Can we take Carl off the pedestal yet? I know, it's hard to let go of childhood heroes, but almost all of his "contributions" to science were of a metaphysical nature, which is to say, not really scientific contributions at all. These writings included.
Read your own link: entrapment isn't not a crime; it's a defense.
And to the above poster who wrote, "courts used to take a very dim view of it,": Au contraire! Per your sibling poster's link:
Courts took a dim view of the defense at first. "[It] has never availed to shield crime or give indemnity to the culprit, and it is safe to say that under any code of civilized, not to say Christian, ethics, it never will" a New York Supreme Court said in 1864.[7] Forty years later, another judge in that state would affirm that rejection, arguing "[courts] should not hesitate to punish the crime actually committed by the defendant" when rejecting entrapment claimed in a grand larceny case.[8]
We humans find it much more satisfying to "find" and point out the evil in others than to look for the good, let alone encourage it. We like to admonish people for things we'd "never do," having never been tested to see if our morals really match our rhetoric, and knowing full well that we probably never will. I believe Jesus is quoted with words to that effect, though it doesn't take a self-proclaimed deity to realize that we're all capable of being shitty.
Nice use of vague and (therefore) unverifiable claims to build a foundation for extraordinary claims of worldwide press censorship (in the face of nearly unfettered communication via the internet, no less). Some might call your post a conspiracy theory, but it all makes sense to me. Well done.
Controls save lives, because they allow you to work with less data and reach a conclusion more quickly. Note that even controlled experiments are never conclusive, but without controls you need much, much more data to make a compelling case for efficacy.
Note that doesn't mean always don't throttle stuff I have marked as Flash, because then everyone will just mark everything as a high priority. Just throttle the packets I marked lowest first
Six of one, half dozen of the other. If you get penalized for marking your packets lower priority than the same packets from your neighbor, who doesn't know/care what he's doing, and your experience degrades more than his during congestion, then what's your incentive to continue lowering your priority? That's why nobody implements it. It's a great idea in theory, but in practice, relying on people to both accurately and honestly assess the requirements of their traffic doesn't work.
Hard to say. It's clear that their mind reading capabilities are non-existent afterward, but that's only a decrease if they had any psychic abilities before taking naked pictures, which hasn't yet been persuasively argued, let alone conclusively demonstrated, in my opinion. I mean, certainly the fact that they became famous means they made decisions compatible with that outcome, but to accept that fame and/or success was the result of paranormal or supernatural phenomena rather than either rational decision-making or random chance requires evidence more compelling than a throwaway post on Slashdot.
Don't confuse widespread misinformation with consensus of knowledgeable people.
If they enabled SSH and didn't change the default password, then that's a possibility, but a JB doesn't install SSHd by default, nor does it increase the attack surface. The post I linked to explains all of that, though, so it's easier to just reference that than reiterate it all point-for-point here.
The answer is no. Really, your question could have ended with anything after "Will Windows N finally address," and the answer would have been the same. Windows 10 will not finally address anything.
To be fair, he didn't actually do anything regarding throttling except to voice disapproval. As someone else mentioned, making noise and taking action are two different things, and so far he's really only done the former. It's an improvement over past chairmen, perhaps, but not something we should necessarily be satisfied with.
They also claim to only reduce speeds during network congestion (deprioritizing your traffic, essentially). In practice, I haven't noticed any slowdown. YMMV.
Technically Americans are allowed to go to Cuba; they're just not allowed to engage in financial transactions. That can be waived with a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
I agree that "not allowing people to fly from those countries" is ridiculous, but only because it's insufficient as a quarantine measure. Exceptions can always be made for people and materials to enter a quarantine, since that doesn't affect containment, so the argument that medical personnel and drugs couldn't get there is specious. The key point is that they wouldn't be allowed to leave again until it was all clear, if such a thing was really necessary.
That said, it doesn't seem like that's a step that we as a planet need to take just yet. Basic controls appear to be working, at least on the global scale, with outbreaks isolated to populations with poor hygiene and a strong distrust of (mostly foreign, to them) medical workers.
He realized that people's reactions will be heavily influenced by their religious beliefs
To realize is to become aware of a fact. The above clause is not a fact, it's a hypothesis. It's not a realization, it's an assertion. Catholicism forbids birth control, but a majority of Catholics are in favor of it. So even if religion has affected their views to birth control, which is speculative, then that influence has been unconvincing in most cases.
I'm a secularist agnostic, and this article just seems like an excuse to attack religion. To the best of my knowledge, all major religious texts are silent on extraterrestrial life, so there's no inherent conflict between religion and aliens.
To the extent that I am at all concerned about people's reaction to the discovery of aliens -- which is to say, hardly at all -- I am more concerned with how we would handle it on a global scale rather than how any subgroup would react. There will always be naysayers, and (it's worth noting) they may well be right! Should it happen, alien contact may well turn out to be a tragic event in the story of our species. Or it might be a monumental achievement. But aside from some ground rules, like not shooting first and asking questions later, I think it makes sense to wait until we know what we're dealing with before making any policy decisions, let alone worrying about the effects of any dissidents, or the motivation for their dissent.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we take Carl off the pedestal yet? I know, it's hard to let go of childhood heroes, but almost all of his "contributions" to science were of a metaphysical nature, which is to say, not really scientific contributions at all. These writings included.
Poo is #2. #1 is something else entirely.
Read your own link: entrapment isn't not a crime; it's a defense.
And to the above poster who wrote, "courts used to take a very dim view of it,": Au contraire! Per your sibling poster's link:
We humans find it much more satisfying to "find" and point out the evil in others than to look for the good, let alone encourage it. We like to admonish people for things we'd "never do," having never been tested to see if our morals really match our rhetoric, and knowing full well that we probably never will. I believe Jesus is quoted with words to that effect, though it doesn't take a self-proclaimed deity to realize that we're all capable of being shitty.
Nice use of vague and (therefore) unverifiable claims to build a foundation for extraordinary claims of worldwide press censorship (in the face of nearly unfettered communication via the internet, no less). Some might call your post a conspiracy theory, but it all makes sense to me. Well done.
Controls save lives, because they allow you to work with less data and reach a conclusion more quickly. Note that even controlled experiments are never conclusive, but without controls you need much, much more data to make a compelling case for efficacy.
Everybody lies.
Indeed. Linux just sets devices aflame. ;)
Nein.
Oh yes it is!!! -- Amazon Patent Team
If police get shot by homeowners, it won't be long before someone gets shot by the police over it.
What you wrote is not what he said.
He said that rolling through them saves fuel, not that there was no reason to ever have a stop sign, or that they were annoying at all.
"Michigan Builds Driverless Town For Testing Autonomous Cars"
It's called Detroit.
BOOM! Thank you, I'll be here all week!!!
Six of one, half dozen of the other. If you get penalized for marking your packets lower priority than the same packets from your neighbor, who doesn't know/care what he's doing, and your experience degrades more than his during congestion, then what's your incentive to continue lowering your priority? That's why nobody implements it. It's a great idea in theory, but in practice, relying on people to both accurately and honestly assess the requirements of their traffic doesn't work.
Exactly right. That sort of thing only applies to boys.
Hard to say. It's clear that their mind reading capabilities are non-existent afterward, but that's only a decrease if they had any psychic abilities before taking naked pictures, which hasn't yet been persuasively argued, let alone conclusively demonstrated, in my opinion. I mean, certainly the fact that they became famous means they made decisions compatible with that outcome, but to accept that fame and/or success was the result of paranormal or supernatural phenomena rather than either rational decision-making or random chance requires evidence more compelling than a throwaway post on Slashdot.
Don't confuse widespread misinformation with consensus of knowledgeable people.
If they enabled SSH and didn't change the default password, then that's a possibility, but a JB doesn't install SSHd by default, nor does it increase the attack surface. The post I linked to explains all of that, though, so it's easier to just reference that than reiterate it all point-for-point here.
iOS's security model is weakened by a jailbreak
Not true.
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
The answer is no. Really, your question could have ended with anything after "Will Windows N finally address," and the answer would have been the same. Windows 10 will not finally address anything.
Next question.
To be fair, he didn't actually do anything regarding throttling except to voice disapproval. As someone else mentioned, making noise and taking action are two different things, and so far he's really only done the former. It's an improvement over past chairmen, perhaps, but not something we should necessarily be satisfied with.
They do throttle, but the threshold is 5GB. http://www.att.com/esupport/da...
They also claim to only reduce speeds during network congestion (deprioritizing your traffic, essentially). In practice, I haven't noticed any slowdown. YMMV.
Technically 15 is 7 OR 8.
7 AND 8 is 0. Which might actually be more appropriate. Windows 0.
Technically Americans are allowed to go to Cuba; they're just not allowed to engage in financial transactions. That can be waived with a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
http://www.treasury.gov/resour...
I agree that it's pretty ridiculous at this point though.
your reductionism to the point of condescension disqualifies you from having a meaningful opinion.
Hello, kettle!
I agree that "not allowing people to fly from those countries" is ridiculous, but only because it's insufficient as a quarantine measure. Exceptions can always be made for people and materials to enter a quarantine, since that doesn't affect containment, so the argument that medical personnel and drugs couldn't get there is specious. The key point is that they wouldn't be allowed to leave again until it was all clear, if such a thing was really necessary.
That said, it doesn't seem like that's a step that we as a planet need to take just yet. Basic controls appear to be working, at least on the global scale, with outbreaks isolated to populations with poor hygiene and a strong distrust of (mostly foreign, to them) medical workers.
He realized that people's reactions will be heavily influenced by their religious beliefs
To realize is to become aware of a fact. The above clause is not a fact, it's a hypothesis. It's not a realization, it's an assertion. Catholicism forbids birth control, but a majority of Catholics are in favor of it. So even if religion has affected their views to birth control, which is speculative, then that influence has been unconvincing in most cases.
I'm a secularist agnostic, and this article just seems like an excuse to attack religion. To the best of my knowledge, all major religious texts are silent on extraterrestrial life, so there's no inherent conflict between religion and aliens.
To the extent that I am at all concerned about people's reaction to the discovery of aliens -- which is to say, hardly at all -- I am more concerned with how we would handle it on a global scale rather than how any subgroup would react. There will always be naysayers, and (it's worth noting) they may well be right! Should it happen, alien contact may well turn out to be a tragic event in the story of our species. Or it might be a monumental achievement. But aside from some ground rules, like not shooting first and asking questions later, I think it makes sense to wait until we know what we're dealing with before making any policy decisions, let alone worrying about the effects of any dissidents, or the motivation for their dissent.