Neither of those is actual evidence, which is why I hate these 'psychological profiling' stuff in court, it's the worst form of pseudoscience when someones innocence depends on whether or not they have a 'criminal mindset' according to the court. This is a tricky legal situation: in self-defence, the burden of proof is on the defendant, he is the one who has to show that he was attacked. Which in cases like this one is almost impossible. Sadly, I have no idea how this could be solved.
The problem with following the money is that it can be easily misled. If someone wants to hurt an organisation, they only have to send out a couple of scams with their account number on it and the vigilant banks will shut it down. Punishment should be a monopoly of the legal system.
The biggest security hole in every system is the human. Teach your kid safe browsing and general safety guidelines. Viruses don't get on a machine by themselves. Put on MSE and a firewall. Don't use third-party antiviruses, they cause more pain than the actual viruses.
I didn't say it should be the job of only one person, obviously a big organisation will have many people on it. I only pointed out that software you don't have the source of shouldn't be trusted regardless of who is the developer.
I wonder if it's possible to extend this to generate text that's not only syntactically correct but also logically sound. We already have automated proof checkers, so it shouldn't be that hard and would really confuse journal editors.
But that energy doesn't have to come from fossil sources. So when we run out of fossil fuel and switch to nuclear we can still synthesize hydrocarbons if we need them.
I tought there are some real arguments against the law in TFA, but there's only whining how it's too late. Well it certainly won't help data exposures before the passing of the law, but I don't know of any event that made such a regulation obsolete. It is in fact still very common for corporations to lose loads of personal data because they are too lazy to protect it. A law like this may not be effective enough to change that, but definitely not because it's 'too late'. It's as actual as ever.
Amazon might not like the rules but they still have to accept them as they are today and play like all the others if they don't want to get sued to oblivion. Even Google had to learn that after they got hit by Microsoft pretty hard.
Now we see how little global warming alarmism has to do with actual environmentalism. We will lower our carbon footprint even if it means destroying sealife!
Weather prediction is mostly limited by the amount and precision of data and the fact that it's impossible to accurately predict a chaotic system after a certain point, not computing power.
So what exactly were his crimes? What damage did he cause? It's pretty much proven that he isn't a foreign agent and did not forward any information to other people.
True, energy taxation wouldn't solve the problem, assuming there is a problem to begin with. These regulations try to limit energy waste, which instinctively seems like a bad thing while it really isn't. If I connect a lightbulb to a solar panel that energy is totally wasted (who needs lights at daylight?), yet no damage was done. If the regulators think energy waste is a bad thing, they should first try to figure out why is it supposed to be bad. Because the real cause is not energy waste. It might be dependence on fossil fuels, or greenhouse gas emissions. But in that case we should adopt a regulation that incentivises the use of nuclear and renewable energy instead of simply punishing energy use. But even in that case it's better to just tax PSUs in proportion to their output and le the consumers decide whether they want to pay the higher price than outright ban devices. Right now, this is a regulation that tries to fit into the boundaries of Kyoto by selectively hurting the households (of whom the unelected bureaucrats don't have to worry), and sparing the big businesses with deep pockets.
The scope of this Regulation covers products from the following list that can be powered directly from the mains alternating current (AC) including via an external or internal power supply: (i) desktop computer; (ii) integrated desktop computer; (iii) notebook computer (including tablet computer, slate computer and mobile thin client); (iv) desktop thin client; (v) workstation; (vi) mobile workstation; (vii) small-scale server; (viii) computer server. (3) This Regulation shall not apply to any of the following product groups: (i) blade system and components; (ii) server appliances; (iii) multi-node servers; (iv) computer servers with more than four processor sockets; (v) game consoles; (vi) docking stations.
This regulation only applies to computers not graphics cards. Folks who assemble their gaming rig themselves can continue to do so.
Ban Ki-moon is not Western, a neither is technically Australia. The article is mostly just nitpicking, while it's true that freedom of speech is nowhere achieved perfectly we still have orders of magnitude more of it than the Muslims.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither of those is actual evidence, which is why I hate these 'psychological profiling' stuff in court, it's the worst form of pseudoscience when someones innocence depends on whether or not they have a 'criminal mindset' according to the court. This is a tricky legal situation: in self-defence, the burden of proof is on the defendant, he is the one who has to show that he was attacked. Which in cases like this one is almost impossible. Sadly, I have no idea how this could be solved.
The problem with following the money is that it can be easily misled. If someone wants to hurt an organisation, they only have to send out a couple of scams with their account number on it and the vigilant banks will shut it down. Punishment should be a monopoly of the legal system.
The biggest security hole in every system is the human. Teach your kid safe browsing and general safety guidelines. Viruses don't get on a machine by themselves. Put on MSE and a firewall. Don't use third-party antiviruses, they cause more pain than the actual viruses.
I didn't say it should be the job of only one person, obviously a big organisation will have many people on it. I only pointed out that software you don't have the source of shouldn't be trusted regardless of who is the developer.
It's not like this changes the current security guidelines. Only trust software you have analyzed the source of.
There are many people sharing the same surname, it's not A. Turing or F. Hausdorff.
I wonder if it's possible to extend this to generate text that's not only syntactically correct but also logically sound. We already have automated proof checkers, so it shouldn't be that hard and would really confuse journal editors.
True, but you can't use batteries for everything. Airliners won't fly on batteries, for example.
But that energy doesn't have to come from fossil sources. So when we run out of fossil fuel and switch to nuclear we can still synthesize hydrocarbons if we need them.
With the mandatory Foxconn "internship" programs it is forced labour.
I tought there are some real arguments against the law in TFA, but there's only whining how it's too late. Well it certainly won't help data exposures before the passing of the law, but I don't know of any event that made such a regulation obsolete. It is in fact still very common for corporations to lose loads of personal data because they are too lazy to protect it. A law like this may not be effective enough to change that, but definitely not because it's 'too late'. It's as actual as ever.
It's in the CLOUD, of course.
Post direct IP adresses to your proxies.
Amazon might not like the rules but they still have to accept them as they are today and play like all the others if they don't want to get sued to oblivion. Even Google had to learn that after they got hit by Microsoft pretty hard.
And should we trust Anonymous on this one? What if they are just covering for one of their own?
Now we see how little global warming alarmism has to do with actual environmentalism. We will lower our carbon footprint even if it means destroying sealife!
Weather prediction is mostly limited by the amount and precision of data and the fact that it's impossible to accurately predict a chaotic system after a certain point, not computing power.
And he will be tried for that of course. Just not extradited.
So what exactly were his crimes? What damage did he cause? It's pretty much proven that he isn't a foreign agent and did not forward any information to other people.
True, energy taxation wouldn't solve the problem, assuming there is a problem to begin with. These regulations try to limit energy waste, which instinctively seems like a bad thing while it really isn't. If I connect a lightbulb to a solar panel that energy is totally wasted (who needs lights at daylight?), yet no damage was done. If the regulators think energy waste is a bad thing, they should first try to figure out why is it supposed to be bad. Because the real cause is not energy waste. It might be dependence on fossil fuels, or greenhouse gas emissions. But in that case we should adopt a regulation that incentivises the use of nuclear and renewable energy instead of simply punishing energy use.
But even in that case it's better to just tax PSUs in proportion to their output and le the consumers decide whether they want to pay the higher price than outright ban devices.
Right now, this is a regulation that tries to fit into the boundaries of Kyoto by selectively hurting the households (of whom the unelected bureaucrats don't have to worry), and sparing the big businesses with deep pockets.
This regulation only applies to computers not graphics cards. Folks who assemble their gaming rig themselves can continue to do so.
May I remind you that a film offending a religion in a similar way is now considered a part of British culture?
Ban Ki-moon is not Western, a neither is technically Australia. The article is mostly just nitpicking, while it's true that freedom of speech is nowhere achieved perfectly we still have orders of magnitude more of it than the Muslims.
Neither does Youtube nor the people making the film.
Don't like offensive material being shown? Don't like freedom of speech? Well then GET THE HELL OUT OF EUROPE NOONE FORCED YOU TO COME HERE!