"Information wants to be free" is incredibly misused.
If I learn something, chances are I want to spread that information to others. The number of YouTube instructional videos for which there is no conceivable audience is a testament to that. Also, the number of mis-informative videos is likewise a testament.
If I invent something e.g. patentable, I may not be able to share the details with people, but I am probably going to tell people I have a patent. It's part of the "I would like to tell you but I can't so I'll tell you I know something" sort of mentality. Learn a secret? Either you tell someone the secret, or you tell them you have a secret.
Learning, knowledge, and facts want to be free. Quotable movie lines, which summarize and in part relive the experience, want to be free. Shocking or unusual details want to be free, such as that celebrity who showed up nearly nude to that event.
Copyrighted works don't want to be free, and big data certainly does not want to be free - if it even wants to be collected in the first place. There are reasons why "Information wants to be free" might be applicable to copyright cases - especially when the prosecution thinks copyright applies, but it really doesn't. Same for patents et. al.
In summation, "Information wants to be free" does not belong in an argument about collecting data on children. Not for people in general for that matter, but especially not for children.
So yes, we can make up our minds. Uninformed parents have seen what's wrong with this, and have taken action. They still use FaceBook, web mail, cell phones with location data turned on, and all sorts of ridiculous privacy invading tools and apps and everything else, but they aren't going to allow this. "We", defined by enough people to make a difference, as opposed to the slashdot audience that makes up fractions of a percent, have made up our minds.
I don't disagree with your last sentence. But it stands without needing support by the rest of your post.
The focus here is not on population outcomes, which smaller class size would help.
The focus in on individual outcomes.
Wouldn't collective outcomes help individual ones? Sure. But if they can pick the low hanging fruit on individual outcomes, the population is helped, but with little or no extra cost.
The virtues of having a normalized database with readily available information should be self evident, if you aren't going to leap to the "indoctrination and control" conclusion. If you insist that this level of detail has been widely available for decades outside of a few progressive areas, you are positively psychotic, living in a made up world.
Of course this will be abused - that goes without saying for every database of human behavior. Will the abuse outweigh the benefits? Apparently lots of people think so. I'm not defending it. But if you put away your conspiracy theories for a minute and actually think about this, it really does propose some benefit that doesn't already exist. I really cannot in good conscience let you think the only benefit to this is a few hints.
By refusing to see the potential positives, you are blind to alternative ways we can get the same benefits without exposing gathered data to business interests and potential abuse.
The virtues are self-evident. And if they are not self-evident, you are not informed enough to have an opinion. The negatives are not self-evident, but parents have nevertheless found them.
Samba reverse engineered smb with a clean room effort, but I'm sure they didn't get it right the first time. The effect was fuzzing the windows service as they developed.
Similar efforts have been done on lots of proprietary binaries, and plain old assembly level disassembly has also been done.
I'm not saying everything has been tested. But "you can't know" is clearly wrong. If you want to know, you can. Just like if you wanted to know openssl is secure, you can. You had 16 years to read source code and you didn't find this bug. If there are flaws in proprietary software, it is because someone didn't look. Not because they didn't know.
How do black hats find vulnerabilities if they "can't know"?
This required knowing how SSL is supposed to work, not just being able to read code.
It was found when someone decided to check whether implementations correctly checked the order of messages. This could have been found by testing against a binary, regardless of the code being available.
Open source is a win here because I can fix it without waiting for a vendor patch. Not that I would, but I can. Code availability for finding the bug is nearly irrelevant.
No known exploits means nothing. Exclusive zero days are expensive, and I would not share it with anyone if I bought it. Use it in extraordinary circumstances only, and it can be undetected for a while.
Clapper got a free pass because Congress held public hearings on top secret programs. He could not reveal the information, and he tried to be as honest as he could be.
Watch the video, and see how he was badgered into responding with some kind of answer. Should he have just said its a secret? I don't know if that is allowed, but that would have gotten more badgering. Maybe "this is not the forum" would have worked, but this was a show for votes, not answers, so unlikely.
Argue the rest of your points, but leave this one out. Sure we are outraged. I'm angry at congress for going after votes instead of getting to the bottom of what happened. There is no excuse for expecting the whole truth in that forum.
The Wikipedia article traces it back to Maxwell and Kepler. And proving has been done, since trajectory calculations have included it since the 60's.
It just hasn't had enough potential to use in stead of other tech. It needs a killer app, one for which it is uniquely suited, to take hold. Name that and it is a done deal.
I'm going to spend some time on this, so you would do well to read along. You have a knee-jerk response which strays from pedophiles to sex offender registry to argument ad absurdum, and it's not even clear if you point is "I'm a raging pedophile and don't like being singled out", or more likely "I'm on the sex offender registry for peeing in a parking garage", or if you are making some point about privacy. So here's everything you need to know, so that you can make a more coherent post next time.
"Pedophile" covers a range of people from passively being infatuated with young people, to collecting pictures of them naked, pictures of them in sexual positions, pictures engaged in sex, falling in love with them in real life, having sex with them, and taking pictures of themselves having sex with young people. Videos could be involved too obviously.
When a "pedophile" is arrested and news happens, it is usually because they were on the far end of the list. Rarely, a "pedophile ring" is busted which contains sexual images, which is usually reported with a count of pictures of children engaged in sex acts. I have never seen a "pedophile ring" busted where the only offense was being attracted to children, which is the definition of the word.
When you say pedophile, you could mean anyone across this spectrum of child love. But most people don't mean that. They mean someone who hasn't had the opportunity to move further towards raping 3 year olds. Someone with 3 images of a 14 year old naked should have a different description to differentiate from the 3 year old raper, but they are both sex offenders and pedophiles to the news and to the general public.
And it is all because of the same reason. We are not comfortable admitting that a man can find a 17.9 year old sexually interesting, and that it is normal and healthy, despite being 37 days away from being legally sexually attractive. And we can't talk about ephebophilia, which is sexual interest in girls who are physically mature but (maybe) not mentally so, and certainly not legally. No one can broach this subject without risking the label "pedophile", which by definition is not correct.
It is such a hot button topic that we can't even state facts, such as the definitions of words, or attempt to distinguish among the many levels of "wrong" involved. Note, I'm not suggesting in any way that ephebophiles be given leniency, I'm just pointing out that the two philias are different, yet treated with the same level of hate. And again, it's because it is a hot topic, and we can't even say the words without someone essentially saying "make it stop" - by which they mean stop talking about it, make it illegal, throw those people in a dungeon, you're making me uncomfortable.
To your argument here, pedophiles are both worse than, and not as bad as, rapists and murderers et al, because they could be anywhere on the spectrum and still qualify as a pedophile. If you develop the trust of a child and have sex with that child, it could be way more damaging than a random one-time attack by a stranger. Night after night, associating certain sounds or words or smells with being raped and not understanding why you don't like it when someone loves you - this can ruin the entire social interaction for life without years of intensive therapy, and even then not completely go away.
As someone infatuated with, or collecting pictures of, young people, they are certainly not as bad as rapists or murderers. When they cross the line to taking pictures, it kinda depends. I'm going to say there are probably exceptions, but crossing the next line to having sexual interactions is almost always going to be worse than "regular" rape. On a value scale, leaving someone alive but scarred is better than ending their life completely, but people will give a lighter sentence to the killer of a drug kingpin compared with a child rapist. Why? Because children are innocent and pure, and that goes way deeper than mental comprehension. It is a gut reaction that
Journalists will continue to dredge up relevant facts and regurgitate them as new articles, which will have to go through the request process again.
And, since the law is vague, a long string of taking the same news down actually suggests it is in the public interest or otherwise not qualified for forgetting.
There are problems, but this is just a speed bump.
It is easier to make a business plan around charging predictable rates for a service, than participating in a game of mathematics where the value of your yield is market driven.
You may argue stock funds here, but they have fund fees which typically decrease if you let them play with your money longer.
These people are not going to spend money on coin mining if it potentially may harm their main business. What happens when China and Russia outlaw it and the bottom drops out? Lots of expensive equipment to write off. And no, writing off only helps minimize the losses a tiny bit.
And, they may well have some set up in the unused space, especially if they accept bitcoins. I would not advertise that were I in the business.
Every novel idea was once just some crazy man's dream.
What I don't see the point of is not just announcing you don't see the point, but returning to defend your lack of insight.
It's obviously easier to calculate date offsets, and the consistent zero based counting reduces the chances of having the idiocy of JavaScript's zero based month. If you wanted to see a point, its right there.
At some time in the future, we will replace the irregular system we have now, with something reasonable. Like metric. And there will be holdouts who refuse to change.
But what gets adopted does so because people use it, and people use it because it makes sense. First to one, then two, and then People magazine.
Of course it could be some crazy asshole's stupid idea, in which case you could just ask the crazy asshole, or read his web page, and learn the point.
To dismiss the idea, and actively avoid the point, while announcing your ignorance is a waste of typing. Especially while claiming to be well read. I guess that just stopped before this summary hit the front page?
I don't see this changing anything, and it is statistically unlikely to be the next timekeeping solution, so I'm not defending its worth nor utility. But butting into a conversation with, "I really don't see the point" is just the kind of smarmy, closed minded nonsense that gets your opinion discarded. No need to thank me for reminding you.
A prejudice towards cynicism, that is pre judgement before the facts are known, robs you of the opportunity to process and analyze new info. If every fact were dismissed as "selfish bastards", you would be in the same pattern of disuse as anyone else on the path to dementia.
Controlling for various thing means that of the people who use their brain in similar ways, cynics who process less information developed more symptoms of disuse.
Dismissing these results without consideration may have been humor, but it matches the dismissive cynic well enough that the replies and moderation do not currently recognize it as such, which is why it deserves a response.
The study ends with "more research needed", so it really hasn't proven anything, let alone cause and effect.
Of course, that doesn't prevent people from mentioning correlation and causation to feel smarter. Obviously the headline is from the article author, and has nothing to do with the study. Just as obviously, "could" is used precisely because the link is only demonstrated, not understood.
That said, cynical people rarely exercise their brains to understand the world, and that lack of use mirrors other pathways to dementia. A little critical thinking every day is good for you, certainly. Jumping to the obvious "cos corporate interests" or "duh NSA" is no brain work at all.
Pay attention to the cynical responses here and elsewhere, and it will make sense shortly. Of course, making sense does not also make something true. But it is a step better than being written off as correlation and therefore unworthy of news or discussion.
Was it the same key, or one that matches a new public key? I don't know, but you have to answer that before you put faith in your deductive reasoning skills.
Did it not have a site at all before that could be minimally altered instead of made from scratch? Did a malicious actor not reuse existing HTML, CSS, and images to seem reputable?
Nsl would more likely look continuous, to give authority to the message. Making the site look like a DNS attack would scare people away from both the new binary and the message, making it a poorly thought out plan.
No guess so far makes any sense, except for a rogue takeover. Internal or external, someone just took over the project to shut it down, and little planning as to how to best accomplish it. As no one wants to do anything with the binary, that would count as success. And were it planned so, masterfully done.
Re:With R... every day is Talk Like A Pirate Day!
on
R Throwdown Challenge
·
· Score: 1
If google search is limiting your pirating, you may want to investigate something a little more specialized. I assume you're talking about the 2009 film with Jennifer Connelly, not the 2005 short nor the video game - either would be two clicks away after less than a minute.
And if Google Search is really impacting your life in any meaningful way, you should step away from the keyboard for a weekend.
I think this is more a case where you detected a pattern from two events, and extrapolated to assume that everyone has the same problem all the time. It's normal and natural to do so, but not correct.
Interim means someone who is just filling the shoes, and no huge decisions were made by an interim CEO unless it could not be put off.
Interim were not paid to go away like the actual CEO. This is not golden parachute money. It's not performance based in any sense that can be compared.
And the numbers are tiny enough to be irrelevant given their revenue. And the decisions made by the CEO are not the ones that sunk the company.
Typically the business unit leaders would be responsible for bringing up margins, and they focus on cost reduction and ignore market share. The CEO could refocus on customer facing issues to make a more attractive product, but they have such common products that cost is the differentiator.
The CEO decisions have been conservative, keeping a company afloat, instead of risking lots of money on a gamble. Understandable, but only barely required a CEO.
The decisions were correct for a market constrained company. Only a brilliant CEO with strong marketing connections could make a serious impact, and they keep not hiring that person.
In a company this big, the CEO outsources decisions except for general direction, and they are responsible for identifying and stopping poor decisions by their direct reports. Most of the poor decisions were not even made, they just were not addressed, and inertia kept it going.
But, you got to select the ads you wanted to see, and paid for the printing.
I buy something online, and I get adverts for the exact same thing. Just bought a computer, now I get computer ads in my mailbox. Bought a car, now I get "now's the time to buy a car" adverts. Sure customer loyalty is big, and even a.01% chance of selling another car is worth the spend. But you're just pissing me off.
Worse, I click on something, decide I don't want it at all, and I get ads for the same or similar things. That's valuable space being wasted on something I not just am not interested in.
Your point works in a perfect world, where we can give feedback on which ads we want to see, in your case by paying for it. And where advertisers consider what we truly are interested in, and won't promote something unrelated just because it has a larger payment per click.
There is a very, very small part of the business that will truly work this way, until everyone realizes that we have to work together. Don't annoy me, show me what I want, hide what I don't want. And don't be intrusive.
Don't sell to facets I haven't revealed - such as identifying when I'm pregnant or gay. How do you know what's safe to sell me? You're going to have to be really good at figuring out what to detect, and what to ignore.
Otherwise, you're going to creep out the next generation of lawmakers.
Keith Alexander was lying because he cannot release top secret information in a public forum. IIRC he wrote to the head of the committee and basically said "I didn't tell you everything because you made this public."
You didn't really want an answer, but there it is. Is the only answer that Keith Alexander is acting in bad faith? What if there are actually people who believe they are doing the right thing? You might have scored a point against one guy, but there are rafts full of people who really do want to do the right thing, and they think this is the right thing.
It's hard to make a rational argument when you're angry, and it's a lot more helpful to just say "I'm pissed off". At some point, you can start making rational points instead of rhetoric. Emotion makes it hard to express what you are thinking, and frequently to understand what you are thinking.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise - I much prefer a point along the line of kruach aum (#47070503).
On the plus side, anyone who voted for it cannot support anti-Snowden actions without looking completely stupid. That might have meant something back in the days when media asked questions.
But in the days when unlimited funds can create attack messages for anyone, this vote basically says yes to Snowden, and no to either the Obama administration or the Presidency in general depending on which party they want to appeal to.
The political process is slow, and I honestly did not expect even this much so far. I guess that's the power of not just the same story, but evolutions of the same story over the span of months.
And that to me is the real story here. A Friday news flash that gets buried by entertainment news won't do it. But here's a good example of what does work.
Despite your overstatement in places, you have spoken truth. This is because of basic psychology, where becoming a prisoner pushes you from one of us to being one of them.
We draw distinctions in organizing people, so that we know who to care about. Five people from your state die, or one from your city, and it is a tragedy. Five people an ocean away is barely news.
The quotes from rich people explaining poverty are examples of the same effect, they just don't understand. Same with poor people discussing rich, or minimum wage earners discussing management.
Us vs them is a basic component of human behavior, that has served its purpose and needs to be broken. In this case, i think everyone needs a surprise arrest at age 18, to understand why avoiding prison is good, and why extreme sentences are bad. Held overnight, grant bail, have a court date, and waive court costs.
The problem is, you can't possibly put everyone in the 'us' group for every situation. So we will always have this problem.
Here's another similar problem. You seem surprised. With such a huge basic failing of compassion, you would think it beneficial to have everyone aware of this deficiency. At least so we can point it out when it happens. But people live their whole lives ignorant of this in themselves, and in others.
We have the sheriff who pushes for forfeiture laws, and decides it is unfair when it happens to him. Repeated, public failures to understand what we put the 'others' group through.
Millions of tiny tragedies, with simple solutions, if only we had a single benevolent super being to intervene and show us our errors
I work to spread understanding, or at least create doubt to start the path of understanding. But I can't force people to understand the opposing view, the view held by the 'not us' group. And from many responses here, people obviously do not want to understand. Unless I hit the right person just the right way, which is really hard.
So to make it clear, we have an epidemic of ignorance which actively fights attempts to treat it. This is only a tiny subset of the problem space. You stated a problem, I stated the cause. Now what?
On the other hand, employees are more likely to send money to sympathetic candidates.
If everyone in Cable gives to a cable-friendly candidate, and everyone in pharma gives to pharma-friendly candidates, the end result is going to be a large number of donations on the side of those who support it.
No one reports when the pro candidate got less money than the anti candidate... I expect it happens a lot, just because of this fact:
We are talking about a difference of $15k, per candidate, on an election that cost $300k or more. Next election cycle, cable is going to give to these guys again, because they support the industry. So which came first, big contributions or voting for cable?
If anyone is going to have any sort of point, they can't just throw out numbers and expect outrage back if they want to make some sort of coherent argument. It's easy to get people riled up because people are dumb. But that doesn't make an argument.
Disagree when you have a published study supporting your side.
If it actually hurts the community, you're going to have to get over it. A troll voted up definitely needs to be flagged as troll, either with a reply or moderation, but otherwise behavioral science is pretty much telling you to shut it.
The end result is, in my experience with 4 or 5 user names here since 2001, is "you aren't listening to me, it won't matter, I'll shit on your floor" acting out.
Remember the "fuck beta" stuff where people who got up votes were saying that comments were being moderated by admins? They set a deadline, overstayed the welcome, and got in the way. I and apparently several others moderated them down just to get them out of the way, as you say, to prevent having to wade through trash messages. Did it help?
Consider actual behavior that you have witnessed, and the points raised in this story, and let me know honestly if you still think that your desire to have clean comments will result in clean comments. As opposed to more jackassery that has to be downmodded.
Slashdot Mirror
"Information wants to be free" is incredibly misused.
If I learn something, chances are I want to spread that information to others. The number of YouTube instructional videos for which there is no conceivable audience is a testament to that. Also, the number of mis-informative videos is likewise a testament.
If I invent something e.g. patentable, I may not be able to share the details with people, but I am probably going to tell people I have a patent. It's part of the "I would like to tell you but I can't so I'll tell you I know something" sort of mentality. Learn a secret? Either you tell someone the secret, or you tell them you have a secret.
Learning, knowledge, and facts want to be free. Quotable movie lines, which summarize and in part relive the experience, want to be free. Shocking or unusual details want to be free, such as that celebrity who showed up nearly nude to that event.
Copyrighted works don't want to be free, and big data certainly does not want to be free - if it even wants to be collected in the first place. There are reasons why "Information wants to be free" might be applicable to copyright cases - especially when the prosecution thinks copyright applies, but it really doesn't. Same for patents et. al.
In summation, "Information wants to be free" does not belong in an argument about collecting data on children. Not for people in general for that matter, but especially not for children.
So yes, we can make up our minds. Uninformed parents have seen what's wrong with this, and have taken action. They still use FaceBook, web mail, cell phones with location data turned on, and all sorts of ridiculous privacy invading tools and apps and everything else, but they aren't going to allow this. "We", defined by enough people to make a difference, as opposed to the slashdot audience that makes up fractions of a percent, have made up our minds.
I don't disagree with your last sentence. But it stands without needing support by the rest of your post.
The focus here is not on population outcomes, which smaller class size would help.
The focus in on individual outcomes.
Wouldn't collective outcomes help individual ones? Sure. But if they can pick the low hanging fruit on individual outcomes, the population is helped, but with little or no extra cost.
The virtues of having a normalized database with readily available information should be self evident, if you aren't going to leap to the "indoctrination and control" conclusion. If you insist that this level of detail has been widely available for decades outside of a few progressive areas, you are positively psychotic, living in a made up world.
Of course this will be abused - that goes without saying for every database of human behavior. Will the abuse outweigh the benefits? Apparently lots of people think so. I'm not defending it. But if you put away your conspiracy theories for a minute and actually think about this, it really does propose some benefit that doesn't already exist. I really cannot in good conscience let you think the only benefit to this is a few hints.
By refusing to see the potential positives, you are blind to alternative ways we can get the same benefits without exposing gathered data to business interests and potential abuse.
The virtues are self-evident. And if they are not self-evident, you are not informed enough to have an opinion. The negatives are not self-evident, but parents have nevertheless found them.
Samba reverse engineered smb with a clean room effort, but I'm sure they didn't get it right the first time. The effect was fuzzing the windows service as they developed.
Similar efforts have been done on lots of proprietary binaries, and plain old assembly level disassembly has also been done.
I'm not saying everything has been tested. But "you can't know" is clearly wrong. If you want to know, you can. Just like if you wanted to know openssl is secure, you can. You had 16 years to read source code and you didn't find this bug. If there are flaws in proprietary software, it is because someone didn't look. Not because they didn't know.
How do black hats find vulnerabilities if they "can't know"?
Gp's point is once it has been found things move quickly. Tested and fixed is in the part you bolded, not found.
You objected to a point gp did not raise.
This required knowing how SSL is supposed to work, not just being able to read code.
It was found when someone decided to check whether implementations correctly checked the order of messages. This could have been found by testing against a binary, regardless of the code being available.
Open source is a win here because I can fix it without waiting for a vendor patch. Not that I would, but I can. Code availability for finding the bug is nearly irrelevant.
No known exploits means nothing. Exclusive zero days are expensive, and I would not share it with anyone if I bought it. Use it in extraordinary circumstances only, and it can be undetected for a while.
Clapper got a free pass because Congress held public hearings on top secret programs. He could not reveal the information, and he tried to be as honest as he could be.
Watch the video, and see how he was badgered into responding with some kind of answer. Should he have just said its a secret? I don't know if that is allowed, but that would have gotten more badgering. Maybe "this is not the forum" would have worked, but this was a show for votes, not answers, so unlikely.
Argue the rest of your points, but leave this one out. Sure we are outraged. I'm angry at congress for going after votes instead of getting to the bottom of what happened. There is no excuse for expecting the whole truth in that forum.
The Wikipedia article traces it back to Maxwell and Kepler. And proving has been done, since trajectory calculations have included it since the 60's.
It just hasn't had enough potential to use in stead of other tech. It needs a killer app, one for which it is uniquely suited, to take hold. Name that and it is a done deal.
I'm going to spend some time on this, so you would do well to read along. You have a knee-jerk response which strays from pedophiles to sex offender registry to argument ad absurdum, and it's not even clear if you point is "I'm a raging pedophile and don't like being singled out", or more likely "I'm on the sex offender registry for peeing in a parking garage", or if you are making some point about privacy. So here's everything you need to know, so that you can make a more coherent post next time.
"Pedophile" covers a range of people from passively being infatuated with young people, to collecting pictures of them naked, pictures of them in sexual positions, pictures engaged in sex, falling in love with them in real life, having sex with them, and taking pictures of themselves having sex with young people. Videos could be involved too obviously.
When a "pedophile" is arrested and news happens, it is usually because they were on the far end of the list. Rarely, a "pedophile ring" is busted which contains sexual images, which is usually reported with a count of pictures of children engaged in sex acts. I have never seen a "pedophile ring" busted where the only offense was being attracted to children, which is the definition of the word.
When you say pedophile, you could mean anyone across this spectrum of child love. But most people don't mean that. They mean someone who hasn't had the opportunity to move further towards raping 3 year olds. Someone with 3 images of a 14 year old naked should have a different description to differentiate from the 3 year old raper, but they are both sex offenders and pedophiles to the news and to the general public.
And it is all because of the same reason. We are not comfortable admitting that a man can find a 17.9 year old sexually interesting, and that it is normal and healthy, despite being 37 days away from being legally sexually attractive. And we can't talk about ephebophilia, which is sexual interest in girls who are physically mature but (maybe) not mentally so, and certainly not legally. No one can broach this subject without risking the label "pedophile", which by definition is not correct.
It is such a hot button topic that we can't even state facts, such as the definitions of words, or attempt to distinguish among the many levels of "wrong" involved. Note, I'm not suggesting in any way that ephebophiles be given leniency, I'm just pointing out that the two philias are different, yet treated with the same level of hate. And again, it's because it is a hot topic, and we can't even say the words without someone essentially saying "make it stop" - by which they mean stop talking about it, make it illegal, throw those people in a dungeon, you're making me uncomfortable.
To your argument here, pedophiles are both worse than, and not as bad as, rapists and murderers et al, because they could be anywhere on the spectrum and still qualify as a pedophile. If you develop the trust of a child and have sex with that child, it could be way more damaging than a random one-time attack by a stranger. Night after night, associating certain sounds or words or smells with being raped and not understanding why you don't like it when someone loves you - this can ruin the entire social interaction for life without years of intensive therapy, and even then not completely go away.
As someone infatuated with, or collecting pictures of, young people, they are certainly not as bad as rapists or murderers. When they cross the line to taking pictures, it kinda depends. I'm going to say there are probably exceptions, but crossing the next line to having sexual interactions is almost always going to be worse than "regular" rape. On a value scale, leaving someone alive but scarred is better than ending their life completely, but people will give a lighter sentence to the killer of a drug kingpin compared with a child rapist. Why? Because children are innocent and pure, and that goes way deeper than mental comprehension. It is a gut reaction that
Journalists will continue to dredge up relevant facts and regurgitate them as new articles, which will have to go through the request process again.
And, since the law is vague, a long string of taking the same news down actually suggests it is in the public interest or otherwise not qualified for forgetting.
There are problems, but this is just a speed bump.
It is easier to make a business plan around charging predictable rates for a service, than participating in a game of mathematics where the value of your yield is market driven.
You may argue stock funds here, but they have fund fees which typically decrease if you let them play with your money longer.
These people are not going to spend money on coin mining if it potentially may harm their main business. What happens when China and Russia outlaw it and the bottom drops out? Lots of expensive equipment to write off. And no, writing off only helps minimize the losses a tiny bit.
And, they may well have some set up in the unused space, especially if they accept bitcoins. I would not advertise that were I in the business.
Every novel idea was once just some crazy man's dream.
What I don't see the point of is not just announcing you don't see the point, but returning to defend your lack of insight.
It's obviously easier to calculate date offsets, and the consistent zero based counting reduces the chances of having the idiocy of JavaScript's zero based month. If you wanted to see a point, its right there.
At some time in the future, we will replace the irregular system we have now, with something reasonable. Like metric. And there will be holdouts who refuse to change.
But what gets adopted does so because people use it, and people use it because it makes sense. First to one, then two, and then People magazine.
Of course it could be some crazy asshole's stupid idea, in which case you could just ask the crazy asshole, or read his web page, and learn the point.
To dismiss the idea, and actively avoid the point, while announcing your ignorance is a waste of typing. Especially while claiming to be well read. I guess that just stopped before this summary hit the front page?
I don't see this changing anything, and it is statistically unlikely to be the next timekeeping solution, so I'm not defending its worth nor utility. But butting into a conversation with, "I really don't see the point" is just the kind of smarmy, closed minded nonsense that gets your opinion discarded. No need to thank me for reminding you.
That's because you are wrong. Holographic displays are experimental, while 3D has been common for 60 years.
The current term for stereoscopic video is 3D. If holographic display comes out and is called 3D, people will get their panties in a wad.
Just accept the terminology and move on.
A prejudice towards cynicism, that is pre judgement before the facts are known, robs you of the opportunity to process and analyze new info. If every fact were dismissed as "selfish bastards", you would be in the same pattern of disuse as anyone else on the path to dementia.
Controlling for various thing means that of the people who use their brain in similar ways, cynics who process less information developed more symptoms of disuse.
Dismissing these results without consideration may have been humor, but it matches the dismissive cynic well enough that the replies and moderation do not currently recognize it as such, which is why it deserves a response.
The study ends with "more research needed", so it really hasn't proven anything, let alone cause and effect.
Of course, that doesn't prevent people from mentioning correlation and causation to feel smarter. Obviously the headline is from the article author, and has nothing to do with the study. Just as obviously, "could" is used precisely because the link is only demonstrated, not understood.
That said, cynical people rarely exercise their brains to understand the world, and that lack of use mirrors other pathways to dementia. A little critical thinking every day is good for you, certainly. Jumping to the obvious "cos corporate interests" or "duh NSA" is no brain work at all.
Pay attention to the cynical responses here and elsewhere, and it will make sense shortly. Of course, making sense does not also make something true. But it is a step better than being written off as correlation and therefore unworthy of news or discussion.
Was it the same key, or one that matches a new public key? I don't know, but you have to answer that before you put faith in your deductive reasoning skills.
Why hastily knock up a site?
Did it not have a site at all before that could be minimally altered instead of made from scratch? Did a malicious actor not reuse existing HTML, CSS, and images to seem reputable?
Nsl would more likely look continuous, to give authority to the message. Making the site look like a DNS attack would scare people away from both the new binary and the message, making it a poorly thought out plan.
No guess so far makes any sense, except for a rogue takeover. Internal or external, someone just took over the project to shut it down, and little planning as to how to best accomplish it. As no one wants to do anything with the binary, that would count as success. And were it planned so, masterfully done.
If google search is limiting your pirating, you may want to investigate something a little more specialized. I assume you're talking about the 2009 film with Jennifer Connelly, not the 2005 short nor the video game - either would be two clicks away after less than a minute.
And if Google Search is really impacting your life in any meaningful way, you should step away from the keyboard for a weekend.
I think this is more a case where you detected a pattern from two events, and extrapolated to assume that everyone has the same problem all the time. It's normal and natural to do so, but not correct.
Celebrities at the beach sunbathing. I could finally start my famous people touchable ass and boob collection for the socially inept.
Interim means someone who is just filling the shoes, and no huge decisions were made by an interim CEO unless it could not be put off.
Interim were not paid to go away like the actual CEO. This is not golden parachute money. It's not performance based in any sense that can be compared.
And the numbers are tiny enough to be irrelevant given their revenue. And the decisions made by the CEO are not the ones that sunk the company.
Typically the business unit leaders would be responsible for bringing up margins, and they focus on cost reduction and ignore market share. The CEO could refocus on customer facing issues to make a more attractive product, but they have such common products that cost is the differentiator.
The CEO decisions have been conservative, keeping a company afloat, instead of risking lots of money on a gamble. Understandable, but only barely required a CEO.
The decisions were correct for a market constrained company. Only a brilliant CEO with strong marketing connections could make a serious impact, and they keep not hiring that person.
In a company this big, the CEO outsources decisions except for general direction, and they are responsible for identifying and stopping poor decisions by their direct reports. Most of the poor decisions were not even made, they just were not addressed, and inertia kept it going.
Short version, the board needs replaced.
But, you got to select the ads you wanted to see, and paid for the printing.
I buy something online, and I get adverts for the exact same thing. Just bought a computer, now I get computer ads in my mailbox. Bought a car, now I get "now's the time to buy a car" adverts. Sure customer loyalty is big, and even a .01% chance of selling another car is worth the spend. But you're just pissing me off.
Worse, I click on something, decide I don't want it at all, and I get ads for the same or similar things. That's valuable space being wasted on something I not just am not interested in.
Your point works in a perfect world, where we can give feedback on which ads we want to see, in your case by paying for it. And where advertisers consider what we truly are interested in, and won't promote something unrelated just because it has a larger payment per click.
There is a very, very small part of the business that will truly work this way, until everyone realizes that we have to work together. Don't annoy me, show me what I want, hide what I don't want. And don't be intrusive.
Don't sell to facets I haven't revealed - such as identifying when I'm pregnant or gay. How do you know what's safe to sell me? You're going to have to be really good at figuring out what to detect, and what to ignore.
Otherwise, you're going to creep out the next generation of lawmakers.
Keith Alexander was lying because he cannot release top secret information in a public forum. IIRC he wrote to the head of the committee and basically said "I didn't tell you everything because you made this public."
You didn't really want an answer, but there it is. Is the only answer that Keith Alexander is acting in bad faith? What if there are actually people who believe they are doing the right thing? You might have scored a point against one guy, but there are rafts full of people who really do want to do the right thing, and they think this is the right thing.
It's hard to make a rational argument when you're angry, and it's a lot more helpful to just say "I'm pissed off". At some point, you can start making rational points instead of rhetoric. Emotion makes it hard to express what you are thinking, and frequently to understand what you are thinking.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise - I much prefer a point along the line of kruach aum (#47070503).
On the plus side, anyone who voted for it cannot support anti-Snowden actions without looking completely stupid. That might have meant something back in the days when media asked questions.
But in the days when unlimited funds can create attack messages for anyone, this vote basically says yes to Snowden, and no to either the Obama administration or the Presidency in general depending on which party they want to appeal to.
The political process is slow, and I honestly did not expect even this much so far. I guess that's the power of not just the same story, but evolutions of the same story over the span of months.
And that to me is the real story here. A Friday news flash that gets buried by entertainment news won't do it. But here's a good example of what does work.
Despite your overstatement in places, you have spoken truth. This is because of basic psychology, where becoming a prisoner pushes you from one of us to being one of them.
We draw distinctions in organizing people, so that we know who to care about. Five people from your state die, or one from your city, and it is a tragedy. Five people an ocean away is barely news.
The quotes from rich people explaining poverty are examples of the same effect, they just don't understand. Same with poor people discussing rich, or minimum wage earners discussing management.
Us vs them is a basic component of human behavior, that has served its purpose and needs to be broken. In this case, i think everyone needs a surprise arrest at age 18, to understand why avoiding prison is good, and why extreme sentences are bad. Held overnight, grant bail, have a court date, and waive court costs.
The problem is, you can't possibly put everyone in the 'us' group for every situation. So we will always have this problem.
Here's another similar problem. You seem surprised. With such a huge basic failing of compassion, you would think it beneficial to have everyone aware of this deficiency. At least so we can point it out when it happens. But people live their whole lives ignorant of this in themselves, and in others.
We have the sheriff who pushes for forfeiture laws, and decides it is unfair when it happens to him. Repeated, public failures to understand what we put the 'others' group through.
Millions of tiny tragedies, with simple solutions, if only we had a single benevolent super being to intervene and show us our errors
I work to spread understanding, or at least create doubt to start the path of understanding. But I can't force people to understand the opposing view, the view held by the 'not us' group. And from many responses here, people obviously do not want to understand. Unless I hit the right person just the right way, which is really hard.
So to make it clear, we have an epidemic of ignorance which actively fights attempts to treat it. This is only a tiny subset of the problem space. You stated a problem, I stated the cause. Now what?
On the other hand, employees are more likely to send money to sympathetic candidates.
If everyone in Cable gives to a cable-friendly candidate, and everyone in pharma gives to pharma-friendly candidates, the end result is going to be a large number of donations on the side of those who support it.
No one reports when the pro candidate got less money than the anti candidate... I expect it happens a lot, just because of this fact:
We are talking about a difference of $15k, per candidate, on an election that cost $300k or more. Next election cycle, cable is going to give to these guys again, because they support the industry. So which came first, big contributions or voting for cable?
If anyone is going to have any sort of point, they can't just throw out numbers and expect outrage back if they want to make some sort of coherent argument. It's easy to get people riled up because people are dumb. But that doesn't make an argument.
Disagree when you have a published study supporting your side.
If it actually hurts the community, you're going to have to get over it. A troll voted up definitely needs to be flagged as troll, either with a reply or moderation, but otherwise behavioral science is pretty much telling you to shut it.
The end result is, in my experience with 4 or 5 user names here since 2001, is "you aren't listening to me, it won't matter, I'll shit on your floor" acting out.
Remember the "fuck beta" stuff where people who got up votes were saying that comments were being moderated by admins? They set a deadline, overstayed the welcome, and got in the way. I and apparently several others moderated them down just to get them out of the way, as you say, to prevent having to wade through trash messages. Did it help?
Consider actual behavior that you have witnessed, and the points raised in this story, and let me know honestly if you still think that your desire to have clean comments will result in clean comments. As opposed to more jackassery that has to be downmodded.