Most misbelief is willful. It's how our brains work, and it works to our benefit much of the time. It prevents us from spending time confirming things we already "know" so that we can prioritize our actions and focus our attention on things that we deem more important. If someone tells you the world is flat, you don't bother to investigate; you just call them an idiot, because it conflicts with your beliefs and knowledge. Even if it were true, it would take an incredible amount of evidence to convince you, and you would still point to every contradictory fact before you changed your belief. If that person called you an idiot, you would probably get upset, because clearly *they* are the idiot. The problem is that the more complex the issue is, the more room there is for uncertainty, and the less people are willing to change their beliefs without concrete evidence.
This is exacerbated by the fact that people have an emotional investment in believing that they are not wrong, because it damages the ego to be wrong. When we're corrected by someone else, many of us feel inferior, and have to protect ourselves from that feeling by either denying what's being said, or else diminishing the other person in some way. People who tell us we're wrong are an emotional threat. Politicians, on both sides, capitalize on this, intentionally or not, by appealing to ego. "You're not wrong, they're wrong! Vote for me!"
It's going to be a while, if ever, before we can figure out how to avoid being manipulated by emotions. Maybe our AI replacements will do a better job.;)
Capitalism and socialism can coexist. They're good balancing factors, in fact. It's just a question of which industries, products, and services belong in which category. Most people, even conservatives, bemoan the privatization of toll roads, for example -- they much prefer the socialized, state run roads. They don't think of it that way, of course, but that's what it is. Most people don't think of firefighters as socialism, but they are nonetheless. Nobody asks you for a check before putting out the fire. They used to do just that, of course, but we rightfully recognized that neighboring property owners can suffer by the inaction or insolvency of another. The same is true for education and healthcare. When we have an uneducated population, we're less able to compete in the global market. When we have people who can't or won't obtain health insurance, we end up paying to treat their late-stage medical problems, or else let them die -- "them" including our friends and family, if not ourselves. Individualism should be leveraged for the good it can do -- personal responsibility and accountability are generally good things -- and collectivism should be leveraged for the good it can do. What's the point of making life worse or harder than it needs to be? That just seems sadistic and spiteful.
This law would basically guarantee that there would never be another paparazzi photo of some starlet skinny dipping or sun tanning, ever, ever again.
I think you missed the part where it said Minnesota, which is eclipsed, if you'll pardon the pun, by only the moon in terms of either celebrity population, or paparazzi waiting there to take photos of them.
Actually, their interest is a bit baffling. They're not the ones who capitalize off of those scandals, at least not directly, and there are already exemptions from privacy expectations for public figures anyway.
Yeah! Nothing shows companies what's what like a DDoS! Oh, except telling your mom what they've done. I bet she'll give them a good talking-to. That'll teach 'em!
Bitcoin may not be divisible enough, though. It takes 2000 Satoshis to equal 1 cent today, but that can only halve 11 times before reaching parity. With deflationary trending of BTC and inflationary trending of the USD, that may happen relatively quickly -- certainly less than 100 years. At some point, 1 Satoshi is worth more than the least expensive items, and then it's utility as currency decreases.
One would think they would lobby harder or more effectively against security, then. Perhaps some employees at the airlines hate the TSA, but the people who actually own and operate the airlines are indifferent. After all, every other airline is crippled by the same security, and what's the alternative? Pay twice as much for a train ticket? Ha.
As someone with a family member who's been locked up in a place with one of these systems, I can tell you: It's a racket.
A third party has to set up an account for the inmate, with a minimum deposit, usually $60+. They then have to provide one or more phone numbers that the inmate is authorized to call "collect," or what they call "prepaid collect." The rates seem to start at about $0.75/min. So for $30, which is about the price of an unlimited cellular calling plan, they get about 40 minutes of talk time. And I'll spare you the logistical nightmares of getting this all set up, but suffice it to say that it's probably easier to sneak in a cell phone.
Well if you're ever forced outside against your will, all you need to do is buy some anti-glare screen protectors. As for finding a job to afford them, you're on your own with that I'm afraid.
There are two important factors when assessing the threat of any entity: Capability and Intent.
ISIS has the intent to end us, but not the capability. That would require a huge army, or WMDs, or a persistent threat, such as repeated successful attacks on critical infrastructure or government facilities. Killing a few civilians is, in relative terms, an annoyance. It's extremely harmful to the immediate family and friends of the victims, and somewhat harmful to society through empathy and fear, but not at all detrimental to the capability of the nation to continue to exist as it did before the attack.
Countries with nuclear stockpiles have the capability to end us, and one or two might have the latent desire, but none really have the intent anymore -- MAD proved to be an effective deterrent.
These days, without an enemy with both the capability and the intent to end us, we've expanded our threat model to encompass groups with just the intent, like ISIS or al Qaeda. If, tomorrow, Russia and China teamed up to roll across Europe and Asia, respectively, in a new world war, we'd forget about ISIS in a heartbeat, because that would be a formidable adversary, a threat to our allies in the immediate future, and a threat to us in the long term.
So yes, ISIS is a JV team. Why should we focus our national security apparatus on them so thoroughly, with all of the associated costs (and waste), when they can only pull off disruptive attacks at best? Terrorism is not even the largest human OR non-human risk factor in daily living. Our fellow non-terrorist countrymen (and women) are far more likely to kill us than a terrorist, whether deliberately or accidentally, and health issues are the cause of most of our demises.
To the extent that we focus on combating terrorist groups or defending against terrorist attacks, it should be done in proportion to the threat that it poses. We should have already learned -- from the war on drugs, or the Vietnam War, or the censorship efforts of the 80s and 90s -- that a disproportionate response is a "cure" that's usually worse than the disease. When it comes to national security, as with most things, the perfect is still the enemy of the good.
That's exactly why we need pre-airport security screening! How is this not obvious??? Oh sure, someone will say "but what about the vulnerability of the pre-airport security screening queue?" Well, obviously we just need a queue before that. It's queues all the way down. Just keep this between us though -- if the terrorists discover our methods, the terrorists win.
If they got it right, then credit goes to the Parliament of Great Britain, since the Copyright Act of 1790 was (ironically?) virtually identical to the Statute of Anne. To me, it seems more likely that they didn't feel like giving it very much thought at all beyond "yeah, let's have copyrights... and we can save a lot of time by copying!"
The purpose of copyright is to ensure that a work passes into the hands of the people after a reasonable period.
No, the purpose of Copyright law is to promote the progress of science and art. We know this because it says so right there in the Constitution. What you're referring to is the means -- "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Why the "limited Times" wording was used is unknown, since no records were kept. At best, it could be argued that the framers did not want the public domain to be a casualty of incentivizing art and science, but that's speculative, and in any event, it still wasn't the purpose of copyrights.
Well, maybe that's true. Or, maybe she just wanted to make sure there were no leaks.
That's not even a remotely plausible explanation, since she was sending emails to and receiving emails from people using State email addresses/servers, which provides exactly the same exposure, plus the added exposure of her own server getting hacked.
Slashdot Mirror
Most misbelief is willful. It's how our brains work, and it works to our benefit much of the time. It prevents us from spending time confirming things we already "know" so that we can prioritize our actions and focus our attention on things that we deem more important. If someone tells you the world is flat, you don't bother to investigate; you just call them an idiot, because it conflicts with your beliefs and knowledge. Even if it were true, it would take an incredible amount of evidence to convince you, and you would still point to every contradictory fact before you changed your belief. If that person called you an idiot, you would probably get upset, because clearly *they* are the idiot. The problem is that the more complex the issue is, the more room there is for uncertainty, and the less people are willing to change their beliefs without concrete evidence.
This is exacerbated by the fact that people have an emotional investment in believing that they are not wrong, because it damages the ego to be wrong. When we're corrected by someone else, many of us feel inferior, and have to protect ourselves from that feeling by either denying what's being said, or else diminishing the other person in some way. People who tell us we're wrong are an emotional threat. Politicians, on both sides, capitalize on this, intentionally or not, by appealing to ego. "You're not wrong, they're wrong! Vote for me!"
It's going to be a while, if ever, before we can figure out how to avoid being manipulated by emotions. Maybe our AI replacements will do a better job. ;)
Capitalism and socialism can coexist. They're good balancing factors, in fact. It's just a question of which industries, products, and services belong in which category. Most people, even conservatives, bemoan the privatization of toll roads, for example -- they much prefer the socialized, state run roads. They don't think of it that way, of course, but that's what it is. Most people don't think of firefighters as socialism, but they are nonetheless. Nobody asks you for a check before putting out the fire. They used to do just that, of course, but we rightfully recognized that neighboring property owners can suffer by the inaction or insolvency of another. The same is true for education and healthcare. When we have an uneducated population, we're less able to compete in the global market. When we have people who can't or won't obtain health insurance, we end up paying to treat their late-stage medical problems, or else let them die -- "them" including our friends and family, if not ourselves. Individualism should be leveraged for the good it can do -- personal responsibility and accountability are generally good things -- and collectivism should be leveraged for the good it can do. What's the point of making life worse or harder than it needs to be? That just seems sadistic and spiteful.
Ah yes, the famed Nike river, brought to you by the sweat of cheap labor.
This law would basically guarantee that there would never be another paparazzi photo of some starlet skinny dipping or sun tanning, ever, ever again.
I think you missed the part where it said Minnesota, which is eclipsed, if you'll pardon the pun, by only the moon in terms of either celebrity population, or paparazzi waiting there to take photos of them.
Actually, their interest is a bit baffling. They're not the ones who capitalize off of those scandals, at least not directly, and there are already exemptions from privacy expectations for public figures anyway.
Yeah! Nothing shows companies what's what like a DDoS! Oh, except telling your mom what they've done. I bet she'll give them a good talking-to. That'll teach 'em!
Bitcoin may not be divisible enough, though. It takes 2000 Satoshis to equal 1 cent today, but that can only halve 11 times before reaching parity. With deflationary trending of BTC and inflationary trending of the USD, that may happen relatively quickly -- certainly less than 100 years. At some point, 1 Satoshi is worth more than the least expensive items, and then it's utility as currency decreases.
One would think they would lobby harder or more effectively against security, then. Perhaps some employees at the airlines hate the TSA, but the people who actually own and operate the airlines are indifferent. After all, every other airline is crippled by the same security, and what's the alternative? Pay twice as much for a train ticket? Ha.
As with Linux on the PS3, I predict this will end shortly after someone uses it to jailbreak the console. So, in 3... 2... 1...
Hi, you must be new here.
As per the Moderation page, the goals of moderation are:
GP's anonymous post was clearly within those goals while, ironically, ours are driving the discussion off-topic.
As someone with a family member who's been locked up in a place with one of these systems, I can tell you: It's a racket.
A third party has to set up an account for the inmate, with a minimum deposit, usually $60+. They then have to provide one or more phone numbers that the inmate is authorized to call "collect," or what they call "prepaid collect." The rates seem to start at about $0.75/min. So for $30, which is about the price of an unlimited cellular calling plan, they get about 40 minutes of talk time. And I'll spare you the logistical nightmares of getting this all set up, but suffice it to say that it's probably easier to sneak in a cell phone.
Alaskans could tell it was the Pavlov Volcano because all of their dogs started drooling.
Well if you're ever forced outside against your will, all you need to do is buy some anti-glare screen protectors. As for finding a job to afford them, you're on your own with that I'm afraid.
There are two important factors when assessing the threat of any entity: Capability and Intent.
ISIS has the intent to end us, but not the capability. That would require a huge army, or WMDs, or a persistent threat, such as repeated successful attacks on critical infrastructure or government facilities. Killing a few civilians is, in relative terms, an annoyance. It's extremely harmful to the immediate family and friends of the victims, and somewhat harmful to society through empathy and fear, but not at all detrimental to the capability of the nation to continue to exist as it did before the attack.
Countries with nuclear stockpiles have the capability to end us, and one or two might have the latent desire, but none really have the intent anymore -- MAD proved to be an effective deterrent.
These days, without an enemy with both the capability and the intent to end us, we've expanded our threat model to encompass groups with just the intent, like ISIS or al Qaeda. If, tomorrow, Russia and China teamed up to roll across Europe and Asia, respectively, in a new world war, we'd forget about ISIS in a heartbeat, because that would be a formidable adversary, a threat to our allies in the immediate future, and a threat to us in the long term.
So yes, ISIS is a JV team. Why should we focus our national security apparatus on them so thoroughly, with all of the associated costs (and waste), when they can only pull off disruptive attacks at best? Terrorism is not even the largest human OR non-human risk factor in daily living. Our fellow non-terrorist countrymen (and women) are far more likely to kill us than a terrorist, whether deliberately or accidentally, and health issues are the cause of most of our demises.
To the extent that we focus on combating terrorist groups or defending against terrorist attacks, it should be done in proportion to the threat that it poses. We should have already learned -- from the war on drugs, or the Vietnam War, or the censorship efforts of the 80s and 90s -- that a disproportionate response is a "cure" that's usually worse than the disease. When it comes to national security, as with most things, the perfect is still the enemy of the good.
That's exactly why we need pre-airport security screening! How is this not obvious??? Oh sure, someone will say "but what about the vulnerability of the pre-airport security screening queue?" Well, obviously we just need a queue before that. It's queues all the way down. Just keep this between us though -- if the terrorists discover our methods, the terrorists win.
Ban encryption 2016!
If they got it right, then credit goes to the Parliament of Great Britain, since the Copyright Act of 1790 was (ironically?) virtually identical to the Statute of Anne. To me, it seems more likely that they didn't feel like giving it very much thought at all beyond "yeah, let's have copyrights... and we can save a lot of time by copying!"
The purpose of copyright is to ensure that a work passes into the hands of the people after a reasonable period.
No, the purpose of Copyright law is to promote the progress of science and art. We know this because it says so right there in the Constitution. What you're referring to is the means -- "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Why the "limited Times" wording was used is unknown, since no records were kept. At best, it could be argued that the framers did not want the public domain to be a casualty of incentivizing art and science, but that's speculative, and in any event, it still wasn't the purpose of copyrights.
I had the reread the sentence to understand.
I had to reread the sentence about rereading the sentence to understand to understand.
I would tell you, but training about what training is costs $3,499 per seat.
Except there is no "H1B," there's just HB.
You might as well have said, "I'm not from africa, so when I hear drumbeats, I think horses."
That's not even a remotely plausible explanation, since she was sending emails to and receiving emails from people using State email addresses/servers, which provides exactly the same exposure, plus the added exposure of her own server getting hacked.
Right, I was just pointing out that I also misspelled the word that I was using incorrectly to boot. :)
None that you can think of, anyway. :)
Populous is what I meant to type, actually. But thanks.
Are we talking about ISIS or Trump supporters?