True in that the DPRK is not an active warzone, but that could be stated about the vast majority of locations and without the silly anti-American ranting and raving, or the absurd falsehoods glorifying the Mad State. For example, honesty and steadfastness are not terms that can be applied to the DPRK or it's behavior domestically or internationally. Nor do they have the resources to feed the populace, let alone provide medical care or education.
Past that, it's just the old and discredited theory that proliferation = peace. While it is true that possessing nuclear weapons may discourage invasion, one need look no further than Israel to see how the absence of formal international military conflict is not the same as peace.
You are right that conditions in the DPRK are entirely unstable, and by all rights the regime should have collapsed decades ago - would have, were they not propped up by the Soviets first and then the Chinese (who don't want that collapse on their border). It's a perverse and peculiar case of mass insanity, rooted in a personality cult and reinforced by constant repetition and fear. A testament to the fragility of the human psyche. For example, there is an incomplete tower, originally intended I think to be a hotel and resort, that anyone can see plain as day, but residents will tell you does not exist. Their discomfort in discussing the matter is painfully obvious, but they will not waver. There are prison camps in the countryside, visible from passenger trains, but if you ask what they are, you will be told there is nothing there. Tourists have posted videos of this.
At the heart of Stalinism is the idea that the human will can reshape reality. In the DPRK, it almost seems true.
Ah, good point. In the end then, addressing the core issue is a job for a different branch of government. Either Congress must pass a new law or the Administration must implement new regulations on data security (via the FTC I would think).
Funny? A tyrannical lunatic that would rather provoke his neighbors than feed his people developing the most powerful weapon known to humanity is funny?
Yes, we developed them, yes we're the only ones to have used them, but since then we've been pretty devoted to making sure they never get used again. Though rather perversely, that meant building lots of them for a few decades, but now we and every other nation that has them are working to reduce stockpiles.
A rational nuclear power sits on its nukes, holding them in reserve as a deterrent against attack. No sane nation would use them offensively, as the cost is incalculably greater than any benefit. The DPRK is not sane. It's behavior is unswervingly irrational. The Kim family doesn't care if the people of the DPRK are vaporized in retaliation. The nuclear program is why the populace is already starving to death in slave labor camps. There isn't even a valid defensive use for them, as China provides more protection than a nuke ever could - and building nukes could easily turn China against them.
In contrast, the DPRK is orderly. They were never prosperous, but their cities and villages are not being bombarded with US-supplied TOW guided missiles, their populace is not facing daily beheadings in public. Kids attend school, mothers receive medical care, people can go to work without fear of snipers
HAH! Good one. Sure, there might not be snipers and the DPRK can't afford to waste bullets on firing squads, but they can't afford to waste the labor either, so they solve that problem with massive slave-labor camps. Kids don't go to school outside the city, and mothers not only don't receive healthcare, they don't receive food either. It all goes to the Party and the military.
They can show actual damages from the breech, Then again, they might be insured against losses from fraud, so it would have to be the insurance company that sues. Does it stop there? I don't know.
Well, you do need 4 times the memory to store an address, but memory is cheap and the router actually has less work to do when routing a packet. Think about how many operations have to be performed in order to translate an address and map ports. All gone.
And why does it matter if, from the outside, your network looks like one 32 bit address or a 64 bit subnet? The actual addresses in use on your network aren't any more visible to the internet than they would be if NAT was in use (you still have a firewall on or before your router after all), you're just doing away with all that port mapping and translation.
Well, banks and traders want their transactions to be instantaneous. Our transactions, on the other hand, can wait a few days. Especially if it means they can process a withdrawl seconds before a deposit to generate an overdraft.
the 21st century? Sure, they all try to provide feature rich modern interfaces for the customer (online banking, mobile apps...), but the back-end, the actual banking infrastructure, is still stuck back in the early 1980's. Why do electronic transactions take days to process? Why do they show you a posted balance and an available balance, and neither includes the tank of gas you just bought? Why does a simple check take days to process? Why do "wire transfers" still exist at all?
The telegraph is obsolete, but banks still use the systems built upon it as if communications were still being typed out by a telegraph operator. Sure, there are "Real time gross settlement" wire systems (still early 80's tech), but banks won't transfer your money that way, just theirs. Why should Automated Clearing Houses (ACH) still exist when technology made them obsolete in the 90's? Why can Wall Street traders buy and sell a billion dollars worth of stock in under a second, but if my mother tells her bank to send me Christmas money, it'll arrive in the form of a check, in the mail, five business days after the transfer was initiated?
Well, it's not a description of quality or character, just position (rank) in the Senate and her party. Framing it like that is just silly, just say what we're all thinking: Feinstein is a doody-head.
She told the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday that she would seek a bill that would give police armed with a warrant based on probable cause the ability to read encrypted data.
Yuk. Should be "She told the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday that she would seek a bill that would give police, armed with a warrant based on probable cause, the ability to read encrypted data." Note the commas.
Christmas is a Christian holiday (at heart anyhow). Santa is the most visible symbol of the holiday. Therefore, Santa is a likely target for ISIS. Google is publicizing Santa's location.
At the same time, 28 private investors, including Microsoft's Bill Gates, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon's Jeff Bezos, pledged their own money to help build private businesses based on that public research.
The 20 governments and the investors are calling their joint effort "Mission Innovation." They say they must act together because "the pace of innovation and the scale of transformation and dissemination remain significantly short of what is needed."
...
In a statement released Monday, Gates said he is "optimistic that we can invent the tools we need" to fight climate change. And, he says, the investors are pledging $7 billion to develop such tools.
Prejudice is no substitute for empirical data. Why not take a trip to a public library and get some. Then, thank Carnegie for there being public libraries.
Good point! Since when are LLC's automatically tax exempt? Can they be exempted at all?
Besides, who cares how he structures it so long as it does charitable work? Even if he only gives enough away to zero out his personal tax burden, he's just cutting out the government middleman and directly providing public services.
Does this mean the certification program doesn't include some sort of standardization/interop requirement? What the hell is the point of the dang things if they're in incompatible proprietary formats?
Is this just another example of well-intentioned government action backfiring through sheer incompetence? Did the bill's authors just assume that digitizing the records would be it? Did they even consider establishing a standard? Were any requests for proposals even issued?
Of course, how the Court rules on government policies depends on the type of policy (economic, social, civil rights, etc.) and how that particular court tests those policies - under "strict scrutiny" or "rational relation". Basically, it comes down to how much latitude the Court grants policy makers regarding various issues. For example, the Roberts Court took the rational relation approach to the ACA, and strict scrutiny in the Citizens United case.
Swapping 'from' with 'between' works, but 'annually' doesn't belong. It's both redundant, and as an adverb of frequency, misplaced. Better wordings would be:
During each of the last three years, SSD prices fell between 13 and 31 cents per gig.
Over the last three years, SSD prices experienced annual (or: yearly, per year) declines of 13 to 31 cents per gig.
SSD prices have dropped between 13 and 31 cents per gig for (or: during) each of the last three years.
The smaller number should also come first in all but a very few cases. One of which would be describing the initial and final value of a variable. Hence the ambiguity.
Slashdot Mirror
Past that, it's just the old and discredited theory that proliferation = peace. While it is true that possessing nuclear weapons may discourage invasion, one need look no further than Israel to see how the absence of formal international military conflict is not the same as peace.
You are right that conditions in the DPRK are entirely unstable, and by all rights the regime should have collapsed decades ago - would have, were they not propped up by the Soviets first and then the Chinese (who don't want that collapse on their border). It's a perverse and peculiar case of mass insanity, rooted in a personality cult and reinforced by constant repetition and fear. A testament to the fragility of the human psyche. For example, there is an incomplete tower, originally intended I think to be a hotel and resort, that anyone can see plain as day, but residents will tell you does not exist. Their discomfort in discussing the matter is painfully obvious, but they will not waver. There are prison camps in the countryside, visible from passenger trains, but if you ask what they are, you will be told there is nothing there. Tourists have posted videos of this.
At the heart of Stalinism is the idea that the human will can reshape reality. In the DPRK, it almost seems true.
Ah, good point. In the end then, addressing the core issue is a job for a different branch of government. Either Congress must pass a new law or the Administration must implement new regulations on data security (via the FTC I would think).
Yes, we developed them, yes we're the only ones to have used them, but since then we've been pretty devoted to making sure they never get used again. Though rather perversely, that meant building lots of them for a few decades, but now we and every other nation that has them are working to reduce stockpiles.
A rational nuclear power sits on its nukes, holding them in reserve as a deterrent against attack. No sane nation would use them offensively, as the cost is incalculably greater than any benefit. The DPRK is not sane. It's behavior is unswervingly irrational. The Kim family doesn't care if the people of the DPRK are vaporized in retaliation. The nuclear program is why the populace is already starving to death in slave labor camps. There isn't even a valid defensive use for them, as China provides more protection than a nuke ever could - and building nukes could easily turn China against them.
HAH! Good one. Sure, there might not be snipers and the DPRK can't afford to waste bullets on firing squads, but they can't afford to waste the labor either, so they solve that problem with massive slave-labor camps. Kids don't go to school outside the city, and mothers not only don't receive healthcare, they don't receive food either. It all goes to the Party and the military.
The justice system can't exist without them. Otherwise, we'd just have lawyers yelling over each other at a jury.
They can show actual damages from the breech, Then again, they might be insured against losses from fraud, so it would have to be the insurance company that sues. Does it stop there? I don't know.
Well, you do need 4 times the memory to store an address, but memory is cheap and the router actually has less work to do when routing a packet. Think about how many operations have to be performed in order to translate an address and map ports. All gone.
And why does it matter if, from the outside, your network looks like one 32 bit address or a 64 bit subnet? The actual addresses in use on your network aren't any more visible to the internet than they would be if NAT was in use (you still have a firewall on or before your router after all), you're just doing away with all that port mapping and translation.
Well, banks and traders want their transactions to be instantaneous. Our transactions, on the other hand, can wait a few days. Especially if it means they can process a withdrawl seconds before a deposit to generate an overdraft.
The telegraph is obsolete, but banks still use the systems built upon it as if communications were still being typed out by a telegraph operator. Sure, there are "Real time gross settlement" wire systems (still early 80's tech), but banks won't transfer your money that way, just theirs. Why should Automated Clearing Houses (ACH) still exist when technology made them obsolete in the 90's? Why can Wall Street traders buy and sell a billion dollars worth of stock in under a second, but if my mother tells her bank to send me Christmas money, it'll arrive in the form of a check, in the mail, five business days after the transfer was initiated?
Woah! What about Pournelle? He's the one who wrote the book on Martian revolution.
PayPal broke the economy?
My thoughts exactly! The "pioneer life'' is incredibly hard and mostly lethal, even on a habitable planet.
I was wondering why my cable company would be using an invalid certificate for the secure portions of their site. Now I know.
Well, it's not a description of quality or character, just position (rank) in the Senate and her party. Framing it like that is just silly, just say what we're all thinking: Feinstein is a doody-head.
She told the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday that she would seek a bill that would give police armed with a warrant based on probable cause the ability to read encrypted data.
Yuk. Should be "She told the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday that she would seek a bill that would give police, armed with a warrant based on probable cause, the ability to read encrypted data." Note the commas.
tf: Google is putting Santa in danger!!!!
Well, that is how charitable donations work. Not really sure what your point is.
(http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/30/457900449/bill-gates-and-other-billionaires-pledge-to-take-on-climate-change)
Prejudice is no substitute for empirical data. Why not take a trip to a public library and get some. Then, thank Carnegie for there being public libraries.
So, the person with actual experience is the naive one?
Besides, who cares how he structures it so long as it does charitable work? Even if he only gives enough away to zero out his personal tax burden, he's just cutting out the government middleman and directly providing public services.
Is this just another example of well-intentioned government action backfiring through sheer incompetence? Did the bill's authors just assume that digitizing the records would be it? Did they even consider establishing a standard? Were any requests for proposals even issued?
Of course, how the Court rules on government policies depends on the type of policy (economic, social, civil rights, etc.) and how that particular court tests those policies - under "strict scrutiny" or "rational relation". Basically, it comes down to how much latitude the Court grants policy makers regarding various issues. For example, the Roberts Court took the rational relation approach to the ACA, and strict scrutiny in the Citizens United case.
SYNTAX_ERROR: LINE 3
Swapping 'from' with 'between' works, but 'annually' doesn't belong. It's both redundant, and as an adverb of frequency, misplaced. Better wordings would be:
During each of the last three years, SSD prices fell between 13 and 31 cents per gig.
Over the last three years, SSD prices experienced annual (or: yearly, per year) declines of 13 to 31 cents per gig.
SSD prices have dropped between 13 and 31 cents per gig for (or: during) each of the last three years.
The smaller number should also come first in all but a very few cases. One of which would be describing the initial and final value of a variable. Hence the ambiguity.
Over the past three years, SSDs have dropped from 31 to 13 cents per gig annually.
How exactly does it drop from 31 to 13 cents every year? Does the price go back up every Jan 1st?