My serious question is: what is to prevent individual researchers from just publishing what they have as a PDF or WordPress article on a random site on the Internet?
The main problem is not that there are rules against it, but simply that if you don't publish in an accepted, refereed journal--it doesn't count. Nobody will read you, nobody will cite you, and most of all you won't get any credit for being published, without which a research scientist has no career, and probably no job.
Uhm... I don't believe we currently recognize Russian government as legitimate. We recognize it as ruling.
The two are not separable. If you recognize a government as ruling, you recognize it as legitimate. We most certainly do recognize the Russian government as legitimate--there are embassies and everything. (The current Russian ambassador to the US is Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, and the current US ambassador to Russia is John Francis Tefft). We don't recognize their annexation of certain territories, most notably the Crimean peninsula, but that's a different matter. With the re-establishment of relations with Cuba, there aren't many governments in de facto power we don't recognize. Taiwan's the most important; we had to withdraw our recognition in order to establish relations with the People's Republic of China.
What Obama...what most politicians...don't seem to understand is that there is no balance. The phone is either secure...or it isn't. And if it isn't, the police will not be the only ones cracking it.
This is from the same yahoos who though LA's methane leak was a disaster on a par with thousands of people dead, so I'd take it with a pretty big chunk of salt.
This incident's contribution to climate change was meager. Even if climate change proves everything we fear (and I do believe in climate change, although I believe the full impact is still uncertain), this still isn't much of disaster. Proponents of climate change do themselves no favors with this sort of idiocy.
Worse than, say, the 1900 Galveston hurricane, in which over 6000 died? Worse than the 1906 San Francisco earthquake in which over 3000 died? Worse than the 2001 NY Trade Center in which 3000 died? Or the dozen other disasters in which 1000 or more died? How many people died because of this?
No one will spend the effort just to play tricks on the customer's living room illumination.
Particularly when then are so many easier targets if he's interested in that kind of fun. "I don't have to be faster than the bear; I just have to be faster than you."
Are there banks that *seriously* expect the customer to pay them money to keep their money for them....?
Yes. This is happening in Japan right now. In Europe, banks have to pay a negative interest rate to keep cash on deposit at the European Central Bank. Trying to keep physical custody of large amounts of cash would cost big clients more than the negative interest rates do. Retail clients, not yet. But if you have $10,000 in savings, do you serious want to try to stash it all in twenties?
It can also be noted that they are kept affordable by air time being prepaid, often a minute a time, and many of these applications are written to optimize their use of that time.
The got the Olympics. I'd say they outsmarted everyone.
Did they? Between the corruption and the stupid overbuilding of the Olympic site that you'll never make your money back from, the Olympics are looking more and more like a booby prize with every four-year cycle.
A better analogy would be the president explaining that water is on fire and fire is cold, since this is a blatant lie. The Paris attackers never used crypto.
A common strategy here is to encrypt to files, insert a transparent decryption layer, and then wait a few months before yanking the decryption. Backups are no good because they're encrypted too.
I'd like to know too. My understanding is that software companies have avoided driving EULA cases to a legal decision to avoid the risk of having the decision not go their way. It this has changed, I'd like to hear about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem is not that there are rules against it, but simply that if you don't publish in an accepted, refereed journal--it doesn't count. Nobody will read you, nobody will cite you, and most of all you won't get any credit for being published, without which a research scientist has no career, and probably no job.
The two are not separable. If you recognize a government as ruling, you recognize it as legitimate. We most certainly do recognize the Russian government as legitimate--there are embassies and everything. (The current Russian ambassador to the US is Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, and the current US ambassador to Russia is John Francis Tefft). We don't recognize their annexation of certain territories, most notably the Crimean peninsula, but that's a different matter. With the re-establishment of relations with Cuba, there aren't many governments in de facto power we don't recognize. Taiwan's the most important; we had to withdraw our recognition in order to establish relations with the People's Republic of China.
What Obama...what most politicians...don't seem to understand is that there is no balance. The phone is either secure...or it isn't. And if it isn't, the police will not be the only ones cracking it.
"And, you know, by a weird coincidence, we're an OpenStack partner. What are the odds, hey?"
More accurately: "Software without an inherently vulnerable feature doesn't have vulnerability related to said feature."
"It's so bad."
This is from the same yahoos who though LA's methane leak was a disaster on a par with thousands of people dead, so I'd take it with a pretty big chunk of salt.
This incident's contribution to climate change was meager. Even if climate change proves everything we fear (and I do believe in climate change, although I believe the full impact is still uncertain), this still isn't much of disaster. Proponents of climate change do themselves no favors with this sort of idiocy.
Worse than, say, the 1900 Galveston hurricane, in which over 6000 died? Worse than the 1906 San Francisco earthquake in which over 3000 died? Worse than the 2001 NY Trade Center in which 3000 died? Or the dozen other disasters in which 1000 or more died? How many people died because of this?
Particularly when then are so many easier targets if he's interested in that kind of fun. "I don't have to be faster than the bear; I just have to be faster than you."
The police department definitely wants to be using phones that can be tapped.
I was assuming a laptop, which almost always has built-in Bluetooth. A desktop with no Bluetooth I'd just use a wire.
...is why you should be using bluetooth instead of cheaping out. Saves a USB port, too!
Yes. This is happening in Japan right now. In Europe, banks have to pay a negative interest rate to keep cash on deposit at the European Central Bank. Trying to keep physical custody of large amounts of cash would cost big clients more than the negative interest rates do. Retail clients, not yet. But if you have $10,000 in savings, do you serious want to try to stash it all in twenties?
It can also be noted that they are kept affordable by air time being prepaid, often a minute a time, and many of these applications are written to optimize their use of that time.
Uh, no, they aren't. Professional athletes have been allowed in the Olympics for well over twenty years.
Did they? Between the corruption and the stupid overbuilding of the Olympic site that you'll never make your money back from, the Olympics are looking more and more like a booby prize with every four-year cycle.
All the zones have names like that in the Galaxy of Terror!
A better analogy would be the president explaining that water is on fire and fire is cold, since this is a blatant lie. The Paris attackers never used crypto.
Repeating it again and again doesn't make it true, it only makes it truthy. Which, alas, seems to be good enough for a lot of people.
I couldn't see his nose grow at all.
A common strategy here is to encrypt to files, insert a transparent decryption layer, and then wait a few months before yanking the decryption. Backups are no good because they're encrypted too.
So everything gets read out by Marlon Brando?
Came to make Magneto joke, was beaten to it.
I'd like to know too. My understanding is that software companies have avoided driving EULA cases to a legal decision to avoid the risk of having the decision not go their way. It this has changed, I'd like to hear about it.