Do you really believe he was even given a chance to surrender? I seriously doubt it.
Well, they had to make a split second decision, and since he was holding a kidney dialysis machine, they were at serious personal risk of him cleaning their blood...
These this will naturally become shuttles and taxi services almost immediately. Given the protests of Uber and Lyft, what will the outcry be for these?
Cabbies don't have enough money to have a voice that's heard, The people with the money will just watch until these are cheaper than cabbies and then implement.
The loud people are the cab companies which own the medallions and lease them to the cabbies for a large cut of their income. Obviously, cabbies with their own medallions are more upset, but less organized into a group.
The cabbies themselves are annoyed with Uber/Lyft because they can't ignore outcalls in favor of the customer in front of them. Dropping outcalls on the floor is what gets people pissed at cabbies enough to go to Uber/Lyft, which in many cases are more expensive than a traditional cab (were one to actually show up). Uber/Lyft is therefore disruptive because it forces them to either honor their promises, or lose business from customers who prefer reliability over price.
Also, if these are implemented as cabs, they will still require medallions per cab, even without the driver (the government wants their cut), and this will reduce the amount of free medallions.
I expect there will be some backlash based on trust, and older customers will still insist on humans, just as newly married couples in NY insist on a Hansom Cab, rather than a Yellow Cab or Checker Cab: reasons other than price sensitivity.
ChromeOS, in contrast, comes with more stringent system requirements that would cost HP a bit more.
In other words, this thing is going to be really slow if you try to use it for serious work. Why? Because HP is cheap and doesn't want to shell out for decent components. That and/or they like their locked down bootloader.
There are additional hardware requirements on a ChromeBook:
o No COTS keyboard (ChromeOS requires a custom keyboard)
o Work required on the TP bus input lines and power to deal with wake-from-trackpad
o EC modifications for wake-from-trackpad, including some tricky PS/2 state machine work
o EC modifications including additional GPIO pins and a couple of resisters and capacitors, if the parts PS/2 bus is on the C3 power rail (i.e. there's some issues with C-state transitions if the PS/2 or I2C bus for the TP are powered down in sleep state)
o EC state machine modifications for prioritization of traffic from the keyboard matrix "pretend" i8051/i8042 parts to provide a muxed PS/2 bus with e.g. a Synaptics PS/2 trackpad; specifically, HP's EC parts tend to drop keystrokes under certain conditions, and the typical solution to the hardware problem in the EC firmware is to stop TP input for a period of time following keyboard input - same solution used by Toshiba - and it means you can't use both keyboard and mouse in games, unless you use an external mouse in place of the TP
o If the TP remains powered in sleep state, for wake-from sleep, as part of the C1 rail, then there is an associated batter cost, even if you chat with it to clock it way down; this implies either clam-shell it shut to turn off the TP, -OR- a bigger battery to achieve the same battery life. FWIW, that also means that the C1 line to the TP power has to be gated by *another* GPIO line from the EC
o Wake-from-trackpad also has some implications for BIOS default state on initial boot or wake-from-sleep (C1->C3 state transition); most BIOS are broken in this regard (hint: try holding the TP click down when booting some time, and see how long it takes).
o A TPM to implement the "trusted boot" in a way that it can't be worked around in software (Microsoft Trusted Boot can work without TPM hardware, but can be worked around in software if you are diligent).
o There's a known defect in I2C bus sharing on some TPMs when doing back-to-back transactions, which means that they tend to demand their own I2C bus.
o The last HP ChromeBook was withdrawn from the market due to power supply overheating problem (this is public information), which had to do with the charging circuit and the power draw in sleep state, while leaving certain peripherals powered on that aren't on in a normal Windows sleep state.
o CoreBoot and u-boot for the BIOS (technically, you could flash both and select which one in a setup screen, but that means higher NVRAM costs for the storage of the BIOS)
So... a lot of software work in a sensitive system area, a potentially larger battery, a potentially higher per unit cost for the keyboard, a potentially higher per unit cost for the TP, a modified BIOS and other BIOS costs, and a TPM and maybe an extra I2C line, plus a potential mod to the charging circuit.
Full disclosure: I did the EC state machine work and worked with Synaptics and Samsung on the EC and hardware modifications for a number of TP and keyboard issues, as well as other of the above issues, for ChromeBooks from Samsung, Acer, and other companies while part of the ChromeOS team at Google. Basically, they'd need to make my recommended list of partner modifications to their hardware and firmware in order to build a successful ChromeBook.
I suspect that they will find the android OS not very satisfactory as well, but with a standard keyboard and other features, they can use COTS parts for most things, and pop the rip cord and switch to Windows on the thing if they absolutely had to do so.
Not because they didn't want to imprison him; it was due to an activist judge who held that there was such evidentiary misconduct that the case was dismissed.
This was due to the climate immediately following Watergate, where the judiciary had a lot of motive to prove themselves uncorrupt, at least compared to the executive branch of the time.
The current climate is one much of the evidence against Snowden would be considered classified, and therefore not challengeable. The FISA court, the national security letters, and other instruments available for use in shielding against charges of misconduct, and thus preventing such a dismissal, did not exist in Ellsberg's time.
Frankly, Snowden is lucky he initially established, and is successfully maintaining, a high profile, since it makes him less of a target for extraordinary rendition, which had it been used, he would have just disappeared into a black hole somewhere already.
Supposedly, in the United States, there is a right against "double jeopardy" or being tried again for the same crime once exonerated. A legal corollary to that is that you can't be punished more than once for the same offense. That right exists precisely to prevent malicious prosecution that could keep coming back and harassing someone or even ruining their character through repeated abuse of the legal system... even without sufficient evidence for conviction. It is designed to require the State to present its case, have a speedy trial, and then let the person alone again if it can't prove wrong-doing, so they can get on with their lives.
Someone should inform Carmen M. Ortiz and Stephen P. Heymann about this. And, you know, brong Aaron Swartz back to life, by way of apology.
As a practical matter, the common practice of overzealous overcharging of defendants in order to force them into a plea bargain on some subset of the charges is a straight extension and outgrowth of the civil rights reforms of the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's.
The issue came down to their being no federal statute against murder, and several states unwillingness to convict participants in a number of lynchings. The first successful use of these "double jeopardy" trials was in 1946, when Florida Constable Tom Crews was convicted for the lynching of a black farmhand: by killing him, Crews had violated the mans civil rights, as, what with being dead and all, he could no longer go to the church of his choice, he could no longer eat at the restaurant of his choice, and so on.
It was a rather weak pretext for the double jeopardy trial of someone for the same crime, albeit using different charges in order to do it, but it was in fact successful, and it became the model for future similar trials, where the federal government "leaned on" the states in order to make it highly inconvenient for them to not enforce their own laws.
Unfortunately, it also became the model for so-called "shotgun prosecutions" or, alternately, "spaghetti prosecutions", where you fired the shotgun at the target, hoping one or more pellets would hit, or, alternately, threw a bunch of spaghetti at the target, hoping that something you threw would stick.
While this may be in violation of the spirit of the so-called "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment (do people actually still believe in that?), it is, nonetheless, common practice.
It's also common practice in Europe, and in other countries, to work around not being able to prove your case against someone.
And to throw a little more fuel on the fire in the other direction: Another example where this was used in a manner which many people believe constitutes justice, was the prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 242 for the police offers in the Rodney King beating, after they were acquitted in a California court of charges of assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force.
In case you care, the specific U.S. Supreme Court decision on which all of this doubly jeopardy depends is the 1932 Blockburger v. United States decision, so that part of the Fifth Amendment has been pretty dead for a while, if you can meet "the Blockburger test". See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
I suspect Google will handle all this the same way that advertising of certain items prohibited in Germany is handled by eBay: make the results disappear in Germany, but if you point your proxy outside Germany, expect them to come right back. Basically a "no-see-um" approach to the problem of local jurisdictions. This would be in line with some of the search result filtering they were willing (and then not willing, under freedom of speech grounds) to do for China.
It's kind of another attempt at "the thin end of the wedge" by Europe, and I expect you could argue against it, particularly in the cases of sexual predators, on the basis of the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (among others).
On the contrary, there is clear and strong public interest in having someone's past run-ins with the law being available -- so that others can make an informed evaluation whether they want to deal with the person in question.
You are contradicting yourself. How can you make an informed decision on that based on outdated information?
By giving them the opportunity to disclose any information about current criminal activities not previously recorded, in order to allow us to make a better decision? After all, it's their fault that the information is outdated, given their non-disclosure, and they're perfectly capable of correcting it for us, since they are the person in question.
It's no all fine, but what do you think you can do about it? The information won't just magically dissapear.
It's very hard for many people to distinguish between "It's magic because I'm ignorant and don't understand the technology behind it" and "It's magic, because it's not possible to do with known technology". If you give them the first one, but don't give them the second one, they want to know why you are withholding the magic they are rightfully entitled to have in the second case.
The people who fail to understand these things are also frequently the people who don't understand that a GPS equipped device is equipped so *it* knows where it's at, and if it doesn't communicate the information to anyone, the you don't magically know where the device is just because it has a GPS. Just because you know where you are doesn't mean you can tell anyone.
And why do they use TCP if they are trying to avoid retransmissions due to lost/corrupt packets?
This seems to say that it's most trying to avoid link-layer retransmission, not transport-layer. So somehow I need to figure out all the links my transmission is traversing and disable link-layer retransmission on all of them?
I believe the issue is that you can't sell it to the cable companies and the DSL providers that implement PPPOE in order to track your surfing, to make sure you are buying your television programming from them, rather than file sharing, and they can intentionally make things like Tor not work. Not that PMTUD works on those things unless the modem proxies the ICMP messages, which are usually blocked by the cable companies, unless you explicitly ifconfig down to 1492 yourself, or enable active probing for black hole (rfc4821).
You do not understand how these telescope missions are funded, or, apparently that it costs millions simply to keep a space telescope running once it is up.
The major sunk costs are getting the bird in the air. Once it's up there, it's about ground facilities to talk to the thing, and the costs are all administrative, unless you are also giving out data analysis grants that are perhaps better funded by those who want the data in the first place. Either way, even if it's a grant, it's an NSF grant at that point, and it's not a NASA budget line item.
The scientists who want to use Spitzer do not, and can not, pay for it out of pocket. There are no parties willing or able to pay for anything related to telescope operations, other than NASA itself.
To be fair, the instrument itself is fairly broken (it ran out of liquid Helium half way through May 2009), and is already scheduled to be replaced with a fully functional instrument. The observations it's still capable of making are all "Warm Spitzer" observations; the MIPS and IRS instruments are dead without the Helium, and the IRAC is dead but for two modules. I think that the unwillingness to pay for telescope observations is related to (1) the reduced utility of the instrument itself, and (2) the marginal utility it has is not being made available in the proper market.
The oversubscription indicates its scientific usefulness and relevance, not some economic market model potential.
In fact, it is the other way around. Astronomers get the observations "for free" after stringent selection, and then *get extra money from NASA* to be able to analyze the data. I.e., most of the bureaucracy and red tape is already taken out and much of the funding goes directly to the end user. This is a standard and efficient model.
NASA is not therefore "in between the people who want to use the instrument and the instrument itself", it is funding all operational costs of the telescope+instruments, maintaining the data archive, providing technical support to users, *and* provide them with funding to analyze the data.
I've looked at a number of the mission proposals, and while it's hard to get access to space assets to get your doctorate in astronomy, you getting your doctorate in astronomy is not really a measure of "scientific usefulness".
That said, I think that the proper way to fund things like this, where you are giving it away as a free service, where it costs you money to run the service, and then it costs you more money to give grants to people who use the service so that their use of the service can be rationalized... is NOT via grants out of NASAs budget directly.
Technically, there are a number of space missions which should have been dealt with by establishing a trust with an annuity, the annuity covering the future costs of running the mission, so that there were no recurring costs beyond the sunk costs, barring a disaster (such as the ground station having a catastrophic fire, etc.).
This does get in the way of repurposing equipment and installations, such that the ICE/ISEE-3 communications problems wouldn't have occurred in the first place, and the people who repurposed the equipment used for that mission would have had to find their own equipment funding at a slightly higher cost, but then again, it would mean we could have gotten more use out of the sunk costs for that spacecraft as well, which probably financially outweighs the value from repurposing the equipment and rendering the spacecraft useless as a result.
Either way, observations should be funded out of someone else's budget, not NASAs; if nothing else, having a NASA committee at CalTech deciding what is and isn't worthy of scope time is probably the wrong way to assign scope time, if what you are interested in is scientific advancement.
It seems that a private consortium could operate the instrument, given its oversubscription ratio, and thereby have enough funding to run both the subscription selection process and the ground station equipment (or build their own), and that the real problem here is that NASA is in between the people who want to use the instrument and the instrument itself, and are using it as a means to blackmail outrage out of the people who want to use the instrument, in order to obtain more funding for NASA.
Am I missing something? Why, other than they have the code keys, is NASA involved, once the instrument is up there in orbit, so long as there are parties willing to pay the freight for the ground stations in exchange for observation slots? I know it's a little harsh to turn around and say "NASA, you're fired as caretakers of this instrument", but is that any less harsh than shutting it down so that no one has use of it, unless they get the funds they want?
Having a death penalty leads to less crime? Europe vs. US proves that theory is bollocks.
Does that include the 13 people put to death after the Nuremberg trials, and that fact that there hasn't been a Fourth Reich (yet), or do we not include those as death penalties because they happened before you personally were born?
Sharing private photos without permission is an invasion of privacy. Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context. Where do you get ideas like what you posted?
So if "Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context", and Tumblr is part of "Everybody", where's the problem?
The bottom line is that Google Search doesn't work very well - at least, not anymore. While it previously supported search expansions which could be taken advantage of by skilled searchers, it's since been focused on quick, lowest-common-denominator responses to the most common questions. As a result, searching for slightly abstract notions is virtually impossible, and some searches which should be straightforward also fail.
One example of a simple failure: "fireworks today" or "fireworks today san francisco" returned nothing after I chanced to see fireworks the other night. Using the date ("fireworks san francisco may 21 2014"), the only relevant result was a set of Coast Guard and DHS documents describing safety precautions for the event (Giants game). Of course, fireworks games are well publicized outside of interntal government safety documents.
Your inability to find the event with your search is because you are going at it lexically backwards from the encapsulating event at which the fireworks were being displayed. The primary key is the event. Historical Google doesn't do well at this, and neither does Bing or any other search engine, which are based on you knowing approximately what you are looking for in the first place.
If instead you were to look at the people who were likely to be the most upset at an unscheduled pyrotechnic display, you'd lookf for something like "DHS san francisco scheduled fireworks"
A more abstract example: try to design a search for articles about names which are or have become insults, such as "Dick."
Yeah, this one is easy: "terrible first names"
BTW, just because they took away Altavista style search parentheticals and punctuation, like "+", nominally to make it easier for people with mobile devices and no ability to think lexically to use, doesn't mean you can't force the issue still, using ordered search terms and conjunctions like AND and OR (and note that "-" still works to omit irrelevant data). See also: https://support.google.com/web...
I see you are not a fan of the oral polio vaccine used in most of the world today, and which causes polio in some recipients
Sounds like a good reason to use an injected vaccine. The polio vaccination I got had to be injected.... how come they are using something oral, if it is more dangerous?
Injected vaccine requires more expensive transport, refrigeration, and is more expensive to produce in the first place. Given that the goal is to get everyone vaccinated, iatrogenic polio being caused in a couple thousand people in an Indian population of 1.2B people is seen as a reasonable statistical tradeoff in order to save other lives.
In both cases, it's a "greatest good for the greatest number" argument.
One common scenario leading to delisting is that you hire an SEO, or an SEO decides to "gift" you their "service", or one of your competitors decides to "gift" you an SEO's "service". It's very hard, as an ordinary business, to know that this is the cause of your problem.
Complicating this is that the #1 "Wordpress" exploit, for the longest time, was to present the ordinary site *unless* the request was coming from the IP address of a search engine bot. If it was coming from a search engine bot, then you present the regular content of the site, interspersed with link farm data. The Wordpress site doesn't know that it's being link-farmed, since they come in from non-bot IP addresses.
One of the things Google does internally is make all web traffic from employees desktops originate from the bot IP address; that way if there is variant content based on it recognizing the bot IP, you end up getting the link-farm version of the page, if you, as an employee, visit the site. One of my coworkers discovered that his daughter's school site had been compromised and turned into this type of link farm when he went on from his desk in order to give permission for a field trip, and ended up with a bizarro version of the site in his browser.
So if you see a sudden drop in traffic, you should probably compare your current site contents to the site contents that are supposed to be there according to your CMS (and if you don't have a CMS - get one so you can make this kind of comparison).
Another fairly recent phenomenon is that these "stealth" link farms are now being provided as forum postings. If you look at the forum posting link yourself, it's going to show up as whatever content is supposed to be there, but, again, if the bot goes there, it's going to see a link-farm. So if your site has a lot of links to link-farm sites, you're going to appear to be part of the problem (a fair assessment, since you *are* in fact a part of the problem).
For secondary drive-by stealth link-farm postings, there's really no way to check that the link that you're publishing is a stealth link-farm link. The problem with exposing this information is that an exposed site recruited to this purpose is no longer valuable to the link-farmer, but an unexposed one remains valuable input to the filtering algorithm. So exposing just means that the link-farmer is going to sell the site on the open market to someone else, who will then use the same exploit that the link-farmer used to get it to be a stealth link-farm, only they are going to do other nasty stuff with it, from hosting malware, to actively recruiting the site for a botnet.
So in reality, it turns out to be a net benefit to everyone for Google to say nothing, particularly if there's no way to understand what exploit was used to establish the stealth link-farm in the first place. Clearly, the site administrator at that site was not competent enough to not be p0wned in the first place, so they're unlikely to be competent enough to fix the problem. If they're using Wordpress in the first place, they probably don't understand the software well enough to understand the exploit in any case. So no programatic verification by Google that a given link might cause you to lose ranking because it links to a link-farm, since link-farmers would just use the service themselves to get the list of their link-farms they need to "recycle" by selling to other people.
It's a pain in the ass all around, but eventually people will have to start taking their site security a bit more seriously, or find themselves swept into the corner.
How many were kidnapped, raped, tortured, and killed by Ted Bundy after the state of Florida arrested and convicted him?
Given that in the state of Florida, absent the death penalty, the sentence is generally "25 years to life", and even with a life sentence, under those guidelines, the convicted is eligible for parole after 25 years, we will never know what that answer would be, had he been paroled. There are a number of countries in the EU (including Spain) which do not permit an "indefinite life sentence", meaning that you are eligible for parole, as in Florida, after serving the minimum statutory sentence.
While it's always wrong to kill a human being, some people (Bundy, Dahmer, Mengele, etc.) really no longer qualify as human beings, and it's not wrong to kill them.
If one is willing to kill innocent people to statistically save other lives, I reject their system of beliefs. If one is accepting the deaths of inocents, they do not have justice. We are not ants dying for the good of the colony. We are individuals with hopes, dreams, and desires of our own.
I see you are not a fan of the oral polio vaccine used in most of the world today, and which causes polio in some recipients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
There is no evidence that it is a deterrent though. In fact in some places there is more crime. Criminals are real bad about thinking of long term consequences, so if there is no deterrent you save no lives, and jet still kill at least 4% innocent.
How many young women and girls were kidnapped, raped, tortured, and eventually killed by Ted Bundy after the state of Florida lit him up like a Christmas tree?
That's what I thought. It seems he was pretty thoroughly deterred.
Now, a better question is why are we still killing people when at least 4% of ppl killed are verifiable innocent?
Because the penalty for any crime is not intended to benefit the convicted, nor the victims of the crime. It's not even a matter of social justice, it's instead intended to serve the larger society by disincentivizing the behavior for which the person was convicted in those observing the process.
There isn't a huge amount of value, in this scenario, to being 100% sure you are applying the penalty to the right person, since the value is sending the message to the larger society "This is what happens to someone convicted of this type of crime; don't do this type of crime, or this will happen to you". This also means that there's not a lot of value to society to allowing appeals to be strung out over years, rather than months.
The fact that a victim, or a victims family, feels better (or not), and whether or not the convicted is rehabilitated against recidivism (or not) when the penalty for the convicted is something less than death/life in prison, is actually pretty irrelevant to the main societal benefit of people seeing the penalty enacted on the person convicted of the crime.
The system has been weakened through elongation of the feedback loop (all penalties work best as a disincentive when they are enacted swiftly, rather than after years of appeal), and through the criminalization of so many behaviors that the probability of being caught for a behavior having to do with social benefit not associated with revenue collection is such that the reward often exceeds the risk, even when the penalty is known ahead of the criminal act.
Still, it's the best system we've been able to devise, since one cannot rely on all participants being rational actors.
No, I didn't. Perhaps I should counter your question with questions as well:
(1) Have you solved the "and a job" part for the ~16% of the U.S. workforce who is either on the unemployment rolls, or has been on them long enough to have fallen off the end of the official unemployment figures? Or if you want to include only the official statistics that serve the interests of those publishing, the 12.5% of the U.S. workforce in that boat? No? Then why aren't they all terrorists?
(2) Have you discerned the difference between "educated" (i.e. having a piece of paper from a university which enables you to get a job interview in the field, and proves only that you were capable of sticking it out long enough to get a piece of paper) and "highly educated" (i.e. having actually learned things in the process of getting the paper, making you capable of either getting a job, or, should you choose to do so, becoming a successful terrorist)? The same things that make you good at being a terrorist are those things which would make you desirable as an employee, as opposed to "just another idiot who was able to get C's for 4 years, but can't do the work".
(3) I think you missed the subject line, which was claiming that "Education solves most problems". I'm fine with you changing the topic away from that to "Education and a job solves most problems", but if you're going to do that, perhaps you could do it in another thread?
Yes, but how do you think psychopaths like these ever got power?
They took it, through force of arms. They are not merely some knee-jerk reaction to some slight in the past by someone in some foreign country. You act like everything can be modeled as a damped, driven harmonic oscillator, and if we merely remove one of the many driving forces, the oscillations will naturally damp to nothing on their own. This is not the case. These people want power for powers sake, and they've built up a small feedback system which will enable them to hold onto it, regardless of what external agencies do or don't do.
Do you honestly believe people would live in North Korea if they didn't believe the stories they've been told about how it's so much worse elsewhere?
There is no one single method that will eliminate them, so use all tools at your disposal.
To be fair, a biological weapon capable of committing genocide on family lines by targeting matrilineal mitochondrial DNA would stand a fair chance of eliminating the majority of terrorism threats. The parties capable of implementing that method just haven't been pushed to the point of "total war" as a philosophical point as of yet.
Its easy to eliminate most terrorism with a simple thing called a good education and a job. But killing people is easy, and educating them means you have to actually talk with them so don't expect a change soon.
The problem is you are expecting that education is capable of changing their philosophy or world view, rather than making them more capable of engaging in acts to promote their philosophy or world view.
You might as well be trying to educate lions to eat grass so they can live side by side with antelope on the veldt.
This study of the history of England made the American Founding Fathers ensure that general warrants would be illegal in the United States as well when the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1791.
Sorry, but in this case, they had a court order. Since a warrant is nothing more than a writ by a court (with additional restrictions), they were in technical compliance with the fourth amendment, although they were, since it was impossible to disclose them in order to defend against them, technically in violation of the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments.
Subsequent actions by the Fed were potentially in technical violation of the fourth amendment, largely because they extended their reach due to the technological impossibility of complying with the original warrant and court order (the system was specifically designed such that such compliance was impossible). While potentially arguable as a CALEA violation by the service provider, email service providers are generally not considered to be common carriers under the law, and so the provisions of CALEA do not technically apply to them.
Interestingly, CALEA was applies to VOIP, and is enforceable against broadband internet providers; if so, this is a win for net neutrality, in that, at least in the sense that some of their traffic might be voice conversations, they qualify as common carriers. I'm actually surprised no one has attempted to attack their claim to non-carrier status on that grounds, but to do so would generally require a lot of work.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really believe he was even given a chance to surrender? I seriously doubt it.
Well, they had to make a split second decision, and since he was holding a kidney dialysis machine, they were at serious personal risk of him cleaning their blood...
These this will naturally become shuttles and taxi services almost immediately. Given the protests of Uber and Lyft, what will the outcry be for these?
Cabbies don't have enough money to have a voice that's heard, The people with the money will just watch until these are cheaper than cabbies and then implement.
The loud people are the cab companies which own the medallions and lease them to the cabbies for a large cut of their income. Obviously, cabbies with their own medallions are more upset, but less organized into a group.
The cabbies themselves are annoyed with Uber/Lyft because they can't ignore outcalls in favor of the customer in front of them. Dropping outcalls on the floor is what gets people pissed at cabbies enough to go to Uber/Lyft, which in many cases are more expensive than a traditional cab (were one to actually show up). Uber/Lyft is therefore disruptive because it forces them to either honor their promises, or lose business from customers who prefer reliability over price.
Also, if these are implemented as cabs, they will still require medallions per cab, even without the driver (the government wants their cut), and this will reduce the amount of free medallions.
I expect there will be some backlash based on trust, and older customers will still insist on humans, just as newly married couples in NY insist on a Hansom Cab, rather than a Yellow Cab or Checker Cab: reasons other than price sensitivity.
ChromeOS, in contrast, comes with more stringent system requirements that would cost HP a bit more.
In other words, this thing is going to be really slow if you try to use it for serious work. Why? Because HP is cheap and doesn't want to shell out for decent components. That and/or they like their locked down bootloader.
There are additional hardware requirements on a ChromeBook:
o No COTS keyboard (ChromeOS requires a custom keyboard)
o Work required on the TP bus input lines and power to deal with wake-from-trackpad
o EC modifications for wake-from-trackpad, including some tricky PS/2 state machine work
o EC modifications including additional GPIO pins and a couple of resisters and capacitors, if the parts PS/2 bus is on the C3 power rail (i.e. there's some issues with C-state transitions if the PS/2 or I2C bus for the TP are powered down in sleep state)
o EC state machine modifications for prioritization of traffic from the keyboard matrix "pretend" i8051/i8042 parts to provide a muxed PS/2 bus with e.g. a Synaptics PS/2 trackpad; specifically, HP's EC parts tend to drop keystrokes under certain conditions, and the typical solution to the hardware problem in the EC firmware is to stop TP input for a period of time following keyboard input - same solution used by Toshiba - and it means you can't use both keyboard and mouse in games, unless you use an external mouse in place of the TP
o If the TP remains powered in sleep state, for wake-from sleep, as part of the C1 rail, then there is an associated batter cost, even if you chat with it to clock it way down; this implies either clam-shell it shut to turn off the TP, -OR- a bigger battery to achieve the same battery life. FWIW, that also means that the C1 line to the TP power has to be gated by *another* GPIO line from the EC
o Wake-from-trackpad also has some implications for BIOS default state on initial boot or wake-from-sleep (C1->C3 state transition); most BIOS are broken in this regard (hint: try holding the TP click down when booting some time, and see how long it takes).
o A TPM to implement the "trusted boot" in a way that it can't be worked around in software (Microsoft Trusted Boot can work without TPM hardware, but can be worked around in software if you are diligent).
o There's a known defect in I2C bus sharing on some TPMs when doing back-to-back transactions, which means that they tend to demand their own I2C bus.
o The last HP ChromeBook was withdrawn from the market due to power supply overheating problem (this is public information), which had to do with the charging circuit and the power draw in sleep state, while leaving certain peripherals powered on that aren't on in a normal Windows sleep state.
o CoreBoot and u-boot for the BIOS (technically, you could flash both and select which one in a setup screen, but that means higher NVRAM costs for the storage of the BIOS)
So... a lot of software work in a sensitive system area, a potentially larger battery, a potentially higher per unit cost for the keyboard, a potentially higher per unit cost for the TP, a modified BIOS and other BIOS costs, and a TPM and maybe an extra I2C line, plus a potential mod to the charging circuit.
Full disclosure: I did the EC state machine work and worked with Synaptics and Samsung on the EC and hardware modifications for a number of TP and keyboard issues, as well as other of the above issues, for ChromeBooks from Samsung, Acer, and other companies while part of the ChromeOS team at Google. Basically, they'd need to make my recommended list of partner modifications to their hardware and firmware in order to build a successful ChromeBook.
I suspect that they will find the android OS not very satisfactory as well, but with a standard keyboard and other features, they can use COTS parts for most things, and pop the rip cord and switch to Windows on the thing if they absolutely had to do so.
and never saw a day in prison.
Not because they didn't want to imprison him; it was due to an activist judge who held that there was such evidentiary misconduct that the case was dismissed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
This was due to the climate immediately following Watergate, where the judiciary had a lot of motive to prove themselves uncorrupt, at least compared to the executive branch of the time.
The current climate is one much of the evidence against Snowden would be considered classified, and therefore not challengeable. The FISA court, the national security letters, and other instruments available for use in shielding against charges of misconduct, and thus preventing such a dismissal, did not exist in Ellsberg's time.
Frankly, Snowden is lucky he initially established, and is successfully maintaining, a high profile, since it makes him less of a target for extraordinary rendition, which had it been used, he would have just disappeared into a black hole somewhere already.
Supposedly, in the United States, there is a right against "double jeopardy" or being tried again for the same crime once exonerated. A legal corollary to that is that you can't be punished more than once for the same offense. That right exists precisely to prevent malicious prosecution that could keep coming back and harassing someone or even ruining their character through repeated abuse of the legal system... even without sufficient evidence for conviction. It is designed to require the State to present its case, have a speedy trial, and then let the person alone again if it can't prove wrong-doing, so they can get on with their lives.
Someone should inform Carmen M. Ortiz and Stephen P. Heymann about this. And, you know, brong Aaron Swartz back to life, by way of apology.
As a practical matter, the common practice of overzealous overcharging of defendants in order to force them into a plea bargain on some subset of the charges is a straight extension and outgrowth of the civil rights reforms of the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's.
The issue came down to their being no federal statute against murder, and several states unwillingness to convict participants in a number of lynchings. The first successful use of these "double jeopardy" trials was in 1946, when Florida Constable Tom Crews was convicted for the lynching of a black farmhand: by killing him, Crews had violated the mans civil rights, as, what with being dead and all, he could no longer go to the church of his choice, he could no longer eat at the restaurant of his choice, and so on.
It was a rather weak pretext for the double jeopardy trial of someone for the same crime, albeit using different charges in order to do it, but it was in fact successful, and it became the model for future similar trials, where the federal government "leaned on" the states in order to make it highly inconvenient for them to not enforce their own laws.
Unfortunately, it also became the model for so-called "shotgun prosecutions" or, alternately, "spaghetti prosecutions", where you fired the shotgun at the target, hoping one or more pellets would hit, or, alternately, threw a bunch of spaghetti at the target, hoping that something you threw would stick.
While this may be in violation of the spirit of the so-called "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment (do people actually still believe in that?), it is, nonetheless, common practice.
It's also common practice in Europe, and in other countries, to work around not being able to prove your case against someone.
And to throw a little more fuel on the fire in the other direction: Another example where this was used in a manner which many people believe constitutes justice, was the prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 242 for the police offers in the Rodney King beating, after they were acquitted in a California court of charges of assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force.
In case you care, the specific U.S. Supreme Court decision on which all of this doubly jeopardy depends is the 1932 Blockburger v. United States decision, so that part of the Fifth Amendment has been pretty dead for a while, if you can meet "the Blockburger test". See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
I suspect Google will handle all this the same way that advertising of certain items prohibited in Germany is handled by eBay: make the results disappear in Germany, but if you point your proxy outside Germany, expect them to come right back. Basically a "no-see-um" approach to the problem of local jurisdictions. This would be in line with some of the search result filtering they were willing (and then not willing, under freedom of speech grounds) to do for China.
It's kind of another attempt at "the thin end of the wedge" by Europe, and I expect you could argue against it, particularly in the cases of sexual predators, on the basis of the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (among others).
On the contrary, there is clear and strong public interest in having someone's past run-ins with the law being available -- so that others can make an informed evaluation whether they want to deal with the person in question.
You are contradicting yourself. How can you make an informed decision on that based on outdated information?
By giving them the opportunity to disclose any information about current criminal activities not previously recorded, in order to allow us to make a better decision? After all, it's their fault that the information is outdated, given their non-disclosure, and they're perfectly capable of correcting it for us, since they are the person in question.
It's no all fine, but what do you think you can do about it? The information won't just magically dissapear.
It's very hard for many people to distinguish between "It's magic because I'm ignorant and don't understand the technology behind it" and "It's magic, because it's not possible to do with known technology". If you give them the first one, but don't give them the second one, they want to know why you are withholding the magic they are rightfully entitled to have in the second case.
The people who fail to understand these things are also frequently the people who don't understand that a GPS equipped device is equipped so *it* knows where it's at, and if it doesn't communicate the information to anyone, the you don't magically know where the device is just because it has a GPS. Just because you know where you are doesn't mean you can tell anyone.
And why do they use TCP if they are trying to avoid retransmissions due to lost/corrupt packets?
This seems to say that it's most trying to avoid link-layer retransmission, not transport-layer. So somehow I need to figure out all the links my transmission is traversing and disable link-layer retransmission on all of them?
I believe the issue is that you can't sell it to the cable companies and the DSL providers that implement PPPOE in order to track your surfing, to make sure you are buying your television programming from them, rather than file sharing, and they can intentionally make things like Tor not work. Not that PMTUD works on those things unless the modem proxies the ICMP messages, which are usually blocked by the cable companies, unless you explicitly ifconfig down to 1492 yourself, or enable active probing for black hole (rfc4821).
lol.
You do not understand how these telescope missions are funded, or, apparently that it costs millions simply to keep a space telescope running once it is up.
The major sunk costs are getting the bird in the air. Once it's up there, it's about ground facilities to talk to the thing, and the costs are all administrative, unless you are also giving out data analysis grants that are perhaps better funded by those who want the data in the first place. Either way, even if it's a grant, it's an NSF grant at that point, and it's not a NASA budget line item.
The scientists who want to use Spitzer do not, and can not, pay for it out of pocket. There are no parties willing or able to pay for anything related to telescope operations, other than NASA itself.
To be fair, the instrument itself is fairly broken (it ran out of liquid Helium half way through May 2009), and is already scheduled to be replaced with a fully functional instrument. The observations it's still capable of making are all "Warm Spitzer" observations; the MIPS and IRS instruments are dead without the Helium, and the IRAC is dead but for two modules. I think that the unwillingness to pay for telescope observations is related to (1) the reduced utility of the instrument itself, and (2) the marginal utility it has is not being made available in the proper market.
The oversubscription indicates its scientific usefulness and relevance, not some economic market model potential.
In fact, it is the other way around. Astronomers get the observations "for free" after stringent selection, and then *get extra money from NASA* to be able to analyze the data. I.e., most of the bureaucracy and red tape is already taken out and much of the funding goes directly to the end user. This is a standard and efficient model.
NASA is not therefore "in between the people who want to use the instrument and the instrument itself", it is funding all operational costs of the telescope+instruments, maintaining the data archive, providing technical support to users, *and* provide them with funding to analyze the data.
I've looked at a number of the mission proposals, and while it's hard to get access to space assets to get your doctorate in astronomy, you getting your doctorate in astronomy is not really a measure of "scientific usefulness".
That said, I think that the proper way to fund things like this, where you are giving it away as a free service, where it costs you money to run the service, and then it costs you more money to give grants to people who use the service so that their use of the service can be rationalized... is NOT via grants out of NASAs budget directly.
Technically, there are a number of space missions which should have been dealt with by establishing a trust with an annuity, the annuity covering the future costs of running the mission, so that there were no recurring costs beyond the sunk costs, barring a disaster (such as the ground station having a catastrophic fire, etc.).
This does get in the way of repurposing equipment and installations, such that the ICE/ISEE-3 communications problems wouldn't have occurred in the first place, and the people who repurposed the equipment used for that mission would have had to find their own equipment funding at a slightly higher cost, but then again, it would mean we could have gotten more use out of the sunk costs for that spacecraft as well, which probably financially outweighs the value from repurposing the equipment and rendering the spacecraft useless as a result.
Either way, observations should be funded out of someone else's budget, not NASAs; if nothing else, having a NASA committee at CalTech deciding what is and isn't worthy of scope time is probably the wrong way to assign scope time, if what you are interested in is scientific advancement.
What exactly would the funding cover?
It seems that a private consortium could operate the instrument, given its oversubscription ratio, and thereby have enough funding to run both the subscription selection process and the ground station equipment (or build their own), and that the real problem here is that NASA is in between the people who want to use the instrument and the instrument itself, and are using it as a means to blackmail outrage out of the people who want to use the instrument, in order to obtain more funding for NASA.
Am I missing something? Why, other than they have the code keys, is NASA involved, once the instrument is up there in orbit, so long as there are parties willing to pay the freight for the ground stations in exchange for observation slots? I know it's a little harsh to turn around and say "NASA, you're fired as caretakers of this instrument", but is that any less harsh than shutting it down so that no one has use of it, unless they get the funds they want?
Having a death penalty leads to less crime? Europe vs. US proves that theory is bollocks.
Does that include the 13 people put to death after the Nuremberg trials, and that fact that there hasn't been a Fourth Reich (yet), or do we not include those as death penalties because they happened before you personally were born?
Sharing private photos without permission is an invasion of privacy. Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context. Where do you get ideas like what you posted?
So if "Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context", and Tumblr is part of "Everybody", where's the problem?
The bottom line is that Google Search doesn't work very well - at least, not anymore. While it previously supported search expansions which could be taken advantage of by skilled searchers, it's since been focused on quick, lowest-common-denominator responses to the most common questions. As a result, searching for slightly abstract notions is virtually impossible, and some searches which should be straightforward also fail.
One example of a simple failure: "fireworks today" or "fireworks today san francisco" returned nothing after I chanced to see fireworks the other night. Using the date ("fireworks san francisco may 21 2014"), the only relevant result was a set of Coast Guard and DHS documents describing safety precautions for the event (Giants game). Of course, fireworks games are well publicized outside of interntal government safety documents.
Your inability to find the event with your search is because you are going at it lexically backwards from the encapsulating event at which the fireworks were being displayed. The primary key is the event. Historical Google doesn't do well at this, and neither does Bing or any other search engine, which are based on you knowing approximately what you are looking for in the first place.
If instead you were to look at the people who were likely to be the most upset at an unscheduled pyrotechnic display, you'd lookf for something like "DHS san francisco scheduled fireworks"
A more abstract example: try to design a search for articles about names which are or have become insults, such as "Dick."
Yeah, this one is easy: "terrible first names"
BTW, just because they took away Altavista style search parentheticals and punctuation, like "+", nominally to make it easier for people with mobile devices and no ability to think lexically to use, doesn't mean you can't force the issue still, using ordered search terms and conjunctions like AND and OR (and note that "-" still works to omit irrelevant data). See also: https://support.google.com/web...
I see you are not a fan of the oral polio vaccine used in most of the world today, and which causes polio in some recipients
Sounds like a good reason to use an injected vaccine.
The polio vaccination I got had to be injected.... how come they are using something oral, if it is more dangerous?
Injected vaccine requires more expensive transport, refrigeration, and is more expensive to produce in the first place. Given that the goal is to get everyone vaccinated, iatrogenic polio being caused in a couple thousand people in an Indian population of 1.2B people is seen as a reasonable statistical tradeoff in order to save other lives.
In both cases, it's a "greatest good for the greatest number" argument.
One common scenario leading to delisting is that you hire an SEO, or an SEO decides to "gift" you their "service", or one of your competitors decides to "gift" you an SEO's "service". It's very hard, as an ordinary business, to know that this is the cause of your problem.
Complicating this is that the #1 "Wordpress" exploit, for the longest time, was to present the ordinary site *unless* the request was coming from the IP address of a search engine bot. If it was coming from a search engine bot, then you present the regular content of the site, interspersed with link farm data. The Wordpress site doesn't know that it's being link-farmed, since they come in from non-bot IP addresses.
One of the things Google does internally is make all web traffic from employees desktops originate from the bot IP address; that way if there is variant content based on it recognizing the bot IP, you end up getting the link-farm version of the page, if you, as an employee, visit the site. One of my coworkers discovered that his daughter's school site had been compromised and turned into this type of link farm when he went on from his desk in order to give permission for a field trip, and ended up with a bizarro version of the site in his browser.
So if you see a sudden drop in traffic, you should probably compare your current site contents to the site contents that are supposed to be there according to your CMS (and if you don't have a CMS - get one so you can make this kind of comparison).
Another fairly recent phenomenon is that these "stealth" link farms are now being provided as forum postings. If you look at the forum posting link yourself, it's going to show up as whatever content is supposed to be there, but, again, if the bot goes there, it's going to see a link-farm. So if your site has a lot of links to link-farm sites, you're going to appear to be part of the problem (a fair assessment, since you *are* in fact a part of the problem).
For secondary drive-by stealth link-farm postings, there's really no way to check that the link that you're publishing is a stealth link-farm link. The problem with exposing this information is that an exposed site recruited to this purpose is no longer valuable to the link-farmer, but an unexposed one remains valuable input to the filtering algorithm. So exposing just means that the link-farmer is going to sell the site on the open market to someone else, who will then use the same exploit that the link-farmer used to get it to be a stealth link-farm, only they are going to do other nasty stuff with it, from hosting malware, to actively recruiting the site for a botnet.
So in reality, it turns out to be a net benefit to everyone for Google to say nothing, particularly if there's no way to understand what exploit was used to establish the stealth link-farm in the first place. Clearly, the site administrator at that site was not competent enough to not be p0wned in the first place, so they're unlikely to be competent enough to fix the problem. If they're using Wordpress in the first place, they probably don't understand the software well enough to understand the exploit in any case. So no programatic verification by Google that a given link might cause you to lose ranking because it links to a link-farm, since link-farmers would just use the service themselves to get the list of their link-farms they need to "recycle" by selling to other people.
It's a pain in the ass all around, but eventually people will have to start taking their site security a bit more seriously, or find themselves swept into the corner.
How many were kidnapped, raped, tortured, and killed by Ted Bundy after the state of Florida arrested and convicted him?
Given that in the state of Florida, absent the death penalty, the sentence is generally "25 years to life", and even with a life sentence, under those guidelines, the convicted is eligible for parole after 25 years, we will never know what that answer would be, had he been paroled. There are a number of countries in the EU (including Spain) which do not permit an "indefinite life sentence", meaning that you are eligible for parole, as in Florida, after serving the minimum statutory sentence.
While it's always wrong to kill a human being, some people (Bundy, Dahmer, Mengele, etc.) really no longer qualify as human beings, and it's not wrong to kill them.
If one is willing to kill innocent people to statistically save other lives, I reject their system of beliefs. If one is accepting the deaths of inocents, they do not have justice. We are not ants dying for the good of the colony. We are individuals with hopes, dreams, and desires of our own.
I see you are not a fan of the oral polio vaccine used in most of the world today, and which causes polio in some recipients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
There is no evidence that it is a deterrent though. In fact in some places there is more crime. Criminals are real bad about thinking of long term consequences, so if there is no deterrent you save no lives, and jet still kill at least 4% innocent.
How many young women and girls were kidnapped, raped, tortured, and eventually killed by Ted Bundy after the state of Florida lit him up like a Christmas tree?
That's what I thought. It seems he was pretty thoroughly deterred.
Now, a better question is why are we still killing people when at least 4% of ppl killed are verifiable innocent?
Because the penalty for any crime is not intended to benefit the convicted, nor the victims of the crime. It's not even a matter of social justice, it's instead intended to serve the larger society by disincentivizing the behavior for which the person was convicted in those observing the process.
There isn't a huge amount of value, in this scenario, to being 100% sure you are applying the penalty to the right person, since the value is sending the message to the larger society "This is what happens to someone convicted of this type of crime; don't do this type of crime, or this will happen to you". This also means that there's not a lot of value to society to allowing appeals to be strung out over years, rather than months.
The fact that a victim, or a victims family, feels better (or not), and whether or not the convicted is rehabilitated against recidivism (or not) when the penalty for the convicted is something less than death/life in prison, is actually pretty irrelevant to the main societal benefit of people seeing the penalty enacted on the person convicted of the crime.
The system has been weakened through elongation of the feedback loop (all penalties work best as a disincentive when they are enacted swiftly, rather than after years of appeal), and through the criminalization of so many behaviors that the probability of being caught for a behavior having to do with social benefit not associated with revenue collection is such that the reward often exceeds the risk, even when the penalty is known ahead of the criminal act.
Still, it's the best system we've been able to devise, since one cannot rely on all participants being rational actors.
Did you miss the "and a job" part?
No, I didn't. Perhaps I should counter your question with questions as well:
(1) Have you solved the "and a job" part for the ~16% of the U.S. workforce who is either on the unemployment rolls, or has been on them long enough to have fallen off the end of the official unemployment figures? Or if you want to include only the official statistics that serve the interests of those publishing, the 12.5% of the U.S. workforce in that boat? No? Then why aren't they all terrorists?
(2) Have you discerned the difference between "educated" (i.e. having a piece of paper from a university which enables you to get a job interview in the field, and proves only that you were capable of sticking it out long enough to get a piece of paper) and "highly educated" (i.e. having actually learned things in the process of getting the paper, making you capable of either getting a job, or, should you choose to do so, becoming a successful terrorist)? The same things that make you good at being a terrorist are those things which would make you desirable as an employee, as opposed to "just another idiot who was able to get C's for 4 years, but can't do the work".
(3) I think you missed the subject line, which was claiming that "Education solves most problems". I'm fine with you changing the topic away from that to "Education and a job solves most problems", but if you're going to do that, perhaps you could do it in another thread?
Thanks.
Yes, but how do you think psychopaths like these ever got power?
They took it, through force of arms. They are not merely some knee-jerk reaction to some slight in the past by someone in some foreign country. You act like everything can be modeled as a damped, driven harmonic oscillator, and if we merely remove one of the many driving forces, the oscillations will naturally damp to nothing on their own. This is not the case. These people want power for powers sake, and they've built up a small feedback system which will enable them to hold onto it, regardless of what external agencies do or don't do.
Do you honestly believe people would live in North Korea if they didn't believe the stories they've been told about how it's so much worse elsewhere?
There is no one single method that will eliminate them, so use all tools at your disposal.
To be fair, a biological weapon capable of committing genocide on family lines by targeting matrilineal mitochondrial DNA would stand a fair chance of eliminating the majority of terrorism threats. The parties capable of implementing that method just haven't been pushed to the point of "total war" as a philosophical point as of yet.
Since 1776.
That was the British government doing that in 1776; when the terrorists win, they are not called terrorists, they're called "government".
Its easy to eliminate most terrorism with a simple thing called a good education and a job. But killing people is easy, and educating them means you have to actually talk with them so don't expect a change soon.
Most terrorists are highly educated: http://nationalinterest.org/bl...
The problem is you are expecting that education is capable of changing their philosophy or world view, rather than making them more capable of engaging in acts to promote their philosophy or world view.
You might as well be trying to educate lions to eat grass so they can live side by side with antelope on the veldt.
This study of the history of England made the American Founding Fathers ensure that general warrants would be illegal in the United States as well when the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1791.
Sorry, but in this case, they had a court order. Since a warrant is nothing more than a writ by a court (with additional restrictions), they were in technical compliance with the fourth amendment, although they were, since it was impossible to disclose them in order to defend against them, technically in violation of the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments.
Subsequent actions by the Fed were potentially in technical violation of the fourth amendment, largely because they extended their reach due to the technological impossibility of complying with the original warrant and court order (the system was specifically designed such that such compliance was impossible). While potentially arguable as a CALEA violation by the service provider, email service providers are generally not considered to be common carriers under the law, and so the provisions of CALEA do not technically apply to them.
Interestingly, CALEA was applies to VOIP, and is enforceable against broadband internet providers; if so, this is a win for net neutrality, in that, at least in the sense that some of their traffic might be voice conversations, they qualify as common carriers. I'm actually surprised no one has attempted to attack their claim to non-carrier status on that grounds, but to do so would generally require a lot of work.