Even IF one of your data centers has a power outage (which should not happen as you should have backup generators and batteries that give power until the generators are spun up),
Actually, what I'm hearing is that a fire in the backup generator took out the primary generator. So, this is a case in which the backup was the problem, not the solution.
The first line of defence, of course, is to make sure all voting machines have a permanent paper record of each vote.
For that to be an effective defense, you also need to make sure that the electronic vote matches the paper vote. Since paper ballots are easily human- and machine-readable and more difficult to discreetly tamper with, what advantage do electronic voting machines bring to the table?
Over optical scan ballots, no advantage other than an interface that can be more easily adapted to accomodate disabled voters. Over traditional hand-counted paper ballots, the advantage of fast counting.
If hand-counting ballots takes too long for our ADD society, we should standardize on a ballot layout and let many companies offer ballot scanners to speed up the process.
I have to say, I'm seriously worried about vulnerabilities in voting machines.
The first line of defence, of course, is to make sure all voting machines have a permanent paper record of each vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/
https://followmyvote.com/us-electoral-process/voting-system-vulnerabilities/
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/16/399986331/hacked-touchscreen-voting-machine-raises-questions-about-election-security
Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you;re voting for evil.
My political opinions are so variant from the mainsteam that I've never had the privilege of voting for a candidate who represents the way I think or solve problems. Every election I've voted in has always been a case of choosing the least-worst candidate.
Frankly, the idea of not voting against the greater evil seems to be utterly brainless. Why would anybody knowingly let the greater evil win?
Seriously - it's like saying "Oh, I'm voting for Stalin because that Hitler guy is just nasty..."
First, you do know that the U.S. did ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, right? Or does that piece of history just get glossed over these days?
Are you saying we shouldn't have?
And, second, the current candidates are really nothing like HItler nor Stalin. This is a Godwin's law reducto-ad-absurdum comparision, not relevant to the current election.
Is there any reason that this plane couldn't have flown into the southern hemisphere for part of its flight? It's not like we don't have sunlight down south.
Hm-- if it never crossed south of the equator, it didn't really fly around the world, since it flew a route considerably shorter than a great circle.
I mean, if you go to Antarctica and walk in a circle of radius one meter around the south pole, you didn't really circumnavigate the globe on foot.
There is indeed an error in the sentence you criticized, but it's with using "are" instead of "is", and not using "amount" instead of "number".
Interesting, but you're only half right.
"A large number of people are both lazy and ignorant" is grammatically correct.
"A large amount of people is both lazy and ignorant" is also arguably correct.
But it says a different thing. The first sentence says that there are many people who are, individually, both lazy and ignorant. The phrase "lazy and ignorant" applies to the individuals in the group. The second sentence says that the subject of the sentence, "a large amount of people" considered as a single object, is both lazy and ignorant. The singular verb means that the phrase "lazy and ignorant" applies to the group as whole
>The local government feared that if news outlets were to report using signals coming from social media, there was a chance that fake, non-credible, and rumors would slip through the filter.
That's exactly what happens in the West. Vast piles of BS gets propagated as news on social media, leading to large percentages of the population believing untrue things to be true, more than they already do.
I think that they have indeed identified a problem. The solution, however, is worse than the problem. Vast piles of BS masquerading as news is bad, but government censorship is far worse.
Well, it takes about 40 seconds for a supercomputer to perform the same number of computations a human brain does in one - a giant waste of computing power, but it's actually been done.
Interesting datum, but, at the moment we don't even know what the brain is doing with its computing power.
Let's check the calculation. The brain had 100 billion neurons, each with an average of 7,000 synapses, so that's 700 trillion synapses. Each neuron fires at a rate on the order of 1/7 Hz (close enough), so that's 100 trillion synapse firings per second. The fastest supercomputer is a little under 100 petaflops, so the fastest supercomputer does 1000 floating point operations for every neuron firing in a brain over the same time.
If only we had a good idea of how many floating point operations were in one neuron firing, we'd know something here. But the problem is that the brain is massively interconnected, while a computer is very simply interconnected. How many operations does it take to simulate a massively intereconnected system with a simply interconnected system?
Some do, some don't. Hollywood is not a person with a political stance; it's a place that has people in the film industry on all sides of the political spectrum, ranging from Mel Gibson to Jane Fonda.
I am not proposing and never have proposed making PACs illegal. What I have suggested, if you would like to scroll through my comments, is requiring that their funding sources should be public, and not secret.
Whether you call it a page or not, the link you gave did not list thickness.
If the thickness was on some different page, you should have linked that page.
You do know that polymers are mostly transparent in the thermal infrared, right?
Unmodified cheapo thin polyethylene film usually blocks about 30% of thermal IR (rough ballpark of 10um), which is much better than "none". Unmodified polypropylene film blocks almost all thermal IR around that range.
...(By the way transmission curves [in the] IR are meaningless with no thickness cited.)
The thickness was cited on the page, 2mm thickness.
No, it is not. The link you gave showed only a graph, no caption. The thickness may have been cited somewhere, but not anywhere on the page you linked.
And "look, you're wrong" as a response to a rebuttal is the second least convincing answer possible, right after "LA LA LA I can't hear you!".
And-- repeating aagin what I said back at the very beginning of this thread--the thing about corporations is that they have lawyers. Lawyers are very good at finding loopholes. The loophole in that "corporations can't fund candidates" is that corporations can fund Political Action Committees. Which, it turns out, is a very effective way of funding a campaign.
Yes, you are repeating yourself, and your statement is as wrong as it was at the beginning: PACs aren't a "loophole"; what they can and cannot do is part of campaign finance law.
Correct. They are the loophole in campaign finance law.
You seen to think "Campaign finance has never been shown to corrupt the political process in the US.". I think you're an idiot, but you're allowed your opinion.
Look.
This is not how greenhouses work. It has been known since 1909 that this is not how greenhouses work.
I'm sorry you don't understand this, but it's not. Work out the physics. Some plastic manufacturers might claim that their plastics block IR in order to increase sales, but it's still not the main factor how greenhouses work.
(By the way transmission curves are IR meaningless with no thickness cited.)
Slashdot Mirror
Even IF one of your data centers has a power outage (which should not happen as you should have backup generators and batteries that give power until the generators are spun up),
Actually, what I'm hearing is that a fire in the backup generator took out the primary generator. So, this is a case in which the backup was the problem, not the solution.
I'd rather FBI drones than BLM criminals.
A lot of people are upset at the Bureau of Land Management, but I'm on their side.
This is a solvable problem. They are monetizing these calls. Money is traceable. Follow the money and put them in jail.
The first line of defence, of course, is to make sure all voting machines have a permanent paper record of each vote.
For that to be an effective defense, you also need to make sure that the electronic vote matches the paper vote. Since paper ballots are easily human- and machine-readable and more difficult to discreetly tamper with, what advantage do electronic voting machines bring to the table?
Over optical scan ballots, no advantage other than an interface that can be more easily adapted to accomodate disabled voters. Over traditional hand-counted paper ballots, the advantage of fast counting.
If hand-counting ballots takes too long for our ADD society, we should standardize on a ballot layout and let many companies offer ballot scanners to speed up the process.
I believe we are in agreement here.
I have to say, I'm seriously worried about vulnerabilities in voting machines. The first line of defence, of course, is to make sure all voting machines have a permanent paper record of each vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/
https://followmyvote.com/us-electoral-process/voting-system-vulnerabilities/
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/16/399986331/hacked-touchscreen-voting-machine-raises-questions-about-election-security
This reality TV star decided to try something new. You'll be SHOCKED to find out what he did next!
Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you;re voting for evil.
My political opinions are so variant from the mainsteam that I've never had the privilege of voting for a candidate who represents the way I think or solve problems. Every election I've voted in has always been a case of choosing the least-worst candidate.
Frankly, the idea of not voting against the greater evil seems to be utterly brainless. Why would anybody knowingly let the greater evil win?
Seriously - it's like saying "Oh, I'm voting for Stalin because that Hitler guy is just nasty..."
First, you do know that the U.S. did ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, right? Or does that piece of history just get glossed over these days?
Are you saying we shouldn't have?
And, second, the current candidates are really nothing like HItler nor Stalin. This is a Godwin's law reducto-ad-absurdum comparision, not relevant to the current election.
Who cares who hacked them.
I do.
I find it very disquieting that Russia is trying to tilt the U.S. presidential election by breaking into computers.
I just read that document. Sounds like the old patronage system, but... nothing in it is actually a promise of appointment.
They used to call this your "day job." Artists, writers, and musicians all have day jobs, all except the very lucky few that hit it big.
Is there any reason that this plane couldn't have flown into the southern hemisphere for part of its flight? It's not like we don't have sunlight down south.
Hm-- if it never crossed south of the equator, it didn't really fly around the world, since it flew a route considerably shorter than a great circle.
I mean, if you go to Antarctica and walk in a circle of radius one meter around the south pole, you didn't really circumnavigate the globe on foot.
There is indeed an error in the sentence you criticized, but it's with using "are" instead of "is", and not using "amount" instead of "number".
Interesting, but you're only half right.
"A large number of people are both lazy and ignorant" is grammatically correct.
"A large amount of people is both lazy and ignorant" is also arguably correct.
But it says a different thing. The first sentence says that there are many people who are, individually, both lazy and ignorant. The phrase "lazy and ignorant" applies to the individuals in the group. The second sentence says that the subject of the sentence, "a large amount of people" considered as a single object, is both lazy and ignorant. The singular verb means that the phrase "lazy and ignorant" applies to the group as whole
>The local government feared that if news outlets were to report using signals coming from social media, there was a chance that fake, non-credible, and rumors would slip through the filter.
That's exactly what happens in the West. Vast piles of BS gets propagated as news on social media, leading to large percentages of the population believing untrue things to be true, more than they already do.
I think that they have indeed identified a problem. The solution, however, is worse than the problem. Vast piles of BS masquerading as news is bad, but government censorship is far worse.
Well, it takes about 40 seconds for a supercomputer to perform the same number of computations a human brain does in one - a giant waste of computing power, but it's actually been done.
Interesting datum, but, at the moment we don't even know what the brain is doing with its computing power.
Let's check the calculation. The brain had 100 billion neurons, each with an average of 7,000 synapses, so that's 700 trillion synapses. Each neuron fires at a rate on the order of 1/7 Hz (close enough), so that's 100 trillion synapse firings per second. The fastest supercomputer is a little under 100 petaflops, so the fastest supercomputer does 1000 floating point operations for every neuron firing in a brain over the same time.
If only we had a good idea of how many floating point operations were in one neuron firing, we'd know something here. But the problem is that the brain is massively interconnected, while a computer is very simply interconnected. How many operations does it take to simulate a massively intereconnected system with a simply interconnected system?
If you keep your mail local you will know when the government gives you a warrant to access your server.
If you keep your mail local it doesn't work.
Mail is only useful when you exchange it with somebody else.
"For every celebrity Bernie Sanders supporter there’s a proudly Republican Adam Sandler, and for every heart-flutteringly queer Freeheld there’s a jingoistic, pro-War on Terror action thriller (think The Dark Knight and American Sniper)."
http://www.alternet.org/story/153041/why_'liberal_hollywood'_is_a_myth
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/hollywoods-real-bias-is-conservative-but-not-in-the-way-liberals-often-say/266960/
Hollywood supports Republicans? Really?
Some do, some don't. Hollywood is not a person with a political stance; it's a place that has people in the film industry on all sides of the political spectrum, ranging from Mel Gibson to Jane Fonda.
Are you incapable of using Google?
So, out of 19,700,000 search hits on Campaign spending effectiveness, you selected... three.
Great. You have 19,699,997 left to read. When you've read those, get back to me.
Doing both sounds like a good plan to me.
And likewise.
Whether you call it a page or not, the link you gave did not list thickness. If the thickness was on some different page, you should have linked that page.
Unmodified cheapo thin polyethylene film usually blocks about 30% of thermal IR (rough ballpark of 10um), which is much better than "none". Unmodified polypropylene film blocks almost all thermal IR around that range.
...(By the way transmission curves [in the] IR are meaningless with no thickness cited.)
The thickness was cited on the page, 2mm thickness.
No, it is not. The link you gave showed only a graph, no caption. The thickness may have been cited somewhere, but not anywhere on the page you linked.
And "look, you're wrong" as a response to a rebuttal is the second least convincing answer possible, right after "LA LA LA I can't hear you!".
No. It is, however, accurate.
Yes, you are repeating yourself, and your statement is as wrong as it was at the beginning: PACs aren't a "loophole"; what they can and cannot do is part of campaign finance law.
Correct. They are the loophole in campaign finance law.
You seen to think "Campaign finance has never been shown to corrupt the political process in the US.". I think you're an idiot, but you're allowed your opinion.
To put this differently, the fact that our politicians are corrupted by money is something we should address by punishing the politicians
You can't punish the politicians, because contributions to PACS are legal.
(By the way transmission curves are IR meaningless with no thickness cited.)