... with barber shops. You need a permit, and to take an exam which shows you know how to avoid electrocuting your customers with the electric clippers, and how not to transmit ringworm or scabies.
In this case almost certainly not. This is not some guy in his spare bedroom emailing specs to a Chinese supplier. This is a *big* client with the resources to keep tabs on its supplier launching a high profile product that hopefully will sell bucket loads of units. You'd have to be a moron to mess with them.
I don't think there's any validity to the view that user overloading of operators is hazardous, except to the degree any language feature can be abused. I'm saying it's not something you'd put in an OO language if you wanted to appeal to people who find C appealing.
Because it's not particularly essential and so you wouldn't include it if your goal is a minimalist language like C. Which is *my* point. C++ has different design goals from C, and you have to take that into account.
No doubt some if the dislike of user operator overloading comes from ignorance of how much type promotion goes on in all high level languages, but I'm not in that camp. I recognize it's a useful feature particularly if you are dealing with algebraic fields beyond the built-in types. It can be a sound decision either to include the feature or leave it out depending on your goals. For most C++ programs I've seen you wouldn't miss it much or at all if it were missing, and so I think it's a sound choice for languages targeted at those kinds of applications.
I take it irony isn't your strong suit. I'm old enough to have programmed in assembly, so yes I understand arithmetic operators in C are indeed overloaded. But there is no feature in the language for the *user* to overload operators, which of course you know.
Ms. Clinton can use her private server for anything personal anytime she wants.
Well, I don't quite agree, because at that level it's hard to segregate the personal from the professional -- indeed that's what the concern is here, that there might have been some illicit connection between her personal life (the Clinton foundation) and her work as Secretary of State.
But to be fair, since Secretary Kerry is apparently the first Secretary of State with an official email account, the same questions can be raised about Condaleeza Rice; I'll give Powell and Albright a pass because both being born in 1937 they belong to a generation where senior administrators had all their correspondence handled by "a girl".
This suggests an unquestionably fair and non-partisan solution to this controversy. Both Clinton AND Rice should turn over ALL their electronic correspondence for the years they were in office to the State Department for preservation. Any correspondence which they deem personal and private would remained permanently sealed unless there was court order opening them or until they themselves choose to open them. There would be no fishing expeditions through their private correspondence without the equivalent of a warrant.
This would not only be perfectly non-partisan, it would maintain the same or greater degree of discoverability as if they'd used official email accounts, as they both should have.
Well, I think the MacWatch is a bit of a departure from their usual M.O.; for one thing they're going to be selling 20 different versions of the things, which is very un-Jobsian. Fewer, simpler choices was the way he did things. Also the super-luxury pricing is something Apple hasn't done for a long time and as far as I can recall has never done much for them. They've made their mark selling the equivalent of BMWs, not Lamborghinis.
That's a good point, but I doubt that more ports would drive greater Mac adoption. That's not the way they sell. They keep their customers on the upgrade treadmill and do very well that way. There are some people who look at a laptop and tote up the ports, but they're not Mac buyers.
Also while Mac market share may have dropped, sales of Macs have actually been pretty consistent -- the drop in units noted the article for Q3 2013 over Q3 2012 is just statistical noise. Q3 2014 was 17% higher. I think the drop in market share might have been a post-recession rebound for other vendors. Looking at Apple's sales numbers you'd never have guessed there was a recession going on in the late 00s.
Well, it's not necessarily *better*, but more ports might not be needed by Apple's customers.
If it were me, I'd study the way *my* customers used the ports and figure out how many the needed. That may be different for Mac users than PC. For example I have a nice mechanical USB keyboard and mouse, but perhaps most Mac users prefer Apple's wireless keyboard and trackpad, which are quite good.
It also makes a difference how capable and versatile the port is, and this guy appears this one is both. The truth is when I have four or five USB cables plugged into my laptop it usually is big PITA, and usually it's at home when I'm using the laptop like a workstation. But what if I just plugged my laptop into ginormous monitor that not only provided secondary ports for things like cameras and external drives, but charged the laptop through that cable as well? It's possible with this particular port, and I suspect Apple has something like that in mind.
But boy, oh, boy are Mac users who invested in thunderbolt stuff going to be ticked off. It's a good thing there's practically nothing that uses it.
Compared to C, sure. C was conceived in a spirit of pragmatic minimalism that's easy to love. I remember learning C from the K&R book back around 1980. That book was so thin it was practically a pamphlet next to books that taught you other languages. Everything about C was so neat, and trim, and cogent -- even the book everyone learned it from. That plus The Unix Programming Environment and perhaps Software Tools and you were cooking with gas.
It's natural to compare C++ to C; the very name encourages you to do so. It was to conceived to dovetail and build upon C. But it was conceived with an almost diametrically opposite kind of philosophy. C chucked out all the precious features that designers were putting into languages in the late 60s and early 70s and went with a tiny set of proven useful features. C++ implemented every bell and whistle anyone had ever dreamed up for object oriented programming, which was largely an academic topic that was full of clever but impractical notions. Well, it turned out that a lot of those things like operator overloading and multiple inheritance weren't all that useful in the judgment of later language designers, but you can hardly blame Bjarne Stroustrup from knowing that in advance.
It's practically impossible to overstate the practical success of C++. It took what was for most practicioners a theoretical idea (object oriented programming) and made it the way everyone programs by default. But you can't expect someone who loves C to love C++, which has almost none of the virtues that people admire in C.
My point is this: how do we *know* the odds against a perfect false match are as high as we think they are?
I know the way people do these calculations, which is they take p(x1) * p(x2) *... p(xn) as the probability. But note that the validity of this calculation is dependent upon the assumption that the events x1, x2... xn are all independent of each other, which if you think about what DNA is is bound not to be true. So I guess you choose x1... xn so that they are independent-ish -- that is to say they are correlated to only a negligible degree.
But how do you know that? Well, you look through some existing databases that is representative enough of the population at large to choose which points of comparison to use.
But how do you know that database is sufficiently representative?
The problem is, you don't. It's just an unfounded assumption.
I have no doubt that you'd have sufficient Bayesian basis for a high degree of belief in a match once you've narrowed your pool of suspects to a group of otherwise likely suspects. But I'm not nearly so confident in a so-called "perfect match" (which is really misleading terminology by the way) when the pool of suspects is *everybody*.
Developing habits is arguably the most important form of education there is.
It's not just about eating your veggies and going to the gym; habits intrude on things which we normally think of as the domain of rational thought. If you hear somebody who disagrees with you do you rationally weigh his arguments or automatically dismiss them? What determines which of these alternatives you choose is habit.
Well, this is one of those questions that has a few big fat "depends" attached to the answer.
If they were just going to throw away that information, I unqualifiedly agree with you. No reasonable person would refuse to give their DNA if it would be thrown away as soon as it had exonerated them.
But what if they intend to *keep* that information and use it to match against future crimes? Then a reasonable person might well pause. One obvious uncertainty is what future versions of the government considers a "crime". Even if I have total trust in the "deep state" under President Obama, I should recognize others might reasonably feel differently, and nobody should feel such a level of trust for future administrations yet to be determined.
Possibly a more serious issue is our assumptions about the perfection of matching DNA samples against vast archives of DNA data. The FBI likes to claim literally astronomical chances like "113 billion to 1" against a false positive DNA match, but they're not exactly disinterested. Furthermore such figures are based on long strings of untested assumptions about things being statistically independent of each other. While it's manifestly clear that false matches are unlikely, we cannot really know whether they are sufficiently likely to treat as positive proof when we're talking about matching against potentially millions of samples.
So while it's quite reasonable not to be worried about what happens with your biometric data today, it's maybe not so reasonable to be so casual about having it retained and aggregated for decades to come. Keeping data without really testing it's future utility (or even disutility) is something bureaucracies do by habit and instinct, and people with the skepticism and mathematical knowledge to be entrusted with such a decision are few and far between.
You're joking, but people would be shocked how much time politicians spend begging for money. A typical congressman spends more time on an average day raising money than he does on legislative business. And if he's successful at fundraising, his reward is to be forced to spend more time raising money for his less successful colleagues. It's actually kind of a big deal.
Well, the Iridium constellation was built using a manufacturing technique that dropped the cost per satellite down to $5 million apiece. With 20 years of advancement in automation and technology, it should be possible to build a comparable satellite for much less, especially if you amortize the development costs over more units. And it probably really helps to have your own launch company that will become more competitive on a per launch basis with more guaranteed launches on its schedule.
There's a certain kind of entrepreneur who sees possibility as a matter of willpower -- people who think they can will any desired reality into being with enough money and shouting. I don't think Musk is one of those. I think he's one of those that turns his ideas into a big model and figures out when he can do them. Yeah, I know, Hyperloop, but so far he's just throwing billionaire pocket change at that.
It's manifestly not true that nobody would pay for global Internet access if it had latency, even up to geosynchronous orbit. Most Internet applications are *throughput* sensitive, not *latency*. If it's good enough for television, it'd be good enough for Netflix if you could pay for the bandwidth.
You know what *is* latency sensitive? Telephony. And certain brands of satellite telephone services have employed geostationary (i.e. very high orbit) satellites for years. Yes there's some delay, but it's tolerable. Round trip to geostationary orbit is just a tad longer than 1/4 second.
IIRC SpaceX's satellites are planned to be 1100 km up. Since "Low Earth Orbit" is from 160 to 2000 km, that'd put those satellites pretty close to smack dab in the middle of LEO.
The problem with what he's suggesting isn't the cameras; it's the development of the biometric database based on any kind of casual contact with the police. The reason that's a problem is that we really don't know how unique our biometric id is.
Take fingerprints. Folk science claims that everyone's fingerprint is unique; in fact we use the word "fingerprint" for cryptographic hashes of data which are vanishingly unlikely to be duplicated. And using traditional police methods, we can for practical purposes act as if they are. But if you start amassing a vast collection of fingerprints of people you have nothing particular in common (as we did after 9/11), it turns out that some people do in fact share fingerprints with identical characteristics. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, an attorney named Brandon Mayfield was identified as a suspect because his fingerprint was a close match one found a bag of detonators at the crime scene. That, and the fact that he was a Muslim convert, was enough for the FBI to be confident enough to arrest him, and leak his name and the potential charges against him to the media. It turns out that one of Mayfield's fingerprints was nearly identical to that of a known terrorist Algerian. The ability to match some biometric to a sufficiently large database greatly increases the probability of a false positive match.
In the ordinary course of investigation there's a kind of implicit Bayesian process which gives us greater confidence in a fingerprint match than a fingerprint dragnet of everyone in the world would. We check the fingerprint of suspects who we have other reasons to think are involved in a crime, or who have in the past been arrested and convicted of a crime. This narrows down the pool of potential matchees from "everyone in the world" to "people who we have some shred of reason to think might be involved", and that's a much smaller pool.
So what are the chances that there are people walking around out there with the same facial recognition biometric id as you? Very likely higher than casual testing would suggest. And what if the system tags you as a match? Does that prejudice the rest of your chances with the justice system?
It's even possible that there are people out there who look enough like you to fool a family member. My brother once saw a man in a Philly restaurant who was a dead ringer for our father, who'd died surrounded by his family ten years earlier. It was creepy.
Rather, he seems to be suggesting a system which records data to flash and which can then be uploaded to the police database in the event of a break-in.
The civil liberties issues in such systems is somewhat different than the classic Orwellian scenario people are assuming. What are your expectations of privacy when you are visiting someone else's home? Is he obligated to tell you about his cameras?
We don't necessarily know as much about the young men who did this as we might think, though.
Let me tell you a story that illustrates what I mean. On a recent trip to NYC, I was people-watching on the subway when I noticed something interesting. When women were traveling with with their women friends, their faces express a kind of delight in each others company. When you notice it, it's something quite striking and beautiful. So I started to look at the men to see if they ever did the same thing. Most of the time when you see a guy talking to a friend you can't tell whether he's helping his buddy through a breakup or suggesting how to fix a problem with his wi-fi. But after searching all day for that same spark of delight I finally found it, on the faces of two drunk Australian college students who were throwing snowballs at the windows of the NYC detention facility (i.e. jail) downtown.
The lesson: in our culture men bond often by making asses of themselves.
Which doesn't mean these frat boys weren't creating a hostile racist atmosphere. It's true boys will be boys, but the flip side of that is they won't start acting like men until someone makes them face the consequences of acting like a brat.
Now I so happen to know some people who worked in environmental related fields for Florida under Jeb Bush, and the word is that he's not bad to work with one-on-one, out of the media spotlight.
This policy is under the administration of Rick Scott, a man whose election makes you look at the Florida electorate and scratch your head. This is a guy whose credentials as a successful businessman include bailing out with a ten million dollar golden parachute before his company paid 600 million in fines for committing Medicare fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
... with barber shops. You need a permit, and to take an exam which shows you know how to avoid electrocuting your customers with the electric clippers, and how not to transmit ringworm or scabies.
Radical stuff.
In this case almost certainly not. This is not some guy in his spare bedroom emailing specs to a Chinese supplier. This is a *big* client with the resources to keep tabs on its supplier launching a high profile product that hopefully will sell bucket loads of units. You'd have to be a moron to mess with them.
I don't think there's any validity to the view that user overloading of operators is hazardous, except to the degree any language feature can be abused. I'm saying it's not something you'd put in an OO language if you wanted to appeal to people who find C appealing.
Because it's not particularly essential and so you wouldn't include it if your goal is a minimalist language like C. Which is *my* point. C++ has different design goals from C, and you have to take that into account.
No doubt some if the dislike of user operator overloading comes from ignorance of how much type promotion goes on in all high level languages, but I'm not in that camp. I recognize it's a useful feature particularly if you are dealing with algebraic fields beyond the built-in types. It can be a sound decision either to include the feature or leave it out depending on your goals. For most C++ programs I've seen you wouldn't miss it much or at all if it were missing, and so I think it's a sound choice for languages targeted at those kinds of applications.
No, not "pedantic much".
I feel it's actually the central point.
I take it irony isn't your strong suit. I'm old enough to have programmed in assembly, so yes I understand arithmetic operators in C are indeed overloaded. But there is no feature in the language for the *user* to overload operators, which of course you know.
Ms. Clinton can use her private server for anything personal anytime she wants.
Well, I don't quite agree, because at that level it's hard to segregate the personal from the professional -- indeed that's what the concern is here, that there might have been some illicit connection between her personal life (the Clinton foundation) and her work as Secretary of State.
But to be fair, since Secretary Kerry is apparently the first Secretary of State with an official email account, the same questions can be raised about Condaleeza Rice; I'll give Powell and Albright a pass because both being born in 1937 they belong to a generation where senior administrators had all their correspondence handled by "a girl".
This suggests an unquestionably fair and non-partisan solution to this controversy. Both Clinton AND Rice should turn over ALL their electronic correspondence for the years they were in office to the State Department for preservation. Any correspondence which they deem personal and private would remained permanently sealed unless there was court order opening them or until they themselves choose to open them. There would be no fishing expeditions through their private correspondence without the equivalent of a warrant.
This would not only be perfectly non-partisan, it would maintain the same or greater degree of discoverability as if they'd used official email accounts, as they both should have.
Oh, for pete's sake. Pedantic much?
Well, I think the MacWatch is a bit of a departure from their usual M.O.; for one thing they're going to be selling 20 different versions of the things, which is very un-Jobsian. Fewer, simpler choices was the way he did things. Also the super-luxury pricing is something Apple hasn't done for a long time and as far as I can recall has never done much for them. They've made their mark selling the equivalent of BMWs, not Lamborghinis.
That's a good point, but I doubt that more ports would drive greater Mac adoption. That's not the way they sell. They keep their customers on the upgrade treadmill and do very well that way. There are some people who look at a laptop and tote up the ports, but they're not Mac buyers.
Also while Mac market share may have dropped, sales of Macs have actually been pretty consistent -- the drop in units noted the article for Q3 2013 over Q3 2012 is just statistical noise. Q3 2014 was 17% higher. I think the drop in market share might have been a post-recession rebound for other vendors. Looking at Apple's sales numbers you'd never have guessed there was a recession going on in the late 00s.
Well, it's not necessarily *better*, but more ports might not be needed by Apple's customers.
If it were me, I'd study the way *my* customers used the ports and figure out how many the needed. That may be different for Mac users than PC. For example I have a nice mechanical USB keyboard and mouse, but perhaps most Mac users prefer Apple's wireless keyboard and trackpad, which are quite good.
It also makes a difference how capable and versatile the port is, and this guy appears this one is both. The truth is when I have four or five USB cables plugged into my laptop it usually is big PITA, and usually it's at home when I'm using the laptop like a workstation. But what if I just plugged my laptop into ginormous monitor that not only provided secondary ports for things like cameras and external drives, but charged the laptop through that cable as well? It's possible with this particular port, and I suspect Apple has something like that in mind.
But boy, oh, boy are Mac users who invested in thunderbolt stuff going to be ticked off. It's a good thing there's practically nothing that uses it.
Compared to C, sure. C was conceived in a spirit of pragmatic minimalism that's easy to love. I remember learning C from the K&R book back around 1980. That book was so thin it was practically a pamphlet next to books that taught you other languages. Everything about C was so neat, and trim, and cogent -- even the book everyone learned it from. That plus The Unix Programming Environment and perhaps Software Tools and you were cooking with gas.
It's natural to compare C++ to C; the very name encourages you to do so. It was to conceived to dovetail and build upon C. But it was conceived with an almost diametrically opposite kind of philosophy. C chucked out all the precious features that designers were putting into languages in the late 60s and early 70s and went with a tiny set of proven useful features. C++ implemented every bell and whistle anyone had ever dreamed up for object oriented programming, which was largely an academic topic that was full of clever but impractical notions. Well, it turned out that a lot of those things like operator overloading and multiple inheritance weren't all that useful in the judgment of later language designers, but you can hardly blame Bjarne Stroustrup from knowing that in advance.
It's practically impossible to overstate the practical success of C++. It took what was for most practicioners a theoretical idea (object oriented programming) and made it the way everyone programs by default. But you can't expect someone who loves C to love C++, which has almost none of the virtues that people admire in C.
My point is this: how do we *know* the odds against a perfect false match are as high as we think they are?
I know the way people do these calculations, which is they take p(x1) * p(x2) *... p(xn) as the probability. But note that the validity of this calculation is dependent upon the assumption that the events x1, x2 ... xn are all independent of each other, which if you think about what DNA is is bound not to be true. So I guess you choose x1 ... xn so that they are independent-ish -- that is to say they are correlated to only a negligible degree.
But how do you know that? Well, you look through some existing databases that is representative enough of the population at large to choose which points of comparison to use.
But how do you know that database is sufficiently representative?
The problem is, you don't. It's just an unfounded assumption.
I have no doubt that you'd have sufficient Bayesian basis for a high degree of belief in a match once you've narrowed your pool of suspects to a group of otherwise likely suspects. But I'm not nearly so confident in a so-called "perfect match" (which is really misleading terminology by the way) when the pool of suspects is *everybody*.
Developing habits is arguably the most important form of education there is.
It's not just about eating your veggies and going to the gym; habits intrude on things which we normally think of as the domain of rational thought. If you hear somebody who disagrees with you do you rationally weigh his arguments or automatically dismiss them? What determines which of these alternatives you choose is habit.
Well, this is one of those questions that has a few big fat "depends" attached to the answer.
If they were just going to throw away that information, I unqualifiedly agree with you. No reasonable person would refuse to give their DNA if it would be thrown away as soon as it had exonerated them.
But what if they intend to *keep* that information and use it to match against future crimes? Then a reasonable person might well pause. One obvious uncertainty is what future versions of the government considers a "crime". Even if I have total trust in the "deep state" under President Obama, I should recognize others might reasonably feel differently, and nobody should feel such a level of trust for future administrations yet to be determined.
Possibly a more serious issue is our assumptions about the perfection of matching DNA samples against vast archives of DNA data. The FBI likes to claim literally astronomical chances like "113 billion to 1" against a false positive DNA match, but they're not exactly disinterested. Furthermore such figures are based on long strings of untested assumptions about things being statistically independent of each other. While it's manifestly clear that false matches are unlikely, we cannot really know whether they are sufficiently likely to treat as positive proof when we're talking about matching against potentially millions of samples.
So while it's quite reasonable not to be worried about what happens with your biometric data today, it's maybe not so reasonable to be so casual about having it retained and aggregated for decades to come. Keeping data without really testing it's future utility (or even disutility) is something bureaucracies do by habit and instinct, and people with the skepticism and mathematical knowledge to be entrusted with such a decision are few and far between.
You're joking, but people would be shocked how much time politicians spend begging for money. A typical congressman spends more time on an average day raising money than he does on legislative business. And if he's successful at fundraising, his reward is to be forced to spend more time raising money for his less successful colleagues. It's actually kind of a big deal.
The first thing I did when I saw the discrepancies is look for a test date listed on the page, and here it was: ue Mar 10 09:50:02 PDT 2015 .
So this "B" score was earned literally minutes ago. People who are seeing an "F" are probably seeing cached data.
Well, the Iridium constellation was built using a manufacturing technique that dropped the cost per satellite down to $5 million apiece. With 20 years of advancement in automation and technology, it should be possible to build a comparable satellite for much less, especially if you amortize the development costs over more units. And it probably really helps to have your own launch company that will become more competitive on a per launch basis with more guaranteed launches on its schedule.
There's a certain kind of entrepreneur who sees possibility as a matter of willpower -- people who think they can will any desired reality into being with enough money and shouting. I don't think Musk is one of those. I think he's one of those that turns his ideas into a big model and figures out when he can do them. Yeah, I know, Hyperloop, but so far he's just throwing billionaire pocket change at that.
It's manifestly not true that nobody would pay for global Internet access if it had latency, even up to geosynchronous orbit. Most Internet applications are *throughput* sensitive, not *latency*. If it's good enough for television, it'd be good enough for Netflix if you could pay for the bandwidth.
You know what *is* latency sensitive? Telephony. And certain brands of satellite telephone services have employed geostationary (i.e. very high orbit) satellites for years. Yes there's some delay, but it's tolerable. Round trip to geostationary orbit is just a tad longer than 1/4 second.
IIRC SpaceX's satellites are planned to be 1100 km up. Since "Low Earth Orbit" is from 160 to 2000 km, that'd put those satellites pretty close to smack dab in the middle of LEO.
Well bears and sharks have a more sensitive sense of smell than dogs, but I expect patients will have a problem with their bedside manner.
You want Kafka, not Orwell.
The problem with what he's suggesting isn't the cameras; it's the development of the biometric database based on any kind of casual contact with the police. The reason that's a problem is that we really don't know how unique our biometric id is.
Take fingerprints. Folk science claims that everyone's fingerprint is unique; in fact we use the word "fingerprint" for cryptographic hashes of data which are vanishingly unlikely to be duplicated. And using traditional police methods, we can for practical purposes act as if they are. But if you start amassing a vast collection of fingerprints of people you have nothing particular in common (as we did after 9/11), it turns out that some people do in fact share fingerprints with identical characteristics. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, an attorney named Brandon Mayfield was identified as a suspect because his fingerprint was a close match one found a bag of detonators at the crime scene. That, and the fact that he was a Muslim convert, was enough for the FBI to be confident enough to arrest him, and leak his name and the potential charges against him to the media. It turns out that one of Mayfield's fingerprints was nearly identical to that of a known terrorist Algerian. The ability to match some biometric to a sufficiently large database greatly increases the probability of a false positive match.
In the ordinary course of investigation there's a kind of implicit Bayesian process which gives us greater confidence in a fingerprint match than a fingerprint dragnet of everyone in the world would. We check the fingerprint of suspects who we have other reasons to think are involved in a crime, or who have in the past been arrested and convicted of a crime. This narrows down the pool of potential matchees from "everyone in the world" to "people who we have some shred of reason to think might be involved", and that's a much smaller pool.
So what are the chances that there are people walking around out there with the same facial recognition biometric id as you? Very likely higher than casual testing would suggest. And what if the system tags you as a match? Does that prejudice the rest of your chances with the justice system?
It's even possible that there are people out there who look enough like you to fool a family member. My brother once saw a man in a Philly restaurant who was a dead ringer for our father, who'd died surrounded by his family ten years earlier. It was creepy.
Rather, he seems to be suggesting a system which records data to flash and which can then be uploaded to the police database in the event of a break-in.
The civil liberties issues in such systems is somewhat different than the classic Orwellian scenario people are assuming. What are your expectations of privacy when you are visiting someone else's home? Is he obligated to tell you about his cameras?
We don't necessarily know as much about the young men who did this as we might think, though.
Let me tell you a story that illustrates what I mean. On a recent trip to NYC, I was people-watching on the subway when I noticed something interesting. When women were traveling with with their women friends, their faces express a kind of delight in each others company. When you notice it, it's something quite striking and beautiful. So I started to look at the men to see if they ever did the same thing. Most of the time when you see a guy talking to a friend you can't tell whether he's helping his buddy through a breakup or suggesting how to fix a problem with his wi-fi. But after searching all day for that same spark of delight I finally found it, on the faces of two drunk Australian college students who were throwing snowballs at the windows of the NYC detention facility (i.e. jail) downtown.
The lesson: in our culture men bond often by making asses of themselves.
Which doesn't mean these frat boys weren't creating a hostile racist atmosphere. It's true boys will be boys, but the flip side of that is they won't start acting like men until someone makes them face the consequences of acting like a brat.
I don't think you know what "DRM" means.
Now I so happen to know some people who worked in environmental related fields for Florida under Jeb Bush, and the word is that he's not bad to work with one-on-one, out of the media spotlight.
This policy is under the administration of Rick Scott, a man whose election makes you look at the Florida electorate and scratch your head. This is a guy whose credentials as a successful businessman include bailing out with a ten million dollar golden parachute before his company paid 600 million in fines for committing Medicare fraud.
Well, you have a point if a law needs to prevent bad things from happing, but by that standard murder laws don't work.
Outlawing flight over certain places won't stop some people from doing it, but prosecuting the ones you catch will discourage some of them.
And it's not like this is 1995; periodically connecting to the Internet to download a dataset isn't exactly a hardship.