Most people do tend to become mentally lazy with age, since it's tempting to use experience rather than reason as a bludgeon to win arguments ("I was doing this before you were born"). It's avoidable but it requires work, just like physical exercise.
What if the probability of life (as we know it) forming on an earth-like planet is 1:10^12?
Doesn't the fact that life managed to evolve on Earth shortly after conditions allowed for it (a fairly small fraction of the Earth's lifetime) make it very likely that life will evolve anywhere the same conditions exist?
The unlikeliness of changing the outcome is more than canceled out by the huge influence you have if it does (since the number of affected citizens is larger than the number of voters).
It depends on whether one lives in a swing state. If yes, then it may be worthwhile to only vote for someone who can win. Otherwise, the vote is guaranteed not to influence the outcome, so the only reason left to vote is to make a statement, which means one should vote for the best-liked candidate.
BTW, I think third parties would have a better chance of gaining traction if they would be honest and tell people that they should vote their conscience whenever they live in a non-swing state, rather than lie and say one should just vote unconditionally for them regardless. They'd be able to get a large fraction of the vote in non-swing states, which is a lot better than they do now.
Is anyone able to actually use the site via captcha, or is it just phishing for Facebook passwords? Even if I get a captcha where all the characters are readable and unambiguous (is it "O" or "0"?), and double-check it before entering, it still says it's wrong.
Being convicted of a crime causes emotional distress. Does this mean that posting an image that exposes a crime is illegal? If so, the images would have to be given directly to the police. Can't imagine any problems with that (especially if they're the ones involved).
I received a free subscription for the rest of the year, "sponsored by Lincoln" (the car company). No idea what exactly triggered that, but I was/am a pretty regular reader. Not sure if I'll pay or not when the time comes. It'll be interesting to see what the Washington Post ends up with for a paywall.
I got one of those emails as well on March 22:
Dear NYTimes.com reader,
As a frequent reader of NYTimes.com, you’ve demonstrated an uncommon interest in a wide variety of today’s most important topics. This makes you anything but average. In fact, it can’t help but make you “smarter” — just the kind of person we at Lincoln want to engage.
Though NYTimes.com will soon begin charging for unlimited access*, Lincoln is offering you a free digital subscription for the remainder of 2011. Enjoy all that NYTimes.com has to offer every day — investigative news and special reports, videos, blogs and more. It’s all yours at no charge, compliments of Lincoln.
Take advantage of this limited-time offer** to receive free, unlimited access to NYTimes.com.
I got another email on March 30, also from NYTimes, offering unlimited access at a reduced rate:
Dear NYTimes.com reader,
As you may know, The Times is now charging for unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps. But as a valued NYTimes.com reader, you are invited to enjoy unlimited access at an introductory rate: save 25% for 52 weeks.*
So when the article says "a figure that does not include print subscribers who receive digital access for free but does include readers who took advantage of a promotional offer.", it's not clear which offer they are talking about.
> A brute force attack shouldn't be that much of a concern with a login password, assuming that the system limits how often and how many times the brute force attack can retry.
Assuming the system doesn't get hacked into and the password hashes grabbed. This happened to me with PayPal in 2002. My password was strong against a handful of random guesses, but not a dictionary attack. Now I use a password manager and a different strong random password for each site.
Interesting how lawmakers were stumbling all over themselves to immediately pass laws specifically targeted at people who were going to get less than $200 million in bonuses, but in this case, with far more money at stake, it merely needs to be "closely monitored".
Since the 4th Amendment concerns the use of government force to obtain information, does not the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" _mean_ that such force isn't necessary in a given situation? For example, the reason there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place is that no force (i.e., a warrant) is needed for surveillance. If this is correct, then claiming that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, and then using this to justify _forcing_ the ISP to install surveillance equipment, is contradictory. The use of force is an admission that a reasonable expectation of privacy existed.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people do tend to become mentally lazy with age, since it's tempting to use experience rather than reason as a bludgeon to win arguments ("I was doing this before you were born"). It's avoidable but it requires work, just like physical exercise.
What if the probability of life (as we know it) forming on an earth-like planet is 1:10^12?
Doesn't the fact that life managed to evolve on Earth shortly after conditions allowed for it (a fairly small fraction of the Earth's lifetime) make it very likely that life will evolve anywhere the same conditions exist?
The unlikeliness of changing the outcome is more than canceled out by the huge influence you have if it does (since the number of affected citizens is larger than the number of voters).
It depends on whether one lives in a swing state. If yes, then it may be worthwhile to only vote for someone who can win. Otherwise, the vote is guaranteed not to influence the outcome, so the only reason left to vote is to make a statement, which means one should vote for the best-liked candidate.
BTW, I think third parties would have a better chance of gaining traction if they would be honest and tell people that they should vote their conscience whenever they live in a non-swing state, rather than lie and say one should just vote unconditionally for them regardless. They'd be able to get a large fraction of the vote in non-swing states, which is a lot better than they do now.
Nothing to stop the government from coercing them into violating their own promises and then giving them immunity for it.
The actual second headline is
- Air France to give $24,000 advance to families of crash victims
As I understand it the investigation is still ongoing. (Though I agree that $80,000 per download is absurd.)
Is anyone able to actually use the site via captcha, or is it just phishing for Facebook passwords? Even if I get a captcha where all the characters are readable and unambiguous (is it "O" or "0"?), and double-check it before entering, it still says it's wrong.
Being convicted of a crime causes emotional distress. Does this mean that posting an image that exposes a crime is illegal? If so, the images would have to be given directly to the police. Can't imagine any problems with that (especially if they're the ones involved).
I received a free subscription for the rest of the year, "sponsored by Lincoln" (the car company). No idea what exactly triggered that, but I was/am a pretty regular reader. Not sure if I'll pay or not when the time comes. It'll be interesting to see what the Washington Post ends up with for a paywall.
I got one of those emails as well on March 22:
Dear NYTimes.com reader,
As a frequent reader of NYTimes.com, you’ve demonstrated an uncommon interest in a wide variety of today’s most important topics. This makes you anything but average. In fact, it can’t help but make you “smarter” — just the kind of person we at Lincoln want to engage.
Though NYTimes.com will soon begin charging for unlimited access*, Lincoln is offering you a free digital subscription for the remainder of 2011. Enjoy all that NYTimes.com has to offer every day — investigative news and special reports, videos, blogs and more. It’s all yours at no charge, compliments of Lincoln.
Take advantage of this limited-time offer** to receive free, unlimited access to NYTimes.com.
I got another email on March 30, also from NYTimes, offering unlimited access at a reduced rate:
Dear NYTimes.com reader,
As you may know, The Times is now charging for unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps. But as a valued NYTimes.com reader, you are invited to enjoy unlimited access at an introductory rate: save 25% for 52 weeks.*
So when the article says "a figure that does not include print subscribers who receive digital access for free but does include readers who took advantage of a promotional offer.", it's not clear which offer they are talking about.
> A brute force attack shouldn't be that much of a concern with a login password, assuming that the system limits how often and how many times the brute force attack can retry.
Assuming the system doesn't get hacked into and the password hashes grabbed. This happened to me with PayPal in 2002. My password was strong against a handful of random guesses, but not a dictionary attack. Now I use a password manager and a different strong random password for each site.
This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
No. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio
Interesting how lawmakers were stumbling all over themselves to immediately pass laws specifically targeted at people who were going to get less than $200 million in bonuses, but in this case, with far more money at stake, it merely needs to be "closely monitored".
Anyone know how the efficiency compares to the MIT work reported a few weeks ago?
Since the 4th Amendment concerns the use of government force to obtain information, does not the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" _mean_ that such force isn't necessary in a given situation? For example, the reason there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place is that no force (i.e., a warrant) is needed for surveillance. If this is correct, then claiming that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, and then using this to justify _forcing_ the ISP to install surveillance equipment, is contradictory. The use of force is an admission that a reasonable expectation of privacy existed.