Re marriage: No, but my partner is more of an SF geek than I am and we don't restrict ourselves to the other's prejudices.
Re dating: Might be; might not. Treat the work on a case by case basis. Religious texts make for some excellent millennia-old science fiction. I feel the past deacde's Dr Who is going to date more quickly because it has made references which so obviously tie into very contemporary events, technologies, fashions, etc.
ST: the sexism of TOS has dated it, just as the patronising 80s whiny-feeliness of Troi has dated TNG. But the messages of heroism and technical straightforwardness of TOS remain poignant today; as are the messages of dplomacy and social progressiveness of TNG.
Often. People with disguises are often more recognizable than they realize.
Do you have any evidence for this? IOW, can you link me to any records indicating number of appropriate warrant arrests made in the street because the police officer recognised someone? Proportion who were trying to disguise themselves (beyond "wearing a hat")? As a proportion of the total number of people stopped in the street because they "looked like someone with a warrant out on them"?
police are charged with seeking out and finding suspects even when no formal arrest warrant has been issued.
In the immediate aftermath of a crime, perhaps. But then you're usually going on appearances and not names, aren't you? If the guy who ran from the scene 5 minutes ago is described by multiple witnesses as a 5'4" black guy with a thin moustache, scar on his forehead, red t-shirt and torn blue jeans then you are going to stop the breathless 5'4" black guy with a thin moustache, scar on his forehead, red t-shirt and torn blue jeans, even if he tells you he couldn't have been at the scene because he just parachuted in 2 minutes ago. The witnesses can tell you whether it's the right guy by appearance in a line-up.
But if the only witness description is that he was a 5'4" black guy, you don't stop all black guys without giantism - and you certainly don't conveniently check their fingerprints to see if there's an arrest warrant out on them.
Police are also supposed to prevent crime. Cops aren't there just to clean up the mess after the fact.
Mainly by picking up people who they have a reasonable suspicion of being criminals. And by patrolling the street, both to help with the main aim and to make potential criminals aware of their presence. But they're not there to stop crime by checking whether people might be suspected criminals.
In fact, that is often seems the case is a major source of citizen frustration.
Yes - I'm glad you recognise the need to patrol the streets systematically rather than performing random traffic or pedestrian stops when and where the moment suits. Thanks!
Police are supposed to detect and investigate crimes as well. Do you know why they have titles like "detective" and "inspector"?
To detect and to investigate. There's no "convenience for freedom substitutor", so no job function which involves detaining people without reasonable suspicion.
So a career criminal murderer/child rapist with a well-established alias and fake ID doesn't even take basic steps to disguise himself?
Only arrest or take into custody people he actually sees commit a crime or what?
How often does an officer just happen to spot someone and recall that they look like a career criminal murderer/child rapist with well-established alias and fake ID who doesn't even take basic steps to disguise himself?
The officer's job is to deal with crimes in process or to execute arrest warrants. The latter happens by having a good idea of the whereabouts of a suspected criminal and going to arrest him, not by fortuitously spotting him in the street...
Today Officer Bob would take Mr. B down to the station and assume he's really Mr. A until his identity can be established one way or another.
...and if you've done a proper job of finding out where this suspected criminal is, but he declares that he is someone else, then - hell yes - you want to ask him to come down to the station. Because either you have fucked up severely or he has planned a good lie. Both need more time to check out than the swipe of some piece of overpriced, semi-functioning (we are talking about government issued police toys) tech.
If they don't match then Mr. B is released and his fingerprint cards are destroyed soon after.
Whereas in this new system, if they don't match then there's an electronic record of the fingerprint. And you can assume electronic records are never destroyed.
Do you not agree that if Mr. B was in fact not Mr. A that he would have appreciated getting that established without spending hours at a police station?
An automated biometric scan on the street is as invasive as an automated recorded multifactor biometric scan at the police station. But a manual fingerprint check is far less invasive than an automated recorded multifactor biometric scan. Freedom, convenience and security are three separate words with three separate meanings; the Western public is getting much worse at understanding the difference between them.
tl;dr "Looking a bit black/Arab... like that black rapist/Arab terrorist" is not a reason to stop and record the fingerprints of the next black/Arab guy you see. And history tells us this is how the tech will be applied. If the police aren't sufficiently confident to take you down to the station then they shouldn't be asking you for anything (some will argue: except your name; but we're talking about something more invasive than that).
If you have a warrant out for someone, you go and get them - you don't just check random people in the street in the hope someone has an arrest warrant out on them.
And if you observed a crime in progress or otherwise have reasonable suspicion that someone's just committed a crime, you arrest them on that basis and take them to the station.
I can't think of a single legitimate use case for this tech in the field.
What marketing does the Foundation do for the Corporation? Keep in mind what the corporation is. It is the arm that produces and markets Firefox and the other software
Indeed - if your IT staff aren't checking the specs, reading the reviews, doing their own tests and keeping equipment clean then we won't get too far with efficiency savings... and a more complex alternative like DC power distribution is completely out of the question.
But as long as there's a selection of reliable brands, we can let review sites do their job of identifying the potential candidates and the instant rejections.
Stopping that sort of thing was likely the purpose of the censorship. As usual:
Technocratic, autocratic, systematic, hydromatic, grease lightning government - 1. The people - 0.
The relationship between China and America is like a horse and carriage. The regular Americans are riding in the carriage, unable to see much of what's actually going on outside. The regular Chinese people are the horses. The guy holding the reins is in the CCP.
It makes no ethical sense (except in the eyes of the tax avoiders) for a non-profit to have a profit-making subsidiary. If there are no stakeholders who stand to gain personally then your whole organisation is non-profit, and you have no need for a profit-making subsidiary.
You can't ethically argue ringfencing off some activity and saying "well, all the money's being reinvested right here so it's a non-profit part". Otherwise Microsoft Research could just become the non-profit Microsoft Foundation, bringing in the rest of Microsoft as a subsidiary. The non-profit arm is used to "fundraise" and market Microsoft products (for the good of the world!), while the profit-making arm engages in regular business activities and piles money into the non-profit.
That is the claim but many fail that and don't actually get close until 50% or higher, a few sites have done real world testing and have proven it.
Do you have any links? Ignoring power supplies which claim to be 80 PLUS certified but actually aren't, of course. Reviews and my own tests confirmed my Corsair PSUs doing as advertised with a fairly low desktop load.
The other thing is that people always way over estimate the draw of components or simply go for the "bigger is better" mentality. I've seen so many 1KW PSU's in systems drawing 200watts or less.
Yes. But I'm hoping a university IT department isn't entirely staffed by neophyte gamers.
But you still have one or more great big rectifiers for several machines rather than each machine having its own. Unless you have the maintenance resources and backup equipment of a commercial electricity supplier, this is where you will fuck up.
There is no evidence or reason for DC to be more "secure". If some lame argument about it being harder to bring your own power source / utilise their outlets when you have a custom system is put forward, then, well... no.
I can understand the efficiency argument to a certain extent, although if a workstation needs enough power that a fanless AC PSU is unsuitable then the more efficient AC PSUs will be enjoying enough load to reach over 80% efficiency. Are the centralised rectifiers + wires + in-computer DC-to-DC converters as efficient?
Savings are only "used" in the sense that your money is duplicated, so what could be taken out by one person can now be taken out by two. Regulation stops an infinite amount of credit being created.
I don't think that someone who panics at something small necessarily collapses completely at something very big. If I "lose it" in any way, it is at myself after intense thought, and never in an emergency situation. In the midst of some serious event, especially involving others, I seem to be fairly composed, though alert. This seems to be the body acting on spec.
Part of the problem is - and I admit my response above was slightly knee-jerk trollish to a trollish post - people having an opinion on what others should/shouldn't find serious. The experience of being near something dying/dead doesn't distress me, and I'm sometimes regarded as cold when it comes to responding to the emotion of individuals. But the thought of many avoidable deaths/suffering occurring all the time in the world does distress me, and I'll apply this on an individual level to try to help people rationally approach their problems.
In particular, the idea of "accidentally running over" something while driving (a private vehicle) is, to me, contradictory. Driving is, compared to pretty much everything humans do, statistically extremely dangerous. And drivers know this. So, if you choose to drive regularly then you are choosing to occasionally kill small animals. It might be incidental in that it's not a purpose of driving, but it's not accidental: you're choosing a method which you know will cause this. Driver instruction material in the UK, reassuringly rational, does emphasise this theme of responsibility: an incident (note the term) is almost always the result of a driver not behaving correctly to avoid an incident. The unforeseen nature of a true accident rarely applies to a driving incident.
Women are an item to be hoarded and, if necessary, beaten into submission.
Soldiers are an item to be hoarded and, if necessary, beaten into submission.
Of course, the first thing you must do to wage war is to dehumanise the enemy soldier in the eyes of your own soldiers. Then you make up for it by treating enemy non-combatants, cooperative or otherwise, with some faux reverence. It's been a thoroughly successful manipulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Re marriage: No, but my partner is more of an SF geek than I am and we don't restrict ourselves to the other's prejudices.
Re dating: Might be; might not. Treat the work on a case by case basis. Religious texts make for some excellent millennia-old science fiction. I feel the past deacde's Dr Who is going to date more quickly because it has made references which so obviously tie into very contemporary events, technologies, fashions, etc.
ST: the sexism of TOS has dated it, just as the patronising 80s whiny-feeliness of Troi has dated TNG. But the messages of heroism and technical straightforwardness of TOS remain poignant today; as are the messages of dplomacy and social progressiveness of TNG.
...without even having watched it then she isn't really a "science fiction fan". That sort of prejudice will get you nowhere.
Also, don't base your aesthetics on what your wife will tolerate.
Standard freedom-loving procedure is to liberate an existing island for US military use, giving gratis one-way travel to the natives.
Often. People with disguises are often more recognizable than they realize.
Do you have any evidence for this? IOW, can you link me to any records indicating number of appropriate warrant arrests made in the street because the police officer recognised someone? Proportion who were trying to disguise themselves (beyond "wearing a hat")? As a proportion of the total number of people stopped in the street because they "looked like someone with a warrant out on them"?
police are charged with seeking out and finding suspects even when no formal arrest warrant has been issued.
In the immediate aftermath of a crime, perhaps. But then you're usually going on appearances and not names, aren't you? If the guy who ran from the scene 5 minutes ago is described by multiple witnesses as a 5'4" black guy with a thin moustache, scar on his forehead, red t-shirt and torn blue jeans then you are going to stop the breathless 5'4" black guy with a thin moustache, scar on his forehead, red t-shirt and torn blue jeans, even if he tells you he couldn't have been at the scene because he just parachuted in 2 minutes ago. The witnesses can tell you whether it's the right guy by appearance in a line-up.
But if the only witness description is that he was a 5'4" black guy, you don't stop all black guys without giantism - and you certainly don't conveniently check their fingerprints to see if there's an arrest warrant out on them.
Police are also supposed to prevent crime. Cops aren't there just to clean up the mess after the fact.
Mainly by picking up people who they have a reasonable suspicion of being criminals. And by patrolling the street, both to help with the main aim and to make potential criminals aware of their presence. But they're not there to stop crime by checking whether people might be suspected criminals.
In fact, that is often seems the case is a major source of citizen frustration.
Yes - I'm glad you recognise the need to patrol the streets systematically rather than performing random traffic or pedestrian stops when and where the moment suits. Thanks!
Police are supposed to detect and investigate crimes as well. Do you know why they have titles like "detective" and "inspector"?
To detect and to investigate. There's no "convenience for freedom substitutor", so no job function which involves detaining people without reasonable suspicion.
What would you have Officer Bob do? Walk away?
So a career criminal murderer/child rapist with a well-established alias and fake ID doesn't even take basic steps to disguise himself?
Only arrest or take into custody people he actually sees commit a crime or what?
How often does an officer just happen to spot someone and recall that they look like a career criminal murderer/child rapist with well-established alias and fake ID who doesn't even take basic steps to disguise himself?
The officer's job is to deal with crimes in process or to execute arrest warrants. The latter happens by having a good idea of the whereabouts of a suspected criminal and going to arrest him, not by fortuitously spotting him in the street...
Today Officer Bob would take Mr. B down to the station and assume he's really Mr. A until his identity can be established one way or another.
...and if you've done a proper job of finding out where this suspected criminal is, but he declares that he is someone else, then - hell yes - you want to ask him to come down to the station. Because either you have fucked up severely or he has planned a good lie. Both need more time to check out than the swipe of some piece of overpriced, semi-functioning (we are talking about government issued police toys) tech.
If they don't match then Mr. B is released and his fingerprint cards are destroyed soon after.
Whereas in this new system, if they don't match then there's an electronic record of the fingerprint. And you can assume electronic records are never destroyed.
Do you not agree that if Mr. B was in fact not Mr. A that he would have appreciated getting that established without spending hours at a police station?
An automated biometric scan on the street is as invasive as an automated recorded multifactor biometric scan at the police station. But a manual fingerprint check is far less invasive than an automated recorded multifactor biometric scan. Freedom, convenience and security are three separate words with three separate meanings; the Western public is getting much worse at understanding the difference between them.
tl;dr "Looking a bit black/Arab... like that black rapist/Arab terrorist" is not a reason to stop and record the fingerprints of the next black/Arab guy you see. And history tells us this is how the tech will be applied. If the police aren't sufficiently confident to take you down to the station then they shouldn't be asking you for anything (some will argue: except your name; but we're talking about something more invasive than that).
If you have a warrant out for someone, you go and get them - you don't just check random people in the street in the hope someone has an arrest warrant out on them.
And if you observed a crime in progress or otherwise have reasonable suspicion that someone's just committed a crime, you arrest them on that basis and take them to the station.
I can't think of a single legitimate use case for this tech in the field.
Ah yes. Resilience through obscurity.
Google can be and is already trivially gamed. The market for doing so is huge and effective.
What marketing does the Foundation do for the Corporation? Keep in mind what the corporation is. It is the arm that produces and markets Firefox and the other software
Really?
1, 2 and 3.
HTH.
Indeed - if your IT staff aren't checking the specs, reading the reviews, doing their own tests and keeping equipment clean then we won't get too far with efficiency savings... and a more complex alternative like DC power distribution is completely out of the question.
But as long as there's a selection of reliable brands, we can let review sites do their job of identifying the potential candidates and the instant rejections.
So the marketing work the Foundation does for the Corporation is taxable?
Stopping that sort of thing was likely the purpose of the censorship. As usual:
Technocratic, autocratic, systematic, hydromatic, grease lightning government - 1.
The people - 0.
The relationship between China and America is like a horse and carriage. The regular Americans are riding in the carriage, unable to see much of what's actually going on outside. The regular Chinese people are the horses. The guy holding the reins is in the CCP.
It makes no ethical sense (except in the eyes of the tax avoiders) for a non-profit to have a profit-making subsidiary. If there are no stakeholders who stand to gain personally then your whole organisation is non-profit, and you have no need for a profit-making subsidiary.
You can't ethically argue ringfencing off some activity and saying "well, all the money's being reinvested right here so it's a non-profit part". Otherwise Microsoft Research could just become the non-profit Microsoft Foundation, bringing in the rest of Microsoft as a subsidiary. The non-profit arm is used to "fundraise" and market Microsoft products (for the good of the world!), while the profit-making arm engages in regular business activities and piles money into the non-profit.
Erm, wasted this month: 45W * (24 * 31) hours = 33.5kWh = $2.08.
Also, that kWh rate is fairly cheap...
That is the claim but many fail that and don't actually get close until 50% or higher, a few sites have done real world testing and have proven it.
Do you have any links? Ignoring power supplies which claim to be 80 PLUS certified but actually aren't, of course. Reviews and my own tests confirmed my Corsair PSUs doing as advertised with a fairly low desktop load.
The other thing is that people always way over estimate the draw of components or simply go for the "bigger is better" mentality. I've seen so many 1KW PSU's in systems drawing 200watts or less.
Yes. But I'm hoping a university IT department isn't entirely staffed by neophyte gamers.
But you still have one or more great big rectifiers for several machines rather than each machine having its own. Unless you have the maintenance resources and backup equipment of a commercial electricity supplier, this is where you will fuck up.
Doesn't the most basic 80 PLUS rating require 80% efficiency at 20% load?
Have they caught up yet? A few weeks ago half my extensions didn't work so I reverted.
Also, have they dropped the pretence of being a Foundation yet?
There is no evidence or reason for DC to be more "secure". If some lame argument about it being harder to bring your own power source / utilise their outlets when you have a custom system is put forward, then, well... no.
I can understand the efficiency argument to a certain extent, although if a workstation needs enough power that a fanless AC PSU is unsuitable then the more efficient AC PSUs will be enjoying enough load to reach over 80% efficiency. Are the centralised rectifiers + wires + in-computer DC-to-DC converters as efficient?
Savings are only "used" in the sense that your money is duplicated, so what could be taken out by one person can now be taken out by two. Regulation stops an infinite amount of credit being created.
I don't think that someone who panics at something small necessarily collapses completely at something very big. If I "lose it" in any way, it is at myself after intense thought, and never in an emergency situation. In the midst of some serious event, especially involving others, I seem to be fairly composed, though alert. This seems to be the body acting on spec.
Part of the problem is - and I admit my response above was slightly knee-jerk trollish to a trollish post - people having an opinion on what others should/shouldn't find serious. The experience of being near something dying/dead doesn't distress me, and I'm sometimes regarded as cold when it comes to responding to the emotion of individuals. But the thought of many avoidable deaths/suffering occurring all the time in the world does distress me, and I'll apply this on an individual level to try to help people rationally approach their problems.
In particular, the idea of "accidentally running over" something while driving (a private vehicle) is, to me, contradictory. Driving is, compared to pretty much everything humans do, statistically extremely dangerous. And drivers know this. So, if you choose to drive regularly then you are choosing to occasionally kill small animals. It might be incidental in that it's not a purpose of driving, but it's not accidental: you're choosing a method which you know will cause this. Driver instruction material in the UK, reassuringly rational, does emphasise this theme of responsibility: an incident (note the term) is almost always the result of a driver not behaving correctly to avoid an incident. The unforeseen nature of a true accident rarely applies to a driving incident.
Should have seen her when I accidentally ran over her cat.
Why don't you detail the value system you want to impose on others so we can learn from you how serious we should or shouldn't find that?
Who is the creditor for the bank's debt of $5?
I am reminded of how the fractional reserve system works:
A and B have balances of $0.
A deposits $10.
A has a balance of $10; B has a balance of $0.
B asks for a loan of $5; bank "uses" A's money.
A has a balance of $10; B has a balance of $5.
The house always wins.
Women are an item to be hoarded and, if necessary, beaten into submission.
Soldiers are an item to be hoarded and, if necessary, beaten into submission.
Of course, the first thing you must do to wage war is to dehumanise the enemy soldier in the eyes of your own soldiers. Then you make up for it by treating enemy non-combatants, cooperative or otherwise, with some faux reverence. It's been a thoroughly successful manipulation.