You can control any number of accounts in your wallet, and move money between them. So no one can tell what addresses are in your wallet and who (person) controls however many bitcoins. Two people having 10 btc might divide it up differently - 1 person has all 10btc in one address, the other has 10 addresses all with one. You don't know who controls what. The only way to find out is to get enough wallets with enough addresses in them that you can start identifying people for past transactions, but you can always invent a new address so you can't ever "watch" anyone.
But your honor, it couldn't possibly have been MY client who purchased those drugs. As you can see here, he clearly transferred $160 from his account <dude@hendrixfans.net> to some nefarious third party <cantcatchme@mailinator.com>, who by COMPLETE COINCIDENCE purchased $160 worth of drugs from about 30 seconds later. We have NO IDEA who this mysterious cantcatchme is, other than being a beneficent of my client's quirky tendency to email unsolicited funds to random strangers just to brighten their day.
Why NO, I don't think it's the LEAST bit suspicious that this is the 23rd week in a row that this exact sequence of transactions has occurred between these exact same participants. What can I say? My client is a generous man. Like the other day when he spontaneously sent $200 to <bogusacct@mailinator.com>. Perhaps foolishly generous, as Mr. bogusacct promptly sent that money to <cashier@pokerboss.net>, but can one convict a man for carrying virtue to excess? I say no!
Stop trying to explicitely criminalize individual behaviours. Doesn't work. Distracted driving is distracted driving. How is texting different from arguing with your passenger or yelling at your kids in the back, or any number of other things people regularly do that do not involve cell phones or texting? All are equally dangerous to texting, and perfectly legal.
Stop trying to criminalize things you don't like with broad, subjective laws. Reasonable people have very different views on what constitutes "distracted driving" and no consistent interpretation will emerge until legal precedents get established (after the innocent and only-slightly-guilty have suffered). This creates more stress for everyone--citizens, judges, and law enforcement alike. It's much better to set clear expectations up front by passing objective laws that target specific behaviors. Sure, you might need some catch-all laws for the most egregious of offenses that you cannot predict (like the JATO rocket car myth, had it been real), but prosecution under such statutes should be limited in occurrence and any ambiguity/subjectiveness generally interpreted to favor the defendent (a concept called Contra proferentem in contract law).
As a general principle, ambiguous legislation is worse than kneejerk legislation.
Causing an accident while texting is punitively punished, but causing an accident because your girlfriend was giving you shit is just something unfortunate that could have happened to anyone.
You have much more control over whether to text or not then you do over your girlfriend.
I'm starting to think that street view is really starting to mess with tourism.
There's a HUGE chunk of the internet-connected world that can't afford to travel, and there's another large chunk of people who can maybe afford some travel but don't normally think of it. Something like Street View might give them a taste or awaken them to opportunities they never considered. Which could ultimately increase tourism. While we're speculating, let's ask what Street View might mean to some economically disadvantaged kid growing up in an ideological monoculture, eh? That might be their first real opportunity to sense just how large this world of ours is...
What I know is, it's definitely an awesome tool for travel planning. I've used it to find obscure turnoffs, determine how close hotels are to pedestrian districts, and to "practice" driving on the wrong side of the road. Sometimes Google Maps isn't enough to really give you sense of where the action is, and Street View helps compensate for that.
(Unrelated gripe: it would be nice if the arrow overlays could be used to "drive" down a road, but most of the time it's impractical because each click moves you a very short distance--like 20 feet or so.)
Your US and local Gubmint wrote, rewrote and and continues to rewrite rules to keep themselves funded and local monopolies de jure.
Pleas stop blaming the (now thousands of) companies because you keep electing leeches.
One second, I'm checking.... checking... checking.... DING! Okay, yeah, I did some quick checking and according to my moral reasoning, it's still wrong for companies to corrupt (or attempt to corrupt) government officials. And since those bribes... er... "contributions" help incumbents get disproportionate air time, it's sort of hard for an electorate (that has soooooo many other issues of political salience) to self-correct these things. If you've got an idea, I'm all for trying it, but don't go around excusing the originators of the problem.
(On a positive note, I understand that foreign anti-corruption laws in the US and Europe have helped curtail third-world corruption that was happening in conjunction with first-world countries.)
By, "evaluating a source," I believe you mean associating it with your judgment of past performance with regard to the reasonableness, reliability or like-mindedness. It's a crutch one uses in everyday life in order to shortcut the need to evaluate each idea on its own merits.
Yes, reputation and past impressions are part of source evaluation. And it's also valuable to assess background, qualifications, references, economic motivations, ideology/worldview, and probably other factors as well.
I'm not sure why you would believe this aids you in a search for truth. At face value it would seem to be a better method for reinforcing a belief system than searching for a better understanding of anything.
Yes, there's a big danger in trusting authority, and the self-reinforcing belief system trap is one of them.
But remember that your own thinking is a sort of authority, and it's the one you probably have to be most suspicious of.
The best counterbalance is to listen to a wide variety of viewpoints and sources.
Also realize that you rely on knowledge from others a whole lot more than you think. You rely on doctors, mechanics, builders, coworkers, signage, websites, clerks, etc., all the time. You may sometimes get second (or third or fourth) opinions, do your own research/fact-checking, independently calculate your bill, and bounce things against your own internal models of the world, but in the majority of situations you are still putting authority first and real-world experimentation last. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying that it's a necessary thing. We can't all wake up and crunch our own weather forecast; we pretty much just trust experts in the field. We can't all personally verify the structural stability of all the buildings we need to enter: we've put our trust in the builder and the code enforcement people. None of us try to measure our car's remaining gasoline: we trust the gauge until we have a reason not to.
I suggest it's sort of intellectually dishonest if you evaluate a posting in a certain way based on who posted it rather than what was posted.
Ideas should be evaluated based on their content rather than their source.
Learning to evaluate ideas directly, without being influenced by one's preconceptions about their source, is a skill that we should all learn and value.
However, it is also valuable to evaluate sources and their presentation of ideas over time, because some sources are more accurate/insightful/relevant to particular knowledge domains than others. And that's important because we evaluate (or should be evaluating) many, many ideas continuously. Authority is not the ultimate source of truth, but it can be a shortcut to it.
A source also has a reputation to defend, and this encourages (some of them) to be more careful about what they say. I suggest that this why you discount AC postings... no reputation is at stake.
Unfortunately, some people are shockingly poor at source evaluation. They'll forward anonymously written emails that are thinly disguised political agit-prop, then turn sour when you send them a link to snopes ("that's not a reliable source").
I fear you're making a thinly veiled racist statement about blacks and hispanics, or a classist statement about poor people. Crime doesn't fit any subculture; every culture has honest people, peaceful people, thieves and murderers.
Every culture has honest people, peaceful people, thieves and murderers. But not in the same proportions. Life expectancy and quality-of-life metrics look much better for U.S. Asian women than it does for inner city Black males. You can use this to be an asshole and make racist arguments (or classist ones, or religious ones, etc.). However, you can also use this to increase your own life expectancy by avoiding certain parts of town at certain parts of the day. I think that's what rubycodez was primarily saying, but there is an unfortunate undertone that "there are two Americas and only one of them matters".
You often find that the very worst textbooks are required by the teacher that wrote them.
Oh, definitely.
On the flipside, the best teachers tend to be those who have written their own textbook. (And the all-time-best teacher I had gave his PDF's away for free.)
Freedom of information request denied, and I'll paraphrase here, "because he was just doing his job." The argument didn't stand at Nuremberg, and I hope it won't stand today.
Right or wrong, I'm sure the court had a real reason for upholding the denial, undoubtedly expressed in voluminous PDF somewhere. Anyone care to locate it?
IANAL, but I suspect that the request was denied using Exemption 5's Deliberative Process Privelege; however, that may only apply to policy formations.
Basically it's for when your so paranoid that you fear even your cloud service app provider.
Maybe. The W3C draft lists "Cloud Storage" as one of its use cases, but remember that the app provider is also delivering the JavaScript that runs the decryption and loads up the DOM, so it could intercept the plaintext or decryption key if it wished. It doesn't protect against a malicious cloud service app provider, but it does make it easier for them to secure against data breeches (if their backups were stolen, for instance) and/or rely on 3rd party storage providers.
This has really interesting implications for online privacy, but the more practical/mundane benefits will be in reducing server CPU and making backend storage more secure.
Two separate clipboards makes for a confusing UI. Not that it isn't handy once you learn to exploit it, but... from a polish standpoint: ugh.
FWIW, Windows users might want to try ditto... I think it's called dittocp on sourceforge. It remembers the last few hundred things you copied to the clipboard, lets you text-search it, save/group snippets for future use, and paste any of it quickly. It takes a little bit of learning, but it's incredibly handy for coding and writing sql.
Oh, and forgot to mention the most obvious thing... natural gas is cheap due to all the frakking. That makes it economical to run your traditional peaking units (combined cycles, combustion turbines, etc.) more often, especially with the EPA putting the hurt on coal. Still not 24/7 though.
I'm all for civil disobedience and the destruction of these cameras, but that's not an excuse to break out the ol' RPG.
What would be the optimal solution is actual mass protests
Or, you know, maybe organizing, petitioning, speaking out, and simple voting? If you can get a mass protest, great, but it's unlikely for an issue like this.
And, while civil disobedience has its place, it pretty much has to be an act of conscience over something notable--such as when civil rights leaders protested the systemic marginalization of Blacks and (before that) feminist protested the suppression of birth control (yes, some were thrown in jail for **talking about** birth control) and (before that) when Thoreau chose jail instead of supporting a war to spread slavery and (before that) when some colonist protested their treatment at the hands of King George for the reasons listed here. I don't think traffic tickets fall into quite the same category.
A joke isn't real. You can always tell comedy that tries to have a PC message, because it tends not to be funny. The best thing to do if you belong to of a group that is the butt of a joke is to just ignore it.
It's not the realness of the joke that matters, but the realness of the discrimination/harassment/marginalization. People respect astronauts, feel sorrow for 9/11 victims, and generally think Australians are cool. AFAIK, the Irish (whom I sure had the sheep joke before you) don't feel they are being judged/threatened/stalked day-to-day for being overtly alcoholic and rural... but try making some sort of joke that suggests they ought to be an English province and I'll bet you get a very strong reaction.
Look... I'm a fan of shock humor and make grossly inappropriate jokes myself. But you *always* have to consider audience and context if you don't want to come off as an ass.
Due process was followed. He breached his contract, and was punished for it. Due process followed.
But the same thing that makes it impossible for them to go after The Real Offender (TM) also makes it too hard for the contract signer to meaningfully police his own internet connection, unless French law expects one to be a real a** to their family/friends/flatmates for the sake of a pre-internet industry.
We massively overbuilt in the 1950s and 1960s to the extent that we have been able to live off this and a bunch of relatively small "peaker" plants that were designed to run for a few hours a day - they are now running 24x7.
Methinks you are being somewhat alarmist. Yes, there are a lot regulatory hoops to jump thru, but I don't see peaking units being run 24x7. And modern American business practices is to squeeze the margins on an over-engineered resource instead of preserving the buffer... we've seen this with other things too (for instance, nuke plants getting up-rated based on closer analysis of their potential operating limits). Lastly, don't forget that we have wholesale market that didn't really exist before the mid-90's: each part of the country doesn't have to be nearly as self-reliant as it once did because there's a huge grid to draw on.
And any number of philosopher types added an even more important law: "A robot shall know it is a robot." After all, if a robot thinks it's human, the 3 (or4) laws don't apply in the first place.
I can't imagine a qr code being able to stack overflow anything, there aren't enough bits.
Sure about that? 40-L gives you almost 3000 bytes.
I agree with ledow that it's a bogus concern, but only if the banks (or the banks' equipment makers) hire competent programmers. (Which is not the case too often, sadly.)
"Deaf culture" is the reason that the deaf community suffers from severe unemployment and illiteracy. Deaf culture is the reason so few deaf people pursue higher education. It's what keeps competent teachers and administrators out of deaf schools (you know, the ones who aren't "deaf enough"). Worst of all, it breeds fear and hatred; keeping the deaf community isolated.
It's like any community that becomes too insular... you see the same dynamics with white supremacist, for example. (For instance, both groups frown on "mixed" marriages b/t someone in their group and someone outside of it.)
Deaf culture is a disease far worse than the disability. It needs to be choked out. It needs to disappear.
Err... maybe it just needs to learn to open up. Take some diversity training or something.:O
The deaf, apparently. We live in a world of noise, and hearing is a sense that you can never turn off, so sometimes being deaf is a big plus.
But mostly, this is the whole deaf culture thing. Consider that the main drawback to their disability is that it hinders communication with non-deaf, non-signing people. (That's why they need TTY, CC, etc.) Among themselves, the disability has very little practical impact (unlike, for instance, blind people), especially if you were born that way and it's all you've ever known. And of course, like all communities, the deaf have developed norms and conventions for interactions that are specialized to their unique situation.
Got the picture so far? Now imagine you're deaf and your social circle is deaf and you frequently have to venture out into society at large where interaction with the others is always difficult and frequently gets you strange looks, unsolicited pity, and subhuman regard. The insurance guy down-talks you (as if your IQ was 70), and you get tried of folks repeatedly trying to communicate with you by SHOUTING LOUDER or talking reeeaa-aaaallll slo-wwww-lllley when all they need to do is talk straight and use a little common sense. Do you see what's happening here? Interacting with your deaf peers is clearly "normal" and comfortable. The problem is with the world-at-large.
Finally, that world-at-large comes to your door and wants to "fix" poor, miserable little you. Or worse, they want to "fix" your newborn child: do surgery on their head so they won't have to live with the same "disability" you do. Let that child grow up as one of the others such that there will always, always be that extra rift between you and your offspring. And what, over the long haul, will these "fixes" do to your community but choke it out and make it disappear?
Most of the whiners on both sides have a dog in the fight, if they are in the business and can't HFT for whatever reason they hate HFT and if they can they love it. Or they're just doing witchcraft style persecution where no logical mechanism is necessary... my sheep died therefore we should hang some old woman is no different than my dotcom bombed therefore we should punish a successful HFT trader "just because".
I don't think it's mere whining to question the social value of HFT. They make a lot of money and it's fair to ask if that's parasitical or real value-add.
Your blogger Stucchio, to his credit, attempts to justify this social value in his second post. But even he agrees that "there is virtually no benefit to speculators from having HFT’s trade in 12ms vs 24ms, or even 24 seconds", and he proposes adding more decimal places to stock prices to encourage HFTs to focus on other aspects of trading.
There's not really anything interesting you can do with them - they aren't powerful enough to do anything other than do simple math... The displays are shit, the processor is pathetic, and the input mechanism is severely lacking.
Too bad they can't advance... my android phone is wayyyy more powerful, but for some on-the-fly number crunching, it's hard to beat a calculator with real, physical buttons.
Thing is these are all things that civilians ought to be able to do without arousing suspicion, too.
On the other hand, as soon as anyone goes full crazy, the media and internet forums are full of people breathlessly pouring over their purchase history, indignantly putting hands on hips and saying that somebody should have none such-and-such individual was up to no good because he purchased X thousands rounds of ammunition or what not. We saw it with the Aurora shooter, and the Virginia Tech guy, and doubtless several others.
If you're a bureaucrat making a public safety decision, it's nearly always better to err on the side of heavy-handness (and let your city/school/department/whatever get sued by the ACLU several years down the road) then to err on the side of civil liberties (and loose your job because some whack decides he needs to murder people for an idea/political philosophy/religion/voice in his head).
So how do we reconcile these things and remain a free and just society? I don't have the answer... and I doubt there's any one answer that is suitable for all times and places. Personally, I think it's legitimate/necessary for law enforcement to watch for suspicious activity and to have watch lists. But this can turn cancerous when such lists become a catch-all, when they are used to deprive people of rights without due process, or when they are used for systematic harassment (as revenge or "false positive" on an individual, or as a proxy for racism, for instance).
The good thing about this particular situation is that the DOJ is distributing specific, objective criteria to law enforcement; this helps temper the over-paranoid and clue-in the relaxed. The bad thing is that it conflicts with the sensible emergency-preparedness activities that FEMA has been encouraging. (As an aside: too bad we don't take EP more seriously. It would save a lot of lives if it did, and it'd be a good, concrete exercise in the quintessential spirit of American self-reliance.)
The list also seems a little on the paranoid side; I suspect this is because DHS is scared shitless of the lone wolf terrorist. They can track cells/groups, but (according to this one guy in the 'biz) they've only been catching lone wolfs "by accident"... e.g., members of the public noticing something a little funny and reporting it. I don't approve of making "candles and boltcutters" a cause for suspicion, and yet I don't know how you re-design the system to be more... measured... in its approaches when people's careers depend on them finding needles in the haystack.
Slashdot Mirror
You can control any number of accounts in your wallet, and move money between them. So no one can tell what addresses are in your wallet and who (person) controls however many bitcoins. Two people having 10 btc might divide it up differently - 1 person has all 10btc in one address, the other has 10 addresses all with one. You don't know who controls what. The only way to find out is to get enough wallets with enough addresses in them that you can start identifying people for past transactions, but you can always invent a new address so you can't ever "watch" anyone.
But your honor, it couldn't possibly have been MY client who purchased those drugs. As you can see here, he clearly transferred $160 from his account <dude@hendrixfans.net> to some nefarious third party <cantcatchme@mailinator.com>, who by COMPLETE COINCIDENCE purchased $160 worth of drugs from about 30 seconds later. We have NO IDEA who this mysterious cantcatchme is, other than being a beneficent of my client's quirky tendency to email unsolicited funds to random strangers just to brighten their day.
Why NO, I don't think it's the LEAST bit suspicious that this is the 23rd week in a row that this exact sequence of transactions has occurred between these exact same participants. What can I say? My client is a generous man. Like the other day when he spontaneously sent $200 to <bogusacct@mailinator.com>. Perhaps foolishly generous, as Mr. bogusacct promptly sent that money to <cashier@pokerboss.net>, but can one convict a man for carrying virtue to excess? I say no!
Stop trying to explicitely criminalize individual behaviours. Doesn't work. Distracted driving is distracted driving. How is texting different from arguing with your passenger or yelling at your kids in the back, or any number of other things people regularly do that do not involve cell phones or texting? All are equally dangerous to texting, and perfectly legal.
Stop trying to criminalize things you don't like with broad, subjective laws. Reasonable people have very different views on what constitutes "distracted driving" and no consistent interpretation will emerge until legal precedents get established (after the innocent and only-slightly-guilty have suffered). This creates more stress for everyone--citizens, judges, and law enforcement alike. It's much better to set clear expectations up front by passing objective laws that target specific behaviors. Sure, you might need some catch-all laws for the most egregious of offenses that you cannot predict (like the JATO rocket car myth, had it been real), but prosecution under such statutes should be limited in occurrence and any ambiguity/subjectiveness generally interpreted to favor the defendent (a concept called Contra proferentem in contract law).
As a general principle, ambiguous legislation is worse than kneejerk legislation.
Causing an accident while texting is punitively punished, but causing an accident because your girlfriend was giving you shit is just something unfortunate that could have happened to anyone.
You have much more control over whether to text or not then you do over your girlfriend.
I'm starting to think that street view is really starting to mess with tourism.
There's a HUGE chunk of the internet-connected world that can't afford to travel, and there's another large chunk of people who can maybe afford some travel but don't normally think of it. Something like Street View might give them a taste or awaken them to opportunities they never considered. Which could ultimately increase tourism. While we're speculating, let's ask what Street View might mean to some economically disadvantaged kid growing up in an ideological monoculture, eh? That might be their first real opportunity to sense just how large this world of ours is...
What I know is, it's definitely an awesome tool for travel planning. I've used it to find obscure turnoffs, determine how close hotels are to pedestrian districts, and to "practice" driving on the wrong side of the road. Sometimes Google Maps isn't enough to really give you sense of where the action is, and Street View helps compensate for that.
(Unrelated gripe: it would be nice if the arrow overlays could be used to "drive" down a road, but most of the time it's impractical because each click moves you a very short distance--like 20 feet or so.)
Your US and local Gubmint wrote, rewrote and and continues to rewrite rules to keep themselves funded and local monopolies de jure. Pleas stop blaming the (now thousands of) companies because you keep electing leeches.
One second, I'm checking.... checking... checking.... DING! Okay, yeah, I did some quick checking and according to my moral reasoning, it's still wrong for companies to corrupt (or attempt to corrupt) government officials. And since those bribes... er... "contributions" help incumbents get disproportionate air time, it's sort of hard for an electorate (that has soooooo many other issues of political salience) to self-correct these things. If you've got an idea, I'm all for trying it, but don't go around excusing the originators of the problem.
(On a positive note, I understand that foreign anti-corruption laws in the US and Europe have helped curtail third-world corruption that was happening in conjunction with first-world countries.)
By, "evaluating a source," I believe you mean associating it with your judgment of past performance with regard to the reasonableness, reliability or like-mindedness. It's a crutch one uses in everyday life in order to shortcut the need to evaluate each idea on its own merits.
Yes, reputation and past impressions are part of source evaluation. And it's also valuable to assess background, qualifications, references, economic motivations, ideology/worldview, and probably other factors as well.
I'm not sure why you would believe this aids you in a search for truth. At face value it would seem to be a better method for reinforcing a belief system than searching for a better understanding of anything.
Yes, there's a big danger in trusting authority, and the self-reinforcing belief system trap is one of them. But remember that your own thinking is a sort of authority, and it's the one you probably have to be most suspicious of. The best counterbalance is to listen to a wide variety of viewpoints and sources.
Also realize that you rely on knowledge from others a whole lot more than you think. You rely on doctors, mechanics, builders, coworkers, signage, websites, clerks, etc., all the time. You may sometimes get second (or third or fourth) opinions, do your own research/fact-checking, independently calculate your bill, and bounce things against your own internal models of the world, but in the majority of situations you are still putting authority first and real-world experimentation last. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying that it's a necessary thing. We can't all wake up and crunch our own weather forecast; we pretty much just trust experts in the field. We can't all personally verify the structural stability of all the buildings we need to enter: we've put our trust in the builder and the code enforcement people. None of us try to measure our car's remaining gasoline: we trust the gauge until we have a reason not to.
I suggest it's sort of intellectually dishonest if you evaluate a posting in a certain way based on who posted it rather than what was posted. Ideas should be evaluated based on their content rather than their source.
Learning to evaluate ideas directly, without being influenced by one's preconceptions about their source, is a skill that we should all learn and value.
However, it is also valuable to evaluate sources and their presentation of ideas over time, because some sources are more accurate/insightful/relevant to particular knowledge domains than others. And that's important because we evaluate (or should be evaluating) many, many ideas continuously. Authority is not the ultimate source of truth, but it can be a shortcut to it.
A source also has a reputation to defend, and this encourages (some of them) to be more careful about what they say. I suggest that this why you discount AC postings... no reputation is at stake.
Unfortunately, some people are shockingly poor at source evaluation. They'll forward anonymously written emails that are thinly disguised political agit-prop, then turn sour when you send them a link to snopes ("that's not a reliable source").
I fear you're making a thinly veiled racist statement about blacks and hispanics, or a classist statement about poor people. Crime doesn't fit any subculture; every culture has honest people, peaceful people, thieves and murderers.
Every culture has honest people, peaceful people, thieves and murderers. But not in the same proportions. Life expectancy and quality-of-life metrics look much better for U.S. Asian women than it does for inner city Black males. You can use this to be an asshole and make racist arguments (or classist ones, or religious ones, etc.). However, you can also use this to increase your own life expectancy by avoiding certain parts of town at certain parts of the day. I think that's what rubycodez was primarily saying, but there is an unfortunate undertone that "there are two Americas and only one of them matters".
Eager might be a bit of a stretch, would eight apathetic and one crazy volunteers work for you?
Grandparent post is inefficient... you really just need one extremely lucky volunteer.
Just before this complete trainwreck of fail goes any further:
The article says "when the winner pulls the tab".
ie. you pull a bit of plastic out of the battery contacts.
Or maybe... pulling the tab EXPOSES a photodiode, which then enables the battery. :O
Choo choo!
You often find that the very worst textbooks are required by the teacher that wrote them.
Oh, definitely.
On the flipside, the best teachers tend to be those who have written their own textbook. (And the all-time-best teacher I had gave his PDF's away for free.)
Freedom of information request denied, and I'll paraphrase here, "because he was just doing his job." The argument didn't stand at Nuremberg, and I hope it won't stand today.
Right or wrong, I'm sure the court had a real reason for upholding the denial, undoubtedly expressed in voluminous PDF somewhere. Anyone care to locate it?
IANAL, but I suspect that the request was denied using Exemption 5's Deliberative Process Privelege; however, that may only apply to policy formations.
Basically it's for when your so paranoid that you fear even your cloud service app provider.
Maybe. The W3C draft lists "Cloud Storage" as one of its use cases, but remember that the app provider is also delivering the JavaScript that runs the decryption and loads up the DOM, so it could intercept the plaintext or decryption key if it wished. It doesn't protect against a malicious cloud service app provider, but it does make it easier for them to secure against data breeches (if their backups were stolen, for instance) and/or rely on 3rd party storage providers.
This has really interesting implications for online privacy, but the more practical/mundane benefits will be in reducing server CPU and making backend storage more secure.
Two separate clipboards makes for a confusing UI. Not that it isn't handy once you learn to exploit it, but... from a polish standpoint: ugh.
FWIW, Windows users might want to try ditto... I think it's called dittocp on sourceforge. It remembers the last few hundred things you copied to the clipboard, lets you text-search it, save/group snippets for future use, and paste any of it quickly. It takes a little bit of learning, but it's incredibly handy for coding and writing sql.
Oh, and forgot to mention the most obvious thing... natural gas is cheap due to all the frakking. That makes it economical to run your traditional peaking units (combined cycles, combustion turbines, etc.) more often, especially with the EPA putting the hurt on coal. Still not 24/7 though.
I'm all for civil disobedience and the destruction of these cameras, but that's not an excuse to break out the ol' RPG.
What would be the optimal solution is actual mass protests
Or, you know, maybe organizing, petitioning, speaking out, and simple voting? If you can get a mass protest, great, but it's unlikely for an issue like this.
And, while civil disobedience has its place, it pretty much has to be an act of conscience over something notable--such as when civil rights leaders protested the systemic marginalization of Blacks and (before that) feminist protested the suppression of birth control (yes, some were thrown in jail for **talking about** birth control) and (before that) when Thoreau chose jail instead of supporting a war to spread slavery and (before that) when some colonist protested their treatment at the hands of King George for the reasons listed here. I don't think traffic tickets fall into quite the same category.
A joke isn't real. You can always tell comedy that tries to have a PC message, because it tends not to be funny. The best thing to do if you belong to of a group that is the butt of a joke is to just ignore it.
It's not the realness of the joke that matters, but the realness of the discrimination/harassment/marginalization. People respect astronauts, feel sorrow for 9/11 victims, and generally think Australians are cool. AFAIK, the Irish (whom I sure had the sheep joke before you) don't feel they are being judged/threatened/stalked day-to-day for being overtly alcoholic and rural... but try making some sort of joke that suggests they ought to be an English province and I'll bet you get a very strong reaction.
Look... I'm a fan of shock humor and make grossly inappropriate jokes myself. But you *always* have to consider audience and context if you don't want to come off as an ass.
Due process was followed. He breached his contract, and was punished for it. Due process followed.
But the same thing that makes it impossible for them to go after The Real Offender (TM) also makes it too hard for the contract signer to meaningfully police his own internet connection, unless French law expects one to be a real a** to their family/friends/flatmates for the sake of a pre-internet industry.
We massively overbuilt in the 1950s and 1960s to the extent that we have been able to live off this and a bunch of relatively small "peaker" plants that were designed to run for a few hours a day - they are now running 24x7.
Methinks you are being somewhat alarmist. Yes, there are a lot regulatory hoops to jump thru, but I don't see peaking units being run 24x7. And modern American business practices is to squeeze the margins on an over-engineered resource instead of preserving the buffer... we've seen this with other things too (for instance, nuke plants getting up-rated based on closer analysis of their potential operating limits). Lastly, don't forget that we have wholesale market that didn't really exist before the mid-90's: each part of the country doesn't have to be nearly as self-reliant as it once did because there's a huge grid to draw on.
And any number of philosopher types added an even more important law: "A robot shall know it is a robot." After all, if a robot thinks it's human, the 3 (or4) laws don't apply in the first place.
But adding that law doesn't help...
I can't imagine a qr code being able to stack overflow anything, there aren't enough bits.
Sure about that? 40-L gives you almost 3000 bytes.
I agree with ledow that it's a bogus concern, but only if the banks (or the banks' equipment makers) hire competent programmers. (Which is not the case too often, sadly.)
"Deaf culture" is the reason that the deaf community suffers from severe unemployment and illiteracy. Deaf culture is the reason so few deaf people pursue higher education. It's what keeps competent teachers and administrators out of deaf schools (you know, the ones who aren't "deaf enough"). Worst of all, it breeds fear and hatred; keeping the deaf community isolated.
It's like any community that becomes too insular... you see the same dynamics with white supremacist, for example. (For instance, both groups frown on "mixed" marriages b/t someone in their group and someone outside of it.)
Deaf culture is a disease far worse than the disability. It needs to be choked out. It needs to disappear.
Err... maybe it just needs to learn to open up. Take some diversity training or something. :O
who can argue that it's not a disadvantage?
The deaf, apparently. We live in a world of noise, and hearing is a sense that you can never turn off, so sometimes being deaf is a big plus.
But mostly, this is the whole deaf culture thing. Consider that the main drawback to their disability is that it hinders communication with non-deaf, non-signing people. (That's why they need TTY, CC, etc.) Among themselves, the disability has very little practical impact (unlike, for instance, blind people), especially if you were born that way and it's all you've ever known. And of course, like all communities, the deaf have developed norms and conventions for interactions that are specialized to their unique situation.
Got the picture so far? Now imagine you're deaf and your social circle is deaf and you frequently have to venture out into society at large where interaction with the others is always difficult and frequently gets you strange looks, unsolicited pity, and subhuman regard. The insurance guy down-talks you (as if your IQ was 70), and you get tried of folks repeatedly trying to communicate with you by SHOUTING LOUDER or talking reeeaa-aaaallll slo-wwww-lllley when all they need to do is talk straight and use a little common sense. Do you see what's happening here? Interacting with your deaf peers is clearly "normal" and comfortable. The problem is with the world-at-large.
Finally, that world-at-large comes to your door and wants to "fix" poor, miserable little you. Or worse, they want to "fix" your newborn child: do surgery on their head so they won't have to live with the same "disability" you do. Let that child grow up as one of the others such that there will always, always be that extra rift between you and your offspring. And what, over the long haul, will these "fixes" do to your community but choke it out and make it disappear?
That is very, very threatening.
Most of the whiners on both sides have a dog in the fight, if they are in the business and can't HFT for whatever reason they hate HFT and if they can they love it. Or they're just doing witchcraft style persecution where no logical mechanism is necessary... my sheep died therefore we should hang some old woman is no different than my dotcom bombed therefore we should punish a successful HFT trader "just because".
I don't think it's mere whining to question the social value of HFT. They make a lot of money and it's fair to ask if that's parasitical or real value-add.
Your blogger Stucchio, to his credit, attempts to justify this social value in his second post. But even he agrees that "there is virtually no benefit to speculators from having HFT’s trade in 12ms vs 24ms, or even 24 seconds", and he proposes adding more decimal places to stock prices to encourage HFTs to focus on other aspects of trading.
There's not really anything interesting you can do with them - they aren't powerful enough to do anything other than do simple math... The displays are shit, the processor is pathetic, and the input mechanism is severely lacking.
Too bad they can't advance... my android phone is wayyyy more powerful, but for some on-the-fly number crunching, it's hard to beat a calculator with real, physical buttons.
Thing is these are all things that civilians ought to be able to do without arousing suspicion, too.
On the other hand, as soon as anyone goes full crazy, the media and internet forums are full of people breathlessly pouring over their purchase history, indignantly putting hands on hips and saying that somebody should have none such-and-such individual was up to no good because he purchased X thousands rounds of ammunition or what not. We saw it with the Aurora shooter, and the Virginia Tech guy, and doubtless several others.
If you're a bureaucrat making a public safety decision, it's nearly always better to err on the side of heavy-handness (and let your city/school/department/whatever get sued by the ACLU several years down the road) then to err on the side of civil liberties (and loose your job because some whack decides he needs to murder people for an idea/political philosophy/religion/voice in his head).
So how do we reconcile these things and remain a free and just society? I don't have the answer... and I doubt there's any one answer that is suitable for all times and places. Personally, I think it's legitimate/necessary for law enforcement to watch for suspicious activity and to have watch lists. But this can turn cancerous when such lists become a catch-all, when they are used to deprive people of rights without due process, or when they are used for systematic harassment (as revenge or "false positive" on an individual, or as a proxy for racism, for instance).
The good thing about this particular situation is that the DOJ is distributing specific, objective criteria to law enforcement; this helps temper the over-paranoid and clue-in the relaxed. The bad thing is that it conflicts with the sensible emergency-preparedness activities that FEMA has been encouraging. (As an aside: too bad we don't take EP more seriously. It would save a lot of lives if it did, and it'd be a good, concrete exercise in the quintessential spirit of American self-reliance.)
The list also seems a little on the paranoid side; I suspect this is because DHS is scared shitless of the lone wolf terrorist. They can track cells/groups, but (according to this one guy in the 'biz) they've only been catching lone wolfs "by accident"... e.g., members of the public noticing something a little funny and reporting it. I don't approve of making "candles and boltcutters" a cause for suspicion, and yet I don't know how you re-design the system to be more... measured... in its approaches when people's careers depend on them finding needles in the haystack.