You'll have to get Mitch to poke his head out of his shell first. Good luck with that. Mitch is a bigger pussy than Patty G's. Actually, that kind of looks like him.
Yeah, I keep hearing that argument, but the reasoning to back it up is circumspect: Snowden cost lives because terrorists changed communication methods.
A) We don't know that they actually changed communication methods. B) Even if they did change, we don't know that such a change inherently resulted in a successful attack that would have otherwise been thwarted. C) Even if we did know that, providing information on how to do something is not the same as doing it. D) Even if it was the same, evading surveillance is not illegal. E) Even if it were illegal, he did not provide information on how to evade surveillance, but merely that it was occurring. F) Even if he directly provided information on how to evade surveillance, providing that information only makes someone liable if they were trying to facilitate or encourage an illegal act. By all available evidence, his goal was to inform the public, and informing the enemy was a side effect of that.
In short, Snowden is not responsible for terrorists killing people -- terrorists are directly and wholly responsible for killing people.
Now, don't get me wrong, Snowden (almost certainly) broke the law, and I think his methods were reckless and hasty. By all accounts, he did not escalate his concerns up the chain, but rather threw up his hands after getting a little nonspecific pushback. If he has any evidence to counter those claims, he's not provided it, and providing that documentation should have been a primary consideration, which speaks further to his judgment. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he had good intentions, his execution sucked.
The evidence is classified, so the trial can't be public.
Completely untrue. The evidence *is* classified, but the public trial can proceed with "substitute" evidence. See here, or read about the Classified Information Procedures Act.
2016 is shaping up to be a disastrous election. For some reason, nobody on the D ticket wants to challenge Hillary, and the R ticket can't put forward a halfway decent candidate. I shudder to think of any candidate on the field right now, except maybe Sanders, in charge of the massive apparatus of the executive branch; especially the IC and the DoJ. I actually voted against Al Gore, back when I believed the R lie of low taxes and small government, but I would love to see him in the race right now, or anyone who's not a saber rattling chickenhawk.
I mean, it probably *will* be world-changing technology, but "Goddard stage" is not a useful term. There are experiments, proof-of-concept products, prototypes, and production products. Quantum Computing doesn't have anything approaching a "quantum chip" where it's just a question of manufacturing details. It's just barely beyond proof-of-concept stage. There's nothing approaching a prototype of a quantum processor that can do useful work. IBM claims they have a design for a scalable processor, but you know what they say about the difference between theory and reality.
No, it's not the same problem at all. *No* vaccine is perfect, whether it's because the pathogen mutates slightly, or because the immune system doesn't learn that the (harmless) pathogen in the vaccine was harmful. The way vaccines work isn't perfect immunity, but herd immunity. They work well enough to prevent outbreaks, which is a public health concern, and if you're one of the lucky ones for whom the vaccine worked, then you're better off too. Unfortunately, there's no way to know, beforehand, whether your individual vaccination will work without deliberately exposing you to the pathogen, which is both unethical, and an unnecessary risk.
Some pathogens mutate quickly, like the flu, so vaccines are only good for a very limited time. We know this. But they will mutate with or without a vaccinated population, so it doesn't make sense not to vaccinate just because it won't be perfect.
Antibiotic resistance is a problem, but again perfect use of antibiotics is only a mitigating factor for resistance, not a panacea, because no antibiotic is perfect either. At some point we will need to find either new antibiotics, or alternative treatments. It's actually much easier to develop new vaccines than to find new antibiotics.
autonomous cars are more likely to be shared and constantly in use, rather than sitting in your driveway 90% of the time.
Sorry, no. If I want to "share" a car, I'll call a taxi, or uber. The whole point of owning a car is that it's there when you need it, and since 90% of the people need 90% of the cars at the same (local) time, namely rush hour, it's not going to benefit me to share the car. Especially if I hop in to find dirty upholstery, or trash in the car, or physical damage to the interior.
That said, electronics are cheap. No matter how expensive they were to develop, once mass-produced, the total cost quickly approaches the cost to manufacture. The reason electronics like navigation and cameras are expensive in cars today is because they can charge a ridiculous amount. Charging for "premium audio," or "lane departure" is all about market segmentation -- charging people 25% more for the same car. Once features start coming standard on low-end models, then new features are added to charge more for, and the process continues.
Since "automated driving" is a pretty basic feature of a driverless car, the technology itself shouldn't cost much once it hits critical mass. At that point, expect car manufacturers to add butt-fluffer massage seats and augmented reality windows and charge thousands. And of course, the "premium audio" upsell will never go away.
If you like dress codes, you'll love Booz, Allen, Hamilton. Freshly pressed suits, at all times. If you're lucky, you might be allowed to take your jacket off after hours.
It seems ridiculous to have an entire course dedicated to STI prevention. Is it just relabeled sex-ed, or do they have a separate course for that?
Also, what is the alleged political motivation? Preventing STIs is a pretty big public health issue. I don't hear anyone complaining that they teach about DUIs in Driver's Ed, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
As went America, so went Slashdot.
The late, former head of the NSA, Lieutenant General William E. Odom, respectfully disagrees.
http://www.middlebury.edu/medi...
Or maybe if power corrupts...
No, that's silly.
His celebrity is more of a deterrent than Russian soil. Plausible deniability is easy.
You'll have to get Mitch to poke his head out of his shell first. Good luck with that. Mitch is a bigger pussy than Patty G's. Actually, that kind of looks like him.
His girlfriend might object to that, since she's living with him.
What he did could easily have cost lives
Yeah, I keep hearing that argument, but the reasoning to back it up is circumspect: Snowden cost lives because terrorists changed communication methods.
A) We don't know that they actually changed communication methods.
B) Even if they did change, we don't know that such a change inherently resulted in a successful attack that would have otherwise been thwarted.
C) Even if we did know that, providing information on how to do something is not the same as doing it.
D) Even if it was the same, evading surveillance is not illegal.
E) Even if it were illegal, he did not provide information on how to evade surveillance, but merely that it was occurring.
F) Even if he directly provided information on how to evade surveillance, providing that information only makes someone liable if they were trying to facilitate or encourage an illegal act. By all available evidence, his goal was to inform the public, and informing the enemy was a side effect of that.
In short, Snowden is not responsible for terrorists killing people -- terrorists are directly and wholly responsible for killing people.
Now, don't get me wrong, Snowden (almost certainly) broke the law, and I think his methods were reckless and hasty. By all accounts, he did not escalate his concerns up the chain, but rather threw up his hands after getting a little nonspecific pushback. If he has any evidence to counter those claims, he's not provided it, and providing that documentation should have been a primary consideration, which speaks further to his judgment. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he had good intentions, his execution sucked.
The evidence is classified, so the trial can't be public.
Completely untrue. The evidence *is* classified, but the public trial can proceed with "substitute" evidence. See here, or read about the Classified Information Procedures Act.
2016 is shaping up to be a disastrous election. For some reason, nobody on the D ticket wants to challenge Hillary, and the R ticket can't put forward a halfway decent candidate. I shudder to think of any candidate on the field right now, except maybe Sanders, in charge of the massive apparatus of the executive branch; especially the IC and the DoJ. I actually voted against Al Gore, back when I believed the R lie of low taxes and small government, but I would love to see him in the race right now, or anyone who's not a saber rattling chickenhawk.
No doubt. Anyone else remember this? http://slashdot.org/story/99/1...
The individual does not define embarrassment.
That's a bit neurotic. Who defines one's emotions if not the individual? I'm not embarrassed just because someone tells me to be.
I mean, it probably *will* be world-changing technology, but "Goddard stage" is not a useful term. There are experiments, proof-of-concept products, prototypes, and production products. Quantum Computing doesn't have anything approaching a "quantum chip" where it's just a question of manufacturing details. It's just barely beyond proof-of-concept stage. There's nothing approaching a prototype of a quantum processor that can do useful work. IBM claims they have a design for a scalable processor, but you know what they say about the difference between theory and reality.
No, it's not the same problem at all. *No* vaccine is perfect, whether it's because the pathogen mutates slightly, or because the immune system doesn't learn that the (harmless) pathogen in the vaccine was harmful. The way vaccines work isn't perfect immunity, but herd immunity. They work well enough to prevent outbreaks, which is a public health concern, and if you're one of the lucky ones for whom the vaccine worked, then you're better off too. Unfortunately, there's no way to know, beforehand, whether your individual vaccination will work without deliberately exposing you to the pathogen, which is both unethical, and an unnecessary risk.
Some pathogens mutate quickly, like the flu, so vaccines are only good for a very limited time. We know this. But they will mutate with or without a vaccinated population, so it doesn't make sense not to vaccinate just because it won't be perfect.
Antibiotic resistance is a problem, but again perfect use of antibiotics is only a mitigating factor for resistance, not a panacea, because no antibiotic is perfect either. At some point we will need to find either new antibiotics, or alternative treatments. It's actually much easier to develop new vaccines than to find new antibiotics.
All of them, once car makers catch on to SAAS.
Busses, on the other hand, are going to be much harder to remove.
Are you a ticket? Cause you got "fine," written all over you!
Actually, automakers are well aware of the importance of cupholders.
http://wardsauto.com/news-amp-...
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c...
What if there's consent? I could see controlled "drone shoots" being more popular than skeet.
Oh noes, you captured my flabby belly on film!
Not if it records you through the eyes!
Along with the new commercials: Let's move to the knees, Gertrude. You haven't even touched my dirty knees.
autonomous cars are more likely to be shared and constantly in use, rather than sitting in your driveway 90% of the time.
Sorry, no. If I want to "share" a car, I'll call a taxi, or uber. The whole point of owning a car is that it's there when you need it, and since 90% of the people need 90% of the cars at the same (local) time, namely rush hour, it's not going to benefit me to share the car. Especially if I hop in to find dirty upholstery, or trash in the car, or physical damage to the interior.
That said, electronics are cheap. No matter how expensive they were to develop, once mass-produced, the total cost quickly approaches the cost to manufacture. The reason electronics like navigation and cameras are expensive in cars today is because they can charge a ridiculous amount. Charging for "premium audio," or "lane departure" is all about market segmentation -- charging people 25% more for the same car. Once features start coming standard on low-end models, then new features are added to charge more for, and the process continues.
Since "automated driving" is a pretty basic feature of a driverless car, the technology itself shouldn't cost much once it hits critical mass. At that point, expect car manufacturers to add butt-fluffer massage seats and augmented reality windows and charge thousands. And of course, the "premium audio" upsell will never go away.
If Georgia paid for the annotations, then that's certainly a good reason for the annotated code to be publicly available.
If you like dress codes, you'll love Booz, Allen, Hamilton. Freshly pressed suits, at all times. If you're lucky, you might be allowed to take your jacket off after hours.
http://www.indeed.com/forum/cm...
It seems ridiculous to have an entire course dedicated to STI prevention. Is it just relabeled sex-ed, or do they have a separate course for that?
Also, what is the alleged political motivation? Preventing STIs is a pretty big public health issue. I don't hear anyone complaining that they teach about DUIs in Driver's Ed, for example.