The arrest warrant was issued by Texas. Not really known to be totalitarian anti gun anti second amendment state.
As I suspect you actually understand, Texas isn't even close to a monoculture. The affidavit leading to the arrest warrant was issued by the police department of the well-known liberal hotbed of Austin. The application for warrant was signed by magistrate judge Tamara Needles, a Democrat.
You don't say? Because I had to fish a resume out of the trash from HR because it came from a community college instead of a recognizable one.
Colleges are like brand names. You might not like to hear it but a lot of people get filtered out because of bullshit HR drones picking 4 year colleges over community colleges.
So fix the actual problem -- HR people (and executives, and managers) who worship college brand names and/or use them as a lazy screening tool -- and the higher-tier colleges will lose the market power employers have freely given them. Until then, people may as well bitch about the sun rising in the east.
4k/8k are the nominal horizontal resolutions, not a multiplier. "Four times the resolution" in the summary is a bit awkward -- it's four times the pixels.
Past, more in-depth studies on this topic have concluded that the effect varies by cultivar (with some nutrients actually increasing in some cultivars). This study briefly acknowledges that concept, then layers on several other ways to keep the sky from falling:
Beyond stepping up nutritional surveillance, there are a variety of actions that could be taken to reduce nutritional vulnerability.
Different cultivars of certain food crops—particularly rice and legumes—have shown differential sensitivity to CO2 for specific nutrients, showing that it may be possible to selectively use or potentially breed cultivars with reduced sensitivity to these effects.
In addition, biofortification of crops with nutrients and the use of developing agricultural techniques that optimize the uptake of iron, zinc or nitrogen may be possible and have shown some early promise. Also, national fortification and supplementation programmes may ameliorate nutritional deficiencies, particularly for targeted vulnerable groups.
Finally, encouraging dietary diversity through the consumption of greater quantities of nutrient-rich grains and pulses, or even through relatively small increases in animal-sourced foods for developing countries where intake is low and it would be culturally appropriate, may offset nutritional inadequacy with relatively little government intervention.
The word "so" would typically imply some sort of logical step from what I said to what you said, but it looks to me like you just moved on to the next anti-gun talking point on the list. If you have something concrete to say about why you think the fact that the only civilian guns in gun-free zones are in the hands of criminals leads to the conclusion that it's too easy to procure a gun, I'm happy to discuss that.
(I'm fairly certain the above poster was being sarcastic and you didn't get the joke).
I'm fairly certain you didn't read his follow-up post, nor take note of his handle. He's one of the most prolific flaming-liberal-America-sucks posters around here.
Gun free zones exist so that the second a gun is noticed the cops can be called.
Oh, phenomenal. That buys you a whole 2.7 seconds before you would have called the police anyway after the first round was fired. That's definitely worth the tradeoff of the shooter being able to freely plug away at fish in a barrel until the cops show up.
The property's rules of conduct prohibit carrying weapons of any kind other than by law enforcement. If it's like most places, it would also have lots of copiously posted signs to that effect.
Someone intending to shoot up the place would, of course, just chuckle on the way past the signs. Law-abiding people, on the other hand, would follow the rules, leaving the only civilian guns on the premises in the hands of the criminals.
If it was gun free, how did he get a gun in there?
Because, of course, guns don't just magically disintegrate when entering a "gun free zone."
This is how desperate the true believers have become.
Please, please continue to tie yourself in pretzel knots trying to explain how the investing universe naturally should have understood the words "funding secured" to mean something like "I talked to someone with a lot of money and they told me how kewl they thought I was."
At some point all those distributed components of the voting system log on electronically to a central system to tabulate the statewide vote.
Really? Where are you getting your information? How do you know the precincts don't, for example, report by telephone? And regardless of how the data is aggregated, today you and I can drill down and see the vote tallies on a precinct-by-precinct basis. Do do you really think the precincts themselves aren't watching those numbers like hawks against the ones they reported?
And the real life event that convinced at least some that hacking this central tabulation was Karl Rove's on-air meltdown in 2008 over Ohio calling the state for Obama. It sure looked like he 'knew' that that was not supposed to happen, and to the conspiracy minded, that sure looked like he thought the fix was in somewhere along the chain of custody.
So the evidence for hacking is that hacking didn't happen but somebody acted in a way people say we should interpret as him thinking that hacking was going to happen? Oh dear. I suppose these people also want us to believe that the hacking that he supposedly was so confident was going to happen but didn't somehow mysteriously failed without anyone outside the conspiracy detecting it?
But to assume that the distributed nature of the system renders it invulnerable is a bit naive...
Nothing in life is invulnerable, but the distributed nature of the system, along with the multiple layers of checks and balances, dramatically reduces the odds of broad-scale issues.
I'd suggest the real naivety lies with those sitting around blindly conjecturing about how electronic voting machines could be used to swing elections without factoring in or caring to understand the safeguards in the broader system in which the EVMs operate.
I think you're overlooking his broader point, which is that the distributed architecture of the system (both machines and people) makes it extremely difficult to even plot a coordinated attack much less carry one out.
The question therefore isn't so much whether one individual machine can be hacked -- it's how many would have to be hacked to make a material difference in the outcome, and how many layers of human security would have to be defeated over how wide of an area to get physical access to hack them.
For decades we've faced the same question with non-electronic voting -- bad apples have hacked counters on mechanical voting machines, stuffed ballot boxes, and so on. And that's OP's point: the system has evolved in recognition of the temptation to cheat, and has a ton of checks and balances in place to minimize the fallout.
I suggest you get on youtube and look up videos of people placing skimmers on credit card terminals and explain to me why that can't happen to a voting machine?
What in the world would a skimmer on a voting machine skim?
He promises 1000. Delivers 900. Everyone focuses on falling short of the target by 100. While forgeting that 900 is 900 above what every one said is impossible.
Yeah, when Elon can make someone who has historically been one of the most pervasively negative posters on/. suddenly see the glass as half full, his hypnotic powers must be even stronger than I thought.
I never understood why people are so entranced by Musk.
Entrancement is irrational by definition. He has a big personality, talks about big things people like to dream about, and makes flashy things happen by splashing around lots of OPM that he gets them to willingly hand over by combinations of the above. Confirmation bias supports the belief that he's actually doing amazing things. But stripped down to brass tacks, the emperor has no clothes. It was clear the music would have to stop at some point, but I'm gratified it's happening as soon as it is.
(The NYT article probably was the final straw. An entrepreneur whining (no, *choking up*) that he had to work all day on his birthday? That should tell any rational investor everything they need to know.)
I think anyone who doesn't look at the current situation and see just what level of wealth they have acquired in comparison to everyone else, and immediately see a huge fucking problem should be shot while there's still fucking time.
Ouch. Maybe we haven't evolved quite as much from the days of the guillotine as we'd like to think.
Slashdot Mirror
The arrest warrant was issued by Texas.
Not really known to be totalitarian anti gun anti second amendment state.
As I suspect you actually understand, Texas isn't even close to a monoculture. The affidavit leading to the arrest warrant was issued by the police department of the well-known liberal hotbed of Austin. The application for warrant was signed by magistrate judge Tamara Needles, a Democrat.
Other than all that, spot on.
Before Tesla, there was no electric car marketplace. Now there is, and there's even competition.
You make Nathan Poe proud, my friend.
Must. Consume. NOW.
You don't say? Because I had to fish a resume out of the trash from HR because it came from a community college instead of a recognizable one.
Colleges are like brand names. You might not like to hear it but a lot of people get filtered out because of bullshit HR drones picking 4 year colleges over community colleges.
So fix the actual problem -- HR people (and executives, and managers) who worship college brand names and/or use them as a lazy screening tool -- and the higher-tier colleges will lose the market power employers have freely given them. Until then, people may as well bitch about the sun rising in the east.
I'm not seeing the problem. If they're not connected to the Internet, by definition the hacking occurred inside the state in question.
if those same voting machines were downloading movies or whatnot
Which means they would be connected to the Internet. Which would remove the reason why TFS says the CFAA wouldn't apply.
That wasn't too hard.
4k/8k are the nominal horizontal resolutions, not a multiplier. "Four times the resolution" in the summary is a bit awkward -- it's four times the pixels.
Past, more in-depth studies on this topic have concluded that the effect varies by cultivar (with some nutrients actually increasing in some cultivars). This study briefly acknowledges that concept, then layers on several other ways to keep the sky from falling:
Beyond stepping up nutritional surveillance, there are a variety of actions that could be taken to reduce nutritional vulnerability.
Different cultivars of certain food crops—particularly rice and legumes—have shown differential sensitivity to CO2 for specific nutrients, showing that it may be possible to selectively use or potentially breed cultivars with reduced sensitivity to these effects.
In addition, biofortification of crops with nutrients and the use of developing agricultural techniques that optimize the uptake of iron, zinc or nitrogen may be possible and have shown some early promise. Also, national fortification and supplementation programmes may ameliorate nutritional deficiencies, particularly for targeted vulnerable groups.
Finally, encouraging dietary diversity through the consumption of greater quantities of nutrient-rich grains and pulses, or even through relatively small increases in animal-sourced foods for developing countries where intake is low and it would be culturally appropriate, may offset nutritional inadequacy with relatively little government intervention.
Ad-hominin. Nice.
Actually quite the opposite -- you might recheck your pocket dictionary on that one.
Because they were not triggered by seeing my username they were able to correctly interpret my post.
Looks to me like the mods called it correctly. Be seeing you....
The word "so" would typically imply some sort of logical step from what I said to what you said, but it looks to me like you just moved on to the next anti-gun talking point on the list. If you have something concrete to say about why you think the fact that the only civilian guns in gun-free zones are in the hands of criminals leads to the conclusion that it's too easy to procure a gun, I'm happy to discuss that.
(I'm fairly certain the above poster was being sarcastic and you didn't get the joke).
I'm fairly certain you didn't read his follow-up post, nor take note of his handle. He's one of the most prolific flaming-liberal-America-sucks posters around here.
Gun free zones exist so that the second a gun is noticed the cops can be called.
Oh, phenomenal. That buys you a whole 2.7 seconds before you would have called the police anyway after the first round was fired. That's definitely worth the tradeoff of the shooter being able to freely plug away at fish in a barrel until the cops show up.
So they should have fitted metal detectors and checked bags of people entering.
You do realize from my first link that this is an open-air shopping mall, right?
Here's right where it happened. Pan around a bit and get back with me on where you would have put metal detectors.
Was this a gun free zone?
The property's rules of conduct prohibit carrying weapons of any kind other than by law enforcement. If it's like most places, it would also have lots of copiously posted signs to that effect.
Someone intending to shoot up the place would, of course, just chuckle on the way past the signs. Law-abiding people, on the other hand, would follow the rules, leaving the only civilian guns on the premises in the hands of the criminals.
If it was gun free, how did he get a gun in there?
Because, of course, guns don't just magically disintegrate when entering a "gun free zone."
They are more transparent too - you can listen to everything it's ever listened to by logging in to your account.
Sorry, is it supposed to make me feel better that Google has permanently archived everything it's ever listened to in my house?
Ah, the Mommy-he-did-it-first defense. Always a winner.
Secured doesn't mean the same thing as received.
This is how desperate the true believers have become.
Please, please continue to tie yourself in pretzel knots trying to explain how the investing universe naturally should have understood the words "funding secured" to mean something like "I talked to someone with a lot of money and they told me how kewl they thought I was."
At some point all those distributed components of the voting system log on electronically to a central system to tabulate the statewide vote.
Really? Where are you getting your information? How do you know the precincts don't, for example, report by telephone? And regardless of how the data is aggregated, today you and I can drill down and see the vote tallies on a precinct-by-precinct basis. Do do you really think the precincts themselves aren't watching those numbers like hawks against the ones they reported?
And the real life event that convinced at least some that hacking this central tabulation was Karl Rove's on-air meltdown in 2008 over Ohio calling the state for Obama. It sure looked like he 'knew' that that was not supposed to happen, and to the conspiracy minded, that sure looked like he thought the fix was in somewhere along the chain of custody.
So the evidence for hacking is that hacking didn't happen but somebody acted in a way people say we should interpret as him thinking that hacking was going to happen? Oh dear. I suppose these people also want us to believe that the hacking that he supposedly was so confident was going to happen but didn't somehow mysteriously failed without anyone outside the conspiracy detecting it?
But to assume that the distributed nature of the system renders it invulnerable is a bit naive...
Nothing in life is invulnerable, but the distributed nature of the system, along with the multiple layers of checks and balances, dramatically reduces the odds of broad-scale issues.
I'd suggest the real naivety lies with those sitting around blindly conjecturing about how electronic voting machines could be used to swing elections without factoring in or caring to understand the safeguards in the broader system in which the EVMs operate.
I think you're overlooking his broader point, which is that the distributed architecture of the system (both machines and people) makes it extremely difficult to even plot a coordinated attack much less carry one out.
The question therefore isn't so much whether one individual machine can be hacked -- it's how many would have to be hacked to make a material difference in the outcome, and how many layers of human security would have to be defeated over how wide of an area to get physical access to hack them.
For decades we've faced the same question with non-electronic voting -- bad apples have hacked counters on mechanical voting machines, stuffed ballot boxes, and so on. And that's OP's point: the system has evolved in recognition of the temptation to cheat, and has a ton of checks and balances in place to minimize the fallout.
I suggest you get on youtube and look up videos of people placing skimmers on credit card terminals and explain to me why that can't happen to a voting machine?
What in the world would a skimmer on a voting machine skim?
Looks to me like after they hit the 25GB cap, every single bit was delivered at the same (degraded) speed.
What a strange word to choose to include in a sentence trying to reassure people about privacy.
He promises 1000. Delivers 900. Everyone focuses on falling short of the target by 100. While forgeting that 900 is 900 above what every one said is impossible.
Yeah, when Elon can make someone who has historically been one of the most pervasively negative posters on /. suddenly see the glass as half full, his hypnotic powers must be even stronger than I thought.
I never understood why people are so entranced by Musk.
Entrancement is irrational by definition. He has a big personality, talks about big things people like to dream about, and makes flashy things happen by splashing around lots of OPM that he gets them to willingly hand over by combinations of the above. Confirmation bias supports the belief that he's actually doing amazing things. But stripped down to brass tacks, the emperor has no clothes. It was clear the music would have to stop at some point, but I'm gratified it's happening as soon as it is.
(The NYT article probably was the final straw. An entrepreneur whining (no, *choking up*) that he had to work all day on his birthday? That should tell any rational investor everything they need to know.)
It's functional. So how many ways are there to efficiently implement a notched screen?
I'll leave the rounded rectangle part as an exercise for the reader.
In 1910, there was no federal income tax.
You may have meant the Revenue Act of 1913, in which the top rate was 6%.
But I suppose the actual numbers wouldn't have sounded quite as compelling.
I think anyone who doesn't look at the current situation and see just what level of wealth they have acquired in comparison to everyone else, and immediately see a huge fucking problem should be shot while there's still fucking time.
Ouch. Maybe we haven't evolved quite as much from the days of the guillotine as we'd like to think.