71 people died from Chernobyl. That same year, more people died from coal.
PREDICTIONS of increased cancer rates around Chernobyl vary. The average prediction is somewhere around 4,000. Compare 170,000 killed when a hydroelectric dam went. Nothing is perfectly safe, but the worst nuclear accident in history isn't as bad as the worst wheat accident.
Your post is based on a slight misunderstanding of radioactivity, a misunderstanding that guys like Patrick Moore of Greenpeace purposely created to trick you. Since founding Greenpeace, Moore has realized he was foolish to BS people and he's changed his tune. Moore now says:
Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind.
Moore skipped the fundamental lie / misunderstanding though. There ARE substances that emit radiation very slowly, over a long period of time (trees are an example of this type). There are also substances that emit radiation quickly, quickly enough to harm you. What Moore didn't tell you is that THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF WASTE. If you think about it for a minute, it makes sense. A candle burns for a long time. Gunpowder burns quickly, releasing its energy all it once. All that energy being released at once is dangerous. Gun powder dangerous BECAUSE it is fast. The energy from the candle isn't dangerous BECAUSE it's being released so slowly. The release of nuclear energy is just the same. There are some materials that take 4,000 years to release their energy. Since it's so slow, you'd need to sit next to it for 800 years to be affected. Then there is the waste that releases enough energy to affect you in only one year. In four years, it's released most of its energy and it is safe to have around the house.
Germany gets 2.3% of it's power from solar electric.
Not even for a moment did they get half their power from solar. The headline was wrong/,misleading times two. More like 6%, unfortunately. That's nice and all, that when the sun is shining really bright, for five minutes you can get a significant amount of power from solar.
Then, within three hours, it's no longer 10AM-2PM and solar energy drops dramatically. (Our eyes see brightness roughly on a logarithmic scale, so what we perceive to be not quite as bright as bright is actually 90% less energy). For example, the moon looks to be maybe 5% as bright as the sun. Actually, the sun is 400,000 times brighter.
So yeah, solar is a great way to REDUCE the demand on your base sources during lunch time. Kind of like regenerative braking REDUCES the demand on the engine. Neither is, or ever can be, a primary energy source.
Fusion will be great when and if it happens. California will probably be underwater by then, at least if you believe in the boogeyman version of global warming.
In order to survive long enough to eventually develop some amazing energy source, we need to take action now, using power plant designs we can ramp up today and have reliable energy. Natural gas releases half as much CO2 as coal, so that's one improvement. Nuclear fission is awesome except for the worries about safety. Well, we've had nuclear for many years, and we've had other options, such as coal and hydroelectric for many years. Our experience shows that coal and hydroelectric both kill hundreds of thousands as times as many people as nuclear. Nuclear power has killed about 5 people, while just one hydroelectric dam failure killed 170,000 at Banqiao. So the "problem" with fission is indeed the WORRIES about safety - the actual safety is far better than any alternative.
We're way off in the weeds here, of course, but that's cool. I don't mind playing in the weeds.
What you've done there is analogous to Dear Leader's argument "it's Constitutional because it is not a tax and is a tax". You've tried to say "it can write the single value 00000001, which is eight values". Either that's one value or eight, pick one.
The definition of a Turing machine has requires very few capabilities. One of the very few things required by the definition of a Turing machine is that is has to be able to update memory one value at a time (block writes aren't good enough). That's the DEFINITION of a Turing machine - it's a machine that writes individual symbols to a strip of tape of other storage.
You've defined a language that can only update eight bits at a time, and additionally you've said it updates them only in certain patterns. That's not Turing complete.
If we want it to be Turing complete, we can interpret it as one value by saying that the LANGUAGE writes "1" and the HARD DRIVE happens to store that physically with eight molecules. The language would then be Turing complete since it's updating the single value "1". Fine. The language can write 1010101, 11111, 0000, 01010, or any other series since it's writing one value at a time. Perhaps the hard drive stores "10" physically as 1111111100000000, but the hard drive is going to read back what was written to it. Write a "1", get a "1" back. That's part of the definition of Turing complete because the storage in a turing complete system can be like a dumb piece of paper - it doesn't change what you write to it. Given that the tape doesn't change what's written to it, the language can write valid machine code and get valid machine code back.
You can't have it both ways. If "1" is one value, it can write "1", then write "0", in whatever pattern is needed to produce valid machine code. If it can only write the eight separate values 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 that's not a Turing machine.
Ps, it would certainly be EASIER to write Call of Duty in some languages than it would in others. It would be difficult to get it to run QUICKLY in some languages (actually that's true of all languages). It could be done, though, and that's point. The question isn't what CAN the language do, the question is what it's best suited for. Just because you CAN write a pixel shader in Perl doesn't mean you should.
If you sandbox Java in the browser, or sandbox a plugin written in C, it can't access DirectX either. The fact that people often choose to run a program in a sandbox doesn't mean anything about the language(s) the program is written in.
Try writing a C compiler in C. It's not easy in any language. It's possible in any.
Just FYI, that's quite false. Einstein passed his Matura (high school graduation exam), then attended Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zürich, where he got top grades in math and physics and earned his teaching degree. He did his PhD at University of Zürich. Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, was his adviser for his thesis "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions" Kleiner didn't need to advise Einstein much - his previous paper, "Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena" had already been published in the prestigious "Annalen der Physik" (Annals of Physics).
If an interpreter for language A can be written in language B, then B can therefore do everything A does, by running that interpreter. Do you have an example in mind of two languages that can do very different things?
I'm churning this over in my head to see if it sparks an idea that might actually be practical. My last major security-related software project was based on gender recognition, so this isn't too far off.
Regarding my last project - captchas suck. People aren't much better than computers at recognizing squiggly letters. We are, however, REALLY good at spotting hot chicks.
Question, what does R do that other lingos cannot?
Nothing. I'm sure other languages can do everything R can do.
This is an interesting point, which I'm going to veer slightly off topic with. All general purpose programming languages* can do _precisely_ the same things.
All fit the requirements to be "Turing complete". ANY Turing complete language "A" can emulate any other Turing complete language "B", and therefore "A" can do the anything that "B" can do. Since "B" can also emulate "A", the two languages can do precisely the same things. (Church-Turing thesis). An interesting example of this is that JavaScript can do everything that CPU microcode can do, as shown at http://bellard.org/jslinux/ .
Therefore, the question is never "which language can do more", it's always "which language can do it most quickly, most securely, etc."
C is often faster than Java for many operations. R is more convenient for statistics, PHP 5.3 makes security bugs less likely than PHP 4.0, but all of those languages can run the exact same programs.
Contrast HTML and XML, which being markup languages rather than general purpose programming languages, are not Turing complete. Standard regexs are also not Turing complete, though Perl's extended regexs very well may be.
Deuteronomy 22 talks about sex crimes. It doesn't say sex crimes are fine, it acknowledges that they exist. I acknowledge hat you exist, but clearly you are not fine, you are in need of serious help.
Further, 28-29 talk about an unmarried woman. Only really sick people would think "hmm, slept with an unmarried woman - she must have been a little kid, and that sounds great". Suck, sick bastard.
I understand your feeling on that. Practically, suing the million people who own chunks of Microsoft or Google might be difficult and expensive. If you had to attempt that, you might find yourself wishing you could just sue Microsoft rather than suing each person who is saving for their retirement. That is of course the "greedy people" who invest part of their paycheck - all responsible adults, who take responsibility for their own needs rather than spending everything they make and planning to demand that the next generation takes care if them.
Current machines take an entire day or more to print something. It's not at all hard to believe that someone got it down to an hour for a 3" * 3" print. In fact, I'd be surprised if someone DIDN'T do that very soon.
Because he's claiming to have done something that I fully expected someone to do rather soon, I don't see any reason to think he's lying.
Hydroelectric is good, in the places where it makes sense such as Niagara Falls.
To provide for all of US energy needs would require 20,000 dams, each with the capacity of Hoover dam. Because Hoover was located in one of the best places possible, it flooded only 100 square miles. We' e already dammed most of the best spots, so new dams would be in less ideal places.
The 20,000 dams required would flood 80% of the continental US, so that's probably not a solution. There may be a few places remaining to add a little bit more hydro. However, we should keep in mind hydro is responsible for all of the catastrophic accidents that kill thousands of people. See for example Banqiao. Also, the MAIN reason to avoid fossil fuels is greenhouse gases, and hydro produces about the same amount of greenhouse gases, so it doesn't really help with the primary goal. International Rivers has some good information about that if you're interested.
Nuclear makes a lot of sense, with the one main drawback being a concern about safety. A worst-case nuclear accident could, in theory, kill a lot of people. On the other hand, hydro and coal actually DO kill thousands of people. Solar electric doesn't kill people, but it doesn't produce reliable electricity either, so it's only indirectly dangerous - wasting time and money playing with solar ensures that we remain stuck with coal.
The poppers which aren't regulated as regular firework, go for about 50 cents to $1 per box. I don't recall how many are in a box, maybe 25.
The better consumer fireworks are 2" shells and sell for about $18 for a box of six. 500 gram cakes are about $60. These are all Texas prices, near the import port at Houston. Hazmat shipping to other parts of the country may increase retail prices elsewhere.
Enthusiasts who spend $300 or more can pay 60% less by joining a group to buy at wholesale prices.
I'd think at least 99.99% of cases don't involve the suspect using their computer at all. One of the most common crimes is using a stolen checkbook or credit card, in a brick-and-mortar store. Thefts might be solved by looking at the store's security video, etc.
In the rare case where you're interested in an encrypted file, you can normally go around it. For example, if you wanted to prove child porn, the cached thumbnails that most image viewers create work just fine. Someone sending instant messages encrypted? Fine, the message log on their device is plaintext. Rarely do you need to crack the crypto.
> if it could be considered negligence of Google not to do a certain thing because it is their responsibility to do such a thing, then they wouldn't wait for the court to tell them to do it. They'd just do it.
Nobody knows what a jury will decide. A judge or jury could nail them either way. If the information caused millions of dollars inlosses tfor thousands of Goldman customers, a jury could certainly decide that Google should have taken five minutes to prevent that from happening. Google is safe either way if they do as ordered by a court. Lacking a court order or knowledge of the future, they decided it was better to leave the email alone. That doesn't mean they were certain that they'd not be sued - just that doing nothing was not as bad as doing what Goldman asked.
I can see one way that the court is authorized by law to do that. Under common law, we each have a duty to not be reckless about doing things that might cause harm to another. Had Google chosen to deliver the email after having been notified that it could bring harm to Goldman _and_its_customers, Goldman could then file a suit for negligence. The judge or jury would then decide if Google failed to exercise ordinary care in preventing the leak, or if they did all that a reasonable person would do to protect the customers.
If Goldman intended to file such a suit, the normal and proper legal procedure would be for them to request a temporary injunction ordering Google not to release the information until the suit was settled. That is well and good because if Goldman were to win, Google can't very well take back the information they've already released.
Since Google didn't object to the request, why make Goldman formally declare their intent to file a suit for negligence if Google doesn't comply? Everybody knew that was result in an injunction, and a perfectly proper one, so why not save time and just go straight to the injunction hearing? The court can issue an injunction in the end, and I don't know of any common law or statutory requirement for pointless rounds of paperwork when everybody agrees it'll end up as an injunction hearing.
I'm just curious - for a server, where you want RAID, gigabit bandwidth, etc, why did you choose Android on ARM as opposed to something like one of the inexpensive AMD offerings with any of the oother small Linux distributions that are more flexible? Those scale anywhere from very low end to 8 cores at 5Ghz and there are all kinds of options for RAID, gigabit or higher networking, etc. Was that because Android tablets made sense for the clients, so you decided to just run both client and server on the same platform?
I don't know how you figure "demonstrably". Most state legislatures have no choice, they aren't allowed by state constitutions to spend money they don't have. The federal government is allowed to spend money they don't have. That's the difference. It's not EASY in each state, but it's REQUIRED in most states.
It's actually pretty darn easy to NOT spend money that you don't hav. All it requires is inaction. Congress is normally pretty good at inaction, just not where spending is concerned.
Here's a real simple balanced budget: Each department gets 3% more than they did last year. Do that for a few years and the budget will balance. The year after that, the budget will be in black, meaning we can start getting rid of the debt load.
Getting rid of the debt has a positive feedback cycle. The more debt you pay off, the less interest you pay, leaving more money to pay the debt off even faster. Before long, the savings from not spending all your money paying interest start to make the rest of the budget a lot easier.
Illinois is pretty whacked out. The legislators admitted that their budget was unconstitutional, while they voted for it. At the same time, Illinois republicans proposed that they should not get paid until they pass a balanced budget, as certified by an independent third party. Here's hoping we never get any of those Illinois dems in the Whitehouse! Oh, crap.
Yeah, if most people saw that law enforcement did a good job of "serve and protect", if you felt good about calling the local cop because he'd help you out, I'd say that would be a good thing.
Where I grew up, even the local pothead teenagers would talk to one cop, because he did a good job. If a (pothead) girl was having problems with some dudes harassing her, this officer would help her out- serve and protect - not bust her for the joint in her purse. I think that was good.
Of course that was a local cop, someone who lived in the neighborhood, someone who went to high school with the adults he pulled over. I don't have a similar experience with a federal agency. Maybe that's why the Constitution originally set it up where all cops were local cops.
Slashdot Mirror
71 people died from Chernobyl. That same year, more people died from coal.
PREDICTIONS of increased cancer rates around Chernobyl vary. The average prediction is somewhere around 4,000. Compare 170,000 killed when a hydroelectric dam went. Nothing is perfectly safe, but the worst nuclear accident in history isn't as bad as the worst wheat accident.
Your post is based on a slight misunderstanding of radioactivity, a misunderstanding that guys like Patrick Moore of Greenpeace purposely created to trick you. Since founding Greenpeace, Moore has realized he was foolish to BS people and he's changed his tune. Moore now says:
Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind.
Moore skipped the fundamental lie / misunderstanding though. There ARE substances that emit radiation very slowly, over a long period of time (trees are an example of this type). There are also substances that emit radiation quickly, quickly enough to harm you. What Moore didn't tell you is that THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF WASTE. If you think about it for a minute, it makes sense. A candle burns for a long time. Gunpowder burns quickly, releasing its energy all it once. All that energy being released at once is dangerous. Gun powder dangerous BECAUSE it is fast. The energy from the candle isn't dangerous BECAUSE it's being released so slowly. The release of nuclear energy is just the same. There are some materials that take 4,000 years to release their energy. Since it's so slow, you'd need to sit next to it for 800 years to be affected. Then there is the waste that releases enough energy to affect you in only one year. In four years, it's released most of its energy and it is safe to have around the house.
Germany gets 2.3% of it's power from solar electric.
Not even for a moment did they get half their power from solar. The headline was wrong/,misleading times two.
More like 6%, unfortunately. That's nice and all, that when the sun is shining really bright, for five minutes you can get a significant amount of power from solar.
Then, within three hours, it's no longer 10AM-2PM and solar energy drops dramatically. (Our eyes see brightness roughly on a logarithmic scale, so what we perceive to be not quite as bright as bright is actually 90% less energy). For example, the moon looks to be maybe 5% as bright as the sun. Actually, the sun is 400,000 times brighter.
So yeah, solar is a great way to REDUCE the demand on your base sources during lunch time. Kind of like regenerative braking REDUCES the demand on the engine. Neither is, or ever can be, a primary energy source.
Fusion will be great when and if it happens. California will probably be underwater by then, at least if you believe in the boogeyman version of global warming.
In order to survive long enough to eventually develop some amazing energy source, we need to take action now, using power plant designs we can ramp up today and have reliable energy. Natural gas releases half as much CO2 as coal, so that's one improvement. Nuclear fission is awesome except for the worries about safety. Well, we've had nuclear for many years, and we've had other options, such as coal and hydroelectric for many years. Our experience shows that coal and hydroelectric both kill hundreds of thousands as times as many people as nuclear. Nuclear power has killed about 5 people, while just one hydroelectric dam failure killed 170,000 at Banqiao. So the "problem" with fission is indeed the WORRIES about safety - the actual safety is far better than any alternative.
u'r right, as ggp might say.
We're way off in the weeds here, of course, but that's cool. I don't mind playing in the weeds.
What you've done there is analogous to Dear Leader's argument "it's Constitutional because it is not a tax and is a tax". You've tried to say "it can write the single value 00000001, which is eight values". Either that's one value or eight, pick one.
The definition of a Turing machine has requires very few capabilities. One of the very few things required by the definition of a Turing machine is that is has to be able to update memory one value at a time (block writes aren't good enough). That's the DEFINITION of a Turing machine - it's a machine that writes individual symbols to a strip of tape of other storage.
You've defined a language that can only update eight bits at a time, and additionally you've said it updates them only in certain patterns. That's not Turing complete.
If we want it to be Turing complete, we can interpret it as one value by saying that the LANGUAGE writes "1" and the HARD DRIVE happens to store that physically with eight molecules. The language would then be Turing complete since it's updating the single value "1". Fine. The language can write 1010101, 11111, 0000, 01010, or any other series since it's writing one value at a time. Perhaps the hard drive stores "10" physically as 1111111100000000, but the hard drive is going to read back what was written to it. Write a "1", get a "1" back. That's part of the definition of Turing complete because the storage in a turing complete system can be like a dumb piece of paper - it doesn't change what you write to it. Given that the tape doesn't change what's written to it, the language can write valid machine code and get valid machine code back.
You can't have it both ways. If "1" is one value, it can write "1", then write "0", in whatever pattern is needed to produce valid machine code. If it can only write the eight separate values 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 that's not a Turing machine.
Ps, it would certainly be EASIER to write Call of Duty in some languages than it would in others. It would be difficult to get it to run QUICKLY in some languages (actually that's true of all languages). It could be done, though, and that's point. The question isn't what CAN the language do, the question is what it's best suited for. Just because you CAN write a pixel shader in Perl doesn't mean you should.
If you sandbox Java in the browser, or sandbox a plugin written in C, it can't access DirectX either. The fact that people often choose to run a program in a sandbox doesn't mean anything about the language(s) the program is written in. Try writing a C compiler in C. It's not easy in any language. It's possible in any.
Just FYI, that's quite false. Einstein passed his Matura (high school graduation exam), then attended Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zürich, where he got top grades in math and physics and earned his teaching degree. He did his PhD at University of Zürich. Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, was his adviser for his thesis "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions" Kleiner didn't need to advise Einstein much - his previous paper, "Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena" had already been published in the prestigious "Annalen der Physik" (Annals of Physics).
If an interpreter for language A can be written in language B, then B can therefore do everything A does, by running that interpreter. Do you have an example in mind of two languages that can do very different things?
I'm churning this over in my head to see if it sparks an idea that might actually be practical. My last major security-related software project was based on gender recognition, so this isn't too far off. Regarding my last project - captchas suck. People aren't much better than computers at recognizing squiggly letters. We are, however, REALLY good at spotting hot chicks.
Question, what does R do that other lingos cannot?
Nothing. I'm sure other languages can do everything R can do.
This is an interesting point, which I'm going to veer slightly off topic with. All general purpose programming languages* can do _precisely_ the same things. All fit the requirements to be "Turing complete". ANY Turing complete language "A" can emulate any other Turing complete language "B", and therefore "A" can do the anything that "B" can do. Since "B" can also emulate "A", the two languages can do precisely the same things. (Church-Turing thesis). An interesting example of this is that JavaScript can do everything that CPU microcode can do, as shown at http://bellard.org/jslinux/ .
Therefore, the question is never "which language can do more", it's always "which language can do it most quickly, most securely, etc." C is often faster than Java for many operations. R is more convenient for statistics, PHP 5.3 makes security bugs less likely than PHP 4.0, but all of those languages can run the exact same programs.
Contrast HTML and XML, which being markup languages rather than general purpose programming languages, are not Turing complete. Standard regexs are also not Turing complete, though Perl's extended regexs very well may be.
Deuteronomy 22 talks about sex crimes. It doesn't say sex crimes are fine, it acknowledges that they exist. I acknowledge hat you exist, but clearly you are not fine, you are in need of serious help.
Further, 28-29 talk about an unmarried woman. Only really sick people would think "hmm, slept with an unmarried woman - she must have been a little kid, and that sounds great". Suck, sick bastard.
I understand your feeling on that. Practically, suing the million people who own chunks of Microsoft or Google might be difficult and expensive. If you had to attempt that, you might find yourself wishing you could just sue Microsoft rather than suing each person who is saving for their retirement. That is of course the "greedy people" who invest part of their paycheck - all responsible adults, who take responsibility for their own needs rather than spending everything they make and planning to demand that the next generation takes care if them.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Current machines take an entire day or more to print something. It's not at all hard to believe that someone got it down to an hour for a 3" * 3" print. In fact, I'd be surprised if someone DIDN'T do that very soon.
Because he's claiming to have done something that I fully expected someone to do rather soon, I don't see any reason to think he's lying.
Hydroelectric is good, in the places where it makes sense such as Niagara Falls.
To provide for all of US energy needs would require 20,000 dams, each with the capacity of Hoover dam. Because Hoover was located in one of the best places possible, it flooded only 100 square miles. We' e already dammed most of the best spots, so new dams would be in less ideal places.
The 20,000 dams required would flood 80% of the continental US, so that's probably not a solution. There may be a few places remaining to add a little bit more hydro. However, we should keep in mind hydro is responsible for all of the catastrophic accidents that kill thousands of people. See for example Banqiao. Also, the MAIN reason to avoid fossil fuels is greenhouse gases, and hydro produces about the same amount of greenhouse gases, so it doesn't really help with the primary goal. International Rivers has some good information about that if you're interested.
Nuclear makes a lot of sense, with the one main drawback being a concern about safety. A worst-case nuclear accident could, in theory, kill a lot of people. On the other hand, hydro and coal actually DO kill thousands of people. Solar electric doesn't kill people, but it doesn't produce reliable electricity either, so it's only indirectly dangerous - wasting time and money playing with solar ensures that we remain stuck with coal.
The poppers which aren't regulated as regular firework, go for about 50 cents to $1 per box. I don't recall how many are in a box, maybe 25.
The better consumer fireworks are 2" shells and sell for about $18 for a box of six. 500 gram cakes are about $60. These are all Texas prices, near the import port at Houston. Hazmat shipping to other parts of the country may increase retail prices elsewhere.
Enthusiasts who spend $300 or more can pay 60% less by joining a group to buy at wholesale prices.
I'd think at least 99.99% of cases don't involve the suspect using their computer at all. One of the most common crimes is using a stolen checkbook or credit card, in a brick-and-mortar store. Thefts might be solved by looking at the store's security video, etc.
In the rare case where you're interested in an encrypted file, you can normally go around it. For example, if you wanted to prove child porn, the cached thumbnails that most image viewers create work just fine. Someone sending instant messages encrypted? Fine, the message log on their device is plaintext. Rarely do you need to crack the crypto.
N/m
> if it could be considered negligence of Google not to do a certain thing because it is their responsibility to do such a thing, then they wouldn't wait for the court to tell them to do it. They'd just do it.
Nobody knows what a jury will decide. A judge or jury could nail them either way. If the information caused millions of dollars inlosses tfor thousands of Goldman customers, a jury could certainly decide that Google should have taken five minutes to prevent that from happening. Google is safe either way if they do as ordered by a court. Lacking a court order or knowledge of the future, they decided it was better to leave the email alone. That doesn't mean they were certain that they'd not be sued - just that doing nothing was not as bad as doing what Goldman asked.
I can see one way that the court is authorized by law to do that. Under common law, we each have a duty to not be reckless about doing things that might cause harm to another. Had Google chosen to deliver the email after having been notified that it could bring harm to Goldman _and_its_customers, Goldman could then file a suit for negligence. The judge or jury would then decide if Google failed to exercise ordinary care in preventing the leak, or if they did all that a reasonable person would do to protect the customers.
If Goldman intended to file such a suit, the normal and proper legal procedure would be for them to request a temporary injunction ordering Google not to release the information until the suit was settled. That is well and good because if Goldman were to win, Google can't very well take back the information they've already released.
Since Google didn't object to the request, why make Goldman formally declare their intent to file a suit for negligence if Google doesn't comply? Everybody knew that was result in an injunction, and a perfectly proper one, so why not save time and just go straight to the injunction hearing? The court can issue an injunction in the end, and I don't know of any common law or statutory requirement for pointless rounds of paperwork when everybody agrees it'll end up as an injunction hearing.
I'm just curious - for a server, where you want RAID, gigabit bandwidth, etc, why did you choose Android on ARM as opposed to something like one of the inexpensive AMD offerings with any of the oother small Linux distributions that are more flexible? Those scale anywhere from very low end to 8 cores at 5Ghz and there are all kinds of options for RAID, gigabit or higher networking, etc. Was that because Android tablets made sense for the clients, so you decided to just run both client and server on the same platform?
I don't know how you figure "demonstrably". Most state legislatures have no choice, they aren't allowed by state constitutions to spend money they don't have. The federal government is allowed to spend money they don't have. That's the difference. It's not EASY in each state, but it's REQUIRED in most states.
It's actually pretty darn easy to NOT spend money that you don't hav. All it requires is inaction. Congress is normally pretty good at inaction, just not where spending is concerned.
Here's a real simple balanced budget:
Each department gets 3% more than they did last year.
Do that for a few years and the budget will balance. The year after that, the budget will be in black, meaning we can start getting rid of the debt load.
Getting rid of the debt has a positive feedback cycle. The more debt you pay off, the less interest you pay, leaving more money to pay the debt off even faster. Before long, the savings from not spending all your money paying interest start to make the rest of the budget a lot easier.
Illinois is pretty whacked out. The legislators admitted that their budget was unconstitutional, while they voted for it. At the same time, Illinois republicans proposed that they should not get paid until they pass a balanced budget, as certified by an independent third party. Here's hoping we never get any of those Illinois dems in the Whitehouse! Oh, crap.
Yeah, if most people saw that law enforcement did a good job of "serve and protect", if you felt good about calling the local cop because he'd help you out, I'd say that would be a good thing.
Where I grew up, even the local pothead teenagers would talk to one cop, because he did a good job. If a (pothead) girl was having problems with some dudes harassing her, this officer would help her out- serve and protect - not bust her for the joint in her purse. I think that was good.
Of course that was a local cop, someone who lived in the neighborhood, someone who went to high school with the adults he pulled over. I don't have a similar experience with a federal agency. Maybe that's why the Constitution originally set it up where all cops were local cops.