Her party nomination will survive an indictment. Running a solidly establishment candidate under criminal investigation is preferable to the establishment over running Sanders and most partisan Democrat voters will vote for her (especially over Trump) to keep her position safe. If the investigation makes any progress, she'll be pardoned before she's found guilty of anything.
The only risk is that Sanders runs as an independent and spoils her vote, but I'm sure that there are mechanisms in place to mitigate the damage in that case.
They wouldn't and he's just trolling. Black-on-black violence isn't the fault of white people not thanking black baristas, even if that actually happened in reality.
This is just the typical "white guilt" viewpoint: everything is the fault of the all-powerful whitey. If you buy your froofy coffee drink in the wrong way, minority murder rates will start rising, because those poor savages don't have any self-determination of their own.
the shock for the disadvantaged kids is that what they thought was high performing is actually closer to just barely average
That's what he is saying and every single person there is experiencing the same thing. Every person present was extremely highly performing in their high school class and are now distributed around the new (much higher) average. The level of performance didn't really change much, but the average is now based on the subset of very high performers. The only difference is their ranking relative to their peers.
In fact, if the disadvantaged students are finding themselves at the 75th percentile of all highly performing students, then their "disadvantage" was really more of an advantage. They're significantly outperforming most of their "advantaged" peers.
Yeah, I just went with 'crook' because he explicitly claimed that he wasn't one. He wasn't that bad of a president, but he was a real dirtbag of a person.
It's funny that you bring up Nixon, because though he's renown for being a crook, his policies weren't bad. He ended US involvement in Vietnam and stopped the draft. He established the Environmental Protection Agency and forced racial desegregation. He continued NASA funding and saw the Apollo 11 landing. He reestablished diplomatic relations with China and the USSR and signed the anti ballistic missile treaty. Overall, his policy wasn't bad or unpopular, though his popularity dropped tremendously after an oil embargo and soaring gas prices and rationing and then the Watergate scandal.
He wasn't a bad president, but he was a crook. We know that Clinton is a crook, but what if she's a bad president, too? We don't have any evidence to suggest that she'd be a good president. This isn't an endorsement of Trump (at all!), mind you. I'm just fascinated by the bizarre love for Clinton outside of the US.
(Also, I know that you Europeans loath Bush II and adore Obama, but in what ways are they substantially different? Policy-wise, especially as regards to foreign policy, they are both atrocious and leagues behind Nixon's détente and general anti-hawkishness. Further, even though they are so similar in policy, Clinton seems much more like Bush II than Obama.)
Do you really believe that if Google accepts your money in exchange for not tracking you, that it will violate that contract?
No, which is why I specifically stated that you'd be naïve to assume that you'd not be tracked if the terms of use allowed in any way for you being tracked.
I'm not invited to tea with the Google leadership as you appear to be, so my impressions are colored more by their actions, public statements, and financial filings than their personal convictions, at odds as those may be with all of the available evidence. You can probably rest assured that they've made note of your loyalty, though.
True, but it's a matter of "leaving money on the table" (from the company's perspective) and trust (from the users'). In the absence of an airtight, unqualified (eg, no "to improve user experience" type language), and legally binding statement that users will not be tracked, it's naïve to assume that any situation that makes it easy to track users will not be used to track users. I know that you have a strong allegiance to Google, but this applies doubly in their case since user profiling is such a core part of the business model.
Seriously? Thank you Waze for encouraging people to look at the map when they're moving instead of being able to study it when they are stopped. Advertising is a cancer on our society.
It may say "fewer" because not all ads are served by Google and they can't promise that you'll see no ads. It works like an ad blocker except that you must be logged into Google and tracked in order for it to work. That's way too intrusive for my tastes, even if I had logged into Google in the last few years.
The quality of the good is ultimately going to be determined by the precision of the robot; meaning how well maintained is that machine (bearing, sensors, hydraulics etc).
So the competitive advantage is going to go to the countries who are investing in training (essentially) mechanics. I don't think drag'n'drop programmers (see another/. story) are going to cut it in that world...
The quality of the good is going to be determined by the quality of the input materials, the programmed tolerances, and the rigor of QC... just like it is now.
In a world where enough people cared about quality to let it affect their purchasing choices, your prediction may be true. In this world, where "cheap" is the only consideration, all of those parameters will be meticulously set by how cost effective (shoddy) a product can be and still be sold for an acceptable profit. The competitive advantage goes to whoever can operate at the lowest cost and cut the most corners.
Corporations are just a tool to abstract away the financial and ethical liabilities of the owners and operators. "Corporations" don't actually do anything at all, including paying the cleaning staff well or poorly, because they are legal and not corporeal entities. A human, or several humans, ultimately decided what to pay the cleaning staff, even if they laundered the responsibility for that decision through the corporation.
It's the humans that are making decisions on behalf of the corporation that do or don't have decency, even if they try to hide behind the corporate veil.
And that is before even getting to the stories of OLED burn in.
Using OLED really is short-sighted here. OLED, with its burn-in issues, is the absolute worst display tech to use for key and their mostly static images. Backlit e-ink would be a far better choice, unless they're going for full-color, constantly moving key faces (cringe).
That's not the case. Opportunistic encryption has value, even if the holder of the key is unverified. Even an encrypted communications channel that is being actively attacked by a man-in-the-middle is protected from other eavesdroppers. The value is much greater if the two are combined, but encryption without authentication does have some value, depending on the nature of the communication being encrypted.
For example, TLS in SMTP (as implemented in most MTAs) does not require the presented certificate to be traceable back to a CA in a root store for the connection to proceed and there is no memory of the certificate across connections. This does nothing to prevent a MitM attack, but excludes passive eavesdroppers from intercepting the communication and raises the level of effort (and control over the network) needed to intercept communications.
Cargo fires grow unnoticed until they consume the plane.
That seems like a big problem that we already have the technology to address. Have there been efforts to increase the density of smoke alarms in the cargo hold or even add alternative methods of fire detection since then? Even a net of temperature sensors distributed throughout the hold would allow the detection of smoldering fires before they consumed the plane!
I wish at least one of the candidates had a slogan besides: "My friends and I aren't yet wealthy enough; let's all (of the rest of you) pitch in and do something about that!"
It says, "delete", but it's functionally a backspace key in that it strikes back instead of forward. It even emits the same code when pressed as a PC backspace key.
And it's right in line with what the parent said: "It's the Applesque "We know whats best" design methodology. And it sucks."
You're conflating encryption and authentication. They're very useful together, but they both serve unique roles and each has value outside of their use together.
How does that solve anything that is bitched about in the summary? The app has access to any data before and after it's encrypted, so enabling "end-to-end encryption" doesn't actually hide anything from Google. They control both of the ends! Further, the app is closed source, so you have no way to know what is or is not harvested.
If you don't care if Google spies on you, then use Google services and products. If you do care, don't use them. The encryption in the this story is a red herring.
This is one of the things that is being skipped over in the rush to legalize pot
This isn't being skipped over at all. Here in Colorado there are a huge number of researchers and startups working on tests. The reason why there's just now active research into tests is that federal law effectively prohibited conducting any research prior to legalization, especially if human subjects were involved.
There's even THC metabolite detection research going on at federal labs here, though the whole process needs to be laundered through university and companies to keep the feds happy.
The Beaglebones also weren't designed to meet an extremely low price point and it shows. I've used dozens of them as little network connected devices, and they are remarkably capable and stable.
...car owners will have their cars picking up and delivering people or goods to their destinations. You paid good money for that vehicle, why not have it earn some income for you while you're not using it?
If many or most other car owners are doing this, the money you get from renting your car out will likely be just a little more than it costs to operate the car. Your personal car will also have turned into a filthy cab, with countless strangers circulating through it adding wear to the upholstery and leaving their icky residue behind. It will, of course, be your job to clean up after these passengers, or you'll have to continually pay some other service to do a suboptimal job of cleaning it.
I wouldn't take $20 in exchange for having to clean up the soda that one passenger spilled all over the seats or ride home from dinner in a car that the previous passenger had just changed their baby's diaper in.
"Privacy" is not a binary attribute and there are legally established reasonable expectations of privacy, even in public places (see the other story about FBI microphones overhearing private conversations at bus stops). It's not stupid to expect that your university email is private from unreasonable snooping by third parties and for purposes unrelated to to specific university policies. Just as talking about personal matters while you're walking in a park isn't stupid because spies with shotgun mikes could be hiding in the trees listening to you.
The keyword in this conversation is "reasonable", which advertising companies stretch well beyond sanity with respect to privacy. It's not reasonable to expect that going to school at UC Berkeley means that Google gets unfettered access to all of your university email.
I don't know what the fuck the cops are spending their time on, but it certainly isn't traffic law enforcement.
They're sitting on the side of the road staring at the radar/lidar gun display (or waiting for it to beep).
I mentioned this upthread, but in the places that I've lived, at least 98% of all moving violations ticketed were for speeding. Almost nothing else is ever enforced at all, even though improper lane changes and failure to yield right of way are responsible for most collisions and fatalities.
The police themselves tailgate, change lanes without signaling, fail to come to complete stops at signs, so it's no surprise that they don't pull other people over for doing these things in front of them. Speeding is easy to detect, relatively difficult to contest in court, and carries high fines so that's all they look for. The incentives just aren't set up to encourage police to work toward creating a safe driving environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Her party nomination will survive an indictment. Running a solidly establishment candidate under criminal investigation is preferable to the establishment over running Sanders and most partisan Democrat voters will vote for her (especially over Trump) to keep her position safe. If the investigation makes any progress, she'll be pardoned before she's found guilty of anything.
The only risk is that Sanders runs as an independent and spoils her vote, but I'm sure that there are mechanisms in place to mitigate the damage in that case.
They wouldn't and he's just trolling. Black-on-black violence isn't the fault of white people not thanking black baristas, even if that actually happened in reality.
This is just the typical "white guilt" viewpoint: everything is the fault of the all-powerful whitey. If you buy your froofy coffee drink in the wrong way, minority murder rates will start rising, because those poor savages don't have any self-determination of their own.
the shock for the disadvantaged kids is that what they thought was high performing is actually closer to just barely average
That's what he is saying and every single person there is experiencing the same thing. Every person present was extremely highly performing in their high school class and are now distributed around the new (much higher) average. The level of performance didn't really change much, but the average is now based on the subset of very high performers. The only difference is their ranking relative to their peers.
In fact, if the disadvantaged students are finding themselves at the 75th percentile of all highly performing students, then their "disadvantage" was really more of an advantage. They're significantly outperforming most of their "advantaged" peers.
Yeah, I just went with 'crook' because he explicitly claimed that he wasn't one. He wasn't that bad of a president, but he was a real dirtbag of a person.
It's funny that you bring up Nixon, because though he's renown for being a crook, his policies weren't bad. He ended US involvement in Vietnam and stopped the draft. He established the Environmental Protection Agency and forced racial desegregation. He continued NASA funding and saw the Apollo 11 landing. He reestablished diplomatic relations with China and the USSR and signed the anti ballistic missile treaty. Overall, his policy wasn't bad or unpopular, though his popularity dropped tremendously after an oil embargo and soaring gas prices and rationing and then the Watergate scandal.
He wasn't a bad president, but he was a crook. We know that Clinton is a crook, but what if she's a bad president, too? We don't have any evidence to suggest that she'd be a good president. This isn't an endorsement of Trump (at all!), mind you. I'm just fascinated by the bizarre love for Clinton outside of the US.
(Also, I know that you Europeans loath Bush II and adore Obama, but in what ways are they substantially different? Policy-wise, especially as regards to foreign policy, they are both atrocious and leagues behind Nixon's détente and general anti-hawkishness. Further, even though they are so similar in policy, Clinton seems much more like Bush II than Obama.)
Do you really believe that if Google accepts your money in exchange for not tracking you, that it will violate that contract?
No, which is why I specifically stated that you'd be naïve to assume that you'd not be tracked if the terms of use allowed in any way for you being tracked.
I'm not invited to tea with the Google leadership as you appear to be, so my impressions are colored more by their actions, public statements, and financial filings than their personal convictions, at odds as those may be with all of the available evidence. You can probably rest assured that they've made note of your loyalty, though.
True, but it's a matter of "leaving money on the table" (from the company's perspective) and trust (from the users'). In the absence of an airtight, unqualified (eg, no "to improve user experience" type language), and legally binding statement that users will not be tracked, it's naïve to assume that any situation that makes it easy to track users will not be used to track users. I know that you have a strong allegiance to Google, but this applies doubly in their case since user profiling is such a core part of the business model.
Seriously? Thank you Waze for encouraging people to look at the map when they're moving instead of being able to study it when they are stopped. Advertising is a cancer on our society.
It may say "fewer" because not all ads are served by Google and they can't promise that you'll see no ads. It works like an ad blocker except that you must be logged into Google and tracked in order for it to work. That's way too intrusive for my tastes, even if I had logged into Google in the last few years.
The quality of the good is ultimately going to be determined by the precision of the robot; meaning how well maintained is that machine (bearing, sensors, hydraulics etc).
So the competitive advantage is going to go to the countries who are investing in training (essentially) mechanics. I don't think drag'n'drop programmers (see another /. story) are going to cut it in that world...
The quality of the good is going to be determined by the quality of the input materials, the programmed tolerances, and the rigor of QC... just like it is now.
In a world where enough people cared about quality to let it affect their purchasing choices, your prediction may be true. In this world, where "cheap" is the only consideration, all of those parameters will be meticulously set by how cost effective (shoddy) a product can be and still be sold for an acceptable profit. The competitive advantage goes to whoever can operate at the lowest cost and cut the most corners.
Corporations are just a tool to abstract away the financial and ethical liabilities of the owners and operators. "Corporations" don't actually do anything at all, including paying the cleaning staff well or poorly, because they are legal and not corporeal entities. A human, or several humans, ultimately decided what to pay the cleaning staff, even if they laundered the responsibility for that decision through the corporation.
It's the humans that are making decisions on behalf of the corporation that do or don't have decency, even if they try to hide behind the corporate veil.
Try working in a organoselenium chemistry lab. That smell permeates you and make your friends wish you were only a pig farmer.
Or a biochem lab when somebody (inevitably) spills a bottle of beta-mercaptoethanol. That'll clear out a building.
Chemistry's fun that way: there are so many foul smells to experience and each one is truly unique, like a putrid snowflake!
And that is before even getting to the stories of OLED burn in.
Using OLED really is short-sighted here. OLED, with its burn-in issues, is the absolute worst display tech to use for key and their mostly static images. Backlit e-ink would be a far better choice, unless they're going for full-color, constantly moving key faces (cringe).
That's not the case. Opportunistic encryption has value, even if the holder of the key is unverified. Even an encrypted communications channel that is being actively attacked by a man-in-the-middle is protected from other eavesdroppers. The value is much greater if the two are combined, but encryption without authentication does have some value, depending on the nature of the communication being encrypted.
For example, TLS in SMTP (as implemented in most MTAs) does not require the presented certificate to be traceable back to a CA in a root store for the connection to proceed and there is no memory of the certificate across connections. This does nothing to prevent a MitM attack, but excludes passive eavesdroppers from intercepting the communication and raises the level of effort (and control over the network) needed to intercept communications.
Cargo fires grow unnoticed until they consume the plane.
That seems like a big problem that we already have the technology to address. Have there been efforts to increase the density of smoke alarms in the cargo hold or even add alternative methods of fire detection since then? Even a net of temperature sensors distributed throughout the hold would allow the detection of smoldering fires before they consumed the plane!
I wish at least one of the candidates had a slogan besides: "My friends and I aren't yet wealthy enough; let's all (of the rest of you) pitch in and do something about that!"
You keep your car for longer than six months, like some sort of peasant?
It says, "delete", but it's functionally a backspace key in that it strikes back instead of forward. It even emits the same code when pressed as a PC backspace key.
And it's right in line with what the parent said: "It's the Applesque "We know whats best" design methodology. And it sucks."
You're conflating encryption and authentication. They're very useful together, but they both serve unique roles and each has value outside of their use together.
How does that solve anything that is bitched about in the summary? The app has access to any data before and after it's encrypted, so enabling "end-to-end encryption" doesn't actually hide anything from Google. They control both of the ends! Further, the app is closed source, so you have no way to know what is or is not harvested.
If you don't care if Google spies on you, then use Google services and products. If you do care, don't use them. The encryption in the this story is a red herring.
This is one of the things that is being skipped over in the rush to legalize pot
This isn't being skipped over at all. Here in Colorado there are a huge number of researchers and startups working on tests. The reason why there's just now active research into tests is that federal law effectively prohibited conducting any research prior to legalization, especially if human subjects were involved.
There's even THC metabolite detection research going on at federal labs here, though the whole process needs to be laundered through university and companies to keep the feds happy.
The Beaglebones also weren't designed to meet an extremely low price point and it shows. I've used dozens of them as little network connected devices, and they are remarkably capable and stable.
...car owners will have their cars picking up and delivering people or goods to their destinations. You paid good money for that vehicle, why not have it earn some income for you while you're not using it?
If many or most other car owners are doing this, the money you get from renting your car out will likely be just a little more than it costs to operate the car. Your personal car will also have turned into a filthy cab, with countless strangers circulating through it adding wear to the upholstery and leaving their icky residue behind. It will, of course, be your job to clean up after these passengers, or you'll have to continually pay some other service to do a suboptimal job of cleaning it.
I wouldn't take $20 in exchange for having to clean up the soda that one passenger spilled all over the seats or ride home from dinner in a car that the previous passenger had just changed their baby's diaper in.
"Privacy" is not a binary attribute and there are legally established reasonable expectations of privacy, even in public places (see the other story about FBI microphones overhearing private conversations at bus stops). It's not stupid to expect that your university email is private from unreasonable snooping by third parties and for purposes unrelated to to specific university policies. Just as talking about personal matters while you're walking in a park isn't stupid because spies with shotgun mikes could be hiding in the trees listening to you.
The keyword in this conversation is "reasonable", which advertising companies stretch well beyond sanity with respect to privacy. It's not reasonable to expect that going to school at UC Berkeley means that Google gets unfettered access to all of your university email.
I don't know what the fuck the cops are spending their time on, but it certainly isn't traffic law enforcement.
They're sitting on the side of the road staring at the radar/lidar gun display (or waiting for it to beep).
I mentioned this upthread, but in the places that I've lived, at least 98% of all moving violations ticketed were for speeding. Almost nothing else is ever enforced at all, even though improper lane changes and failure to yield right of way are responsible for most collisions and fatalities.
The police themselves tailgate, change lanes without signaling, fail to come to complete stops at signs, so it's no surprise that they don't pull other people over for doing these things in front of them. Speeding is easy to detect, relatively difficult to contest in court, and carries high fines so that's all they look for. The incentives just aren't set up to encourage police to work toward creating a safe driving environment.