You could of course decide to reserve the label humanities for stuff in the humanities that you like. But either way, the philosophy of science was just one of Popper's philosophical interests, so he would be a humanities professor nonetheless.
Hidden away in volume two of "The open society and its enemies" is an argument about the humanities and the perennial problem it faces, of choosing its own successors: Do you pick people who you agree with, and risk doctrinisation of your own beliefs, or do you pick people who disagree, and risk promoting vapid nonsense? The lack of simple measures of success makes this a far larger problem for philosophers than for physicists, but that doesn't mean there won't be philosophers worth listening to.
It is not untraceable. In fact, if that bribe was paid, Romney could trace it from account to account, no matter how many the blackmailer tried to filter it through. As soon as one of the coins were used in the legal economy (for buying dollars, hosting space or whatever), he would leave traces which would link back to the original account.
Lots of bitcoin have been stolen through bitcoin's history, mostly though scams. And the vast majority of stolen bitcoin has not moved since - for good reasons. It is possible to measure how much of the coin in your wallet is "tainted", coin that came from a scam at some point. Bitcoin exchanges have frozen accounts because they held too much tainted coin, and it's only going to get worse (or better, depending on your perspective) in the future.
There are "mixing" services where you pay one bitcoin to get back one bitcoin (or rather, slightly less) from someone else. This is a way to break a bitcoin's chain of custody. However you're a fool to do this if your coin is clean, since you're likely to get a dirty (potentially less valuable) one in return. It's just charity to scammers and others who managed to get their paws on bitcoin in dubious ways.
Plus, since these services are anonymous and cater to criminals, there's a significant risk they'll break and run one day, so you won't even get a dirty coin back.
Law students should take courses in statistics, statistical modelling, and applied statistics in the social sciences. So that they avoid elementary mistakes like the prosecutor's fallacy, and so they could systematically identify biases in their own profession.
You got to wonder what Wyden thinks to himself, when he sees his own president brazenly say stuff like this while simultaneously forbidding him by force of law from speaking up.
There are plenty of pro-Israel racists. Of course I don't just mean anti-arab anti-muslim racists, but the full anti-black, "white people are the master race"-racists. This was/is the norm with South African racists, for instance - I remember an account from an ex-neonazi who had visited ideological relatives in SA, and was quite shocked at how his antisemitism wasn't tolerated. Got his first hints of doubt because of it - there can come something good out of anything, I guess.
Do note that the executed citizens were promoting terrorist activities
With speech acts. No matter how vile the speech, killing someone over a speech act is very bad.
Now maybe there is some evidence, somewhere, that al-Awlaki did more than just promote terrorism in English on youtube. But since the government wasn't interested in presenting this evidence in a court case against him it's fair to say this evidence can't have been very good.
Well duh, of course the Swedish government has a legal justification why it's impossible to talk to him there. But this is a post-hoc justification, and not a very good one (this may come as a surprise to you, but quite a lot of legal theories don't hold up under closer examination).
Sweden can and has interviewed people under similar circumstances. They've even basically conceded elsewhere that it is about maintaining face.
On the contrary, it relies on it not being expected in order to work. South Africa may not have a secret service which can measure up to the Five Eyes network, but if they expected spying in such a venue, they certainly have people who would have known how to stop it.
And why would this guy go to Hong Kong of all the places he could go?
Because bad as China may be, they aren't going to buckle to US pressure. Whether they've yet come the point where they feel enough solidarity with the US elites that they would rather see him punished, remains to be seen.
There's also the little matter of Hong Kong's political freedom. Which may be an illusion - but is it worth dispelling that illusion just to get at a commoner embarrassing your rival?
Why not a simple "We have never had Ms Attkisson under any surveillance or covertly obtained any information about her"?
Because that lie would be caught already.
The real weasel words here are "To our knowledge". Of course it's not "to their knowledge", they would deliberately shield themselves from knowledge of the details if they did it. That's plausible deniability 101.
Well, if we are talking about exploits in Microsoft Windows, it's most likely intended to be used offensively. I doubt NSA stores their top secrets on Windows machines.
This approach is mostly a curiosity. It is not nearly as undetectable as you may think, and once one compiler executable has been exposed to have this backdoor, the cat's out of the bag.
There's also the problem that
1. A compiler detecting that it is compiling itself isn't trivial, especially not for an open-source compiler that gets updated constantly. 2. The back door insertion isn't trivial, for the same reason: the program being targeted may have changed. Not only must you detect it, you must make sure the backdoor is inserted in a way that doesn't break the program. if you do that even once, of course, the cat is out of the bag again.
The real question is why didn't they just admit to it from the start?
That's a pretty trivial question. It's asking: Why don't you share everything, including your deepest secrets, with the government?
Knowledge is power, they say. Certainly, knowledge about you is power over you. Power to blackmail, obviously - but that's only the crudest tool in the box.
On the muds I played, Immortals (and even players, with certain spells) could put words into the mouth of mobs, and give them pretty arbitrary commands to do most things a player could do. It did not happen often, but I did see cases where someone "took over" a well-known mob and role-played them for a while. I loved that, but as I said, it didn't happen often.
There's nothing in principle to prevent this from happening in MMOs too. I'm not very familiar with them, but don't some have GMs? Invisible GMs who could tag along with a (role-playing) party could add immensely to the game, even if it only happened once in a new moon, and even if they could only control speech, movement and social commands.
It's heartening, in a perverse sort of way, that a couple of Republicans look like they want to try this strategy (such as the Patriot act author). Not that I believe them. But it suggests this revelation will make a difference they can't just gloss over.
Anything is better than the empty-headed platitudes and betrayals of Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss right now.
And that's depressing. Because you know, Eric Schmidt isn't exactly some hardcore civil libertarian. My guess the demands would have had to be pretty damn bad for Google to even consider fighting them.
Slashdot Mirror
You could of course decide to reserve the label humanities for stuff in the humanities that you like. But either way, the philosophy of science was just one of Popper's philosophical interests, so he would be a humanities professor nonetheless.
Hidden away in volume two of "The open society and its enemies" is an argument about the humanities and the perennial problem it faces, of choosing its own successors: Do you pick people who you agree with, and risk doctrinisation of your own beliefs, or do you pick people who disagree, and risk promoting vapid nonsense? The lack of simple measures of success makes this a far larger problem for philosophers than for physicists, but that doesn't mean there won't be philosophers worth listening to.
It is not untraceable. In fact, if that bribe was paid, Romney could trace it from account to account, no matter how many the blackmailer tried to filter it through. As soon as one of the coins were used in the legal economy (for buying dollars, hosting space or whatever), he would leave traces which would link back to the original account.
Lots of bitcoin have been stolen through bitcoin's history, mostly though scams. And the vast majority of stolen bitcoin has not moved since - for good reasons. It is possible to measure how much of the coin in your wallet is "tainted", coin that came from a scam at some point. Bitcoin exchanges have frozen accounts because they held too much tainted coin, and it's only going to get worse (or better, depending on your perspective) in the future.
There are "mixing" services where you pay one bitcoin to get back one bitcoin (or rather, slightly less) from someone else. This is a way to break a bitcoin's chain of custody. However you're a fool to do this if your coin is clean, since you're likely to get a dirty (potentially less valuable) one in return. It's just charity to scammers and others who managed to get their paws on bitcoin in dubious ways.
Plus, since these services are anonymous and cater to criminals, there's a significant risk they'll break and run one day, so you won't even get a dirty coin back.
You do know that Karl Popper was a humanities professor, right?
Law students should take courses in statistics, statistical modelling, and applied statistics in the social sciences. So that they avoid elementary mistakes like the prosecutor's fallacy, and so they could systematically identify biases in their own profession.
It would be nice if it was the powerful dissenters like Wyden who resorted to civil disobedience, rather than comparatively powerless like Snowden.
Not that it would be without consequences, even for the powerful, to resist. But they're much, much better equipped to defend themselves.
You got to wonder what Wyden thinks to himself, when he sees his own president brazenly say stuff like this while simultaneously forbidding him by force of law from speaking up.
Or the espionage act of 1917. Created with the noble intent of going after people who spoke against joining WWI.
There are plenty of pro-Israel racists. Of course I don't just mean anti-arab anti-muslim racists, but the full anti-black, "white people are the master race"-racists. This was/is the norm with South African racists, for instance - I remember an account from an ex-neonazi who had visited ideological relatives in SA, and was quite shocked at how his antisemitism wasn't tolerated. Got his first hints of doubt because of it - there can come something good out of anything, I guess.
With speech acts. No matter how vile the speech, killing someone over a speech act is very bad.
Now maybe there is some evidence, somewhere, that al-Awlaki did more than just promote terrorism in English on youtube. But since the government wasn't interested in presenting this evidence in a court case against him it's fair to say this evidence can't have been very good.
Well duh, of course the Swedish government has a legal justification why it's impossible to talk to him there. But this is a post-hoc justification, and not a very good one (this may come as a surprise to you, but quite a lot of legal theories don't hold up under closer examination).
Sweden can and has interviewed people under similar circumstances. They've even basically conceded elsewhere that it is about maintaining face.
There's a reason Assange said he's prepared to stay there for five years. In five years, Correa's current term is up - he was just reelected.
I don't think Correa is going to be ousted in this period. He's popular on the left, and he's not nearly as incendiary to the right as Hugo Chavez.
On the contrary, it relies on it not being expected in order to work. South Africa may not have a secret service which can measure up to the Five Eyes network, but if they expected spying in such a venue, they certainly have people who would have known how to stop it.
Most spying relies on breach of trust to work.
This comment ought to be read in the voice of Cartman.
Because bad as China may be, they aren't going to buckle to US pressure. Whether they've yet come the point where they feel enough solidarity with the US elites that they would rather see him punished, remains to be seen.
There's also the little matter of Hong Kong's political freedom. Which may be an illusion - but is it worth dispelling that illusion just to get at a commoner embarrassing your rival?
Because that lie would be caught already.
The real weasel words here are "To our knowledge". Of course it's not "to their knowledge", they would deliberately shield themselves from knowledge of the details if they did it. That's plausible deniability 101.
Well, if we are talking about exploits in Microsoft Windows, it's most likely intended to be used offensively. I doubt NSA stores their top secrets on Windows machines.
This approach is mostly a curiosity. It is not nearly as undetectable as you may think, and once one compiler executable has been exposed to have this backdoor, the cat's out of the bag.
There's also the problem that
1. A compiler detecting that it is compiling itself isn't trivial, especially not for an open-source compiler that gets updated constantly.
2. The back door insertion isn't trivial, for the same reason: the program being targeted may have changed. Not only must you detect it, you must make sure the backdoor is inserted in a way that doesn't break the program. if you do that even once, of course, the cat is out of the bag again.
That's a pretty trivial question. It's asking: Why don't you share everything, including your deepest secrets, with the government?
Knowledge is power, they say. Certainly, knowledge about you is power over you. Power to blackmail, obviously - but that's only the crudest tool in the box.
Don't mix up competition/ PKing and griefing. Griefers are just anti-social, and only get pleasure from provoking negative reactions.
There's no such thing as a server where only griefers play and have fun attacking each other. If they do that, they aren't griefers.
On the muds I played, Immortals (and even players, with certain spells) could put words into the mouth of mobs, and give them pretty arbitrary commands to do most things a player could do. It did not happen often, but I did see cases where someone "took over" a well-known mob and role-played them for a while. I loved that, but as I said, it didn't happen often.
There's nothing in principle to prevent this from happening in MMOs too. I'm not very familiar with them, but don't some have GMs? Invisible GMs who could tag along with a (role-playing) party could add immensely to the game, even if it only happened once in a new moon, and even if they could only control speech, movement and social commands.
The point is that it's a collossal hypocritical statement by Obama.
Yes, there is. Tor, and before it the three generations of remailers (simple, cypherpunk and mixmaster).
You have only their word for it, and they've made it abundantly clear that they will lie to you "for your own good".
It's heartening, in a perverse sort of way, that a couple of Republicans look like they want to try this strategy (such as the Patriot act author). Not that I believe them. But it suggests this revelation will make a difference they can't just gloss over.
Anything is better than the empty-headed platitudes and betrayals of Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss right now.
And that's depressing. Because you know, Eric Schmidt isn't exactly some hardcore civil libertarian. My guess the demands would have had to be pretty damn bad for Google to even consider fighting them.