Maybe we should reduce the number of cards on the road rather than trying to rebuild 1076 bridges per week... We could build places where people live together and call them cities, and build vehicles that carry multiple people and call them trains, and hire a plumber from Brooklyn to fix the evil in the world and call him Mario...
Yes, that's one of several things going on here. A fire at the Samsung factory is *interesting*, so more first responders show up. Seattle had a man climb a tree downtown and they had dozens of people involved--but it's a guy in a tree occasionally throwing pine cones. People showed up because it was a diversion, not because they needed more people.
Second, responses to commercial properties tend to be somewhat faster and definitely more staffed than responses to individual homes. The potential for massive damage to inventory or danger to the public is usually significantly greater (especially in retail spaces). Something big like a Samsung factory might also bring substantial money into an area, and losing factories has a ripple effect in a community.
Third, if you hear you have a potential chemical fire at a factory and you don't know how big it is yet, you WANT to err on the side of caution and have all of the capability there that you need, and then some.
Fourth, if you had a Samsung factory in your country, mightn't you want to use it for espionage?
"Beg the Question" has one colloquial meaning that is wrong but 80-90% of people believe is correct and one actual meaning that is right but that 90-95% of people don't understand. As a practical result, you should never use "beg the question" in a sentence, except perhaps with a particularly intellectual friend.
Instead, use "raises the question" (the colloquial meaning) or "contains circular reasoning" (the actual meaning).
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Agreed. But not all of the people who were arrested were doing those things. Some got arrested for things like turning the corner at the wrong time and finding a riot in front of them. You would need more information about the particular facts in the case to know whether the law enforcement request made sense. Most do; some don't. If they try to charge the person with a crime or if the person decides to sue them, then the person gets to find out more and challenge it in court. That's not perfect, but it's still a much better system than many countries in the world have.
Worry about the data that doesn't get reported, not the data that does.
Early Winamp was what made the mp3 work. It was really a great example of "it just works" software. Seeking was quick, plugins were plentiful, they didn't bundle lots of bloatware, it was just a better experience than most of the other options at the time.
Not only should the costs be the same but the article nicely explains why: those getting science, engineering etc. degrees generally earn more and so will pay more tax. This extra tax should be more than enough to offset the cost of their education and is also a good way to justify why higher salaries should attract a higher rate of tax.
Eighty Percent of students switch majors at least once in the United States. The more of an obstacle you create to that, the less likely you are to have people studying what they want to study. Also, the more expensive you make it to teach chemistry or computer science, the fewer kids will take a side class in chemistry or computer science.
There would be some advantages, though. It would make it easier to take a few early, basic courses where they take one professor and have 80+ students in the class. And it would make it easier for someone to get a minimal degree in something that doesn't cost the school much to run. But that's a small set of people you're helping, at the expense of STEM education and the ability to switch majors, etc...
The best solution is probably to have a few inexpensive-degree-only schools for people who absolutely know they want to major in Shakespeare, but still keep tuition flat across majors or relatively flat at most schools.
If that's the price the suppliers are giving them, why wouldn't it be accurate? Nobody forces people to buy from Amazon, there's an entire world wide web out there where they can compare prices and make their own determinations. Heck, there are even sites that will do the comparisons for you. Likewise, nobody ever pays MSRP on anything anyway; this sounds like a bogus complaint to me.
You are wrong. People rely on this information, which is why it is useful to do it. Amazon could and should easily show what the model normally sells for, but they only have an incentive to do it if forced to by regulation. Like how supermarkets should show price per unit even though anyone can do math if they take the time. In real life, you occasionally need regulation in order to incentivize behavior which is useful for society even though it hurts the person who does it. Otherwise you have lots of fraud, contracts are unenforceable, the economy becomes a whole lot less efficient, etc...
A lot of government regulations are implemented badly, and some are bad ideas, and there are too many--but there are really good reasons for some government actions.
Yes, but since they can't please normal people and pedants, they've gone with the description that both can easily understand.
Exactly. The idea that something 1800 light years away "happened" at time X is kind of meaningless anyway, because our colloquial measurements of time (things like "1800 years ago" or "the third century") are dependent on being stuck in our local gravity well. It's like you get a call from the White House and your kid says "Don't you really mean you got a call from the first floor?"
Well, sure. The first floor of not-your-house. It's a categorization that doesn't make sense in the context of the real universe.
But eventually, it piles up and *someone* notices.
So much this. People I know who have been sexually harassed at work and their boss doesn't realize it's really happening until the accused person starts saying "I was accused of this before and it's obviously absurd..."
It depends. Sometimes people higher up the management chain don't know what's going on. Impressing those people can work. Calling the gaslighter on it can work. Accounting for the time you've had to spend dealing with him and showing how much that has cost the company can work. It's very dependent on the politics of the situation.
I saw the new SW movie at a real IMAX (i.e. not re-branded) with 3D. It felt pretty much identical to watching on 2D. If that happens with Star Wars, imagine how much less useful it is to have the average movie be 3D. Also, 3D glasses aren't great for a movie on in the background.
Although glasses too. 3D will happen a bit when it becomes easy to do without adding another peripheral. For example, watching movies on a VR or AR headset, there should obviously be a 3D option for movies that support it. It's just that the content out there right now isn't enough to push more adoption.
In many cases, they won't. If she was slightly older they would have treated her as a criminal rather than a victim.
Revictimization is a problem, especially as people get older, but by and large traffickers control trafficked women the same way that bullies control abused people (primarily abused women): threats and distortions of reality. Police will certainly not always be perfect, but mostly they will try to do a good job and even if they don't they will still be better than the person who is conspiring to rape you ten times a day.
she was free, but in a mental and emotional sense she was in just as much of a jail as someone behind bars.
It is common to view women, especially young women, as mindless objects incapable of rational thought and certainly incapable of acting in their own best interest. Often the people holding this viewpoint are those most opposed to the legalization and regulation of sex work that is the best hope to improve their lives.
It's certainly debatable whether legalization and regulation are the best hope and a lot of factors come into that, but it's a legitimate position.
But you are (deliberately or accidentally) implying that slavery not maintained by physical force is not a real thing.
When you ABUSE people, you reshape their way of thinking and do a lot to take away their perceived range of decisions. If you know or believe you'll be beaten if you call police, you don't do it even if there's nobody stopping you. If you have Stockholm syndrome, you don't call police even though nobody's stopping you. When your world is narrowed down to the one person bigger and stronger than you throwing you onto a street corner and telling you to bring back X dollars and you're a teenager who doesn't know how to think your way out, that's not the fault of an anti-trafficking activist for objectifying you.
Trafficking includes not only slavery by the use of force, but also slavery by fraud and coercion of all kinds.
Articles should have scores on at least two dimensions: reliability and popularity. Popularity can be captured by something like "likes," but reliability should be determined in a different way. Coming from a major news source like the Washington Post or the New York Times should give an initial leg up on reliability (say start at sixty percent if from them), but not more than that unless it's a piece they specially flag as a significant product of investigative reporting. Most stuff that most reputable sources produce is interesting and somewhat accurate, but not written by experts. Consequently it tends to be a bit wrong.
If you're the only one at home, then 'when did I last touch x' is equivalent to 'where is X'
That's assuming that the system can correlate 'x' and 'X'. That's probably the hardest part. It doesn't seem like a huge hurdle to figure out, "I put something down." Figuring out, "I put down keys," seems tougher.
Not only is that the hardest part, it's the only part that Microsoft isn't necessarily already doing in public. Hololens keeps track of AR objects you create--so if you create something virtual, put it on the counter, and come back an hour later, the thing is still on the counter. It's already keeping track of where certain objects are. It's the recognizing and classifying important real-world items part of the system that would be the only part not already on the market.
Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here? What if I'm a real terr orist? I will either specify no social profile at all, or specify the one meant for fooling everyone.
Both. "real" does not mean intelligent, and even "intelligent" does not mean "smart all the time," so you have increased security from detecting people who provide the information.
The fact that someone did not provide a profile may also be a flag--not a red flag, but combined with other stuff might set off someone's bump of trouble, or reallocate a few seconds of time at the border from someone who provided lots of information to someone who did not.
There are some other fairly obvious ways this could be operationally important, but while I'm against the idea for (personal, professional, commercial, etc...) privacy reasons, I'm still not going to provide the list someone can use to avoid being flagged as a terrorist.
So.. You will personally go and visit each and every web site you want to access privately? Physically visit every inline store you want to deal with? Then secure all that data carefully! Remember.. If anyone gets a copy.. All security is give.. At either end!
You need to think about things for more than 30 seconds.
Or perhaps you should accept that armchair 'experts' like you who think this is so easy are actually a big part of the problem?
Good crypto is hard.. QC proof crypto will be harder.. Such is life. The major historical mistake to avoid is over complex 'standards' that are therefore never implemented or used correctly (I am looking at you ipsec..)
Of course not. You build an infrastructure based on the premise of physical distribution of one-time pads. That doesn't mean you personally visit every web site you interact with; it means you assume that encryption of a website is breakable and you make the important sites uncrackable by using one-time pads. There are lots of ways to play around with the model and lots of weak points in bad implementations, but fundamentally any encryption algorithm other than that is breakable eventually. It's a much better and more reliable solution for many points of vulnerability than we have today. It is also entirely practical to implement in many cases because of the relatively cheap price of storage media these days.
Just because it's not hard doesn't mean it's trivial.:)
This is a bad idea. We're in a weapons race, and so long as we keep playing the game, successive generations of crypto will be subject to attack. We need an end-run around the problem, which means changing how we think about encryption and data security.
Encryption should begin with a physical exchange of one-time pads. If you open a bank account, you should get a key to it. The key is an exhaustible one-time pad you use to encrypt transmissions to and from the bank. You plug it into a machine which runs packets through it.
The people who use facebook don't care and the people who do care don't use it.
Policy matters affect more than the people who care about them. Most people may not care about monetary policy unless you spend years educating them about it. Monetary policy decisions are still important and still affect them and their lives in profound ways that people who understand monetary policy should care about.
"Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided." Star Trek The Original Series: "A Taste of Armageddon"
Exactly. One of the consistent and reasonable critiques of modern American warfare is that because there is no draft, the influential wealthy and policy-making classes have no personal incentive to avoid war. Many people know few or even no service members. The further you push human beings away from the horrors of war, the more those people will be willing to engage in war.
I've met people who've been personally tortured by foreign heads of state. I've seen people fighting politically to pull their countries together in the face of what seems like neverending war and oppression by warlords. And I've read the stories of people who have seen their countries fall apart in the face of characteristic propaganda and strong men taking power. The less real all of this is and the less human it is, the more people will be willing to stay unengaged in matters of life and death.
The idea is to kill the enemy without getting killed. There are no points for style. We try to limit death of non combatants but if they're in the kill zone that's just the way the cookie crumbles. You fight wars to win because the alternative is something no one want to experience. American soldiers put themselves in harms way if needed but they are trained to survive while accomplishing the mission.
Wars serve a political objective, usually badly. There are points for style, primarily because style has propaganda value, and propaganda changes political support for wars, leaders, and causes--whether that means someone voting to bring troops home or someone telling a private where the enemy ambush is waiting for his unit. Even when you lose a battle or part of one, there can be points for style--Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, Bastogne, all involved at least temporary defeats that were in some sense spun into political victories that served the war effort. On the offensive side, style matters too--the drone attack with collateral damage that injures or kills non-terrorists, for example, can create more terrorists in the next generation.
The security discussion begins around page 128. The proposed public key rotation would use a bunch of public keys each week, requiring about 1K public keys per year. It also suggests quick expiration of certificates. Although the proposal does not say it, as a practical matter this sounds like it will become a great way for vehicle vendors to charge you a few hundred bucks a year for required certificates and to get you back to the dealer. It also makes it harder for anyone other than the manufacturer or dealer to data mine.
"To help improve the level of confidence in BSM messages the agency’s primary message authentication proposal describes a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) approach to message authentication.... In addition two alternatives are presented for comment. This first alternative for message authentication set out for comment is less prescriptive and defines a performance-basedbased approach rather than a specific architecture or technical requirement. The second alternative set out for comment stays silent on message authentication and does not specify a message authentication requirement, leaving authentication at the discretion of V2V device implementers"
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war.
Wow are you confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban in Afghanistan admitted to hosting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I know we're living in a post factual world where empirical truth doesn't exist. But the fact is that the U.S. led a coaliton of forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan beginning on October 7, 2001. Less than one month after the September 11 attacks.
Close, but not quite. Iraq was not a direct result of or a response to 9/11. 9/11 laid the groundwork for Iraq, though, focusing more resources including political will, attention, and covert focus on Iraq. More importantly, it put the American People on a war footing psychologically, in a way they had not been for decades. Without that, the ground war in Iraq would probably have been a political non-starter.
a good faith purchaser, in a sale conducted according to law.
So what? All that should mean is that she is not liable for the fact that it was stolen, and that she should be refunded at full cost. It shouldn't mean they can own something that was originally stolen.
Good Faith Purchasers are often entitled to protection under the law. This helps promote certainty when you buy certain things.
Judges generally follow the law, rather than what you believe should happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we should reduce the number of cards on the road rather than trying to rebuild 1076 bridges per week... We could build places where people live together and call them cities, and build vehicles that carry multiple people and call them trains, and hire a plumber from Brooklyn to fix the evil in the world and call him Mario...
Yes, that's one of several things going on here. A fire at the Samsung factory is *interesting*, so more first responders show up. Seattle had a man climb a tree downtown and they had dozens of people involved--but it's a guy in a tree occasionally throwing pine cones. People showed up because it was a diversion, not because they needed more people.
Second, responses to commercial properties tend to be somewhat faster and definitely more staffed than responses to individual homes. The potential for massive damage to inventory or danger to the public is usually significantly greater (especially in retail spaces). Something big like a Samsung factory might also bring substantial money into an area, and losing factories has a ripple effect in a community.
Third, if you hear you have a potential chemical fire at a factory and you don't know how big it is yet, you WANT to err on the side of caution and have all of the capability there that you need, and then some.
Fourth, if you had a Samsung factory in your country, mightn't you want to use it for espionage?
"Beg the Question" has one colloquial meaning that is wrong but 80-90% of people believe is correct and one actual meaning that is right but that 90-95% of people don't understand. As a practical result, you should never use "beg the question" in a sentence, except perhaps with a particularly intellectual friend.
Instead, use "raises the question" (the colloquial meaning) or "contains circular reasoning" (the actual meaning).
Posted without Karma bonus due to metapost.
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Agreed. But not all of the people who were arrested were doing those things. Some got arrested for things like turning the corner at the wrong time and finding a riot in front of them. You would need more information about the particular facts in the case to know whether the law enforcement request made sense. Most do; some don't. If they try to charge the person with a crime or if the person decides to sue them, then the person gets to find out more and challenge it in court. That's not perfect, but it's still a much better system than many countries in the world have.
Worry about the data that doesn't get reported, not the data that does.
Early Winamp was what made the mp3 work. It was really a great example of "it just works" software. Seeking was quick, plugins were plentiful, they didn't bundle lots of bloatware, it was just a better experience than most of the other options at the time.
Not only should the costs be the same but the article nicely explains why: those getting science, engineering etc. degrees generally earn more and so will pay more tax. This extra tax should be more than enough to offset the cost of their education and is also a good way to justify why higher salaries should attract a higher rate of tax.
Eighty Percent of students switch majors at least once in the United States. The more of an obstacle you create to that, the less likely you are to have people studying what they want to study. Also, the more expensive you make it to teach chemistry or computer science, the fewer kids will take a side class in chemistry or computer science.
There would be some advantages, though. It would make it easier to take a few early, basic courses where they take one professor and have 80+ students in the class. And it would make it easier for someone to get a minimal degree in something that doesn't cost the school much to run. But that's a small set of people you're helping, at the expense of STEM education and the ability to switch majors, etc...
The best solution is probably to have a few inexpensive-degree-only schools for people who absolutely know they want to major in Shakespeare, but still keep tuition flat across majors or relatively flat at most schools.
If that's the price the suppliers are giving them, why wouldn't it be accurate? Nobody forces people to buy from Amazon, there's an entire world wide web out there where they can compare prices and make their own determinations. Heck, there are even sites that will do the comparisons for you. Likewise, nobody ever pays MSRP on anything anyway; this sounds like a bogus complaint to me.
You are wrong. People rely on this information, which is why it is useful to do it. Amazon could and should easily show what the model normally sells for, but they only have an incentive to do it if forced to by regulation. Like how supermarkets should show price per unit even though anyone can do math if they take the time. In real life, you occasionally need regulation in order to incentivize behavior which is useful for society even though it hurts the person who does it. Otherwise you have lots of fraud, contracts are unenforceable, the economy becomes a whole lot less efficient, etc...
A lot of government regulations are implemented badly, and some are bad ideas, and there are too many--but there are really good reasons for some government actions.
(OK, not entirely meaningless because it is a measure of time propagation through the universe, but pretty meaningless.)
Yes, but since they can't please normal people and pedants, they've gone with the description that both can easily understand.
Exactly. The idea that something 1800 light years away "happened" at time X is kind of meaningless anyway, because our colloquial measurements of time (things like "1800 years ago" or "the third century") are dependent on being stuck in our local gravity well. It's like you get a call from the White House and your kid says "Don't you really mean you got a call from the first floor?"
Well, sure. The first floor of not-your-house. It's a categorization that doesn't make sense in the context of the real universe.
But eventually, it piles up and *someone* notices.
So much this. People I know who have been sexually harassed at work and their boss doesn't realize it's really happening until the accused person starts saying "I was accused of this before and it's obviously absurd..."
It depends. Sometimes people higher up the management chain don't know what's going on. Impressing those people can work. Calling the gaslighter on it can work. Accounting for the time you've had to spend dealing with him and showing how much that has cost the company can work. It's very dependent on the politics of the situation.
Content.
I saw the new SW movie at a real IMAX (i.e. not re-branded) with 3D. It felt pretty much identical to watching on 2D. If that happens with Star Wars, imagine how much less useful it is to have the average movie be 3D. Also, 3D glasses aren't great for a movie on in the background.
Although glasses too. 3D will happen a bit when it becomes easy to do without adding another peripheral. For example, watching movies on a VR or AR headset, there should obviously be a 3D option for movies that support it. It's just that the content out there right now isn't enough to push more adoption.
You teach her that the cops wont help
In many cases, they won't. If she was slightly older they would have treated her as a criminal rather than a victim.
Revictimization is a problem, especially as people get older, but by and large traffickers control trafficked women the same way that bullies control abused people (primarily abused women): threats and distortions of reality. Police will certainly not always be perfect, but mostly they will try to do a good job and even if they don't they will still be better than the person who is conspiring to rape you ten times a day.
she was free, but in a mental and emotional sense she was in just as much of a jail as someone behind bars.
It is common to view women, especially young women, as mindless objects incapable of rational thought and certainly incapable of acting in their own best interest. Often the people holding this viewpoint are those most opposed to the legalization and regulation of sex work that is the best hope to improve their lives.
It's certainly debatable whether legalization and regulation are the best hope and a lot of factors come into that, but it's a legitimate position.
But you are (deliberately or accidentally) implying that slavery not maintained by physical force is not a real thing.
When you ABUSE people, you reshape their way of thinking and do a lot to take away their perceived range of decisions. If you know or believe you'll be beaten if you call police, you don't do it even if there's nobody stopping you. If you have Stockholm syndrome, you don't call police even though nobody's stopping you. When your world is narrowed down to the one person bigger and stronger than you throwing you onto a street corner and telling you to bring back X dollars and you're a teenager who doesn't know how to think your way out, that's not the fault of an anti-trafficking activist for objectifying you.
Trafficking includes not only slavery by the use of force, but also slavery by fraud and coercion of all kinds.
Articles should have scores on at least two dimensions: reliability and popularity. Popularity can be captured by something like "likes," but reliability should be determined in a different way. Coming from a major news source like the Washington Post or the New York Times should give an initial leg up on reliability (say start at sixty percent if from them), but not more than that unless it's a piece they specially flag as a significant product of investigative reporting. Most stuff that most reputable sources produce is interesting and somewhat accurate, but not written by experts. Consequently it tends to be a bit wrong.
If you're the only one at home, then 'when did I last touch x' is equivalent to 'where is X'
That's assuming that the system can correlate 'x' and 'X'. That's probably the hardest part. It doesn't seem like a huge hurdle to figure out, "I put something down." Figuring out, "I put down keys," seems tougher.
Not only is that the hardest part, it's the only part that Microsoft isn't necessarily already doing in public. Hololens keeps track of AR objects you create--so if you create something virtual, put it on the counter, and come back an hour later, the thing is still on the counter. It's already keeping track of where certain objects are. It's the recognizing and classifying important real-world items part of the system that would be the only part not already on the market.
Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here? What if I'm a real terr orist? I will either specify no social profile at all, or specify the one meant for fooling everyone.
Both. "real" does not mean intelligent, and even "intelligent" does not mean "smart all the time," so you have increased security from detecting people who provide the information.
The fact that someone did not provide a profile may also be a flag--not a red flag, but combined with other stuff might set off someone's bump of trouble, or reallocate a few seconds of time at the border from someone who provided lots of information to someone who did not.
There are some other fairly obvious ways this could be operationally important, but while I'm against the idea for (personal, professional, commercial, etc...) privacy reasons, I'm still not going to provide the list someone can use to avoid being flagged as a terrorist.
Ffs..
So.. You will personally go and visit each and every web site you want to access privately?
Physically visit every inline store you want to deal with?
Then secure all that data carefully! Remember.. If anyone gets a copy.. All security is give.. At either end!
You need to think about things for more than 30 seconds.
Or perhaps you should accept that armchair 'experts' like you who think this is so easy are actually a big part of the problem?
Good crypto is hard.. QC proof crypto will be harder.. Such is life.
The major historical mistake to avoid is over complex 'standards' that are therefore never implemented or used correctly (I am looking at you ipsec..)
Of course not. You build an infrastructure based on the premise of physical distribution of one-time pads. That doesn't mean you personally visit every web site you interact with; it means you assume that encryption of a website is breakable and you make the important sites uncrackable by using one-time pads. There are lots of ways to play around with the model and lots of weak points in bad implementations, but fundamentally any encryption algorithm other than that is breakable eventually. It's a much better and more reliable solution for many points of vulnerability than we have today. It is also entirely practical to implement in many cases because of the relatively cheap price of storage media these days.
Just because it's not hard doesn't mean it's trivial. :)
This is a bad idea. We're in a weapons race, and so long as we keep playing the game, successive generations of crypto will be subject to attack. We need an end-run around the problem, which means changing how we think about encryption and data security.
Encryption should begin with a physical exchange of one-time pads. If you open a bank account, you should get a key to it. The key is an exhaustible one-time pad you use to encrypt transmissions to and from the bank. You plug it into a machine which runs packets through it.
The people who use facebook don't care and the people who do care don't use it.
Policy matters affect more than the people who care about them. Most people may not care about monetary policy unless you spend years educating them about it. Monetary policy decisions are still important and still affect them and their lives in profound ways that people who understand monetary policy should care about.
I propose "ctrl-alt-right".
Finally, someone proposes trying the Switch Desktop Hotkey to get us out of 2016... it might work after ten days or so of trying... one sec...
"Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided."
Star Trek The Original Series: "A Taste of Armageddon"
Exactly. One of the consistent and reasonable critiques of modern American warfare is that because there is no draft, the influential wealthy and policy-making classes have no personal incentive to avoid war. Many people know few or even no service members. The further you push human beings away from the horrors of war, the more those people will be willing to engage in war.
I've met people who've been personally tortured by foreign heads of state. I've seen people fighting politically to pull their countries together in the face of what seems like neverending war and oppression by warlords. And I've read the stories of people who have seen their countries fall apart in the face of characteristic propaganda and strong men taking power. The less real all of this is and the less human it is, the more people will be willing to stay unengaged in matters of life and death.
The idea is to kill the enemy without getting killed. There are no points for style. We try to limit death of non combatants but if they're in the kill zone that's just the way the cookie crumbles. You fight wars to win because the alternative is something no one want to experience. American soldiers put themselves in harms way if needed but they are trained to survive while accomplishing the mission.
Wars serve a political objective, usually badly. There are points for style, primarily because style has propaganda value, and propaganda changes political support for wars, leaders, and causes--whether that means someone voting to bring troops home or someone telling a private where the enemy ambush is waiting for his unit. Even when you lose a battle or part of one, there can be points for style--Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, Bastogne, all involved at least temporary defeats that were in some sense spun into political victories that served the war effort. On the offensive side, style matters too--the drone attack with collateral damage that injures or kills non-terrorists, for example, can create more terrorists in the next generation.
http://www.safercar.gov/v2v/pd...
The security discussion begins around page 128. The proposed public key rotation would use a bunch of public keys each week, requiring about 1K public keys per year. It also suggests quick expiration of certificates. Although the proposal does not say it, as a practical matter this sounds like it will become a great way for vehicle vendors to charge you a few hundred bucks a year for required certificates and to get you back to the dealer. It also makes it harder for anyone other than the manufacturer or dealer to data mine.
"To help improve the level of confidence in BSM messages the agency’s primary message authentication proposal describes a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) approach to message authentication. ... In addition two alternatives are presented for comment. This first alternative for message authentication set out for comment is less prescriptive and defines a performance-basedbased approach rather than a specific architecture or technical requirement. The second alternative set out for comment stays silent on message authentication and does not specify a message authentication requirement, leaving authentication at the discretion of V2V device implementers"
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war.
Wow are you confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban in Afghanistan admitted to hosting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I know we're living in a post factual world where empirical truth doesn't exist. But the fact is that the U.S. led a coaliton of forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan beginning on October 7, 2001. Less than one month after the September 11 attacks.
Close, but not quite. Iraq was not a direct result of or a response to 9/11. 9/11 laid the groundwork for Iraq, though, focusing more resources including political will, attention, and covert focus on Iraq. More importantly, it put the American People on a war footing psychologically, in a way they had not been for decades. Without that, the ground war in Iraq would probably have been a political non-starter.
a good faith purchaser, in a sale conducted according to law.
So what? All that should mean is that she is not liable for the fact that it was stolen, and that she should be refunded at full cost. It shouldn't mean they can own something that was originally stolen.
Good Faith Purchasers are often entitled to protection under the law. This helps promote certainty when you buy certain things.
Judges generally follow the law, rather than what you believe should happen.