Statistically, this is what you would expect to happen if paper and electronic voting systems do the exact same thing (i.e. accurately record who a person voted, record no more votes than were placed for a candidate, and record no fewer votes than were placed for a candidate).
Except that that would only happen if the electronic voting systems were placed randomly - and they were very much not. So the fact that randomly chosen votes are more likely to be for Bush if electronic than if not doesn't mean anything, unless you can account for that placement.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act?
on
Nuclear Batteries
·
· Score: 1
I thought that the reason they require a membership was that memberships are their main source of profit, since they sell everything at cost... Or is that just a myth? It's what my friends tell me, but I've never been sure.
What do any of those cases have to do with a burglar trap that works as intended, and kills a burglar?
I know that there are practical difficulties with setting a trap for burglars that doesn't kill innocent people. But I don't care about those right now, as I'm talking about morality, not practical concerns. I think that if a trap does work as intended, and kills or maims a burglar, then that is a good thing, as it eliminates one more predatory piece of human garbage that infests this world. After all, why should burglars have any expectation of safety when they break into someone's home? They take their lives into their own hands when they do so, so why should they have any legal recourse should they be hurt? It seems utterly wrong, to me, the extent to which we legally treat predators better than those who they prey upon.
So if the trap malfunctions, then simply deal with those cases as they occur. Most such cases can be prevented with a thing as simple as a sign that says "danger - traps. enter at own risk."
The thing is, though, what's wrong with setting traps for burglars? If they don't want to get maimed or killed, maybe they should have picked a different job. Why do we always have so much sympathy for criminal scum in this society, and none for the victims?
For example, I would say that you would be entitled to less punishment for killing me if, say, I had just gunned down your family and are coming for you
LESS punishment for the former? I'd say a reward is in order. It's a clear case of self defense! And removing murderers from society by killing them is a net benefit to everyone.
My guess: it refers to the ratio of combat forces (tooth) to support and logistics (tail). It's unsurprising that the US military has a terrible ratio there, because they are such a high-tech military. That has its costs.
That's a false dichotomy. The choice in reality is not between writing code that would replace people and simply hiring cheap versions of these people, it's between keeping 100 local people or firing them all and hiring 100 remote people who'll work for a wage that the locals can't compete with. The latter is perceived as wrong because now there are 100 local people out of work when their job is still needed, but you didn't feel like paying them to do it.
Another issue here is that the jobs that are being outsourced are often coding jobs, which currently (and for a long time to come) can't be done by machines. And these are jobs that people like, unlike the menial tasks that can be scripted. So the choice in that case could never be between coding up a machine replacement and hiring outside labour, and your example could never have happened.
Your debate opponents must not have realized these points.
At any rate, in both cases, quality of living for a number of people is hurt. This is the nature of capitalism. But as more and more jobs are replaced by technology, and more and more jobs are outsourced, there will be fewer and fewer left. And the entire purpose of the laws and government that enable capitalism to work at all is for the benefit of the public who give them their power. Why should the public want to support a system that screws them over in the long run?
By the way, I'm by no means anti-capitalist or a commie or anything. I'm just pointing out a critical flaw in capitalism for which I have found no solution. In the long run, technology will wind up eliminating all jobs, everywhere. After all, what kind of work will humans be able to do when machines are capable of doing everything better than them? I fear for the future of our society. What will people do when there is nothing to do?
It would work that way - but then there would be no point in running it on a grid at all, as it would be almost completely limited by the speed of the first pass.
It's true that there's a large amount of wave drag around Mach 1, and this does drop off, but there's parasitic drag too. That doesn't just go away. Even when the body is past the transonic regime, it still has more overall drag then when subsonic, and it still increases with increasing velocity.
Aside from wave drag, in the air, more speed means more drag.
The reason why a projectile underwater goes faster when it hits really high speeds (and none of these Russian rocket torpedoes have broken the speed of sound underwater yet) is because they cause the water to cavitate around the projectile, which causes less overall drag probably for a number of reasons.
In the air, though, there is no phase change at really high speeds (unless you're going on the order of Mach 25 or so), so all you get for your trouble is more drag.
Despite what the others say, that isn't quite true. You only have to GPL your proprietary code if you distribute the GPLed code that it links to. If you don't distribute that part (ie. if it's already on the user's computer, or if you tell them where to download it), then you don't have to agree to the GPL, and you can do anything you want with your own code.
Because even though we can't see the missing matter, we can see its effects, and so we know (reasonably certainly) that it's there. The orbital speed of stars in the outside rims of spiral galaxies tell us how much matter is on the inside, and they tell us that there's a lot more matter there than we can see.
What if the theory of gravity is wrong, you wonder? Well, other hypotheses have been proposed that suggest that there isn't actually any missing matter there that we can't see, and that gravity itself varies over long distances in ways we can't detect over short ones... But those hypotheses never fit the facts as well as the existing theory of gravity, with invisible matter spread throughout galaxies.
The pilots were not punished for the incident for one crystal clear reason. If a fighter pilot believes he's being attacked but can't retaliate because he's afraid that the people shooting him (as he believes) are allies, many fighter pilots will die. The fighter pilots in question performed EXACTLY as trained.
They weren't punished? The impression that I got was that they were, unjustly. I'm relieved that they weren't. I'm one of at most five Canadians who realize that they were doing their jobs, exactly as trained, because fighter pilots must react quickly to threats or be killed.
The other 29,999,995 Canadians? They all wanted to lynch them. A typical knee-jerk reaction from people who don't understand the situation, don't understand how air forces work, and want to blame America for everything. It disgusts me.
Any attempt by the executive branch to limit the existing powers of the legislative branch is suspect.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Consider all the useless laws we have already that make lawbooks indecipherable... Why would we possibly need any more?
The response of lawmakers to every possible input is to make more laws, even if existing laws are adequate if enforced. It's ridiculous, and it has to stop.
Are you serious? Do you not realize that if car exhausts are destroying the Earth, if, then it's a problem of excess - too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the Earth to heat up, whereas a lesser amount would have little impact. If only the rich were to drive SUVs, then it wouldn't be excess, now would it?
No. You're an idiot. If only those who can afford to can drive SUVs, then far fewer SUVs will be driven and far less pollution will come from them. But you seem to be unhappy with the thought that anyone, anywhere, can drive what they want to.
Why the hell would you care about (miles/gallons)/persons? What we're concerned with is how much fuel is used to carry so many people, so much distance, ie: (miles*persons)/gallon. So an SUV that carries two people at 20 mpg is as efficient as two cars that carry one person each at 40 mpg.
I have known many more union workers who do work very hard at their jobs and I feel it is unfair to stereotype them in this manner.
It's hardly unfair; it's the truth! Let me put it this way: on one hand, you have a group of workers who have to negotiate their own wages and get paid according to how well they work. Furthermore, if they start working half-assed, they get fired. On the other hand, you have a group of workers where hard work is rewarded with bitching from their co-workers, and they can't get fired if they slack off.
Now logically, which group is more likely to work poorly?
But you can detect intrusions, and stop transmitting. If you're assured of stopping fast enough, your attacker hasn't got enough of the transmission to do anything useful with it. The attacker hasn't intercepted your communication, only disrupted it. And this is twice as fast as sending the pad first.
And even if you can't stop fast enough to prevent him from getting an entire frame or whatnot, you could still use a conventional symmetric key cipher, negotiated at the beginning, to encrypt your data - segments without the key thus become useless. This method still allows you to send a long message nearly twice as fast as sending the pad first, and it's essentially free.
So once again, the only reason I can think of to use a one-time pad is the same as the singular reason to use a one-time pad anywhere: for future messages through a non-secure medium.
That doesn't make sense. It seems like sending a one-time pad this way has the same problem as any other use of a one-time pad, namely: if you have to securely send a key as long as the message, why not just send the message in the first place?
It seems like that would make far more sense in all cases but those where you need a one-time pad for future messages, when the secure transmission link is longer available. It's hard to think of many circumstances where this is the case.
Because that won't solve the real problem: namely, that people will accept poor security and trojaned machines because they don't care. If we have a worm that actually gives consequences to these lax attitudes, such as wiping their hard drives, we can MAKE them care, and eventually, someday, this problem might be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't it?
What would you call someone who wants to take away property and freedoms from most of us for a minority? A hero? Not all of us agree.
Statistically, this is what you would expect to happen if paper and electronic voting systems do the exact same thing (i.e. accurately record who a person voted, record no more votes than were placed for a candidate, and record no fewer votes than were placed for a candidate).
Except that that would only happen if the electronic voting systems were placed randomly - and they were very much not. So the fact that randomly chosen votes are more likely to be for Bush if electronic than if not doesn't mean anything, unless you can account for that placement.
I thought that the reason they require a membership was that memberships are their main source of profit, since they sell everything at cost... Or is that just a myth? It's what my friends tell me, but I've never been sure.
What do any of those cases have to do with a burglar trap that works as intended, and kills a burglar?
I know that there are practical difficulties with setting a trap for burglars that doesn't kill innocent people. But I don't care about those right now, as I'm talking about morality, not practical concerns. I think that if a trap does work as intended, and kills or maims a burglar, then that is a good thing, as it eliminates one more predatory piece of human garbage that infests this world. After all, why should burglars have any expectation of safety when they break into someone's home? They take their lives into their own hands when they do so, so why should they have any legal recourse should they be hurt? It seems utterly wrong, to me, the extent to which we legally treat predators better than those who they prey upon.
So if the trap malfunctions, then simply deal with those cases as they occur. Most such cases can be prevented with a thing as simple as a sign that says "danger - traps. enter at own risk."
The thing is, though, what's wrong with setting traps for burglars? If they don't want to get maimed or killed, maybe they should have picked a different job. Why do we always have so much sympathy for criminal scum in this society, and none for the victims?
My guess: it refers to the ratio of combat forces (tooth) to support and logistics (tail). It's unsurprising that the US military has a terrible ratio there, because they are such a high-tech military. That has its costs.
That's a false dichotomy. The choice in reality is not between writing code that would replace people and simply hiring cheap versions of these people, it's between keeping 100 local people or firing them all and hiring 100 remote people who'll work for a wage that the locals can't compete with. The latter is perceived as wrong because now there are 100 local people out of work when their job is still needed, but you didn't feel like paying them to do it.
Another issue here is that the jobs that are being outsourced are often coding jobs, which currently (and for a long time to come) can't be done by machines. And these are jobs that people like, unlike the menial tasks that can be scripted. So the choice in that case could never be between coding up a machine replacement and hiring outside labour, and your example could never have happened.
Your debate opponents must not have realized these points.
At any rate, in both cases, quality of living for a number of people is hurt. This is the nature of capitalism. But as more and more jobs are replaced by technology, and more and more jobs are outsourced, there will be fewer and fewer left. And the entire purpose of the laws and government that enable capitalism to work at all is for the benefit of the public who give them their power. Why should the public want to support a system that screws them over in the long run?
By the way, I'm by no means anti-capitalist or a commie or anything. I'm just pointing out a critical flaw in capitalism for which I have found no solution. In the long run, technology will wind up eliminating all jobs, everywhere. After all, what kind of work will humans be able to do when machines are capable of doing everything better than them? I fear for the future of our society. What will people do when there is nothing to do?
And here is a rebuttal to the rebuttal. That K5 article was nothing more than an Moore apologist's rant.
It would work that way - but then there would be no point in running it on a grid at all, as it would be almost completely limited by the speed of the first pass.
It's true that there's a large amount of wave drag around Mach 1, and this does drop off, but there's parasitic drag too. That doesn't just go away. Even when the body is past the transonic regime, it still has more overall drag then when subsonic, and it still increases with increasing velocity.
Aside from wave drag, in the air, more speed means more drag.
The reason why a projectile underwater goes faster when it hits really high speeds (and none of these Russian rocket torpedoes have broken the speed of sound underwater yet) is because they cause the water to cavitate around the projectile, which causes less overall drag probably for a number of reasons.
In the air, though, there is no phase change at really high speeds (unless you're going on the order of Mach 25 or so), so all you get for your trouble is more drag.
Despite what the others say, that isn't quite true. You only have to GPL your proprietary code if you distribute the GPLed code that it links to. If you don't distribute that part (ie. if it's already on the user's computer, or if you tell them where to download it), then you don't have to agree to the GPL, and you can do anything you want with your own code.
Because even though we can't see the missing matter, we can see its effects, and so we know (reasonably certainly) that it's there. The orbital speed of stars in the outside rims of spiral galaxies tell us how much matter is on the inside, and they tell us that there's a lot more matter there than we can see.
What if the theory of gravity is wrong, you wonder? Well, other hypotheses have been proposed that suggest that there isn't actually any missing matter there that we can't see, and that gravity itself varies over long distances in ways we can't detect over short ones... But those hypotheses never fit the facts as well as the existing theory of gravity, with invisible matter spread throughout galaxies.
And that is how we know what we know.
Olly-Olly outs in free? My God! This whole time, since friggin' elementary school, I thought it was "Olly-Olly oxenfree!" No WONDER it made no sense!
Of course, "outs in free" doesn't make sense either...
The other 29,999,995 Canadians? They all wanted to lynch them. A typical knee-jerk reaction from people who don't understand the situation, don't understand how air forces work, and want to blame America for everything. It disgusts me.
The response of lawmakers to every possible input is to make more laws, even if existing laws are adequate if enforced. It's ridiculous, and it has to stop.
Are you serious? Do you not realize that if car exhausts are destroying the Earth, if, then it's a problem of excess - too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the Earth to heat up, whereas a lesser amount would have little impact. If only the rich were to drive SUVs, then it wouldn't be excess, now would it?
He was quoting Homer Simpson, though, who said those exact words. He knows how it was pronounced... I think he was just making fun.
No. You're an idiot. If only those who can afford to can drive SUVs, then far fewer SUVs will be driven and far less pollution will come from them. But you seem to be unhappy with the thought that anyone, anywhere, can drive what they want to.
Why the hell would you care about (miles/gallons)/persons? What we're concerned with is how much fuel is used to carry so many people, so much distance, ie: (miles*persons)/gallon. So an SUV that carries two people at 20 mpg is as efficient as two cars that carry one person each at 40 mpg.
So you're a nitpicking retard.
Now logically, which group is more likely to work poorly?
But you can detect intrusions, and stop transmitting. If you're assured of stopping fast enough, your attacker hasn't got enough of the transmission to do anything useful with it. The attacker hasn't intercepted your communication, only disrupted it. And this is twice as fast as sending the pad first.
And even if you can't stop fast enough to prevent him from getting an entire frame or whatnot, you could still use a conventional symmetric key cipher, negotiated at the beginning, to encrypt your data - segments without the key thus become useless. This method still allows you to send a long message nearly twice as fast as sending the pad first, and it's essentially free.
So once again, the only reason I can think of to use a one-time pad is the same as the singular reason to use a one-time pad anywhere: for future messages through a non-secure medium.
That doesn't make sense. It seems like sending a one-time pad this way has the same problem as any other use of a one-time pad, namely: if you have to securely send a key as long as the message, why not just send the message in the first place?
It seems like that would make far more sense in all cases but those where you need a one-time pad for future messages, when the secure transmission link is longer available. It's hard to think of many circumstances where this is the case.
Because that won't solve the real problem: namely, that people will accept poor security and trojaned machines because they don't care. If we have a worm that actually gives consequences to these lax attitudes, such as wiping their hard drives, we can MAKE them care, and eventually, someday, this problem might be solved.