It seems a common issue. Look at the amount of airplay London Calling is getting on the back of a certain burger-advertising sporting event in East London.
What the hell was a shipment of toxic chemicals that couldn't withstand a train crash doing on a train? Why wasn't the water treatment plant shut down manually when the control systems failed?
Cyber "war" is just applied mathematics. Get it right, and you're untouchable. Its impact is unreliable and the expenditure is out of all proportion to its impact. Give me what was spent on Stuxnet and I could do far more damage to infrastructure than that ever did.
It depends on the law of your state, of curse, but in general yes. In the UK you can be charged, in theory, for having your car keys on your person when drunk (the law is "in control of a vehicle" or some such) and still in the bar, and people do get picked up adn charged for walking towards their car before they've even shown any intent to drive.
When you're talking about Bill-and-Melinda money, you don't go in at that level. You provide funding for a ground-up agency with its own legal powers, firewalled from pre-existing corrupt police agencies, and you pay and train employees independently.
I'd spend it on institutional development. Fund anti-bribery agencies, pay for policy development in countries that can't afford it, endow independent newspapers, fund education abroad for future leaders. In short, give countries the tools to create the structures that allow real economic development.
Bank accounts: typically, the account gets closed after several (potentially many) years of non-activity, and the bank then retains a liability if the owner or estate ever shows up. Depending on the laws of the particular state, this liability can usually be written off after a period of time, similar to abandoned property. Usually the profit accrues to the bank, but some states have laws regarding how such funds are used.
I think those of us who care often make the mistake of banging on about grammer instead of clarity. Grammer is stupid rules about infinitives and prepositions. Clarity is something we can all agree is good. Bad grammer usually lacks clarity, either by being meaningless or by being a roadblock to the reader.
Sheesh, off you go and have a herbal tea or something. Senior people in large organisations still mostly read their own email and if you have something sensible to say to them, say it. Believe it or not, they appreciate it.
Given you made it to slashdot, you probably have one of those computer thingies on your desk. Ask your nice IT people if you have a thing called "e-mail". It lets you get right in touch with them.
If you work at a company where innovation is seen as a good thing, it's not impossible to form a working party and produce a mandate for change. Involve HR, produce some case studies, dig out some research, and present it to the board. If doing this wouldn't fly, start making phone calls.
Actually, there's no need whatsoever for an MP to be full time - they only make work for themselves. There are legislatures out there that only meet once a year or more. And it's not like the country grinds to a halt every time Parliament goes into recess. The country might be labouring under a few less ill-thought out laws if Parliament only assembled once a week.
I think this is often a case of people talking past each other. Anybody with an economics background knows that modelling a capitalist as a frictionless sphere is unrealistic, but the fact is often that they're talking to someone even more unrealistic
You're making a pretty big leap in assuming that intelligence exists in the way you suppose. Our brains are just statistical automata that can with sufficient training carry out some logical operations.
Without getting into a debate about gun control, that's a silly argument. I wouldn't meet under such circumstances carrying an assault rifle and knowing my opponent was unarmed. It would just be silly.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems a common issue. Look at the amount of airplay London Calling is getting on the back of a certain burger-advertising sporting event in East London.
Cyber "war" is just applied mathematics. Get it right, and you're untouchable. Its impact is unreliable and the expenditure is out of all proportion to its impact. Give me what was spent on Stuxnet and I could do far more damage to infrastructure than that ever did.
As long as they have an option to leave it the hell alone for those of us who actually use the damn product.
It depends on the law of your state, of curse, but in general yes. In the UK you can be charged, in theory, for having your car keys on your person when drunk (the law is "in control of a vehicle" or some such) and still in the bar, and people do get picked up adn charged for walking towards their car before they've even shown any intent to drive.
Are you going in through the right country top level? maps.google.com gives me stuff from the US unless I use maps.google.co.uk.
When you're talking about Bill-and-Melinda money, you don't go in at that level. You provide funding for a ground-up agency with its own legal powers, firewalled from pre-existing corrupt police agencies, and you pay and train employees independently.
I'd spend it on institutional development. Fund anti-bribery agencies, pay for policy development in countries that can't afford it, endow independent newspapers, fund education abroad for future leaders. In short, give countries the tools to create the structures that allow real economic development.
Bank accounts: typically, the account gets closed after several (potentially many) years of non-activity, and the bank then retains a liability if the owner or estate ever shows up. Depending on the laws of the particular state, this liability can usually be written off after a period of time, similar to abandoned property. Usually the profit accrues to the bank, but some states have laws regarding how such funds are used.
I think those of us who care often make the mistake of banging on about grammer instead of clarity. Grammer is stupid rules about infinitives and prepositions. Clarity is something we can all agree is good. Bad grammer usually lacks clarity, either by being meaningless or by being a roadblock to the reader.
Sheesh, off you go and have a herbal tea or something. Senior people in large organisations still mostly read their own email and if you have something sensible to say to them, say it. Believe it or not, they appreciate it.
War double plus ungood? Protip: young underemployed men *always* want to go to war. It's why armies are stuffed full of them.
âoeIt's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.â --Var.
Given you made it to slashdot, you probably have one of those computer thingies on your desk. Ask your nice IT people if you have a thing called "e-mail". It lets you get right in touch with them.
Common law much?
If you work at a company where innovation is seen as a good thing, it's not impossible to form a working party and produce a mandate for change. Involve HR, produce some case studies, dig out some research, and present it to the board. If doing this wouldn't fly, start making phone calls.
Actually, there's no need whatsoever for an MP to be full time - they only make work for themselves. There are legislatures out there that only meet once a year or more. And it's not like the country grinds to a halt every time Parliament goes into recess. The country might be labouring under a few less ill-thought out laws if Parliament only assembled once a week.
She wasn't involved with the coding, and she's not (that) young, either, but she is a refreshingly different face from the political old guard.
MPs don't resign, and discouraging MPs with external interests is a bad idea, unless you like the Ed MIlibands of this world.
If the soft sciences are so soft, how come we find it so difficult to prodce conclusive answers? Soft science should be renamed "hard science".
I think this is often a case of people talking past each other. Anybody with an economics background knows that modelling a capitalist as a frictionless sphere is unrealistic, but the fact is often that they're talking to someone even more unrealistic
Except applied mathematics, the exploitation of which is all "cyberwar" is. Get it right (hard, but achievable) and cyber war is over.
You're making a pretty big leap in assuming that intelligence exists in the way you suppose. Our brains are just statistical automata that can with sufficient training carry out some logical operations.
Willing seller, willing buyer. End of discussion.
Without getting into a debate about gun control, that's a silly argument. I wouldn't meet under such circumstances carrying an assault rifle and knowing my opponent was unarmed. It would just be silly.
Well, you can only train so many teachers at a time, and there are only so many positions available though.