Let my preface this by saying that I believe all parallel construction should be illegal, and I hope/believe that it will eventually be ruled accordingly. Partial truths are still deceit, and dishonesty in the legal system opens it up to (further) abuse. It's either illegal to lie under oath, or it is not, and the government should hold itself to the same standard that we expect of citizens.
That said, parallel construction is precisely about concealing the impetus. The classic example is a traffic stop that appears to be random, but is actually targeting a vehicle. The targeted vehicle could well have been stopped solely for whatever reason police used, and so that's the "parallel construction," even though police knew exactly which vehicle they wanted to stop.
"You'd be told only, âBe at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said. http://www.reuters.com/article...
Bringing a canine unit to the storage facility would allow the officer to tell the partial truth that he got a hit on a storage unit during a walk-through, even if the impetus for bringing the dog and doing a walk-through was because of a CI (and even if the hit was prompted). The deceit isn't in saying how the contraband was actually discovered/acquired, but in what the impetus was for using that (perfectly legal) method in the first place. That part is the "parallel construction."
Now you might have been saying that GP's speculation that it was parallel construction is wrong, but we're all just speculating on what the officer might have been doing anyway. Maybe it was just a recreation for the camera and they forgot to edit that part out.
I know that the evidence supporting the existence of souls is about as compelling as the evidence for mermaids. Maybe slightly lower actually, since people have actually claimed to see mermaids.
And since there seem to be lots of "off" switches, this is really just adding to the list. (Unless stimulating it can actually bring someone out of a coma?)
At some point costs (labor requirements) will be so low that an entire population doesn't need to work full-time, or even anything approaching full time, in order to meet them. This is most clearly visible when looking at the amount of money we spend on food -- costs have decreased so dramatically that food costs as a percent of income are lower than income taxes in most cases. So what happens when the costs of other goods and services decrease accordingly? What happens when we don't have to pay people to create those goods and services, because they're created by machines? When grain is harvested by self-driving combines, and transported to market on self-driving trucks, and vended by automated machines? Because all of the other parts of the supply chain have already been automated -- those are the few that remain. The costs of goods and services will approach zero, even if they never quite get there.
We currently accommodate this through unemployment -- reducing the size of the workforce and making people compete for available positions instead of lowering the time per individual. We leave it up to individuals to either re-task or retire. And reductions in the workforce are sustainable -- up to about 1 worker per family. After that it starts to fall apart.
Automation is happening all around us, but we keep our collective heads in the sand because *our* jobs haven't yet been obsoleted, and because we fail to imagine a day when that could happen. I'm not saying it will be a utopia by any means. On the contrary, I don't think humans are generally wired to be happy and content, and we will always find things to be unhappy about. What I am saying is that we need to plan in order to avoid the dystopia that will necessarily ensue from massive unemployment and the lack of a societal model to accommodate it.
Of course, we can't even execute an effective, collective plans for more concrete "when not if" scenarios like natural events, so I'm not holding my breath for realistic plans to address near-zero cost existence.
Actually, GP was correct, and you seem to be misinformed. The notion of parallel construction originated in protecting CIs, and has been used for that purpose for decades. Extending it to cover illegal NSA wiretaps was a more recent development.
I would not recommend Grails at all. First, if for no other reason, it's a bit player, so good luck finding developers, tools, help, and all of the other benefits you get with using a language/framework with a large, thriving community. That alone should be enough to steer you away from using it for enterprise anything.
Aside from that, boolean truths are quirky, to put it kindly.
Null evaluates to false, which is ridiculous and doesn't eliminate the need to check for null, just hides the problem if you forget to do it. This is because groovy uses "null objects." Null objects mean yay! no null pointer exceptions, but the consequence is... no null pointer exceptions! So have fun tracking down bugs when things fail silently.
Variables defined in closures (which is most of them) are opaque, so you can't easily inspect them without printing them out or logging them. So now you have no NPEs and no easy way to check for null values versus empty values while debugging without adding debugging code into production code. Ugh! Don't forget to annotate the debug code so you can remove it when you're done.
You don't get compile-time errors for things like using undefined classes/methods (typos!) or sending the wrong argument types. Instead, you have to compile, run, and look at massive stack traces throwing up all over your console/log: http://pastie.org/583115 Then rinse and repeat until it actually runs. And that's before you even start testing actual functionality.
Method entry and class loading breakpoints aren't supported. (This is simply an inconvenience most of the time, but it's worth noting IMO.)
Conversely, since groovy uses convention over configuration, IDEs may flag things as errors which are not. IntelliJ IDEA probably does the best at handling Groovy/Grails, but it still has some issues. My experience was that Intellisense/autocomplete didn't work reliably for Groovy in any IDE, so if that's important to you, you may miss that.
To be fair, I'm heavily biased against dependency injection, dynamic typing, and coding by convention, which are the very concepts Grails is built around. I could go into all of the reasons, but any flamewar worth its salt will list them all for you.
It's Italy. Which makes sense, since the Mediterranean and near-east are known for flatbread, even if some of the toppings we put on it today originated in the US (like pineapple).
Also the word "soccer" was coined in the UK, not the US. We just like to take credit for everything, apparently.
Here's the thing about gov't software conspiracies: they use the same software! There is no "special" government version of WIndows or OpenSSL. It's all COTS. If the NSA was exploiting vulnerabilities that left themselves and other agencies exposed, then that's extremely irresponsible, but just foolish as well. I'm not saying it's never happened, but it's not a sustainable policy.
I think "closed" source is a misnomer in regards to the issue of code review. The source is always open to *someone*; it's just a question of who, and whether those people are competent. Effectively, it doesn't matter how many people look at it, as long as the people looking at it know what they're looking at/for. Certainly it can be argued that the set of "all people" includes more experts than the set of "some people," but in practice the subset of "all people" who actually do code reviews appears to be very, very small -- possibly smaller than the set of people who review closed source code. The advantages of OSS are many, but on this point, at best, I think it's a wash, and certainly not a clear and convincing argument for open-source software.
Whatever source compatibility existed before Swift (and the degree to which that exists is surely debatable), it was not removed by Swift. Objective-C, C/C++, and Swift can coexist in the same project. I believe they can even coexist inline, which makes me shudder to think, but there it is. Still, you could ostensibly have a UI in Swift and your core business logic in C, if your architecture is solid. (Obviously YMMV, and there are bugs to be discovered, to be sure.)
"Honest Services" -- Oops, no example of "honest services" fraud. But it could happen! But it hasn't. (Note: I agree that we should be vigilant against potential abuses, but let's concern ourselves more with real abuses.)
Espionage Act -- Another "didn't happen."
Obstruction of Justice -- the lawyer admitted to a lapse in judgment by helping the church cover up the crime. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- DID happen. My sympathies are with Bret McDanel. Notably, however, the Justice Department admitted error, his conviction was overturned, and a precedent has been set against future misapplication of the law.
Wire Fraud -- Misattribution. Lori Drew was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, though the conviction was overturned in this case as well. I think we all agree that the woman was knowingly malicious, however, and she did not "accidentally" commit a felony. It was important that the law not be used outside of the scope of its intended use though, which is why I'm glad the EFF filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant, even though what she did was horrible.
Providing Material Support for Terrorism -- Another "no example," of misapplication, but one to watch out for. Though I think we all understand how laws are created and tested at this point.
Making a False Statement to a Federal Official -- Terrible example. This guy was clearly trying to skirt the law and provide material support to militant jihadists. http://www.telegram.com/articl...
The two variables in this case are "public safety" and "government transparency," and the one you value more largely determines how you view the issue.
I'm a proponent of self-driving cars, at least in theory, but I'll be damned if I'm going to voluntarily buy something that looks like a super-sized version of the car my three year-old plays with. Can we get someone from Tesla to work with Google on styling, please? Thanks.
Safer I don't (much) care about. Driving is pretty safe already; certainly safer than daily life in virtually any other era in history. The win for me will be shorter commute times -- higher speed limits and less congestion as automated systems make consistent, logical, and coordinated decisions. No hypermilers who don't get up to speed before merging on a freeway, or overly timid drivers who brake on the entrance ramp and wait for traffic to slow down to accommodate them. No competition for access to a lane. No vehicles driving slower in the passing lane (and likely very little passing in any case). Eventually we'll all be shaking our collective fists not at "bad drivers," but at non-automated vehicles in general. Sorry, people who love to drive. (And I'm one of them.)
I suspect there's a good chance that personally owned vehicles will go the same way. If it becomes cheap enough, it will make more sense to hire an automated car as-needed rather than purchasing one. That cost savings is already a reality with taxis in many cities, so it's really just a matter of expanding that to suburbs and exurbs. And that becomes a very real possibility when taxi companies don't have to pay a driver.
I've never ever experienced a Hot Pocket that was anything less than flesh-searing hot on the inside.
That said, TLDR: Energy is supplied to the outside faster than it can be conducted to the inside of the food.
I'm too lazy to count, but I'm pretty sure that would fit in a tweet, and hopefully it was a "no shit" situation for 99% of people with brains. Essentially it's the same reason a steak can be burnt on the outside and raw on the inside.
Security systems might be worthwhile for your own safety, but not for protecting against burglary. Unless you're very lucky, response times pretty much guarantee anyone will be in and out before the police have even dispatched a unit.
What you need isn't security; it's insurance. It's cheaper than monitored security systems, more dependable, and doesn't suffer from the risks of technical failures or circumvention (though ignoring it is more likely than circumvention). In the event of a burglary, your things will be replaced. (Make sure your policy covers replacement cost, not depreciated market value). And keep your important data backed up!.
(Disclaimer: YMMV, and selecting a policy requires due diligence.)
Slashdot Mirror
Let my preface this by saying that I believe all parallel construction should be illegal, and I hope/believe that it will eventually be ruled accordingly. Partial truths are still deceit, and dishonesty in the legal system opens it up to (further) abuse. It's either illegal to lie under oath, or it is not, and the government should hold itself to the same standard that we expect of citizens.
That said, parallel construction is precisely about concealing the impetus. The classic example is a traffic stop that appears to be random, but is actually targeting a vehicle. The targeted vehicle could well have been stopped solely for whatever reason police used, and so that's the "parallel construction," even though police knew exactly which vehicle they wanted to stop.
Bringing a canine unit to the storage facility would allow the officer to tell the partial truth that he got a hit on a storage unit during a walk-through, even if the impetus for bringing the dog and doing a walk-through was because of a CI (and even if the hit was prompted). The deceit isn't in saying how the contraband was actually discovered/acquired, but in what the impetus was for using that (perfectly legal) method in the first place. That part is the "parallel construction."
Now you might have been saying that GP's speculation that it was parallel construction is wrong, but we're all just speculating on what the officer might have been doing anyway. Maybe it was just a recreation for the camera and they forgot to edit that part out.
I know that the evidence supporting the existence of souls is about as compelling as the evidence for mermaids. Maybe slightly lower actually, since people have actually claimed to see mermaids.
Also, don't forget to blink. You wouldn't want your eyes to dry up!
And since there seem to be lots of "off" switches, this is really just adding to the list. (Unless stimulating it can actually bring someone out of a coma?)
But also be pretty awesome to be "instantly" transported to the future! Woohoo!
At some point costs (labor requirements) will be so low that an entire population doesn't need to work full-time, or even anything approaching full time, in order to meet them. This is most clearly visible when looking at the amount of money we spend on food -- costs have decreased so dramatically that food costs as a percent of income are lower than income taxes in most cases. So what happens when the costs of other goods and services decrease accordingly? What happens when we don't have to pay people to create those goods and services, because they're created by machines? When grain is harvested by self-driving combines, and transported to market on self-driving trucks, and vended by automated machines? Because all of the other parts of the supply chain have already been automated -- those are the few that remain. The costs of goods and services will approach zero, even if they never quite get there.
We currently accommodate this through unemployment -- reducing the size of the workforce and making people compete for available positions instead of lowering the time per individual. We leave it up to individuals to either re-task or retire. And reductions in the workforce are sustainable -- up to about 1 worker per family. After that it starts to fall apart.
Automation is happening all around us, but we keep our collective heads in the sand because *our* jobs haven't yet been obsoleted, and because we fail to imagine a day when that could happen. I'm not saying it will be a utopia by any means. On the contrary, I don't think humans are generally wired to be happy and content, and we will always find things to be unhappy about. What I am saying is that we need to plan in order to avoid the dystopia that will necessarily ensue from massive unemployment and the lack of a societal model to accommodate it.
Of course, we can't even execute an effective, collective plans for more concrete "when not if" scenarios like natural events, so I'm not holding my breath for realistic plans to address near-zero cost existence.
Indeed. We need to start talking about what our world should look like when people don't need to work.
Actually, GP was correct, and you seem to be misinformed. The notion of parallel construction originated in protecting CIs, and has been used for that purpose for decades. Extending it to cover illegal NSA wiretaps was a more recent development.
I would not recommend Grails at all. First, if for no other reason, it's a bit player, so good luck finding developers, tools, help, and all of the other benefits you get with using a language/framework with a large, thriving community. That alone should be enough to steer you away from using it for enterprise anything.
Aside from that, boolean truths are quirky, to put it kindly.
Null evaluates to false, which is ridiculous and doesn't eliminate the need to check for null, just hides the problem if you forget to do it. This is because groovy uses "null objects." Null objects mean yay! no null pointer exceptions, but the consequence is... no null pointer exceptions! So have fun tracking down bugs when things fail silently.
Variables defined in closures (which is most of them) are opaque, so you can't easily inspect them without printing them out or logging them. So now you have no NPEs and no easy way to check for null values versus empty values while debugging without adding debugging code into production code. Ugh! Don't forget to annotate the debug code so you can remove it when you're done.
You don't get compile-time errors for things like using undefined classes/methods (typos!) or sending the wrong argument types. Instead, you have to compile, run, and look at massive stack traces throwing up all over your console/log: http://pastie.org/583115 Then rinse and repeat until it actually runs. And that's before you even start testing actual functionality.
Method entry and class loading breakpoints aren't supported. (This is simply an inconvenience most of the time, but it's worth noting IMO.)
Conversely, since groovy uses convention over configuration, IDEs may flag things as errors which are not. IntelliJ IDEA probably does the best at handling Groovy/Grails, but it still has some issues. My experience was that Intellisense/autocomplete didn't work reliably for Groovy in any IDE, so if that's important to you, you may miss that.
It's not clear where business logic should go. http://bartling.blogspot.com/2...
It's buggy. https://jira.grails.org/browse...
To be fair, I'm heavily biased against dependency injection, dynamic typing, and coding by convention, which are the very concepts Grails is built around. I could go into all of the reasons, but any flamewar worth its salt will list them all for you.
It's Italy. Which makes sense, since the Mediterranean and near-east are known for flatbread, even if some of the toppings we put on it today originated in the US (like pineapple).
Also the word "soccer" was coined in the UK, not the US. We just like to take credit for everything, apparently.
Here's the thing about gov't software conspiracies: they use the same software! There is no "special" government version of WIndows or OpenSSL. It's all COTS. If the NSA was exploiting vulnerabilities that left themselves and other agencies exposed, then that's extremely irresponsible, but just foolish as well. I'm not saying it's never happened, but it's not a sustainable policy.
We're sorry, the fingers you have used to dial... are too fat. To obtain a special dialing wand, please mash the keypad with your palm... now.
I think "closed" source is a misnomer in regards to the issue of code review. The source is always open to *someone*; it's just a question of who, and whether those people are competent. Effectively, it doesn't matter how many people look at it, as long as the people looking at it know what they're looking at/for. Certainly it can be argued that the set of "all people" includes more experts than the set of "some people," but in practice the subset of "all people" who actually do code reviews appears to be very, very small -- possibly smaller than the set of people who review closed source code. The advantages of OSS are many, but on this point, at best, I think it's a wash, and certainly not a clear and convincing argument for open-source software.
I once wrote Ruby in a Burger King bathroom.
Whatever source compatibility existed before Swift (and the degree to which that exists is surely debatable), it was not removed by Swift. Objective-C, C/C++, and Swift can coexist in the same project. I believe they can even coexist inline, which makes me shudder to think, but there it is. Still, you could ostensibly have a UI in Swift and your core business logic in C, if your architecture is solid. (Obviously YMMV, and there are bugs to be discovered, to be sure.)
It's on the internet, so it must be true!
Here's the rest of the story of "clear shipping bags." http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...
Unser was charged with a misdemeanor and fined $75, so... not a felony. Oh, the humanity!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Honest Services" -- Oops, no example of "honest services" fraud. But it could happen! But it hasn't. (Note: I agree that we should be vigilant against potential abuses, but let's concern ourselves more with real abuses.)
Espionage Act -- Another "didn't happen."
Obstruction of Justice -- the lawyer admitted to a lapse in judgment by helping the church cover up the crime. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- DID happen. My sympathies are with Bret McDanel. Notably, however, the Justice Department admitted error, his conviction was overturned, and a precedent has been set against future misapplication of the law.
Wire Fraud -- Misattribution. Lori Drew was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, though the conviction was overturned in this case as well. I think we all agree that the woman was knowingly malicious, however, and she did not "accidentally" commit a felony. It was important that the law not be used outside of the scope of its intended use though, which is why I'm glad the EFF filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant, even though what she did was horrible.
Providing Material Support for Terrorism -- Another "no example," of misapplication, but one to watch out for. Though I think we all understand how laws are created and tested at this point.
Making a False Statement to a Federal Official -- Terrible example. This guy was clearly trying to skirt the law and provide material support to militant jihadists. http://www.telegram.com/articl...
No. Charges are not authoritative. If they were, we wouldn't have trials.
That depends how you define "public interest."
The two variables in this case are "public safety" and "government transparency," and the one you value more largely determines how you view the issue.
I'm a proponent of self-driving cars, at least in theory, but I'll be damned if I'm going to voluntarily buy something that looks like a super-sized version of the car my three year-old plays with. Can we get someone from Tesla to work with Google on styling, please? Thanks.
Nice false dichotomy you've got there.
Safer I don't (much) care about. Driving is pretty safe already; certainly safer than daily life in virtually any other era in history. The win for me will be shorter commute times -- higher speed limits and less congestion as automated systems make consistent, logical, and coordinated decisions. No hypermilers who don't get up to speed before merging on a freeway, or overly timid drivers who brake on the entrance ramp and wait for traffic to slow down to accommodate them. No competition for access to a lane. No vehicles driving slower in the passing lane (and likely very little passing in any case). Eventually we'll all be shaking our collective fists not at "bad drivers," but at non-automated vehicles in general. Sorry, people who love to drive. (And I'm one of them.)
I suspect there's a good chance that personally owned vehicles will go the same way. If it becomes cheap enough, it will make more sense to hire an automated car as-needed rather than purchasing one. That cost savings is already a reality with taxis in many cities, so it's really just a matter of expanding that to suburbs and exurbs. And that becomes a very real possibility when taxi companies don't have to pay a driver.
I've never ever experienced a Hot Pocket that was anything less than flesh-searing hot on the inside.
That said, TLDR: Energy is supplied to the outside faster than it can be conducted to the inside of the food.
I'm too lazy to count, but I'm pretty sure that would fit in a tweet, and hopefully it was a "no shit" situation for 99% of people with brains. Essentially it's the same reason a steak can be burnt on the outside and raw on the inside.
Security systems might be worthwhile for your own safety, but not for protecting against burglary. Unless you're very lucky, response times pretty much guarantee anyone will be in and out before the police have even dispatched a unit.
What you need isn't security; it's insurance. It's cheaper than monitored security systems, more dependable, and doesn't suffer from the risks of technical failures or circumvention (though ignoring it is more likely than circumvention). In the event of a burglary, your things will be replaced. (Make sure your policy covers replacement cost, not depreciated market value). And keep your important data backed up!.
(Disclaimer: YMMV, and selecting a policy requires due diligence.)
If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!
No, wait, that was an idiot. An idiot said that.
Sorry, Google. I like you, and I want to respect your decisions, but I got nothing.