"The government" is not a monolithic entity which has a singular goal or agenda. Indeed, many of the desires of separate parts of the government are contradictory. The government *is* a collection of people formed into a multitude of departments, divisions, localities, municipalities, etc., and while many parts may follow the example set by the top, you can be sure that there are, and will continue to be, those who follow the beat of their own drum -- for better or worse.
Indeed. While not as old as the ONR's study, I heard a story about researchers recently using warped glass to make objects visible at distances greater than even the most acute observer can naturally see. Supposedly these so-called "lenses" will bring clarity of vision to those with less than perfect eyesight, as well as permit the observation of minutiae at a level of detail never before dreamed. Glory be!
Also let me apologize for missing the closing tags there. Here's the corrected version for the sake of legibility:
No, I am not equating robbery and burglary. Robbery is classified under "violent crime," but it is merely the theft of money or goods through violence or *intimidation*. Intimidation may be a threat of violence, but not necessarily.
*In theory*, your assertion is correct, but in practice, burglars get harsher sentences than fraudsters. 33% harsher, in fact, and half as much time as robbers, despite the fact that burglary costs more in real dollars. $2.7B compared to $316M, for crimes known to police in 2002. I can't find numbers for even actual losses by cases prosecuted for fraud (let alone reported), but the Enron scandal alone lost $60B of shareholder (i.e. victim) funds. If penalties were truly commensurate with damages, Skilling would be serving multiple life sentences or, let's just say, 22 times the total sentences granted to every robber convicted in 2002. There's no question that fraud pays, and the bigger the fraud, the more it pays -- especially for those who can successfully hide/protect their newfound assets and are willing to do a couple of years in the pen if necessary. Essentially robbers and burglars are penalized for being too stupid to come up with a good scam.
No, I am not equating robbery and burglary. Robbery is classified under "violent crime," but it is merely the theft of money or goods through violence or *intimidation*. Intimidation may be a threat of violence, but not necessarily.
Robbery isn't necessarily violent, although he probably should have used home burglary as a better example. It does seem ridiculous that "white collar" crimes are less penalized since any one case typically affects many more people than any one burglary.
As I see it, the "problem" with SpiralFrog's business model is that there's no reasonable way to stop the process from being automated, with the possible exception of captchas or similar onerous and tedious measures. The longer the lengths they go to prevent automated downloading, the further away they push their potential customers. For that reason alone, I don't think advertising will be a viable business model. Alienating iPod users is just the nail in the coffin.
I was going to moderate, but I think you might actually believe what you're saying. So assuming you're not trolling:
when your local grocery store decides that they won't sell to you unless you can show a written confirmation from your local church that you have been there the last Sunday, is that still okay ?
No. Religion is explicitly prohibited as a reason for discrimination. What the manager did was not at all unconstitutional. If it was in violation of anything, it was corporate policy.
There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being.
There's also a huge difference between forcing your will on someone and refusing to do business with them. Namely, the former is generally illegal (with the exception of parent-child relationships) while the latter is perfectly reasonable, provided your business isn't a government protected monopoly like power or water.
I can kill you without ever lifting a finger against you if I control some vital resource.
True, which is why vital resources are protected by the government. Video games hardly fall into that category. Your argument of food is hypothetically valid, though in practice no single entity controls distribution, nor is the prospective buyer prohibited from growing/hunting his own, or going to a soup kitchen, etc. Aside from that, using your influence to deliberately cause or contribute to the death of someone else is clearly a criminal act, as is knowingly failing to prevent the death or egregious harm of another in the absence of danger to self or others. It's really a stretch to compare a sales policy on video games to willful disregard for life.
Don't be a maroon. Compulsive gamblers are hardly the model of normalcy, and loss aversion is not limited to dollars; money is simply the easiest way of distilling a behavioral question because it's readily quantifiable and has objective value. Your data would be highly skewed if you asked people to choose between, say, tape or glue.
Do you honestly think there's something inherently different about the behavior of people who live in one particular region beyond mere experience? Americans take luxuries for granted to the point they seem like necessities, true, but that doesn't mean any other particular nationality wouldn't/doesn't behave exactly the same way under the same set of circumstances. After all, Americans represent one of the widest spectrum of ethnicities in the world. Essentially when you say "Americans," you're saying "a diverse sample of multinational individuals."
Anything beyond food and shelter is a luxury, though I don't see the rest of the world shrugging off broadband internet, mobile phones, or fashionable clothing either.
What makes the paper ballots any more trustworthy? The problem is that, almost by definition, you cannot have both anonymity and a high degree of confidence in the results. So the question becomes: Which has fewer problems, anonymity or verifiability? Not an easy question by any means. Without anonymity you can have voter intimidation or reprisal. Without verifiability, you can have undetectable tampering. Personally, I lean toward accountability. If someone makes an official statement, I believe it should be attributable and verifiable. Voting is one of the few arenas where that's not currently true. As for voter intimidation, that already occurs based on district. As for reprisals, I believe they can be adequately constrained by the courts.
And for the argument that my vote is none of your business; it certainly IS your business, as it may well determine your fate. Draft, anyone?
I'm not saying it's not without problems, but the way I see it, to tamper with unverifiable ballots only takes a one time effort and can easily be undetectable. To tamper with the lives of others requires an effort each and every time, should be easier to spot, and would almost certainly be easier to redress.
You'd also have a hard time being entertained by...taking high doses of a CNS depressant
I could be wrong, but I think beer is quite popular the world over. Of course, there's a severe shortage of actual beer in the US, but that only bolsters my claim that it's not really a US "problem."
The problem with this approach is that it's only effective if you can prevent contamination of the exterior of the bottle, which would require either sanitizing it after filling (which could be tough to do) or very careful filling, along with a foolproof (ha!) seal at the cap. Maybe a good solution would be to include alcohol wipes, since hands would potentially get contaminated as well. Still, it seems like an overall net gain. Personally I plan to get a reverse osmosis setup anyway, since the water here is so bad that even a single drop leaves visible mineral deposits (at least I hope they're minerals), and boiling results in a disgusting film forming on the top. Not that it would work without water pressure, (or if my house was washed away, for that matter) but a much more common problem is that the tap water is non-potable for weeks after a storm due to contamination of the water supply.
And call me crazy, but when there's a storm approaching, we always stock up on a few weeks worth of water and nonperishable food. We're not exactly in the 19th century where you just wake up one day and there's a hurricane outside. Proper preparation blah blah..
Well that's their theory anyway. Whether it is borne out in practice remains to be seen. Clearly it works for SPAM, but these lawsuits clearly cost more to implement than the plaintiffs are receiving in awards. Their hope rests solely on recouping their costs through deterrence, although it's unclear that a decrease in piracy would equate to an increase in sales, so their reasoning may be somewhat flawed.
So, just like with classic attacks, can't we just increase the keyspace to stay ahead of the quantum curve indefinately? The only real problem I see is that passwords will eventually be obsolete, but that's essentially the case already. Passphrases will help to some extent, but again, it's just a matter of time before the computational ability outstrips the capacity to remember (and patience to enter) a sufficiently long and/or incoherent passphrase.
I'm not sure you could get that much higher, and it would take much, much longer. The frequency of a pendulum is proportional to the gravity. In 1/6th g it would take almost 3 times as long to complete one swing on the pipe. Say 30 seconds instead of 10 seconds. Also I believe your efforts to add energy (by varying your height) would be diminished proportionally as well. If you could keep it up, you might eventually achieve greater heights, but you also have to worry more about the landing, since, with a longer period, any imperfections in your arc would be amplified.
Slashdot Mirror
"The government" is not a monolithic entity which has a singular goal or agenda. Indeed, many of the desires of separate parts of the government are contradictory. The government *is* a collection of people formed into a multitude of departments, divisions, localities, municipalities, etc., and while many parts may follow the example set by the top, you can be sure that there are, and will continue to be, those who follow the beat of their own drum -- for better or worse.
I'll thank ye with tha tip o' me sarrrrd!
Indeed. While not as old as the ONR's study, I heard a story about researchers recently using warped glass to make objects visible at distances greater than even the most acute observer can naturally see. Supposedly these so-called "lenses" will bring clarity of vision to those with less than perfect eyesight, as well as permit the observation of minutiae at a level of detail never before dreamed. Glory be!
Also let me apologize for missing the closing tags there. Here's the corrected version for the sake of legibility:
No, I am not equating robbery and burglary. Robbery is classified under "violent crime," but it is merely the theft of money or goods through violence or *intimidation*. Intimidation may be a threat of violence, but not necessarily.
*In theory*, your assertion is correct, but in practice, burglars get harsher sentences than fraudsters. 33% harsher, in fact, and half as much time as robbers, despite the fact that burglary costs more in real dollars. $2.7B compared to $316M, for crimes known to police in 2002. I can't find numbers for even actual losses by cases prosecuted for fraud (let alone reported), but the Enron scandal alone lost $60B of shareholder (i.e. victim) funds. If penalties were truly commensurate with damages, Skilling would be serving multiple life sentences or, let's just say, 22 times the total sentences granted to every robber convicted in 2002. There's no question that fraud pays, and the bigger the fraud, the more it pays -- especially for those who can successfully hide/protect their newfound assets and are willing to do a couple of years in the pen if necessary. Essentially robbers and burglars are penalized for being too stupid to come up with a good scam.
No, I am not equating robbery and burglary. Robbery is classified under "violent crime," but it is merely the theft of money or goods through violence or *intimidation*. Intimidation may be a threat of violence, but not necessarily.
*In theory*, your assertion is correct, but in practice, burglars get harsher sentences than fraudsters. 33% harsher, in fact, and half as much time as robbers, despite the fact that burglary costs more in real dollars. $2.7B compared to $316M, for crimes known to police in 2002. I can't find numbers for even actual losses by cases prosecuted for fraud (let alone reported), but the Enron scandal alone lost $60B of shareholder (i.e. victim) funds. If penalties were truly commensurate with damages, Skilling would be serving multiple life sentences or, let's just say, 22 times the total sentences granted to every robber convicted in 2002. There's no question that fraud pays, and the bigger the fraud, the more it pays -- especially for those who can successfully hide/protect their newfound assets and are willing to do a couple of years in the pen if necessary. Essentially robbers and burglars are penalized for being too stupid to come up with a good scam.
Robbery isn't necessarily violent, although he probably should have used home burglary as a better example. It does seem ridiculous that "white collar" crimes are less penalized since any one case typically affects many more people than any one burglary.
Here's (what appears to be) a picture of the actual crater.
IANAC (crackhead), but if I were, I might not know what the hell I was doing and just try to sell the laptop ASAP so I could get some more crack.
As I see it, the "problem" with SpiralFrog's business model is that there's no reasonable way to stop the process from being automated, with the possible exception of captchas or similar onerous and tedious measures. The longer the lengths they go to prevent automated downloading, the further away they push their potential customers. For that reason alone, I don't think advertising will be a viable business model. Alienating iPod users is just the nail in the coffin.
Sorry, in the fifth paragraph, "former" and "latter" should be switched.
I was going to moderate, but I think you might actually believe what you're saying. So assuming you're not trolling:
when your local grocery store decides that they won't sell to you unless you can show a written confirmation from your local church that you have been there the last Sunday, is that still okay ?
No. Religion is explicitly prohibited as a reason for discrimination. What the manager did was not at all unconstitutional. If it was in violation of anything, it was corporate policy.
There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being.
There's also a huge difference between forcing your will on someone and refusing to do business with them. Namely, the former is generally illegal (with the exception of parent-child relationships) while the latter is perfectly reasonable, provided your business isn't a government protected monopoly like power or water.
I can kill you without ever lifting a finger against you if I control some vital resource.
True, which is why vital resources are protected by the government. Video games hardly fall into that category. Your argument of food is hypothetically valid, though in practice no single entity controls distribution, nor is the prospective buyer prohibited from growing/hunting his own, or going to a soup kitchen, etc. Aside from that, using your influence to deliberately cause or contribute to the death of someone else is clearly a criminal act, as is knowingly failing to prevent the death or egregious harm of another in the absence of danger to self or others. It's really a stretch to compare a sales policy on video games to willful disregard for life.
Don't be a maroon. Compulsive gamblers are hardly the model of normalcy, and loss aversion is not limited to dollars; money is simply the easiest way of distilling a behavioral question because it's readily quantifiable and has objective value. Your data would be highly skewed if you asked people to choose between, say, tape or glue.
Do you honestly think there's something inherently different about the behavior of people who live in one particular region beyond mere experience? Americans take luxuries for granted to the point they seem like necessities, true, but that doesn't mean any other particular nationality wouldn't/doesn't behave exactly the same way under the same set of circumstances. After all, Americans represent one of the widest spectrum of ethnicities in the world. Essentially when you say "Americans," you're saying "a diverse sample of multinational individuals."
Anything beyond food and shelter is a luxury, though I don't see the rest of the world shrugging off broadband internet, mobile phones, or fashionable clothing either.
What makes the paper ballots any more trustworthy? The problem is that, almost by definition, you cannot have both anonymity and a high degree of confidence in the results. So the question becomes: Which has fewer problems, anonymity or verifiability? Not an easy question by any means. Without anonymity you can have voter intimidation or reprisal. Without verifiability, you can have undetectable tampering. Personally, I lean toward accountability. If someone makes an official statement, I believe it should be attributable and verifiable. Voting is one of the few arenas where that's not currently true. As for voter intimidation, that already occurs based on district. As for reprisals, I believe they can be adequately constrained by the courts.
And for the argument that my vote is none of your business; it certainly IS your business, as it may well determine your fate. Draft, anyone?
I'm not saying it's not without problems, but the way I see it, to tamper with unverifiable ballots only takes a one time effort and can easily be undetectable. To tamper with the lives of others requires an effort each and every time, should be easier to spot, and would almost certainly be easier to redress.
What part of "we'll download torrents of shows we want to watch" did you miss?
It's not just Americans.. people are wired to be extremely loss averse.
The only MAC address my ISP sees is that of my wireless router (which is also configurable).
You'd also have a hard time being entertained by...taking high doses of a CNS depressant
I could be wrong, but I think beer is quite popular the world over. Of course, there's a severe shortage of actual beer in the US, but that only bolsters my claim that it's not really a US "problem."
Which is why our homeland from here on out shall be referred to as the Fatherland! That'll show them Ruskies!
Those words never appear in the Constitution. I believe you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which holds little or no legal standing.
The problem with this approach is that it's only effective if you can prevent contamination of the exterior of the bottle, which would require either sanitizing it after filling (which could be tough to do) or very careful filling, along with a foolproof (ha!) seal at the cap. Maybe a good solution would be to include alcohol wipes, since hands would potentially get contaminated as well. Still, it seems like an overall net gain. Personally I plan to get a reverse osmosis setup anyway, since the water here is so bad that even a single drop leaves visible mineral deposits (at least I hope they're minerals), and boiling results in a disgusting film forming on the top. Not that it would work without water pressure, (or if my house was washed away, for that matter) but a much more common problem is that the tap water is non-potable for weeks after a storm due to contamination of the water supply.
And call me crazy, but when there's a storm approaching, we always stock up on a few weeks worth of water and nonperishable food. We're not exactly in the 19th century where you just wake up one day and there's a hurricane outside. Proper preparation blah blah..
Clearly.
Well that's their theory anyway. Whether it is borne out in practice remains to be seen. Clearly it works for SPAM, but these lawsuits clearly cost more to implement than the plaintiffs are receiving in awards. Their hope rests solely on recouping their costs through deterrence, although it's unclear that a decrease in piracy would equate to an increase in sales, so their reasoning may be somewhat flawed.
So, just like with classic attacks, can't we just increase the keyspace to stay ahead of the quantum curve indefinately? The only real problem I see is that passwords will eventually be obsolete, but that's essentially the case already. Passphrases will help to some extent, but again, it's just a matter of time before the computational ability outstrips the capacity to remember (and patience to enter) a sufficiently long and/or incoherent passphrase.
I'm not sure if you guys noticed this potential issue, but your cyphertext is remarkably similar to your plaintext. And by similar I mean identical.
I'm not sure you could get that much higher, and it would take much, much longer. The frequency of a pendulum is proportional to the gravity. In 1/6th g it would take almost 3 times as long to complete one swing on the pipe. Say 30 seconds instead of 10 seconds. Also I believe your efforts to add energy (by varying your height) would be diminished proportionally as well. If you could keep it up, you might eventually achieve greater heights, but you also have to worry more about the landing, since, with a longer period, any imperfections in your arc would be amplified.