Even if there was some approved curriculum for dating based on scientific evidence, which there isn't, it wouldn't be politically correct to teach. Teaching that there is "a way" to reduce rejection implies manipulation. Teaching that people can or should change who they are in order to be more attractive goes against "be yourself" and getting awards for doing nothing.
Most teachers I know -- and I know quite a few -- have hopeless romantic lives anyway. Listening to them lecture about dating is like listening to Rob Gronkowski wax philosophic. Learn from people who don't know what they're doing at your own peril.
And the police wonder why they're no longer treated with respect, while being people who regularly abuse their power and ignore the law.
No longer? Police have never been the embodiment of the Officer Friendly persona, on the whole. There are bright spots here and there to be sure, particularly in laid back suburban communities with high pay and low crime, but police have a history of abuse and extortion. See *any* third world country for an example of what our own police used to be. Police behavior has actually improved quite a lot since, say, the early 1900s, but, sadly, it was never better than it is now. The golden age of Leave it to Beaver and Andy Griffith is nothing but a fantasy.
You sort of glossed over the thrust of my argument in one sentence. We don't just throw people in jail (mostly). They have to be charged, and go to court, and be convicted by a jury, etc. Due process. It's not like we systematically disappear people because they were overheard saying something about the President. Stating that they do not enjoy such protections does not make it so.
They *do* have to get a warrant for targeted surveillance. They get it from FISA.
What I'm not okay with is then monitoring the other individuals that use these devices or connections when those individuals use other devices or connections, without first obtaining warrants against those individuals as well.
That's never going to happen. Even if the scope of the warrant was limited to, say, the owner of the line, courts have repeatedly and consistently permitted information acquired incidental to the execution of the warrant. That is to say, if there's a warrant to search your house for documents, and they find your husband's drug stash while executing the warrant, they can still bring charges against your husband. So the scope of the warrant might be limited to the owner of the phone line, but in reality, they would have to listen to the conversation to know who is speaking, and in so doing they may make additional, admissible, discoveries.
The intelligence community has a fairly well-defined enemy. It might not be as binary as Axis/Allies, but the enemies still want to self-identify under some collective banner, be it ISIS or Al Queda or Boko Haram. If they didn't, they wouldn't really be able to accomplish anything. Anonymous acts of violence are just anarchy, and none of those groups are anarchists. Far from it.
The difference is that we all use the same encryption these days. The is no "Al Queda Enigma Machine," or "ISIS Fialka." It's pretty much all RSA or AES. So finding and exploiting a weakness in one of those necessarily means finding and exploiting a weakness in everyone's communications, not just the targets. And, from an intelligence perspective, the only reason to limit your focus is to avoid being overwhelmed with too much information. If a similar level of scrutiny can be applied to a broader range of communications, then there's no compelling reason not to.
But, to play devil's advocate, how are people directly harmed by surveillance when they are protected from punishment by due process? People might not like being watched, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to society. We do a lot of things that we don't like as individuals because they help to sustain the lifestyles we enjoy. Paying taxes springs immediately to mind. I mean, it would be great if everyone just behaved nicely, and there were no threats to our security, but that's not the world we live in. So if surveillance can help to thwart attacks with no actual harm to innocent bystanders, then what's the problem? And if information wants to be free, then what's the point in even trying to shield it from the government's eyes?
(Also, you have your branches mixed up. The judicial branch issues warrants, not the legislature.)
Your argument would be compelling if not for the fact that one doesn't need this technology to build historical cases or networks. Investigators are perfectly capable of using forensics to find such connections after the fact. Of course such databases will be used retroactively, to the extent possible, but the stated goal of the intelligence community is to prevent attacks before they happen, not to pick up the pieces afterwards. See, for example, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...
See, you're thinking they need to perfect the technology for it to be useful, because imperfect technology is a pain in the ass for users of voice commands. But they don't. It's a different use case. Any amount of successful Speech-to-Text processing for archiving and searching is more effective than zero. They obviously would want to raise this as high as possible to avoid missing information, but they don't need perfection either. Even a 50% rate of transcription would yield a staggering amount of data, and if any specific triggers are hit, then a communication could be flagged for follow up by a human.
A better idea is an RFID reader and an implanted RFID chip. Separate user from computer and shutdown, or better yet, lock and start shutdown timer unless unlocked. A pain in the ass when you want a sammich, or you want to keep downloading files when you're AFK, but security has always required a sacrifice of convenience. Use a separate computer for "everyday" tasks, and one for sensitive tasks.
While this article is targeted at legal seizures, there are everyday uses as well, like preventing theft of your device on the subway from translating into theft of your data, or preventing corporate espionage. Of course it's an arms race, so if deadman's switches ever became common, then thieves will be sure to remove your implant (ouch) or just bring you along. The next step would be implanted computers, and removing or retrieving information from those will raise all sorts of constitutional issues.
My locality posts speed limit signs in residential areas despite the fact that there are statewide speed limits of 25MPH in residential areas, and despite the fact that drivers are required to know this to pass the driving test.
Redundant != pointless or worthless. In both cases, it reduces the operator's ability to say "I had no idea!"
Exactly. From our perspective, they're idiots joining a fruitless cause that's destined to fail. From their perspective, their lives already suck, they can't feed their families, and this is the only way they can see to bring about change, or to at least attention -- to not go quietly into the night. To be clear, their frustration is usurped by those who are willing to use it to their own ends, but the frustration and hopelessness are the prerequisites. The tendency toward violence is inversely proportional to quality of life and the economy. People who have their basic needs met are much less likely to be violent, especially en masse.
4.0 to 4.9 -- Noticeable shaking of indoor objects and rattling noises. Felt by most people in the affected area. Slightly felt outside. Generally causes none to minimal damage.
And a 4.0 is on the lowest end of that scale, almost 10x less powerful than a 4.9. There are over 13,000 4.0-4.9 magnitude earthquakes around the world each year. It's a non-story, except to ask your friend if he felt that. The commuter train passing by my office building causes that much shaking several times a day.
Good point, except the population balance in China isn't actually that bad, at 51.8%. Heck, the extra men can just go to the Russian Federation, which is 53.9% female. Besides, there are lots of jobs that aren't conducive to having a relationship or family anyway, which is why unemployment is a much bigger threat to stability.
Elves and dwarves, and are from germanic legends, and first appear in Old English and Norse writings.
The Brothers Grimm popularized dwarves long before Tolkien was born.
Dragons have been present in legends around the world since antiquity.
Tolkien can be credited with the modern concept of orcs, but the words orc and goblin are much older. Old English glossaries record the word OE orc corresponding with Latin Orcus (deity of the Underworld), and synonymous with thyrs "ogre", as well as "hell devil".
Hobbits were really the only creatures completely invented by Tolkien, and they don't exist outside of his Middle Earth universe either, unlike all of the other pre-existing conceptual creatures.
Fantasy has existed since antiquity, although conventionally it was labeled as religion or poetry. The Odyssey, Greek and Norse Mythology, Dante's Inferno, and many more both predate and laid a foundation for Tolkien. Many modern franchises may owe their existence to Tolkien, but the debt goes back further as well.
Companies want recent college grads because they know they're willing to work for less, not because they believe them to be more talented. Do you want to pay a landscaper $100 to mow your lawn, or the kid across the street $20? Same concept. If it's important, you'll pay the experienced professional, but a lot of development work is doable by amateurs. It might not look as good, but it's good enough.
Unfortunately the data doesn't provide day of birth, only month of birth, so I normalized by dividing by the number of days in the month in 2013 which gives me births/days per month. Assuming 2013 wasn't an atypical year, there's a definite peak in births from July to September, which suggests more babies are being conceived in winter than in summer.
You're acting like this is something new, but the FCC was already regulating the internet... this just changed the requirements, and I think everyone (except ISPs or their investors) will say it was a change for the better. Whether future changes will be better or worse is not germane.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if there was some approved curriculum for dating based on scientific evidence, which there isn't, it wouldn't be politically correct to teach. Teaching that there is "a way" to reduce rejection implies manipulation. Teaching that people can or should change who they are in order to be more attractive goes against "be yourself" and getting awards for doing nothing.
Most teachers I know -- and I know quite a few -- have hopeless romantic lives anyway. Listening to them lecture about dating is like listening to Rob Gronkowski wax philosophic. Learn from people who don't know what they're doing at your own peril.
Well played, sir. Well played.
And the police wonder why they're no longer treated with respect, while being people who regularly abuse their power and ignore the law.
No longer? Police have never been the embodiment of the Officer Friendly persona, on the whole. There are bright spots here and there to be sure, particularly in laid back suburban communities with high pay and low crime, but police have a history of abuse and extortion. See *any* third world country for an example of what our own police used to be. Police behavior has actually improved quite a lot since, say, the early 1900s, but, sadly, it was never better than it is now. The golden age of Leave it to Beaver and Andy Griffith is nothing but a fantasy.
This is one case where embrace and extinguish could actually be a good thing.
You sort of glossed over the thrust of my argument in one sentence. We don't just throw people in jail (mostly). They have to be charged, and go to court, and be convicted by a jury, etc. Due process. It's not like we systematically disappear people because they were overheard saying something about the President. Stating that they do not enjoy such protections does not make it so.
They *do* have to get a warrant for targeted surveillance. They get it from FISA.
What I'm not okay with is then monitoring the other individuals that use these devices or connections when those individuals use other devices or connections, without first obtaining warrants against those individuals as well.
That's never going to happen. Even if the scope of the warrant was limited to, say, the owner of the line, courts have repeatedly and consistently permitted information acquired incidental to the execution of the warrant. That is to say, if there's a warrant to search your house for documents, and they find your husband's drug stash while executing the warrant, they can still bring charges against your husband. So the scope of the warrant might be limited to the owner of the phone line, but in reality, they would have to listen to the conversation to know who is speaking, and in so doing they may make additional, admissible, discoveries.
The intelligence community has a fairly well-defined enemy. It might not be as binary as Axis/Allies, but the enemies still want to self-identify under some collective banner, be it ISIS or Al Queda or Boko Haram. If they didn't, they wouldn't really be able to accomplish anything. Anonymous acts of violence are just anarchy, and none of those groups are anarchists. Far from it.
The difference is that we all use the same encryption these days. The is no "Al Queda Enigma Machine," or "ISIS Fialka." It's pretty much all RSA or AES. So finding and exploiting a weakness in one of those necessarily means finding and exploiting a weakness in everyone's communications, not just the targets. And, from an intelligence perspective, the only reason to limit your focus is to avoid being overwhelmed with too much information. If a similar level of scrutiny can be applied to a broader range of communications, then there's no compelling reason not to.
But, to play devil's advocate, how are people directly harmed by surveillance when they are protected from punishment by due process? People might not like being watched, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to society. We do a lot of things that we don't like as individuals because they help to sustain the lifestyles we enjoy. Paying taxes springs immediately to mind. I mean, it would be great if everyone just behaved nicely, and there were no threats to our security, but that's not the world we live in. So if surveillance can help to thwart attacks with no actual harm to innocent bystanders, then what's the problem? And if information wants to be free, then what's the point in even trying to shield it from the government's eyes?
(Also, you have your branches mixed up. The judicial branch issues warrants, not the legislature.)
Your argument would be compelling if not for the fact that one doesn't need this technology to build historical cases or networks. Investigators are perfectly capable of using forensics to find such connections after the fact. Of course such databases will be used retroactively, to the extent possible, but the stated goal of the intelligence community is to prevent attacks before they happen, not to pick up the pieces afterwards. See, for example, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...
See, you're thinking they need to perfect the technology for it to be useful, because imperfect technology is a pain in the ass for users of voice commands. But they don't. It's a different use case. Any amount of successful Speech-to-Text processing for archiving and searching is more effective than zero. They obviously would want to raise this as high as possible to avoid missing information, but they don't need perfection either. Even a 50% rate of transcription would yield a staggering amount of data, and if any specific triggers are hit, then a communication could be flagged for follow up by a human.
A better idea is an RFID reader and an implanted RFID chip. Separate user from computer and shutdown, or better yet, lock and start shutdown timer unless unlocked. A pain in the ass when you want a sammich, or you want to keep downloading files when you're AFK, but security has always required a sacrifice of convenience. Use a separate computer for "everyday" tasks, and one for sensitive tasks.
While this article is targeted at legal seizures, there are everyday uses as well, like preventing theft of your device on the subway from translating into theft of your data, or preventing corporate espionage. Of course it's an arms race, so if deadman's switches ever became common, then thieves will be sure to remove your implant (ouch) or just bring you along. The next step would be implanted computers, and removing or retrieving information from those will raise all sorts of constitutional issues.
Here's a visualization of her layoffs at HP: http://carlyfiorina.org/
And this is what she had to say about it: "I would have done them all faster."
My locality posts speed limit signs in residential areas despite the fact that there are statewide speed limits of 25MPH in residential areas, and despite the fact that drivers are required to know this to pass the driving test.
Redundant != pointless or worthless. In both cases, it reduces the operator's ability to say "I had no idea!"
does enjoying sexual titillation make you an asshole?
It does if you're enjoying it at work while sitting next to me.
If a 63% higher rate isn't a big deal to you, then I would be happy to be your lender/banker.
Idolatry necessarily involves worship. Without the worship component, it's just a statue/painting/whatever.
Exactly. From our perspective, they're idiots joining a fruitless cause that's destined to fail. From their perspective, their lives already suck, they can't feed their families, and this is the only way they can see to bring about change, or to at least attention -- to not go quietly into the night. To be clear, their frustration is usurped by those who are willing to use it to their own ends, but the frustration and hopelessness are the prerequisites. The tendency toward violence is inversely proportional to quality of life and the economy. People who have their basic needs met are much less likely to be violent, especially en masse.
Exactly.
And a 4.0 is on the lowest end of that scale, almost 10x less powerful than a 4.9. There are over 13,000 4.0-4.9 magnitude earthquakes around the world each year. It's a non-story, except to ask your friend if he felt that. The commuter train passing by my office building causes that much shaking several times a day.
Good point, except the population balance in China isn't actually that bad, at 51.8%. Heck, the extra men can just go to the Russian Federation, which is 53.9% female. Besides, there are lots of jobs that aren't conducive to having a relationship or family anyway, which is why unemployment is a much bigger threat to stability.
Elves and dwarves, and are from germanic legends, and first appear in Old English and Norse writings.
The Brothers Grimm popularized dwarves long before Tolkien was born.
Dragons have been present in legends around the world since antiquity.
Tolkien can be credited with the modern concept of orcs, but the words orc and goblin are much older. Old English glossaries record the word OE orc corresponding with Latin Orcus (deity of the Underworld), and synonymous with thyrs "ogre", as well as "hell devil".
Hobbits were really the only creatures completely invented by Tolkien, and they don't exist outside of his Middle Earth universe either, unlike all of the other pre-existing conceptual creatures.
Fantasy has existed since antiquity, although conventionally it was labeled as religion or poetry. The Odyssey, Greek and Norse Mythology, Dante's Inferno, and many more both predate and laid a foundation for Tolkien. Many modern franchises may owe their existence to Tolkien, but the debt goes back further as well.
Companies want recent college grads because they know they're willing to work for less, not because they believe them to be more talented. Do you want to pay a landscaper $100 to mow your lawn, or the kid across the street $20? Same concept. If it's important, you'll pay the experienced professional, but a lot of development work is doable by amateurs. It might not look as good, but it's good enough.
Indeed. Threats are the "assault" component of "assault and battery."
Says who? Unfortunately I couldn't find a chart of births by month in the US, so I had to make my own.
Here's a plot of the results: http://postimg.org/image/3qa37...
Data source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_a...
Unfortunately the data doesn't provide day of birth, only month of birth, so I normalized by dividing by the number of days in the month in 2013 which gives me births/days per month. Assuming 2013 wasn't an atypical year, there's a definite peak in births from July to September, which suggests more babies are being conceived in winter than in summer.
Here are the raw numbers:
J: 10461
F: 10441
M: 10360
A: 10409
M: 10651
J: 10682
J: 11287
A: 11428
S: 11295
O: 11011
N: 10641
D: 10849
You're acting like this is something new, but the FCC was already regulating the internet... this just changed the requirements, and I think everyone (except ISPs or their investors) will say it was a change for the better. Whether future changes will be better or worse is not germane.
I think you made a wrong turn somewhere... this is Slashdot, not godlikeproductions.
Every time they're about to release, things grind to a halt?