If you want to phrase it differently not using the word "believe": you need to trust that the scientific community is generally following a reliable method for gaining and improving knowledge.
I don't think it's equivalent to religious faith, but I also don't think it's quite true that no degree of belief is necessary, because it is simply not possible for you, personally, to verify every bit of information you rely on when making use of scientific conclusions. Therefore you need to be able to trust that the results of a certain system of knowledge-acquisition are reasonably accurate, despite not being able to personally verify them.
They typically keep putting out point releases in a series for about five years after the initial.0 release, so at any given time the current and previous one or two series are supported. But they eventually get phased out, e.g. the last 7.x release was 7.4, which came out in early 2011 and stopped being security-managed in early 2013. Wikipedia has a timeline showing the release/support history.
One of the reasons for maintaining the legacy branches for a few years is that, within each series, FreeBSD commits to maintaining binary compatibility. So, upgrades are simple & quick and won't break any third-party software you've built yourself from source. There's a bit more description of the difference in section 25.2.3 here.
only recommended if you need to stay on 8.x
on
FreeBSD 8.4 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Most desktop users won't want to install this release. FreeBSD 9.1 was released in December 2012, and is the most recent stable release. This 8.4 release is a point release in the still-maintained 8.x series, intended for people currently running 8.3 who for one reason or another don't wish to upgrade to 9.x yet, but who do want an incremental upgrade.
That's one interpretation, but it's not universally accepted that the passage in Acts is intended to mean that all the OT rules on sexuality should be kept.
The passage in question, Acts 15:19-21,
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The passage seems to imply that the retained rules will be much simpler, something you can summarize concisely in a few phrases without people having to read the entire OT. The only explicit part of the OT mentioned is the "law of Moses" that is "read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" and therefore assumed to already be very widely known. That's usually taken to mean just the Ten Commandments. If the phrase "tell them to abstain... from sexual immorality" really means following to the letter every verse in the OT that mentions sexuality, that seems out of keeping with the spirit of this chapter.
Yes, in some cases as well. That's why I'm more interested in the power an organization wields in practice, rather than what it's labeled. For example, a homeowners' association is de-facto a kind of municipal government, even though it's officially labeled a private-sector entity. Similarly, a company town is a corporation acting in a governmental role. In the other direction, municipalities that use e.g. speeding tickets on a highway that passes through as a major revenue source are acting in the manner of rent-seeking corporations. The label "government" vs. "corporation" tells you only a very surface-level bit of information about what an organization actually does.
Third, the full Powerpoint presentation will be declassified in 2037
Is this because Unix geeks who're card-carrying members of the EFF will use the impending Year 2038 bug as leverage to demand mass declassification before they agree to work?
The great thing about deep-sea trash is that it decomposes extremely slowly compared to stuff at shallower temperatures, so it'll be around for a while...
A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations are very different.
In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not "tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too over-the-top in pursuing those policies.
If Verizon agreed to hand over the records (as it appears they did), there's no 4th-amendment violation, at least under current Supreme Court interpretations, because the records are considered to be owned by Verizon (not you), so their consent is sufficient. They're the ones that have a 4th-amendment right against unreasonable search & seizure of their records. So if Verizon refused to hand over the records, that would be another story.
And now the Obama administration has defended the practice as a "critical tool."
Not only is the Executive branch in favor, but there's strong bipartisan support in the Legislative branch: immediately after this leak, both parties' ranking members on the Senate Intelligence Committee (Dianne Feinstein for the Democrats, Saxby Chambliss for the Republicans) held a press conference to defend the necessity of this kind of dragnet surveillance, and to claim that it's not a big deal since it's "just" metadata.
They're outsourcing to robots really, not to us. It just happens to be convenient for the robots to live in North Carolina in this case, probably due to regulatory issues in some governments/businesses over purchasing Chinese-made computers.
As far as I can tell, the compromise discussed in this article is only keyless entry, not related to starting a car. The thieves are using it to steal stuff like cell phones and GPS units from inside parked cars, not stealing the cars themselves.
Yeah, the fact that it works only on certain makes/models, if anything, makes it much less mysterious. Compromises that exploit particular broken implementations of a cryptosystem are by far the most common kind of vulnerability, more common than fundamental breaks of a cryptosystem. If this device is opening only certain kinds of Hondas, it's likely Honda screwed up its implementation in at least some models.
In practice, how often do people upgrade a CPU in the same mobo these days anyway? Even in server settings it's not that common; it's more common to buy a CPU/mobo package, and keep it until it's time to replace both.
In particular, the deal comes with a "majority of the unaffiliated" vote requirement, meaning that for it to go through, a majority of shareholders other than Michael Dell must vote in favor. If that happens, i.e. a majority of non-Michael-Dell shareholders think he should be allowed to purchase and continue running the company, then there is no reason it shouldn't happen.
You could also try proactive solutions. One, in Germany's case, would've been to keep the telecom monopoly state-owned, rather than turning it into a private monopoly.
It damages the literature beyond access to papers as well, since publishers sometimes use copyright to interfere with papers themselves. I was forced to remove a screenshot from one paper because the publisher's official position on fair-use was extremely narrow and would not allow screenshots. Perhaps this is simply due to risk-aversion: it's easier to just restrict fair-use than worry about how close to the line to get. But a more cynical person might suspect it's in the publisher's own interests to push generally anti-fair-use positions.
Film-studies scholars have been struggling with this for years: including a still image from a film in a discussion of it is obviously fair-use, but a surprising number of publishers disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to phrase it differently not using the word "believe": you need to trust that the scientific community is generally following a reliable method for gaining and improving knowledge.
I don't think it's equivalent to religious faith, but I also don't think it's quite true that no degree of belief is necessary, because it is simply not possible for you, personally, to verify every bit of information you rely on when making use of scientific conclusions. Therefore you need to be able to trust that the results of a certain system of knowledge-acquisition are reasonably accurate, despite not being able to personally verify them.
That is: someone who actually argues that Chinese hacking is the entirety of the U.S. security problem?
They typically keep putting out point releases in a series for about five years after the initial .0 release, so at any given time the current and previous one or two series are supported. But they eventually get phased out, e.g. the last 7.x release was 7.4, which came out in early 2011 and stopped being security-managed in early 2013. Wikipedia has a timeline showing the release/support history.
One of the reasons for maintaining the legacy branches for a few years is that, within each series, FreeBSD commits to maintaining binary compatibility. So, upgrades are simple & quick and won't break any third-party software you've built yourself from source. There's a bit more description of the difference in section 25.2.3 here.
Most desktop users won't want to install this release. FreeBSD 9.1 was released in December 2012, and is the most recent stable release. This 8.4 release is a point release in the still-maintained 8.x series, intended for people currently running 8.3 who for one reason or another don't wish to upgrade to 9.x yet, but who do want an incremental upgrade.
That's one interpretation, but it's not universally accepted that the passage in Acts is intended to mean that all the OT rules on sexuality should be kept.
The passage in question, Acts 15:19-21,
The passage seems to imply that the retained rules will be much simpler, something you can summarize concisely in a few phrases without people having to read the entire OT. The only explicit part of the OT mentioned is the "law of Moses" that is "read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" and therefore assumed to already be very widely known. That's usually taken to mean just the Ten Commandments. If the phrase "tell them to abstain ... from sexual immorality" really means following to the letter every verse in the OT that mentions sexuality, that seems out of keeping with the spirit of this chapter.
Yes, in some cases as well. That's why I'm more interested in the power an organization wields in practice, rather than what it's labeled. For example, a homeowners' association is de-facto a kind of municipal government, even though it's officially labeled a private-sector entity. Similarly, a company town is a corporation acting in a governmental role. In the other direction, municipalities that use e.g. speeding tickets on a highway that passes through as a major revenue source are acting in the manner of rent-seeking corporations. The label "government" vs. "corporation" tells you only a very surface-level bit of information about what an organization actually does.
Third, the full Powerpoint presentation will be declassified in 2037
Is this because Unix geeks who're card-carrying members of the EFF will use the impending Year 2038 bug as leverage to demand mass declassification before they agree to work?
The great thing about deep-sea trash is that it decomposes extremely slowly compared to stuff at shallower temperatures, so it'll be around for a while...
A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations are very different.
In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not "tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too over-the-top in pursuing those policies.
If Verizon agreed to hand over the records (as it appears they did), there's no 4th-amendment violation, at least under current Supreme Court interpretations, because the records are considered to be owned by Verizon (not you), so their consent is sufficient. They're the ones that have a 4th-amendment right against unreasonable search & seizure of their records. So if Verizon refused to hand over the records, that would be another story.
Not only is the Executive branch in favor, but there's strong bipartisan support in the Legislative branch: immediately after this leak, both parties' ranking members on the Senate Intelligence Committee (Dianne Feinstein for the Democrats, Saxby Chambliss for the Republicans) held a press conference to defend the necessity of this kind of dragnet surveillance, and to claim that it's not a big deal since it's "just" metadata.
If you're always online, Steam's DRM is reasonably unobtrusive. But if you regularly use its offline mode, it's a bit of a pain in the ass.
Well yeah, if you aren't willing to pay market rate, you won't find many takers. You can't hire a surgeon for $80k/yr, either.
They're outsourcing to robots really, not to us. It just happens to be convenient for the robots to live in North Carolina in this case, probably due to regulatory issues in some governments/businesses over purchasing Chinese-made computers.
As far as I can tell, the compromise discussed in this article is only keyless entry, not related to starting a car. The thieves are using it to steal stuff like cell phones and GPS units from inside parked cars, not stealing the cars themselves.
Yeah, the fact that it works only on certain makes/models, if anything, makes it much less mysterious. Compromises that exploit particular broken implementations of a cryptosystem are by far the most common kind of vulnerability, more common than fundamental breaks of a cryptosystem. If this device is opening only certain kinds of Hondas, it's likely Honda screwed up its implementation in at least some models.
In practice, how often do people upgrade a CPU in the same mobo these days anyway? Even in server settings it's not that common; it's more common to buy a CPU/mobo package, and keep it until it's time to replace both.
In particular, the deal comes with a "majority of the unaffiliated" vote requirement, meaning that for it to go through, a majority of shareholders other than Michael Dell must vote in favor. If that happens, i.e. a majority of non-Michael-Dell shareholders think he should be allowed to purchase and continue running the company, then there is no reason it shouldn't happen.
Will they reverse course if this is publicized and they're pressured on the matter?
How often has that been successful in getting Facebook to change anything?
The analyst seems to admit that it probably wouldn't be feasible, in the same breath that he raises the possibility:
You could also try proactive solutions. One, in Germany's case, would've been to keep the telecom monopoly state-owned, rather than turning it into a private monopoly.
Workers will rate each other based on their personal interactions and perceptions.
Unlike the people who currently do promotion, who have a lucid view of real contributions, of course...
Perhaps even send the raw footage to the AFL-CIO
Nitpick, but I assume you mean the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), not the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)...
It damages the literature beyond access to papers as well, since publishers sometimes use copyright to interfere with papers themselves. I was forced to remove a screenshot from one paper because the publisher's official position on fair-use was extremely narrow and would not allow screenshots. Perhaps this is simply due to risk-aversion: it's easier to just restrict fair-use than worry about how close to the line to get. But a more cynical person might suspect it's in the publisher's own interests to push generally anti-fair-use positions.
Film-studies scholars have been struggling with this for years: including a still image from a film in a discussion of it is obviously fair-use, but a surprising number of publishers disagree.
Producer Charles Roven confirmed...
Is there any justification for not having Uwe Boll do this?