It is clearly the best thing to do from a technical point of view, but not from a political point of view. Domestically, there are huge number of people who are completely opposed to creating new nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Even if it means decreasing the the total stockpile count, and even if yield (size of explosion) is capped at current levels. Diplomatically, we would have to proceed very carefully to avoid ending up with another arms race with existing nuclear powers, and it will complete derail any UN monitoring of non-nuclear countries (though the success of those efforts is arguable to begin with). Lastly, our warmongering over the last decade won't make it any easier to try and restart production of nuclear arms in a calm trusting multilateral way.
I missed the distinction that these are deployed weapons were are talking about. My comment doesn't apply to those, but to the other ~4000 stockpiled ones.
The difficult part about getting defense people to commit to decreasing the stockpile is that we have no idea when, if ever, we will be able to start producing new warheads. That turns it from being a discussion about how many we strategically need, towards a discussion about how certain were are that the stockpile we have will still be functional when we need it, and "can't we keep them all just in case". It would suck to destroy an entire line of warheads because they seem least valuable today, only to find out later that the ones we kept had an aging problem we couldn't detect before which didn't effect the destroyed line.
Netflix did use NaCl on the Intel Chromebooks, but are now using HTML5/EME on the ARM chromebooks. Here is the official Chrome Google+ feed announcement.
That won't be enough. You will also need a browser that allows DRM for HTML5 (Chrome 26 beta is the only one so far), and the specific DRM plugin used by Netflix compiled for an x86 system, which hasn't been made available.
This filibuster isn't actually doing anything about the drones. He's just playing it up for public opinion.
Which in a democracy is the most important type of "doing something". There are 100 senators and 500-odd representatives in congress most of which would never vote for anything that their opponent could distort as being weak on crime/terrorists/etc. Simply introducing legislation that will go nowhere wouldn't help anything. To effect change you need to hold a fire on the feet of all the rest of the Senators and force them to act. That is what this filibuster is about. It is about refusing to let the senate continue in it's stupid political game of trivialities, until they start address the real problems in this country.
The human body is a badly designed, self-destructing patchwork of bits that are perpetually one bad jolt away from a breakdown, so it's not surprising that they've discovered yet again, that excessive quantities of things we need to live will also kill us.
Actually I draw the opposite conclusion from this. The human body is so amazingly flexible and adaptable, that it can survive on a huge variety of diets, and can compensate for poor diets so well that it can be difficult to realize the long-term effects that these poor diets are having, given the relatively benign short-term symptoms.
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
While I believe he has a strong argument that his actions were not an attempt to aid the enemy, and a pretty good argument that his actions did not significantly aid the enemy in fact, he is going to have a hard time arguing against section 2. He did knowingly and without authorization give intelligence indirectly to the enemy.
TL;DR: I don't think he actually aided the enemy, but I do think he is in violation of the letter of the law concerning aiding the enemy.
Yes, but there is a difference between using your real name when discussing professional topics, and giving your real name to Google who can now associate it with everything you do online, professional, recreational or otherwise.
Apparently a bunch of feminists in San Fransisco (but of course) are concerned that any *mention* of rape ("rape trigger") in a speech or presentation will send any former rape victims in the audience into flashbacks and convulsions, thus re-victimizing them.
No, they are stating the fact that it will make former rape victims extremely uncomfortable, and other women less comfortable as well, ruining what would otherwise be an enjoyable technical conference. The conference organizers agreed, and canceled the talk, since it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the conference.
There is a consensus that people attending computer security conferences should expect the focus to be on computer security, not some very weakly tangentially related subject, especially when the title of the talk isn't announced until a few hours before the talk.
It isn't just a matter of not attending the talk if you don't like the subject. The talk itself turns the attendees' focus away from technical matters and onto sexual matters in an environment where women already have a difficult time being treated professionally rather than as sexual objects. And in a crowd of socially awkward men who already find it challenging to interact with women without having sex rubbed in their face.
The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.
Yeah, this is a horrible summary especially considering all the useful links in the original submission are blocked at my work. However, the Ada Initiative link that the editors added explains the situation well.
The gist of it is that people attending this conference were expecting it be about computer security. One of the invited speakers decided to make their talk about drug use during sex, and didn't let anyone know about this until a few hours before they were scheduled to present. The conference organizers *asked* the Ada Initiative what they thought about this, and they told them it would make the women at the conference uncomfortable, so the conference organizers canceled the talk.
Looking past all the sociology/feminist terms, this is what it boils down to. The woman there just wanted to go to a technical conference and talk about technical things, and be treated like professionals. Putting sex on people's mind takes the focus off technical things, and onto sexual things. It does so regardless of whether the talk is pro-women or not. It will make interactions between the men and women at the conference more awkward at best. It will take what should be a comfortable professional environment, and make it less enjoyable and welcoming.
There was nothing wrong with Violet Blue's talk in general, if it was given in an appropriate setting, and people attending knew the subject of the conference. But springing it on people when they are trying to avoid people thinking of them sexually isn't cool.
Considering that the link to TFA is NSFW, and the other links are blacklisted at many sites for security reasons, it'd be nice if the summary actually explained what the presentation was about and what the objections to it were rather than jumping into their opinion of the situation and assuming we all know WTF they were talking about.
Because idiot activists and politicians have countered every sane plan for storing or reprocessing this waste, forcing people to store it where it was generated. And since nuclear power plants need lots of water for cooling, this means storing it very close to those bodies of water. Absolutely retarded, but people insist on judging against an unrealistic perfect world, rather than whether it is an improvement on the current situation.
The only way that a Plaintiff could obtain the evidence needed is with a subpoena. The judge dismissed the case before allowing any subpoenas to occur. Therefore the judge forbade the Plantiff from doing any useful investigation.
These are simply exoplanets. No formal definition exists dividing them into further categories. There is still debate over where planets end and brown dwarfs begin, let alone the smaller end of things. As of 2006, when the definitions for planet and dwarf planet were created, we knew almost nothing about planets outside of our solar system. Trying to figure out how to categorize them at that point would have been putting the cart before the horse (although that didn't stop some people). But there was no reason not to go forward with classifying the things we already knew about.
[quote]Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it.[/quote] Actually, from what I've read he did. He bought and used Monsanto seed for his main crop (signing a contract in doing so), but then used grain elevator seed for his second seasonal planting. Some of that seed he planted may very well have been harvested from his crops as he sold soybeans (grown from Monsanto seed) to that grain elevator.
I worry that the Supreme Court will choose to narrowly rule on contract grounds, and completely ignore the patent exclusion question for another day.
Exactly, this treatment does nothing to address the biological factors that make alcohol addictive. Instead it just makes it even more unhealthy by eliminating our natural ability process the toxins created when alcohol is consumed. Stupid approach.
In the US it's per County, so that will be interesting!
Since internet traffic crosses state boundaries, the federal government has jurisdiction according to current interpretations of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. These sorts of things are usually defined by NIST, and enforced by the appropriate regulator, such as the FCC, FTC, or Department of Commerce.
That isn't a criticism of DNSSEC. That is a criticism of using DNSSEC for things other than DNS resolution. Domain names and IP addresses have to be allocated in a centrally managed fashion, so to avoid conflicts. DNS already has a hierarchical design by nature and DNSSEC simply makes it more secure.
SSL key distribution/validation on the other hand doesn't have to be centrally managed, so adopting a hierarchical control structure like DNSSEC for that task is a suboptimal solution. In fact the problems in the CA system we currently have directly stem from such a hierarchical trust scheme. We would be much better of going with a truly distributed system for SSL key validation.
But that doesn't mean that using DNSSEC for domain name queries is a bad idea.
More likely, the Facebook posts were written to be standalone sentences, and were thus more comprehensible than a sentence taken out of context from a large book. Human have been shown to be much better at memorizing things which they understand and can make associations with than things they don't understand.
Re:HDPE, LDPE, ABS, NYLON...
on
The 3D Un-Printer
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I can see this going very poorly for your average consumer very quickly.
You mean the subset of people who are capable of operating a 3D printer, but can't read numbers in a recycle label.
The point is to evaluate how successful our education system is; where it is succeeding and where it could do better. And in particular to learn whether the approaches taken by other countries is working better or worse than us, so we can adjust our approach accordingly. The school system can't change the socioeconomic breakdown of the country; they have to find the best approaches to serve the students they have. Blindly comparing schools that have mostly rich kids to ones with mostly poor kids will always give misleading results in favor of the rich school, even if the methods used by the poor school are superior. This is true whether you are comparing within a city or internationally. Therefore in order for results to be useful to evaluate educational programs, rather than just a chest pounding exercise, you must adjust for distribution of socioeconomic status.
Slashdot Mirror
It is clearly the best thing to do from a technical point of view, but not from a political point of view. Domestically, there are huge number of people who are completely opposed to creating new nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Even if it means decreasing the the total stockpile count, and even if yield (size of explosion) is capped at current levels. Diplomatically, we would have to proceed very carefully to avoid ending up with another arms race with existing nuclear powers, and it will complete derail any UN monitoring of non-nuclear countries (though the success of those efforts is arguable to begin with). Lastly, our warmongering over the last decade won't make it any easier to try and restart production of nuclear arms in a calm trusting multilateral way.
I missed the distinction that these are deployed weapons were are talking about. My comment doesn't apply to those, but to the other ~4000 stockpiled ones.
The difficult part about getting defense people to commit to decreasing the stockpile is that we have no idea when, if ever, we will be able to start producing new warheads. That turns it from being a discussion about how many we strategically need, towards a discussion about how certain were are that the stockpile we have will still be functional when we need it, and "can't we keep them all just in case". It would suck to destroy an entire line of warheads because they seem least valuable today, only to find out later that the ones we kept had an aging problem we couldn't detect before which didn't effect the destroyed line.
Netflix did use NaCl on the Intel Chromebooks, but are now using HTML5/EME on the ARM chromebooks. Here is the official Chrome Google+ feed announcement.
That won't be enough. You will also need a browser that allows DRM for HTML5 (Chrome 26 beta is the only one so far), and the specific DRM plugin used by Netflix compiled for an x86 system, which hasn't been made available.
This filibuster isn't actually doing anything about the drones. He's just playing it up for public opinion.
Which in a democracy is the most important type of "doing something". There are 100 senators and 500-odd representatives in congress most of which would never vote for anything that their opponent could distort as being weak on crime/terrorists/etc. Simply introducing legislation that will go nowhere wouldn't help anything. To effect change you need to hold a fire on the feet of all the rest of the Senators and force them to act. That is what this filibuster is about. It is about refusing to let the senate continue in it's stupid political game of trivialities, until they start address the real problems in this country.
The human body is a badly designed, self-destructing patchwork of bits that are perpetually one bad jolt away from a breakdown, so it's not surprising that they've discovered yet again, that excessive quantities of things we need to live will also kill us.
Actually I draw the opposite conclusion from this. The human body is so amazingly flexible and adaptable, that it can survive on a huge variety of diets, and can compensate for poor diets so well that it can be difficult to realize the long-term effects that these poor diets are having, given the relatively benign short-term symptoms.
If you keep reading UCMJ 104:
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
While I believe he has a strong argument that his actions were not an attempt to aid the enemy, and a pretty good argument that his actions did not significantly aid the enemy in fact, he is going to have a hard time arguing against section 2. He did knowingly and without authorization give intelligence indirectly to the enemy.
TL;DR: I don't think he actually aided the enemy, but I do think he is in violation of the letter of the law concerning aiding the enemy.
Yes, but there is a difference between using your real name when discussing professional topics, and giving your real name to Google who can now associate it with everything you do online, professional, recreational or otherwise.
Apparently a bunch of feminists in San Fransisco (but of course) are concerned that any *mention* of rape ("rape trigger") in a speech or presentation will send any former rape victims in the audience into flashbacks and convulsions, thus re-victimizing them.
No, they are stating the fact that it will make former rape victims extremely uncomfortable, and other women less comfortable as well, ruining what would otherwise be an enjoyable technical conference. The conference organizers agreed, and canceled the talk, since it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the conference.
There is a consensus that people attending computer security conferences should expect the focus to be on computer security, not some very weakly tangentially related subject, especially when the title of the talk isn't announced until a few hours before the talk.
It isn't just a matter of not attending the talk if you don't like the subject. The talk itself turns the attendees' focus away from technical matters and onto sexual matters in an environment where women already have a difficult time being treated professionally rather than as sexual objects. And in a crowd of socially awkward men who already find it challenging to interact with women without having sex rubbed in their face.
The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.
Yeah, this is a horrible summary especially considering all the useful links in the original submission are blocked at my work. However, the Ada Initiative link that the editors added explains the situation well.
The gist of it is that people attending this conference were expecting it be about computer security. One of the invited speakers decided to make their talk about drug use during sex, and didn't let anyone know about this until a few hours before they were scheduled to present. The conference organizers *asked* the Ada Initiative what they thought about this, and they told them it would make the women at the conference uncomfortable, so the conference organizers canceled the talk.
Looking past all the sociology/feminist terms, this is what it boils down to. The woman there just wanted to go to a technical conference and talk about technical things, and be treated like professionals. Putting sex on people's mind takes the focus off technical things, and onto sexual things. It does so regardless of whether the talk is pro-women or not. It will make interactions between the men and women at the conference more awkward at best. It will take what should be a comfortable professional environment, and make it less enjoyable and welcoming.
There was nothing wrong with Violet Blue's talk in general, if it was given in an appropriate setting, and people attending knew the subject of the conference. But springing it on people when they are trying to avoid people thinking of them sexually isn't cool.
Considering that the link to TFA is NSFW, and the other links are blacklisted at many sites for security reasons, it'd be nice if the summary actually explained what the presentation was about and what the objections to it were rather than jumping into their opinion of the situation and assuming we all know WTF they were talking about.
Because idiot activists and politicians have countered every sane plan for storing or reprocessing this waste, forcing people to store it where it was generated. And since nuclear power plants need lots of water for cooling, this means storing it very close to those bodies of water. Absolutely retarded, but people insist on judging against an unrealistic perfect world, rather than whether it is an improvement on the current situation.
The only way that a Plaintiff could obtain the evidence needed is with a subpoena. The judge dismissed the case before allowing any subpoenas to occur. Therefore the judge forbade the Plantiff from doing any useful investigation.
These are simply exoplanets. No formal definition exists dividing them into further categories. There is still debate over where planets end and brown dwarfs begin, let alone the smaller end of things. As of 2006, when the definitions for planet and dwarf planet were created, we knew almost nothing about planets outside of our solar system. Trying to figure out how to categorize them at that point would have been putting the cart before the horse (although that didn't stop some people). But there was no reason not to go forward with classifying the things we already knew about.
It can keep a battery charge for more than a couple days.
[quote]Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it.[/quote]
Actually, from what I've read he did. He bought and used Monsanto seed for his main crop (signing a contract in doing so), but then used grain elevator seed for his second seasonal planting. Some of that seed he planted may very well have been harvested from his crops as he sold soybeans (grown from Monsanto seed) to that grain elevator.
I worry that the Supreme Court will choose to narrowly rule on contract grounds, and completely ignore the patent exclusion question for another day.
Exactly, this treatment does nothing to address the biological factors that make alcohol addictive. Instead it just makes it even more unhealthy by eliminating our natural ability process the toxins created when alcohol is consumed. Stupid approach.
In the US it's per County, so that will be interesting!
Since internet traffic crosses state boundaries, the federal government has jurisdiction according to current interpretations of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. These sorts of things are usually defined by NIST, and enforced by the appropriate regulator, such as the FCC, FTC, or Department of Commerce.
The OS won't be emulated, but the vast majority of the games that are written with the NDK won't run on x86 without emulation.
That isn't a criticism of DNSSEC. That is a criticism of using DNSSEC for things other than DNS resolution. Domain names and IP addresses have to be allocated in a centrally managed fashion, so to avoid conflicts. DNS already has a hierarchical design by nature and DNSSEC simply makes it more secure.
SSL key distribution/validation on the other hand doesn't have to be centrally managed, so adopting a hierarchical control structure like DNSSEC for that task is a suboptimal solution. In fact the problems in the CA system we currently have directly stem from such a hierarchical trust scheme. We would be much better of going with a truly distributed system for SSL key validation.
But that doesn't mean that using DNSSEC for domain name queries is a bad idea.
More likely, the Facebook posts were written to be standalone sentences, and were thus more comprehensible than a sentence taken out of context from a large book. Human have been shown to be much better at memorizing things which they understand and can make associations with than things they don't understand.
I can see this going very poorly for your average consumer very quickly.
You mean the subset of people who are capable of operating a 3D printer, but can't read numbers in a recycle label.
And the point is???
The point is to evaluate how successful our education system is; where it is succeeding and where it could do better. And in particular to learn whether the approaches taken by other countries is working better or worse than us, so we can adjust our approach accordingly. The school system can't change the socioeconomic breakdown of the country; they have to find the best approaches to serve the students they have. Blindly comparing schools that have mostly rich kids to ones with mostly poor kids will always give misleading results in favor of the rich school, even if the methods used by the poor school are superior. This is true whether you are comparing within a city or internationally. Therefore in order for results to be useful to evaluate educational programs, rather than just a chest pounding exercise, you must adjust for distribution of socioeconomic status.