I am not a Naval buff, but NK apparently lost a submarine at sea a few months ago. I wonder if that was a failed test. Do any enthusiasts know whether NK has hidden drydocks to work on submarines, and whether NK's subs generally have the ability to launch missles?
Yes, the headline treats fact as speculation: "Drone Believed To Have Hit British Airways Flight" [There is no reason to doubt that *something* struck the plane; only the drone-ness of the object is unconfirmed], and then speculation as fact "'May Have Been a Plastic Bag' (telegraph.co.uk)" with no evidence.
Are you saying that the video footage from the terrorist attacks in Belgium did not help investigators figure out what happened, or that this investigatory benefit is not worth invading the privacy of people as they walk around in public?
Yes. Attempting to enforce a judgment against an sovereign nation would automatically make that judgment a diplomatic issue or an outright act of war. We only froze Iran's assets, even after they invaded our embassy and took hostages, etc.
Do the Congressmembers supporting this bill think that the US will actually seize several billion dollars from Saudi Arabia and distribute it to a class of a few thousand people because 12 jurors in Podunk, NJ thought that it was 50.1% likely that some portion of the Saudi Government gave aid to Al Queda?
I am tempted to say "no," they are cynically exploiting a tragedy and resentment of an unpopular country--- but then I remember that they are members of Congress, so there is a chance that they are actually that dumb.
But this very statement seems to suggest a belief that in order for a society to be secure, the devices can't be. What is a "reasonable level of security" for a device? The maximum technology allows, or something else?
You asked what a reasonable level of security is and society is trying to figure that out right now—both with regard to device encryption and mass collection of what was once thought of as trivial and non-private data..
Society can never be absolutely secure, but (going back to your original statement regarding warrants) the fact that search warrants can be issued on relatively meager evidence shows that the right to privacy was never seen as absolute either.
Trump's means, ends, and message are mostly between lock-step and goose-step with the prevailing right-wing orthodoxy.
In virtually all cases his position is to the right of his Republican opponents.
His primary heresies are 1) he uses a bullhorn for the dogwhistle social resentment issues; 2) he added the capitalist class to the list of people to be resented; and 3) (following from 2) he is not free trade.
I'll chime in with what the apples and oranges were: Schwartz' maximum possible sentence in the US to the actual sentence for another person for worse crime in Russia.
I am commenting to bump parent up because the grandparent exhibits the lazy cynicism often seen here. The FBI probably signed an NDA which forbids sharing the trade secret (exploit) with anyone who would might share it with Apple.
While I would prefer that the FBI prevent crime (depending on the other possible use of this exploit) by disclosing the exploit, I don't think that the FBI should be above the law (even contract law) and I am fairly certain that Apple has enough money to bounty zero day exploits out of existence.
Wrongfully taking from people, by force, against their will is stealing. Estates are legal fictions, and the state, as author, has every right to describe the rights and obligations of it creation.
Beyond that though, taxes are not inherently wrongful. Taxes (as the man said) are the price we pay for civilization. The overwhelming majority of people benefit from fewer fires and less disease, regardless of whether or not they have the foresight to voluntarily pay for a fire department or subsidized hospital. What's more, if they are engaged in any sort of commerce, they benefit from the security, and stability, and technology that civilization makes generally available.
For almost everyone, civilization gives more than it takes, so it is strange when people characterize taxes as wrong or immoral (stupid or too high is another matter).
There are a lot of rules of thumb about picking jurors. As a juror, an engineer won't be relied upon to to set aside their preconceptions (which they view as self-evident fact) or apply rules he or she has not run to ground.
This thread is a good example of those weaknesses as a juror.
FWIW, I have heard that once they know the rules, engineers make excellent lawyers.
The CNN report indicates, at worst, about a 1:3 ratio of civilian deaths to combatant deaths.
"TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals,"
This is bad. We should talk about whether it is worth killing one innocent person for each combatant. But this is a very different conversation than the 30:1 conversation suggested by the AC.
What constitutes a "rational" decision depends what your goals are.
Here, the government’s goal is to borrow $4 Billion at less than the rate of inflation in order to foster an emerging industry and (I hope) put a thumb on the scale for consumer safety and choice.
This seems like a rational decision to me.
A fair trial is certainly possible, assuming that he is charged with releasing classified data or something like that the actual content of the classified data is irrelevant.
But few of his supporters even argue that he did not release classified data, or that there is no law against releasing classified data. Rather, they argue, that Snowden was serving a higher purpose in breaking the law, therefore he should be found innocent.
Necessity is a defense, even to murder, but under the most generous terms these circumstances would not make it necessary to release everything that he did (I am thinking specifically of the revelations of our eavesdropping on foreign governments--which is exactly what the NSA should be doing).
Snowden supporters argue that he stole the equivalent of a loaf of bread to feed his family, but a lot of the stuff looks like stolen cigarettes which he sold at a price that was almost giving them away.
So basically Ford's entire area of expertise depends on FINDING bias in these programs...
If this disqualifies her, then no scientist should be trusted in their area of expertise.
It could be that anti-intellectualism among the poor to blame. It could also be the confirmation bias you mentioned working against poor minorities (as it has done since forever).
Which of these scenarios is easier to institutionally address?
There are better examples you could have chosen: Comcast and Verizon are both last mile providers and therefore natural monopolies. Furthermore, Comcase and Verizon may actually compete with each other in some places as cable TV and telecom providers.
Whenever someone compares the corruption in the US with that of Eastern Europe or Asia, I have to wonder if they are being paid by a PR firm for the country who's venality being deflected.
I can't tell if trolling, or just stupid. But anyway, to conspire means to breathe together (see: conjoin, aspirate for similarly rooted words). As in two people speaking so closely together that their breath is felt.
But when you are negotiating, you don't want the other side to know what your boss thinks of the deal. Ostensibly the citizenry is the ultimate boss here, so it should come as no surprise that treaty terms to not get RFCd.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a Naval buff, but NK apparently lost a submarine at sea a few months ago. I wonder if that was a failed test. Do any enthusiasts know whether NK has hidden drydocks to work on submarines, and whether NK's subs generally have the ability to launch missles?
Yes, the headline treats fact as speculation: "Drone Believed To Have Hit British Airways Flight" [There is no reason to doubt that *something* struck the plane; only the drone-ness of the object is unconfirmed], and then speculation as fact "'May Have Been a Plastic Bag' (telegraph.co.uk)" with no evidence.
Are you saying that the video footage from the terrorist attacks in Belgium did not help investigators figure out what happened, or that this investigatory benefit is not worth invading the privacy of people as they walk around in public?
Do the Congressmembers supporting this bill think that the US will actually seize several billion dollars from Saudi Arabia and distribute it to a class of a few thousand people because 12 jurors in Podunk, NJ thought that it was 50.1% likely that some portion of the Saudi Government gave aid to Al Queda?
I am tempted to say "no," they are cynically exploiting a tragedy and resentment of an unpopular country--- but then I remember that they are members of Congress, so there is a chance that they are actually that dumb.
But this very statement seems to suggest a belief that in order for a society to be secure, the devices can't be. What is a "reasonable level of security" for a device? The maximum technology allows, or something else?
You asked what a reasonable level of security is and society is trying to figure that out right now—both with regard to device encryption and mass collection of what was once thought of as trivial and non-private data..
Society can never be absolutely secure, but (going back to your original statement regarding warrants) the fact that search warrants can be issued on relatively meager evidence shows that the right to privacy was never seen as absolute either.
Trump's means, ends, and message are mostly between lock-step and goose-step with the prevailing right-wing orthodoxy.
In virtually all cases his position is to the right of his Republican opponents.
His primary heresies are 1) he uses a bullhorn for the dogwhistle social resentment issues; 2) he added the capitalist class to the list of people to be resented; and 3) (following from 2) he is not free trade.
I'll chime in with what the apples and oranges were: Schwartz' maximum possible sentence in the US to the actual sentence for another person for worse crime in Russia.
Don't forget, though, that he had six months to mature while all this was going on.
What makes software illegal?
How does installing malware require a presumption of guilt?
What is "a gestapo?"
I am commenting to bump parent up because the grandparent exhibits the lazy cynicism often seen here. The FBI probably signed an NDA which forbids sharing the trade secret (exploit) with anyone who would might share it with Apple. While I would prefer that the FBI prevent crime (depending on the other possible use of this exploit) by disclosing the exploit, I don't think that the FBI should be above the law (even contract law) and I am fairly certain that Apple has enough money to bounty zero day exploits out of existence.
Beyond that though, taxes are not inherently wrongful. Taxes (as the man said) are the price we pay for civilization. The overwhelming majority of people benefit from fewer fires and less disease, regardless of whether or not they have the foresight to voluntarily pay for a fire department or subsidized hospital. What's more, if they are engaged in any sort of commerce, they benefit from the security, and stability, and technology that civilization makes generally available.
For almost everyone, civilization gives more than it takes, so it is strange when people characterize taxes as wrong or immoral (stupid or too high is another matter).
There are a lot of rules of thumb about picking jurors. As a juror, an engineer won't be relied upon to to set aside their preconceptions (which they view as self-evident fact) or apply rules he or she has not run to ground. This thread is a good example of those weaknesses as a juror. FWIW, I have heard that once they know the rules, engineers make excellent lawyers.
The CNN report indicates, at worst, about a 1:3 ratio of civilian deaths to combatant deaths. "TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," This is bad. We should talk about whether it is worth killing one innocent person for each combatant. But this is a very different conversation than the 30:1 conversation suggested by the AC.
What constitutes a "rational" decision depends what your goals are. Here, the government’s goal is to borrow $4 Billion at less than the rate of inflation in order to foster an emerging industry and (I hope) put a thumb on the scale for consumer safety and choice. This seems like a rational decision to me.
A fair trial is certainly possible, assuming that he is charged with releasing classified data or something like that the actual content of the classified data is irrelevant. But few of his supporters even argue that he did not release classified data, or that there is no law against releasing classified data. Rather, they argue, that Snowden was serving a higher purpose in breaking the law, therefore he should be found innocent. Necessity is a defense, even to murder, but under the most generous terms these circumstances would not make it necessary to release everything that he did (I am thinking specifically of the revelations of our eavesdropping on foreign governments--which is exactly what the NSA should be doing). Snowden supporters argue that he stole the equivalent of a loaf of bread to feed his family, but a lot of the stuff looks like stolen cigarettes which he sold at a price that was almost giving them away.
So basically Ford's entire area of expertise depends on FINDING bias in these programs...
If this disqualifies her, then no scientist should be trusted in their area of expertise. It could be that anti-intellectualism among the poor to blame. It could also be the confirmation bias you mentioned working against poor minorities (as it has done since forever). Which of these scenarios is easier to institutionally address?
There are better examples you could have chosen: Comcast and Verizon are both last mile providers and therefore natural monopolies. Furthermore, Comcase and Verizon may actually compete with each other in some places as cable TV and telecom providers. Whenever someone compares the corruption in the US with that of Eastern Europe or Asia, I have to wonder if they are being paid by a PR firm for the country who's venality being deflected.
I can't tell if trolling, or just stupid. But anyway, to conspire means to breathe together (see: conjoin, aspirate for similarly rooted words). As in two people speaking so closely together that their breath is felt.
But when you are negotiating, you don't want the other side to know what your boss thinks of the deal. Ostensibly the citizenry is the ultimate boss here, so it should come as no surprise that treaty terms to not get RFCd.