If I hit you on the head with my shoe, and it correlates with pain in your head you blame me.
I immediately retort with "Correlation is not causation!" and insist you had a burgeoning headache which erupted at precisely that moment in time.
We then contact the Amazing Randy and explain our novel new technique of detecting impending headaches. I predict a headache, smack you on the head once more and we split the $1,000,000.
"Correlation is not causation"... I really like that argument.
Next up... how the correlation of my hand in your pocket and $20 disappearing does not prove causation. I was helping you look for it actually.
I'm talking about TSA having armed guards inside the airport and the historical precedent of private armies taking over. IE: TSA controlling airports in the future.
I don't know where you got the racial stuff from or the idea I desire TSA agents to be in danger.
As the Ars article points out, the individual pieces needed to do all this have already been proven over the years.
Here's why it makes even more sense to me.
A military minded person cannot allow threats to exist anywhere. If anyone anywhere has a weapon that they don't, they must immediately take steps to duplicate it, and defend against it.
Now take that mindset, combine it with a large team of military hackers. Now every single exploit ever publicly disclosed becomes a checkbox on a list somewhere. As a recent Snowden leak story showed, 0-day vulnerabilities have been purchased by the government. We can be sure they run the largest honeypot networks in existence and immediately dissect every new worm, root kit and exploit that touches them.
Every theoretical exploit must be tested for feasibility, turned into a proof-of-concept and then packaged as a tool.
And all that $$ and hacker power is under the command of someone who wants turnkey solutions and "kill switches" for everything.
So it's definitely possible that such tools exist. But why would he be a target? I dunno, maybe someone wants advance notice on what the presenters at upcoming security conferences might be talking about so they can Barnaby Jack them?
Sometimes people will claim something they strongly believe already exists in order to motivate people to look for it and find their proof. Sometimes they get lucky and proof is found, other times they get exposed for it. I hope he's wrong, I really want him to be wrong, but part of me believes it's real because it's definitely possible. After all, if it's just a few years out, then "they" have had it for a decade or more.
I keep seeing people refer to those LinkedIn recruiter contacts as "job offers".
To me they really more look like inquiries, but you still have to pass an interview and prove your endorsements are legit before you get an ACTUAL offer. Not to nit-pick but it's lame when someone gets a recruiter contact and is all "Google offered me a job". Uhhh... NO.
Accepting blood transfusions may not be selecting for the group you think it is.
If you dig around the references here Bloodless Surgery you'll see a small portion of the studies which have shown the benefits of avoiding blood transfusions.
A scientifically minded person would applaud advances in synthetic blood and bloodless surgery, not get hung up on one sub-group of the people it benefits.
I suspect it's because of signed ints being the default. Many people simply think "float or int?" and aren't even thinking about the sign unless they specifically want to double their addressable space. Also the habit of using -1 as an error code prevents unsigned ints being passed back from functions.
Unsigned ints are very deliberate so perhaps only used a fraction of the time they could be, maybe predominately in structs.
That's a research paper just waiting to be written up.:-)
Like when the FCC removed the requirement for cable companies to pass all OTA signals through their cables for free and started to let them scramble them?
That little bug just sat around for a few decades before anyone noticed it.
Quick summary: (low + high) / 2 May have an overflow which is undefined behavior. Really every time we add ints it's possible. Just usually our values don't pass the MAX.
But seriously, I often find that people assume I'm better connected than I actually am. I'm the tech guy, so people figure I already heard about stuff before they did anyways. While that is true it's only in a specific subset of information... Things posted about on Slashdot.
So by all means please do repeat stories of things that broke last week because if it's not here I have no idea.
So her environment outside of the treatment centers differs how? She lives in a crappy apartment and works at McD's all day crushing her soul?
She can afford nice digs, plenty of food and a comfortable life. There's more to it than physical environment. Is it her family? Her choice of friends and entertainment? Bad relationships? A lack of someone controlling her every decision?
I don't know but she and many like her can afford a life most only dream of, what causes their addiction? Rat Park is not the whole picture, people are more complicated than rats.
As a very obviously non-rich person I imagine the main difference is a lack of day to day "how will I pay the rent??" and being able to afford comfortable living arrangements.
Then there's vacations, spa visits, constant entertainment and overall boredom.
Sounds like Rat Park to me. If they have nice environments and still get addicted then like I said Rat Park is missing the emotional or human element to it. Perhaps daddy is holding back the trust fund or threatening it if I marry the wrong person.
You can't make people happy, to some extent it comes from inside.
No longer AS addictive. Environment isn't the only factor, otherwise rich people wouldn't become addicts and alcoholics.
If environment were the main factor you could just put people in high priced treatment centers full of waterfalls and back rubs resulting in 100% recovery.
I agree that Rat Park was an interesting experiment but some people tend to take its results and run away with them. Oversimplifying to support their politics.
Good luck running popular apps without the Play Store services running on the phone. To get the full android experience you have to pay the license and have Play on it. You'd be surprised how much functionality is in the play store service and not the OS.
How about demand scarcity verses supply scarcity? The classic argument is that proprietary software uses artificial scarcity to maintain high prices. To fund the development of software with limited demand projected prices must be set high enough to justify the cost of building it.
True the bits don't cost anything and copying is unlimited but resources to develop don't become unlimited as well. I'd love to work on the GiMP or Inkscape but don't see many job opportunities for it at the moment.
Also what if instead of looking at it from the viewpoint of copying we consider the resource developer time and the available pool of talent? There again you find a scarcity that isn't artificial.
I've seen this reasoning many times before and it seems a bit strange to me. The idea that American army members and police officers wouldn't follow orders and harm their fellow countrymen.
Civil wars happen, people on both sides believe they are doing the right thing. There's many historical examples of people turning against their own countrymen both oppressing and slaughtering each other. If the government descends into some kind of nightmarish entity (which some argue has already happened) it doesn't seem clear to me that the result would be a successful popular revolution and swift return to previous values.
Slashdot Mirror
If I hit you on the head with my shoe, and it correlates with pain in your head you blame me.
I immediately retort with "Correlation is not causation!" and insist you had a burgeoning headache which erupted at precisely that moment in time.
We then contact the Amazing Randy and explain our novel new technique of detecting impending headaches. I predict a headache, smack you on the head once more and we split the $1,000,000.
"Correlation is not causation" ... I really like that argument.
Next up... how the correlation of my hand in your pocket and $20 disappearing does not prove causation. I was helping you look for it actually.
I'm talking about TSA having armed guards inside the airport and the historical precedent of private armies taking over. IE: TSA controlling airports in the future.
I don't know where you got the racial stuff from or the idea I desire TSA agents to be in danger.
Perhaps we can call the new unit the Praetorian Guard.
What could possibly go wrong?
They'll be handy when pay disputes arise.
As the Ars article points out, the individual pieces needed to do all this have already been proven over the years.
Here's why it makes even more sense to me.
A military minded person cannot allow threats to exist anywhere. If anyone anywhere has a weapon that they don't, they must immediately take steps to duplicate it, and defend against it.
Now take that mindset, combine it with a large team of military hackers. Now every single exploit ever publicly disclosed becomes a checkbox on a list somewhere. As a recent Snowden leak story showed, 0-day vulnerabilities have been purchased by the government. We can be sure they run the largest honeypot networks in existence and immediately dissect every new worm, root kit and exploit that touches them.
Every theoretical exploit must be tested for feasibility, turned into a proof-of-concept and then packaged as a tool.
And all that $$ and hacker power is under the command of someone who wants turnkey solutions and "kill switches" for everything.
So it's definitely possible that such tools exist. But why would he be a target? I dunno, maybe someone wants advance notice on what the presenters at upcoming security conferences might be talking about so they can Barnaby Jack them?
Sometimes people will claim something they strongly believe already exists in order to motivate people to look for it and find their proof. Sometimes they get lucky and proof is found, other times they get exposed for it. I hope he's wrong, I really want him to be wrong, but part of me believes it's real because it's definitely possible. After all, if it's just a few years out, then "they" have had it for a decade or more.
So what you're saying is that Moore's law became a self-fulfilling prophesy?
I keep seeing people refer to those LinkedIn recruiter contacts as "job offers".
To me they really more look like inquiries, but you still have to pass an interview and prove your endorsements are legit before you get an ACTUAL offer. Not to nit-pick but it's lame when someone gets a recruiter contact and is all "Google offered me a job". Uhhh... NO.
Accepting blood transfusions may not be selecting for the group you think it is.
If you dig around the references here Bloodless Surgery you'll see a small portion of the studies which have shown the benefits of avoiding blood transfusions.
A scientifically minded person would applaud advances in synthetic blood and bloodless surgery, not get hung up on one sub-group of the people it benefits.
Maybe scientists are uncomfortable with using the term believe when describing the current state of science.
I blame Richard Dawkins. ;-)
I suspect it's because of signed ints being the default. Many people simply think "float or int?" and aren't even thinking about the sign unless they specifically want to double their addressable space. Also the habit of using -1 as an error code prevents unsigned ints being passed back from functions.
Unsigned ints are very deliberate so perhaps only used a fraction of the time they could be, maybe predominately in structs.
That's a research paper just waiting to be written up. :-)
Like when the FCC removed the requirement for cable companies to pass all OTA signals through their cables for free and started to let them scramble them?
That reminds me of this gem:Overflow in sorting algorithms
That little bug just sat around for a few decades before anyone noticed it.
Quick summary: (low + high) / 2
May have an overflow which is undefined behavior. Really every time we add ints it's possible. Just usually our values don't pass the MAX.
I'm always the last to hear about anything. :-/
But seriously, I often find that people assume I'm better connected than I actually am. I'm the tech guy, so people figure I already heard about stuff before they did anyways. While that is true it's only in a specific subset of information. .. Things posted about on Slashdot.
So by all means please do repeat stories of things that broke last week because if it's not here I have no idea.
I run them each twice for double the security.
Exactly! And that leads me to suspect multiple people may be sharing his account.
To what end??
There's a good I.T. Crowd episode about that.
Consider putting a blinking light on a box and asking people if they'd like to hold it for a second.
Un bon mot ne prouve rien.
A witty saying proves nothing.
- Voltaire
So her environment outside of the treatment centers differs how? She lives in a crappy apartment and works at McD's all day crushing her soul?
She can afford nice digs, plenty of food and a comfortable life. There's more to it than physical environment. Is it her family? Her choice of friends and entertainment? Bad relationships? A lack of someone controlling her every decision?
I don't know but she and many like her can afford a life most only dream of, what causes their addiction? Rat Park is not the whole picture, people are more complicated than rats.
As a very obviously non-rich person I imagine the main difference is a lack of day to day "how will I pay the rent??" and being able to afford comfortable living arrangements.
Then there's vacations, spa visits, constant entertainment and overall boredom.
Sounds like Rat Park to me. If they have nice environments and still get addicted then like I said Rat Park is missing the emotional or human element to it. Perhaps daddy is holding back the trust fund or threatening it if I marry the wrong person.
You can't make people happy, to some extent it comes from inside.
No longer AS addictive. Environment isn't the only factor, otherwise rich people wouldn't become addicts and alcoholics.
If environment were the main factor you could just put people in high priced treatment centers full of waterfalls and back rubs resulting in 100% recovery.
I agree that Rat Park was an interesting experiment but some people tend to take its results and run away with them. Oversimplifying to support their politics.
Good luck running popular apps without the Play Store services running on the phone. To get the full android experience you have to pay the license and have Play on it. You'd be surprised how much functionality is in the play store service and not the OS.
Perhaps their thinking is...
If there is already a law, and yet these things still happen.
Then the existing law isn't "good" enough.
(Replace "good" with your choice of punitive, threatening, scary, etc)
Don't forget the Christmas tree and it's religious origins. (Hint: Not Christian.)
When a diner doesn't leave a tip the waiter can reason "Maybe they forgot".
Now when the diner leaves a nickel on the table....
How about demand scarcity verses supply scarcity? The classic argument is that proprietary software uses artificial scarcity to maintain high prices. To fund the development of software with limited demand projected prices must be set high enough to justify the cost of building it.
True the bits don't cost anything and copying is unlimited but resources to develop don't become unlimited as well. I'd love to work on the GiMP or Inkscape but don't see many job opportunities for it at the moment.
Also what if instead of looking at it from the viewpoint of copying we consider the resource developer time and the available pool of talent? There again you find a scarcity that isn't artificial.
I've seen this reasoning many times before and it seems a bit strange to me. The idea that American army members and police officers wouldn't follow orders and harm their fellow countrymen.
Civil wars happen, people on both sides believe they are doing the right thing. There's many historical examples of people turning against their own countrymen both oppressing and slaughtering each other. If the government descends into some kind of nightmarish entity (which some argue has already happened) it doesn't seem clear to me that the result would be a successful popular revolution and swift return to previous values.