Both the report of the accusation and the report of the acquittal are broadcast to the public.
Different subsets of the public will hear each report.
The ones who hear the accusation but don't hear the acquittal will continue to believe he's a rapist.
In general, something like an accusation of rape against someone who's otherwise being widely covered will reach far more people than a subsequent acquittal, especially if his newsworthiness has declined.
Personally, I think he did it. And I'd be interested to see an extradition filing from the U.S., for its own charges against him, once Sweden has him in custody.
So does that tell you something about the general honesty of women, about the general comportment of men, or about the public's general perception of the meaning of the word "rape"?
Exposing secrets and endangering lives is as dirty as it gets.
Putting out an encrypted tarball and claiming you have a dead-man switch on it is double-dog dirty. (And, by the way, it won't work, because whoever emits the passphrase becomes the one that gets punished next, for conspiracy.)
But something like this is beneath even the CIA. Even the CIA under GW Bush would come up with something more subtle and entrap him in it, or just nab him and put him in Gitmo.
So what you're doing is denigrating the woman who made the report. Which makes you dirty.
I haven't actually used it (I know people who have), but I've looked at the brochures and I don't think the certified version of LynxOS is as General Purpose as you might think. It is based on a Linux kernel, though, and you're right, if they haven't totally gutted that kernel, that means they did an Ungodly Fuckload of work to get it validated. Ten years ago we were predicting there wasn't enough money printed to certify an inet stack for flight. Someone must have hooked into post-9/11 sales memes to get the jack to squeeze a Linux kernel through the eye of the FAA's needle.
No, those OSes are not secure. Quite the opposite. Almost all of them are very primitive, and have wide-open memory models that allow anything to run, allow anything running to touch any location in memory, and don't log a thing about it. More recent versions of them may have memory partitioning and privileged-user-only modes, but don't bet on the more recent versions being used even on brand new projects.
The innate vulnerabilities to coding errors presented by this openness are alleviated by performing exhaustive (and expensive) testing of every function in the system to be sure it does what it's supposed to, and exhaustive (and expensive) testing of the system to be sure it does what's required of it, and exhaustive (and expensive) evaluation of the requirements to be sure they cover all of the safety-critical and mission-critical possiblities.
And then you still get gomers on the flight deck disabling safety alerts on a poorly maintained aircraft and executives in the airline HQ giving them a wink and a nod for it while looking all stern (or waving a bulging envelope) at regulator visits.
Actually, yes, since this ground computer was responsible for alerting staff on the ground to an aircraft with possibly compromised safety, and since the aircraft was on a schedule to do something inherently unsafe, the ground computer is responsible for completing a behavior before a timed event occurs. Therefore, the computer is a real-time system. As are the humans responsible for seeing the alert and cancelling the flight, the peopel responsible for informing the flight crew to abort the flight.
The flight crew would not be real-time, in this particular behavior, since they don't actually have to take off on a set schedule, as long as air-traffic control is keeping other scheduled aircraft off their runway while they dawdle. But this throws a wrench into the real-timeness of the rest of the loop: what if the crew try to take off early?
Having to deal with behavioral requirements like this, and a few hundred other simultaneous requirements, in a safety-critical situation, will separate the engineers from the haxx0rs.
If you care about security on those OSes, you don't rely on the software to be secure. You physically secure it and enforce strict rules on installation of software and connection of the device to open networks. And if the rules aren't strictly followed, you presume it's compromised and wipe it and start over. Same deal as for classified information. It's not about what the executable can or can't do if infection is attempted, it's about keeping the environment sterile.
Reducing something to ash isn't a matter of removing the H2O, it's a matter of breaking the chemical bonds in all the proteins and fats and other bits. Taking out all the water will make a mummy.
And a mummy is just a high value-added zombie, isn't it?
At this point, headline grabbing is their platform.
on-topic: Regardless of the fact that Kurzweil is wrong regardless of what he said, Meyers may need to apologize to Kurzweil for attacking him for saying something he didn't actually say. Then he can go on to attacking him for what he says he said.
No, that article is the reason cracked.com exists.
This response is the reason idle.slashdot.org exists.
7. Natural predators can become zombies, too. Then where will your living natural predators be, hmm?
6. Zombies rose from the dead, some years-dead. Making them deader by drying them out isn't going to affect them.
6. Zombies rose from the dead. Dead is even more inert than frozen. Therefore, frozen isn't going to faze them.
5. Biting works for rattlesnakes, black widow spiders, rabid dogs, and yucky girls with cooties. Zombies are onto a business model here.
3. It's not like we're picking a Zombie President early in the cycle. There are zillions of them. Damage to one leaves another undamaged. You can't beat them in reasonable time with iterative solutions.
2. You can run. You can hide. But death comes to us all. And then you'll be the zombie in the place behind the incorrectly designated zombie-proof barrier.
1. Unless you plan to make bullets out of zombie finger bones, you're going to run out of bullets before you run out of zombies. Zillions, man. Zillions.
Yes, there are two rule sixes, and NOOOOOOO...rule four. Clearly not a Python sketch.
It's nice to see there are those who still think we were right to lie about WMD in Iraq, and have to express their disgust for the truth by hiding behind mod points.
There isn't much in common between different DNA tests. Temperature effects, maybe. And the fact that the DNA is the same. Which is the thing you're trying to show is the same. Which is why you chose a different test instead of running the same test twice.
I'm not sure how Wall Street fits in. The Stock Market is a random walk, not a sequence of nucleotides.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't take a paranoid
Yes, actually, it does.
It takes a paranoid to do what Assange did with the U.S.'s secrets, too, instead of trying the legal way to get the information declassified, first.
Both the report of the accusation and the report of the acquittal are broadcast to the public.
Different subsets of the public will hear each report.
The ones who hear the accusation but don't hear the acquittal will continue to believe he's a rapist.
In general, something like an accusation of rape against someone who's otherwise being widely covered will reach far more people than a subsequent acquittal, especially if his newsworthiness has declined.
Personally, I think he did it. And I'd be interested to see an extradition filing from the U.S., for its own charges against him, once Sweden has him in custody.
It's a data point tending to support the observation that Assange believes he's above morality, never mind the law.
So does that tell you something about the general honesty of women, about the general comportment of men, or about the public's general perception of the meaning of the word "rape"?
Well, Assange classifies a lot of things as legal that most of the world considers criminial.
Molesting a woman probably doesn't even ping as unethical on his moral compass.
So exposing secrets isn't dirty?
Exposing secrets and endangering lives is as dirty as it gets.
Putting out an encrypted tarball and claiming you have a dead-man switch on it is double-dog dirty. (And, by the way, it won't work, because whoever emits the passphrase becomes the one that gets punished next, for conspiracy.)
But something like this is beneath even the CIA. Even the CIA under GW Bush would come up with something more subtle and entrap him in it, or just nab him and put him in Gitmo.
So what you're doing is denigrating the woman who made the report. Which makes you dirty.
I haven't actually used it (I know people who have), but I've looked at the brochures and I don't think the certified version of LynxOS is as General Purpose as you might think. It is based on a Linux kernel, though, and you're right, if they haven't totally gutted that kernel, that means they did an Ungodly Fuckload of work to get it validated. Ten years ago we were predicting there wasn't enough money printed to certify an inet stack for flight. Someone must have hooked into post-9/11 sales memes to get the jack to squeeze a Linux kernel through the eye of the FAA's needle.
Let me be a bit more clear about this:
No, those OSes are not secure. Quite the opposite. Almost all of them are very primitive, and have wide-open memory models that allow anything to run, allow anything running to touch any location in memory, and don't log a thing about it. More recent versions of them may have memory partitioning and privileged-user-only modes, but don't bet on the more recent versions being used even on brand new projects.
The innate vulnerabilities to coding errors presented by this openness are alleviated by performing exhaustive (and expensive) testing of every function in the system to be sure it does what it's supposed to, and exhaustive (and expensive) testing of the system to be sure it does what's required of it, and exhaustive (and expensive) evaluation of the requirements to be sure they cover all of the safety-critical and mission-critical possiblities.
And then you still get gomers on the flight deck disabling safety alerts on a poorly maintained aircraft and executives in the airline HQ giving them a wink and a nod for it while looking all stern (or waving a bulging envelope) at regulator visits.
Actually, yes, since this ground computer was responsible for alerting staff on the ground to an aircraft with possibly compromised safety, and since the aircraft was on a schedule to do something inherently unsafe, the ground computer is responsible for completing a behavior before a timed event occurs. Therefore, the computer is a real-time system. As are the humans responsible for seeing the alert and cancelling the flight, the peopel responsible for informing the flight crew to abort the flight.
The flight crew would not be real-time, in this particular behavior, since they don't actually have to take off on a set schedule, as long as air-traffic control is keeping other scheduled aircraft off their runway while they dawdle. But this throws a wrench into the real-timeness of the rest of the loop: what if the crew try to take off early?
Having to deal with behavioral requirements like this, and a few hundred other simultaneous requirements, in a safety-critical situation, will separate the engineers from the haxx0rs.
If you care about security on those OSes, you don't rely on the software to be secure. You physically secure it and enforce strict rules on installation of software and connection of the device to open networks. And if the rules aren't strictly followed, you presume it's compromised and wipe it and start over. Same deal as for classified information. It's not about what the executable can or can't do if infection is attempted, it's about keeping the environment sterile.
You kidding?
It's only a page long.
It's a marvel of specification efficiency.
I can't write 10 lines of code without dealing with 10,000 pages of software standards.
I think I'll switch to installing vaults on everything.
Was it Norton TinFoil, McAfee TinFoil, Symantec TinFoil Protection*, or Kaspersky Internet Security Tinfoil?
Personally, I think if you don't have all four checking up on each other, you're just asking for trouble.
Of course, you won't have any cores left that aren't pegged 24/7, but eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
* - comes with a free hat
You're confusing mission critical for safety critical.
Kids today won't get that. They've probably never seen a full bush.
Reducing something to ash isn't a matter of removing the H2O, it's a matter of breaking the chemical bonds in all the proteins and fats and other bits. Taking out all the water will make a mummy.
And a mummy is just a high value-added zombie, isn't it?
I rest my case.
Actually, bananas probably have the worst aerodynamics of any fruit. Good luck finding a stable orientation for one.
What do you mean, "half?"
At this point, headline grabbing is their platform.
on-topic: Regardless of the fact that Kurzweil is wrong regardless of what he said, Meyers may need to apologize to Kurzweil for attacking him for saying something he didn't actually say. Then he can go on to attacking him for what he says he said.
No, that article is the reason cracked.com exists.
This response is the reason idle.slashdot.org exists.
7. Natural predators can become zombies, too. Then where will your living natural predators be, hmm?
6. Zombies rose from the dead, some years-dead. Making them deader by drying them out isn't going to affect them.
6. Zombies rose from the dead. Dead is even more inert than frozen. Therefore, frozen isn't going to faze them.
5. Biting works for rattlesnakes, black widow spiders, rabid dogs, and yucky girls with cooties. Zombies are onto a business model here.
3. It's not like we're picking a Zombie President early in the cycle. There are zillions of them. Damage to one leaves another undamaged. You can't beat them in reasonable time with iterative solutions.
2. You can run. You can hide. But death comes to us all. And then you'll be the zombie in the place behind the incorrectly designated zombie-proof barrier.
1. Unless you plan to make bullets out of zombie finger bones, you're going to run out of bullets before you run out of zombies. Zillions, man. Zillions.
Yes, there are two rule sixes, and NOOOOOOO...rule four. Clearly not a Python sketch.
Have you seen a printout of a modern football playbook? It's usually a binder that looks big under an offensive lineman's arm.
Pretty much everything, but to be able to rub the lotion on Giselle's back on the beach in Ipanema might be the simplest way to express it.
mod parent -1 for waste of AC checkbox in the face of an obvious opportunity for a very lewd reference
It's nice to see there are those who still think we were right to lie about WMD in Iraq, and have to express their disgust for the truth by hiding behind mod points.
There isn't much in common between different DNA tests. Temperature effects, maybe. And the fact that the DNA is the same. Which is the thing you're trying to show is the same. Which is why you chose a different test instead of running the same test twice.
I'm not sure how Wall Street fits in. The Stock Market is a random walk, not a sequence of nucleotides.
I once shot an elephant in my pajamas.
Isn't that how we determined there must be WMD in Iraq?