that a hacker could effectively snoop on US government mail without directly hacking US government servers. Nielsen explained that the domain Clinton used for her private email service—clintonemail.com—is owned by a Florida company called "Perfect Privacy, LLC" and registered to another private company called Network Solutions. The relationship between the two companies is unclear since some details have been masked." -- Gizmodo
I don't think people fully appreciate radiation (cloud chamber with uranium): https://imgur.com/r/woahdude/g...
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So now imagine being exposed to that in larger doses for an extended period of time. I have no idea what killed this fellow, but certainly playing with something that's constantly generating tiny, invisible shrapnel might have had something to do with it.
This may all be true. HOWEVER: The people who rise into power are not infrequently sociopaths, narcissistic and low empathy. Some cover it well, some cover it poorly. But in order to effectively lead a large organization, one cannot be too focused on the stresses felt by the machine's cogs.
THUS: allowing the grunts to have a say in their welfare may - MAY - limit the power of the leadership to engage in too much self-aggrandizement, which can sometimes take the form of empire-building. The grunts aren't very good at academics but they often are socially intelligent enough.
The grunts may vote themselves their chains - see large swaths of the Middle East and Asia. However, in modern times, with it's higher level of information and the evolutionary shaping by prior conflict in which large numbers of combatants were killed by industrial war machinery, it can likely also prevent large scale military adventures.
There are two common threads running through politics:
1) Making the population easier to govern.
2) Retaining incumbent power.
Focusing on divisive issues (important/necessary though they may be) makes the natives restless and more difficult to govern, thus undermining 1 above.
Divisive issues forces incumbents to pick a side which might cause them to lose votes ("I was for it before I was against it"), thus undermining 2 above.
Firefly's backstory contains an element about the US and China being the powers that drove into space:
"The show blended elements from the space opera and Western genres, depicting humanity's future in a manner different from most contemporary science fiction programs in that there are no large space battles. Firefly takes place in a multi-cultural future, primarily a fusion of Western and East Asian cultures, where there is a significant division between the rich and poor. As a result of the Sino-American Alliance, Mandarin Chinese is a common second language; it is used in advertisements, and characters in the show frequently use Chinese words as curses. According to the DVD commentary on the episode "Serenity", this was explained as being the result of China and the United States being the two superpowers that expanded into space."
-- Wikipedia on Firefly
"Tech giants have been particularly successful in getting their voices heard. They were originally reluctant to play the lobbying game, but soon realised that was a mistake: Microsoft’s prolonged legal battle with the Department of Justice over whether its was abusing its dominant position in the software market, which was finally settled in 2001, persuaded the whole industry that it pays to have friends in Washington. Since then tech companies have turned into some of America’s most assiduous lobbyists and most enthusiastic employers of Washington insiders." -- The Economist, "Dark Arts", September 17th, 2016
It was comical, really.
Not perpetrators, opponents. This is a game, and they're playing for money. Just like in Las Vegas, if an individual extracts too much money from the house, he's out of the establishment, or worse, as in this case.
Trump supporters are absolutely vilified online and in the main stream media ("deplorables"). Yet a sizable segment does support Trump. This might suggest the polls are not accurate because people don't want to be publicly state they support Trump, when in fact they actually do.
The Brexit polling was an example. And this is just one factor. Another factor could be that with increased use of social media, people are getting their RDA of human interaction, and are less inclined to speak with anonymous callers on the telephone, thus skewing polls again.
From the link: "HP said it will continue to use security features that "protect our IP..."
What IP is being protected exactly, by preventing consumers from using cheaper, third party ink?
They (again) got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and are dropping buzzwords to draw attention away from their anti-competitive practices.
The way politicians work is via quid pro quos. A large donor gives them (specifically a shell organization) money or other enticements, and they provide favorable legislation for the donor. I don't think there were entities large enough to rival countries back in the days of the Constituion, so this threat to the republic is a new one. There was that Oxfam study earlier this year which stated 62 people own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world. WalMart has more revenue than Norway's GDP, for example.
So, I don't think the Founders saw this coming. Might need a carefully crafted amendment to deal with this issue.
This is like the "American Trial Lawyers Association" (ATLA) renaming itself to the "American Association For Justice". And it wasn't really trial lawyers to begin with, but specifically plaintiff lawyers.
Asphyxiation via C02 is an absolutely HORRIBLE way to die, regardless of the creature. There's a reason Carbogen (C02/Oxygen mix) is used to induce anxiety to test out anxiolytics. I mean I get that they need to solve the infestation problem but can't we choose a method that isn't also a completely inhumane method?
This is just not true. Low concentrations of CO2 can cause distress. High concentrations are fast and painless.
There have been lake and volcanic outgassing events which release massive amounts of CO2 and it kills people and animals where they stand, in seconds.
See the Lake Nyos incident to see how CO2 kills.
And here's the final report on the incident from the USGS (PDF): "In this incident, asphyxia resulted from the displacement of normal atmosphere (approximately 21 percent oxygen) by a cloud of carbon dioxide gas. Under such circumstances, victims will literally "drop in their tracks" after taking a few breaths and experience no feeling of suffocation. The actual mechanism of death is believed to be a paralysis of the respiratory centers in the brain by very high concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lethal levels of carbon dioxide are in the range of 8 to 10 percent (Sittig, 1985)." - pp. 18-19
Also: "Additionally, many victims were found in their beds still covered by bed clothing. Victims found outside appeared to have collapsed suddenly without substantial movement. Animals were described as "dead in their tracks" in herds rather than dispersed." - page 17
An accepted humane way to kill lab animals is with high concentrations of CO2. The key is "high concentrations."
This concept, of dry ice generating carbon dioxide which flows down into holes at high concentrations, is actually brilliant and humane.
I don't really care about more surveillance if it means people's lives will be saved. I've concluded the people who have the most to lose from increased surveillance are drug users, pedophiles and those paranoid of the government. I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.
Yeah, I get the typical standard response of wrapping oneself in the 13-starred early American flag wearing a 3 pointed hat, and shouting, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety!" I'm not giving up any freedom. I'm still covered by the Constitution.
If there is a compelling national security interest to tap my phone or monitor my communications - I won't like it (obviously) but I'm okay with it. But there isn't so I feel comfortable communicating embarrassing information and even communicating thoughtcrime from time to time. But if someone did get on the government's national security radar, I'd want the government to be able to surveil them in the hope that it might save lives. And in saying I'm okay with it for another means I must accept that risk/inconvenience for myself. Because, like I said, I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.
Having said all that, I do respect Edward Snowden for his courage and for bringing this out into the light, and not letting the program run away. I wouldn't want to see NSA employees using the infrastructure to gather LOVEINT, i.e. stalk ex-girlfriends, or politicians using the infrastructure to gather opposition research and the like. On the other hand I personally wouldn't hire Snowden because I get the impression if he saw something that went against his grain, he'd divulge company secrets in a heartbeat.
Yeah, it's the Russians, not the post Iraq war and post financial crisis revelations that have sown mistrust in institutions.
Uh huh.
About those cell phones the poor have - they're "Obama-phones" - and I suppose we should be thankful because it does increase the market for our wares. I've seen this effect in person:
1) Snopes link
2) US News and World Report link
I have an acquaintance - an engineer with an engineering degree - who married a woman from a poor background. His big complaint? While he was working and saving, she'd (marginally employed) spend money continuously on idiotic trinkets. He tried to teach her the importance of saving and fiscal prudence but it was lost on her. They eventually divorced.
it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse
What creates chilling effect on dissent and discourse is tyranny and political correctness. When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist" or any number of other terms that are designed for ONE thing, to quell the voices of those opposed to the march towards tyranny. ONLY Approved voices need to speak, all others will be punished mercilessly.
Agreed. However, posting PII/PHI of private citizens should be illegal. Just as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. Because the social and personal cost is greater than any conceivable benefit.
I know a couple of ground level employees whose information was in that hack. Medical information, social security numbers. To what end?
There's no actual evidence for the conspiracy theories. The police didn't charge him for a hoax bomb and they actually investigated it.
Everything else is just pure speculation.
I was always puzzled about the outrageous rates at which companies billed out software engineers. But when I got into consulting, I found out the hard way how important lawyers are. And then the larger the company gets, the more specialized people are needed. Contracting officers, accountants, site security, hardware, health insurance, unemployment insurance, taxes. All of those costs have to be covered by the revenue from products, services and billed-to-the-client staff. That made the hourly rates suddenly seem much less dazzling, and let me understand why I got such a small slice of them.
And when I say "senior", I mean SENIOR. Like 15 to 20 years of experience working with databases with lots of tables and millions of rows. Someone who's actually been around the block and understands how things work and don't work. At a minimum, that's the database person necessary. Also having true senior programmers and UI types would be very useful it seems to me.