Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers that the former persident agreed to? $100B a year, if I remember correctly. The world is waiting.
Some questions:
.) Does pulling out of the Paris agreement prevent us from making as good or better climate decisions? .) Is our participation important enough that the other countries are willing to renegotiate? .) Does the treaty lay out any penalty for non-compliance, or is it merely a feel-good PR stunt? .) Is the Paris agreement actually about climate, or redistribution of wealth? .) Did congress ratify our participation, or did the previous president cheat that democratic process?
That last one - making an end run around the democratic process, taking away the peoples' voice - seems especially troubling.
The problems of wealth inequality come from economics, not technology.
Allocate an array of reasonably large size, say a million entries, and fill each cell with the value 1.0
Next, choose any cell at random using a probability based on it's normalized value: Add all the cells together (the total) and make the probability of choosing any cell equal to it's cell value divided by the total.
Increment that chosen cell by a portion of its value; for example, increase the chosen cell value by 1%.
Repeat this process (select, increment) many times.
What you will find is that inevitably some cell values will increase exponentially, outstripping all other cells. Eventually one cell will become largest, outstripping all other cells.
Reset the simulation and rerun it, and the same thing will happen, only to different cells.
This is the model of our economic system. Compound interest is exactly this type of exponential increase, and will cause this same behaviour in simulation by itself. Other factors, such as getting better rates the more money you have, paying less in taxes the more money you have, will amplify this effect.
And which cell values get amplified is simply due to chance. In the beginning, it's being in the right place at the right time.
It's a math problem and easy to prove.
The human inability to identify, understand and control exponential increase is what leads to wealth inequality.
In your echo chamber he is doing a great job, but when conservative sites start calling for people to pull out of the US, and the people who predicted his win also predict his impeachment you know you may be on the wrong side.
Polling disagrees with that position.
About 96% of voters said they would still vote for Trump, compared to 94% of Clinton voters.
Turning that around, about 50% more Clinton voters than Trump voters would vote for the other side now.
There's a *ton* of people cheering the president, it just doesn't get noted in the MSM. Look to places like Breitbart and Gab and Reddit threads for comments from people who are four-square behind his policies.
And let us not forget that Kucinich put forth 35 articles of impeachment for George Bush, including war crimes, including taking the country to war under false premises, but the then-leader of the Democratic party (senator Obama) chose not to prosecute because "it would divide the nation".
This president does not give one tenth of one shit about US workers. He still owns a visa mill. His "deals" brokered with Ford and Carrier turned out to be completely fake, just as we believed at the time. Nothing he does will save auto industry jobs, coal industry jobs, or any other kind of job. Even rolling back the CAFE standards would actually be detrimental to US automakers, at least the competent ones.
Too bad there isn't a champion, someone with leadership and broad vision, to come forward and oppose him!
There are too many variables involved in determining calories burned by any biological entity, and these 'fitness bands' are not the only device that has this problem, either...
To further put this into context, if your body takes in 2 calories more per day than is needed, you will be obese in a year.
No diet has that level of accuracy, and there are variations within different samples of food as well. That 10oz of chicken might vary by dozens of calories, depending on random circumstance.
Laboratory animals grown with the same caloric intake and same access to exercise are obese, compared to ones grown decades ago. The trend over time is consistent and compelling. We're also seeing obese 6-month old babies.
The current explanation is that you consume more than you need, but the body knows how much to extract and lets the rest go by. The body has a "weight setpoint" in the manner of a thermostat that tells it how much energy it needs, and something in the environment causes that setpoint to go slightly off, causing obesity. Over 900 environmental causes have been identified as potential causes of obesity (and researchers are working through the list).
Obesity has, apparently, nothing to do with the amount or type of food you eat(*), and neither the amount of exercise you do(*).
(*) For obesity. Whether eating junk food is any good for you is another matter.
(*) For obesity. Whether exercise is good for your health generally is another matter.
And furthermore, NN was struck down because it was an overreach from a department that had no authority to regulate it.
And of course, everyone complains about the loss of NN, but no one ever proposes a new rule, properly vetted and from the correct department (FTC, not FCC) that would solve these issues.
No senator, no representative, no department head has ever proposed the common-sense solution of fixing the problem with a proper law.
They'd rather wail and moan about how bad everything is, rather than fix things.
To quote a famous politician, "Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic".
Stop 'yer bitching and start fixing things. Demand that your congress people start fixing things.
It's not that hard, and much more effective than false "car alarm" rhetoric.
Nitric oxide, NO, is used by the body as a regeneration signal. An acquaintance has a job designing NO generators for battlefield use, either as part of an O2 delivery system (to help injured lungs) or to be directly applied to burned skin (to help with regeneration). He's associated with MGH in Boston. They will probably be seeing use in civilian hospitals in a couple of years.
The other oxides dissolve in water to form acids, but NO is actually beneficial.
I wonder if the NOx studies take that into account.
Chairman Pai knows what's best and you people need to stop being so mean to the Trump regime. He was elected by the largest margin in modern history and he's the CEO of the country, so if he doesn't want Net Neutrality, you shouldn't complain because he's got the best people around him.
You should feel lucky that you're being allowed to comment at all.
Why so serious?
Mean tweets are clearly hate speech, and Chairman Pai is clearly onboard with the movement to suppress it.
I mean - commenting on policy is one thing, but we can't let people make hate speech now, can we?
The solution is not to give up vulnerabilities that the CIA and NSA discover and want to weaponize, the root of the problem is the most incompetent administration in 50 years (the Obama administration) being completely clueless about cyber security and letting our state secrets out. That shit would never have been hacked by the Russians and dumped into the wild if the incompetents at the CIA and NSA had air-gapped their stockpile and put people in prison for 10 years or more for moving the files to a networked location except for specific conditions and actual use where multiple sign-offs and precautions would be required. Those who were in charge and those who were responsible for the security measures at the CIA and NSA when these secrets were hacked/leaked should be fired and charged with criminal negligence at least or maybe espionage/treason.
No, because they didn't *intend* to leak the information.
The new interpretation of the law requires intent, and besides, no one has ever been prosecuted for doing this in the past.
You're also ignoring the huge elephant in the room - that Microsoft probably knew about that vulnerability or even better, created it in conjunction with the NSA et al. By the way - WINDOWS 10 ALSO REQUIRED A "FIX". This is not a "zero day vulnerability", it's a back-door plain and simple.
The other elephant is that a lot of very expensive hardware still runs on WinXP (and other less-recent but still old versions), can't be upgraded to the new version, and is too expensive to replace.
Microsoft will still support WinXP, but basically it means a) they have the patches to prevent malware, but b) they'll only give it to you if you pay them.
Oh, and the price for WinXP support doubles yearly (someone else said that - don't know if it's true).
So effectively Microsoft is saying that you have to throw out and repurchase all of your medical equipment, all of your research equipment, and all of your manufacturing equipment - even if it's still working - because they want you to purchase a new version of their OS.
Oh, and the new version pushes adware on you and installs whatever the fuck Microsoft wants and reboots the system whenever it damn well pleases.
Yeah, I think Microsoft can shoulder at least *some* of the blame for this.
You can get it either by a) exposing port 445 to the internet, or b) exposing port 445 to a computer on your local subnet that's infected.
If you have no other computers running windows on your local net, and if your network connection doesn't allow port 445 through, you should be safe.
...it's a good idea to patch the system, though. Get the patch here.
Port 445 is SMB ("samba" over in linux world), which is used to mount remote disks and printers (and some other things). There's really no need for a user to expose this port to the internet unless you want to mount a disk remotely over the internet, which is not something a user would ordinarily need.
i think it's the one, took 1 minute to find its DOI and look that up on scihub
1) I took more than 1 minute to look for other versions first, out of respect for SciHub. SciHub is a great resource, and I don't like to use their resources if it can be avoided.
2) I didn't post the SciHub link, out of respect for SciHub. SciHub is a great resource, and I don't want to use up their resources by publicly posting their links.
3) Pointing out things obvious to you in a snarky way is elitist.
4) Nothing is easier and more pathetic than being a critic.
How is this any different from modulating the light with e.g. coloured filters to send signals? It seems to me people have already been doing this for centuries.
it's exactly like modulating light using coloured filters.
Using beamsplitters, Alice sets up one probability path that goes out to Bob and back. Bob can either insert a mirror, reflecting the probability path back to Alice, or not, making the probability path end there. Bob's mirror will change the phase of the Alice's photon in a way that can be detected by Alice, even though the photon doesn't actually go out to Bob.
A good simple example of what they're doing is the quantum bomb detector, where you can determine whether a bomb attached to a single-photon detector would explode if given a photon... without actually giving it a photon.
In the bomb example, you are getting information about the bomb without actually transferring energy to or from the bomb.
You can define a particle as something that has energy - either rest energy as mass, or energy in motion as a photon.
Most of the time you need some sort of transfer of energy to transfer information. A photon is sent from one place to another, it interacts with a sensor, and information is exchanged.
One interpretation of this effect is that the photon itself doesn't travel down the path, it's the *probability* of the photon that travels down the path. When a particle is emitted, the universe takes the particle and puts it on a shelf somewhere (outside the universe) and sends out an instantaneous probability wave. As the wave evolves, the universe checks it for interactions with things along the path, and when the probability indicates an interaction it replaces the probability wave with the particle.
The probability wave takes all possible paths from the source to the destination, including non-straight paths. Most of the time most of the paths cancel out, leaving one path (the straight line) or two (beamsplitter mirror) or a few more, depending on the configuration.
I haven't found a non-paywalled version of the frikkin' paper yet, so I can't comment on what they're doing, but it seems like they are using the probability that the particle might be at the destination to affect particles at the destination without actually sending the particle.
There was an article in Scientific American that talked about taking a picture of Medusa without receiving any photons from Medusa. The presence of a photon in a cavity will alter the resonance frequency of a cavity which can be detected (IIRC - the article was many years ago).
If what the paper claims is true(*), it means that information can be transferred from one location to another without the transfer of energy, which is a very interesting philosophical statement.
(*) Many times in physics, especially QM, experimental outcomes turn out to be different than expected, so it's good to do the experiments. (Viz. Popper's experiment.)
More and more I just want a mobile linux device that isn't android and isn't easy/consumerified and just has mobile data and I can use SIP or other IP-phone.
What I don't need is for my mobile device to update more often! What I need is for it to want updates less often.
I don't want new features unless there is hardware that is finally small enough to be mobile. And when it happens, I want it to use one of the existing computer interface paradigms.
Yes, but KB0337827328 fixes the Tagalog rendering issue!
That's been on our books for years now, and it's something you want!
For an ancient unsupported version of their product. Make sure you put that into your narrative.
Lots of people on the net would support the product, if Microsoft allowed them to.
The fact that it's unsupported is a dodge - in reality, Microsoft comes out with new products and forces people into them in order to make more profit.
And in this instance, the "forced upgrade" policy is causing people to die. it's completely unreasonable for people with expensive equipment running Windows XP to have to repurchase their hardware just because Microsoft wants them to spend another $100 for a new OS.
If the OS is truly obsolete and unsupported, Microsoft should release it into the public domain.
Essentially, the malware looks for port 445 (SMB) on local computers and the internet. If you have this port open on the internet, and have older than Win10, and haven't updated with the Mar 2 patch, then you're vulnerable.
Note that WinXP has about 8% market share and cannot be patched. You can get infected from another machine on the local subnet as well.
Here is a good detailed description of how it works and what it does.
Note that the propagation has halted for now, however the virus also installs a rootkit on the user's machine. If the virus writer realizes that the domain has been taken, he could remotely change the hard-coded domain name on every currently-infected machine, thus restarting the propagation process.
I'm sure the new republican health care plan will provide more comprehensive coverage at much lower costs thus solving americas poor living in third world conditions./s
saying they were attacked instead of the obvious truth (that they were overwhelmed by demand) is the kind of thing I'd expect from the Iraqi ministry of information, not the US Government.
Waitaminute...
Didn't we just hear a raft of comments about how the left is evidence-based, using the scientific method in all that?
Something about the EPA replacing half the scientists on a policy board with industry experts?
How is labelling something an "obvious truth" with no evidence to the contrary any different from "there are no facts any more"?
The *very probable* explanation is that someone heard John Oliver's screed, realized that many people were going to post opinions to the FCC website, and DDOS'd the site to prevent these people from registering an opinion.
Of all the stupid things people say that are attacks on democracy, this one actually *is* an attack on democracy.
A DDOS to prevent public feedback is much more serious than the base issue, and might become more prevalent in the future.
We don't really care that much when people insult the president, and we can think badly of such people or goodly of them. That part doesn't matter.
But Colbert's phrase was particularly rude, it's pretty-much covered in Carlin's seven dirty words, and it wasn't a sly, under-the-radar slip or emotional outburst as part of a dramatic scene, for example. It was explicit profanity.
People aren't going after him for the rest of his monologue, which was also very insulting, and they don't complain about John Oliver or Bill Maher when they face the camera and rattle off insults with no wit or insight.
It's the explicit profanity, and Colbert knows better.
Accuracy is always good, but a lot of it is subjective. And, besides, when Hillary's e-mails were posted, no one protested the content. People were outraged over "Putin" meddling in the US elections, but I don't recall anyone calling any particular e-mail a fake...
Hillary's E-mails were verified by their DKIM headers. As far as I'm aware, none of those E-mails have been shown as fake, and it would be pretty hard to fake the DKIM signature or claim that an E-mail was fake if it had a correct DKIM signature.
I don't know if a similar mechanism is available here, we'll probably find out in the next day or so.
Overall, I'm completely in favor of any correct (verified, impossible to fake) data dump on political candidates, including Trump and other GOP leaders if there were any.
We've always said "if you don't want people to know what you're doing, don't put it on the internet". What's good for the people is good for the leaders. We need to show them what it's like to have shit for privacy, like us.
This sort of thing will only make cheating and corruption harder for future candidates. Knowing that any aide or sysadmin could make their innermost decisions public lowers the "iiquidity" of such actions quite a bit. Even cell phone conversations cannot be considered private any more.
Data dumps are currently spotty and one-sided, but I expect future big elections will show both sides in stark.
Lets face it, Trump didn't really consider ANY of that. He wouldn't have studied any of the rules, or considered any of the science. He wouldn't have assigned a researcher to look at it.
Let me see if I understand you.
Even if Trump does something good, it's for bad reasons, so we should still hate him.
Did he got elected despite all odds?
Is he a (mostly self-made) billionaire?
Did he raise a good family, and are his kids well-mannered and successful?
Despite this, *everything* he does is bad, because his inner motives are evil. And despite historical evidence that this particular bill (that he axed) was roundly opposed and generated much anger from experts.
You're perfectly comfortable reading his motives from afar, predicting what he *will* do, what he is all about, and what he thinks.
And it's all bad. There's nothing good about any of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers that the former persident agreed to? $100B a year, if I remember correctly. The world is waiting.
Some questions:
That last one - making an end run around the democratic process, taking away the peoples' voice - seems especially troubling.
The problems of wealth inequality come from economics, not technology.
Allocate an array of reasonably large size, say a million entries, and fill each cell with the value 1.0
Next, choose any cell at random using a probability based on it's normalized value: Add all the cells together (the total) and make the probability of choosing any cell equal to it's cell value divided by the total.
Increment that chosen cell by a portion of its value; for example, increase the chosen cell value by 1%.
Repeat this process (select, increment) many times.
What you will find is that inevitably some cell values will increase exponentially, outstripping all other cells. Eventually one cell will become largest, outstripping all other cells.
Reset the simulation and rerun it, and the same thing will happen, only to different cells.
This is the model of our economic system. Compound interest is exactly this type of exponential increase, and will cause this same behaviour in simulation by itself. Other factors, such as getting better rates the more money you have, paying less in taxes the more money you have, will amplify this effect.
And which cell values get amplified is simply due to chance. In the beginning, it's being in the right place at the right time.
It's a math problem and easy to prove.
The human inability to identify, understand and control exponential increase is what leads to wealth inequality.
Not technology.
In your echo chamber he is doing a great job, but when conservative sites start calling for people to pull out of the US, and the people who predicted his win also predict his impeachment you know you may be on the wrong side.
Polling disagrees with that position.
About 96% of voters said they would still vote for Trump, compared to 94% of Clinton voters.
Turning that around, about 50% more Clinton voters than Trump voters would vote for the other side now.
There's a *ton* of people cheering the president, it just doesn't get noted in the MSM. Look to places like Breitbart and Gab and Reddit threads for comments from people who are four-square behind his policies.
And let us not forget that Kucinich put forth 35 articles of impeachment for George Bush, including war crimes, including taking the country to war under false premises, but the then-leader of the Democratic party (senator Obama) chose not to prosecute because "it would divide the nation".
This president does not give one tenth of one shit about US workers. He still owns a visa mill. His "deals" brokered with Ford and Carrier turned out to be completely fake, just as we believed at the time. Nothing he does will save auto industry jobs, coal industry jobs, or any other kind of job. Even rolling back the CAFE standards would actually be detrimental to US automakers, at least the competent ones.
Too bad there isn't a champion, someone with leadership and broad vision, to come forward and oppose him!
Comcast will be able to compress the video streams even further, making room for more video channels.
This is a net win for the consumer! More video channels means better value!
There are too many variables involved in determining calories burned by any biological entity, and these 'fitness bands' are not the only device that has this problem, either...
To further put this into context, if your body takes in 2 calories more per day than is needed, you will be obese in a year.
No diet has that level of accuracy, and there are variations within different samples of food as well. That 10oz of chicken might vary by dozens of calories, depending on random circumstance.
Laboratory animals grown with the same caloric intake and same access to exercise are obese, compared to ones grown decades ago. The trend over time is consistent and compelling. We're also seeing obese 6-month old babies.
The current explanation is that you consume more than you need, but the body knows how much to extract and lets the rest go by. The body has a "weight setpoint" in the manner of a thermostat that tells it how much energy it needs, and something in the environment causes that setpoint to go slightly off, causing obesity. Over 900 environmental causes have been identified as potential causes of obesity (and researchers are working through the list).
Obesity has, apparently, nothing to do with the amount or type of food you eat(*), and neither the amount of exercise you do(*).
(*) For obesity. Whether eating junk food is any good for you is another matter.
(*) For obesity. Whether exercise is good for your health generally is another matter.
And furthermore, NN was struck down because it was an overreach from a department that had no authority to regulate it.
And of course, everyone complains about the loss of NN, but no one ever proposes a new rule, properly vetted and from the correct department (FTC, not FCC) that would solve these issues.
No senator, no representative, no department head has ever proposed the common-sense solution of fixing the problem with a proper law.
They'd rather wail and moan about how bad everything is, rather than fix things.
To quote a famous politician, "Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic".
Stop 'yer bitching and start fixing things. Demand that your congress people start fixing things.
It's not that hard, and much more effective than false "car alarm" rhetoric.
Further, there are multiple oxides of Nitrogen.
Nitric oxide, NO, is used by the body as a regeneration signal. An acquaintance has a job designing NO generators for battlefield use, either as part of an O2 delivery system (to help injured lungs) or to be directly applied to burned skin (to help with regeneration). He's associated with MGH in Boston. They will probably be seeing use in civilian hospitals in a couple of years.
The other oxides dissolve in water to form acids, but NO is actually beneficial.
I wonder if the NOx studies take that into account.
Chairman Pai knows what's best and you people need to stop being so mean to the Trump regime. He was elected by the largest margin in modern history and he's the CEO of the country, so if he doesn't want Net Neutrality, you shouldn't complain because he's got the best people around him.
You should feel lucky that you're being allowed to comment at all.
Why so serious?
Mean tweets are clearly hate speech, and Chairman Pai is clearly onboard with the movement to suppress it.
I mean - commenting on policy is one thing, but we can't let people make hate speech now, can we?
Where are your priorities?
The solution is not to give up vulnerabilities that the CIA and NSA discover and want to weaponize, the root of the problem is the most incompetent administration in 50 years (the Obama administration) being completely clueless about cyber security and letting our state secrets out. That shit would never have been hacked by the Russians and dumped into the wild if the incompetents at the CIA and NSA had air-gapped their stockpile and put people in prison for 10 years or more for moving the files to a networked location except for specific conditions and actual use where multiple sign-offs and precautions would be required. Those who were in charge and those who were responsible for the security measures at the CIA and NSA when these secrets were hacked/leaked should be fired and charged with criminal negligence at least or maybe espionage/treason.
No, because they didn't *intend* to leak the information.
The new interpretation of the law requires intent, and besides, no one has ever been prosecuted for doing this in the past.
Haven't you been following the news last year?
They're patching XP for chrissakes.
No, they're patching a very old product that they told people - for years straight - to stop using, and they explained why. You do get this, right?
It's hard to stop using a system when it requires repurchasing the $100,000 hospital X-ray machine that it runs.
Did you think every hospital should just throw out all it's working equipment and purchase new ones? For hospitals in Africa and India as well?
secure Win10
+1 Funny
You're also ignoring the huge elephant in the room - that Microsoft probably knew about that vulnerability or even better, created it in conjunction with the NSA et al. By the way - WINDOWS 10 ALSO REQUIRED A "FIX". This is not a "zero day vulnerability", it's a back-door plain and simple.
The other elephant is that a lot of very expensive hardware still runs on WinXP (and other less-recent but still old versions), can't be upgraded to the new version, and is too expensive to replace.
Microsoft will still support WinXP, but basically it means a) they have the patches to prevent malware, but b) they'll only give it to you if you pay them.
Oh, and the price for WinXP support doubles yearly (someone else said that - don't know if it's true).
So effectively Microsoft is saying that you have to throw out and repurchase all of your medical equipment, all of your research equipment, and all of your manufacturing equipment - even if it's still working - because they want you to purchase a new version of their OS.
Oh, and the new version pushes adware on you and installs whatever the fuck Microsoft wants and reboots the system whenever it damn well pleases.
Yeah, I think Microsoft can shoulder at least *some* of the blame for this.
You can get it either by a) exposing port 445 to the internet, or b) exposing port 445 to a computer on your local subnet that's infected.
If you have no other computers running windows on your local net, and if your network connection doesn't allow port 445 through, you should be safe.
Port 445 is SMB ("samba" over in linux world), which is used to mount remote disks and printers (and some other things). There's really no need for a user to expose this port to the internet unless you want to mount a disk remotely over the internet, which is not something a user would ordinarily need.
https://sci-hub.cc/10.1073/pnas.1614560114
i think it's the one, took 1 minute to find its DOI and look that up on scihub
1) I took more than 1 minute to look for other versions first, out of respect for SciHub. SciHub is a great resource, and I don't like to use their resources if it can be avoided.
2) I didn't post the SciHub link, out of respect for SciHub. SciHub is a great resource, and I don't want to use up their resources by publicly posting their links.
3) Pointing out things obvious to you in a snarky way is elitist.
4) Nothing is easier and more pathetic than being a critic.
How is this any different from modulating the light with e.g. coloured filters to send signals?
It seems to me people have already been doing this for centuries.
it's exactly like modulating light using coloured filters.
Except that there is no light.
I've found the paper.
Using beamsplitters, Alice sets up one probability path that goes out to Bob and back. Bob can either insert a mirror, reflecting the probability path back to Alice, or not, making the probability path end there. Bob's mirror will change the phase of the Alice's photon in a way that can be detected by Alice, even though the photon doesn't actually go out to Bob.
A good simple example of what they're doing is the quantum bomb detector, where you can determine whether a bomb attached to a single-photon detector would explode if given a photon... without actually giving it a photon.
In the bomb example, you are getting information about the bomb without actually transferring energy to or from the bomb.
The experiment in the paper is somewhat similar.
You can define a particle as something that has energy - either rest energy as mass, or energy in motion as a photon.
Most of the time you need some sort of transfer of energy to transfer information. A photon is sent from one place to another, it interacts with a sensor, and information is exchanged.
One interpretation of this effect is that the photon itself doesn't travel down the path, it's the *probability* of the photon that travels down the path. When a particle is emitted, the universe takes the particle and puts it on a shelf somewhere (outside the universe) and sends out an instantaneous probability wave. As the wave evolves, the universe checks it for interactions with things along the path, and when the probability indicates an interaction it replaces the probability wave with the particle.
The probability wave takes all possible paths from the source to the destination, including non-straight paths. Most of the time most of the paths cancel out, leaving one path (the straight line) or two (beamsplitter mirror) or a few more, depending on the configuration.
I haven't found a non-paywalled version of the frikkin' paper yet, so I can't comment on what they're doing, but it seems like they are using the probability that the particle might be at the destination to affect particles at the destination without actually sending the particle.
There was an article in Scientific American that talked about taking a picture of Medusa without receiving any photons from Medusa. The presence of a photon in a cavity will alter the resonance frequency of a cavity which can be detected (IIRC - the article was many years ago).
If what the paper claims is true(*), it means that information can be transferred from one location to another without the transfer of energy, which is a very interesting philosophical statement.
(*) Many times in physics, especially QM, experimental outcomes turn out to be different than expected, so it's good to do the experiments. (Viz. Popper's experiment.)
More and more I just want a mobile linux device that isn't android and isn't easy/consumerified and just has mobile data and I can use SIP or other IP-phone.
What I don't need is for my mobile device to update more often! What I need is for it to want updates less often.
I don't want new features unless there is hardware that is finally small enough to be mobile. And when it happens, I want it to use one of the existing computer interface paradigms.
Yes, but KB0337827328 fixes the Tagalog rendering issue!
That's been on our books for years now, and it's something you want!
For an ancient unsupported version of their product. Make sure you put that into your narrative.
Lots of people on the net would support the product, if Microsoft allowed them to.
The fact that it's unsupported is a dodge - in reality, Microsoft comes out with new products and forces people into them in order to make more profit.
And in this instance, the "forced upgrade" policy is causing people to die. it's completely unreasonable for people with expensive equipment running Windows XP to have to repurchase their hardware just because Microsoft wants them to spend another $100 for a new OS.
If the OS is truly obsolete and unsupported, Microsoft should release it into the public domain.
There's a good sumamry over at github.
Essentially, the malware looks for port 445 (SMB) on local computers and the internet. If you have this port open on the internet, and have older than Win10, and haven't updated with the Mar 2 patch, then you're vulnerable.
Note that WinXP has about 8% market share and cannot be patched. You can get infected from another machine on the local subnet as well.
Here is a good detailed description of how it works and what it does.
Note that the propagation has halted for now, however the virus also installs a rootkit on the user's machine. If the virus writer realizes that the domain has been taken, he could remotely change the hard-coded domain name on every currently-infected machine, thus restarting the propagation process.
I'm sure the new republican health care plan will provide more comprehensive coverage at much lower costs thus solving americas poor living in third world conditions. /s
For those who want a good visualization, here is the US map of the study results,
and here's the study, click on the "figures and tables" link in the overly complex mishmash of a web page for visualizations and caption explanations.
saying they were attacked instead of the obvious truth (that they were overwhelmed by demand) is the kind of thing I'd expect from the Iraqi ministry of information, not the US Government.
Waitaminute...
Didn't we just hear a raft of comments about how the left is evidence-based, using the scientific method in all that?
Something about the EPA replacing half the scientists on a policy board with industry experts?
How is labelling something an "obvious truth" with no evidence to the contrary any different from "there are no facts any more"?
The *very probable* explanation is that someone heard John Oliver's screed, realized that many people were going to post opinions to the FCC website, and DDOS'd the site to prevent these people from registering an opinion.
Of all the stupid things people say that are attacks on democracy, this one actually *is* an attack on democracy.
A DDOS to prevent public feedback is much more serious than the base issue, and might become more prevalent in the future.
Perhaps we should be discussing that.
Not over the joke, over the words he used in it.
That's a good description of the issue.
We don't really care that much when people insult the president, and we can think badly of such people or goodly of them. That part doesn't matter.
But Colbert's phrase was particularly rude, it's pretty-much covered in Carlin's seven dirty words, and it wasn't a sly, under-the-radar slip or emotional outburst as part of a dramatic scene, for example. It was explicit profanity.
People aren't going after him for the rest of his monologue, which was also very insulting, and they don't complain about John Oliver or Bill Maher when they face the camera and rattle off insults with no wit or insight.
It's the explicit profanity, and Colbert knows better.
Accuracy is always good, but a lot of it is subjective. And, besides, when Hillary's e-mails were posted, no one protested the content. People were outraged over "Putin" meddling in the US elections, but I don't recall anyone calling any particular e-mail a fake...
Hillary's E-mails were verified by their DKIM headers. As far as I'm aware, none of those E-mails have been shown as fake, and it would be pretty hard to fake the DKIM signature or claim that an E-mail was fake if it had a correct DKIM signature.
I don't know if a similar mechanism is available here, we'll probably find out in the next day or so.
Overall, I'm completely in favor of any correct (verified, impossible to fake) data dump on political candidates, including Trump and other GOP leaders if there were any.
We've always said "if you don't want people to know what you're doing, don't put it on the internet". What's good for the people is good for the leaders. We need to show them what it's like to have shit for privacy, like us.
This sort of thing will only make cheating and corruption harder for future candidates. Knowing that any aide or sysadmin could make their innermost decisions public lowers the "iiquidity" of such actions quite a bit. Even cell phone conversations cannot be considered private any more.
Data dumps are currently spotty and one-sided, but I expect future big elections will show both sides in stark.
And that's a good thing.
Lets face it, Trump didn't really consider ANY of that. He wouldn't have studied any of the rules, or considered any of the science. He wouldn't have assigned a researcher to look at it.
Let me see if I understand you.
Even if Trump does something good, it's for bad reasons, so we should still hate him.
Did he got elected despite all odds?
Is he a (mostly self-made) billionaire?
Did he raise a good family, and are his kids well-mannered and successful?
Despite this, *everything* he does is bad, because his inner motives are evil. And despite historical evidence that this particular bill (that he axed) was roundly opposed and generated much anger from experts.
You're perfectly comfortable reading his motives from afar, predicting what he *will* do, what he is all about, and what he thinks.
And it's all bad. There's nothing good about any of it.
This is what you're saying, yes?