While your country is in a rescission, your people are in the streets protesting, and having to budget for a simple can of beans what does the government do?
Buy the most expensive, most shiny status symbol toy cause they cant be bothered to check their fucking email at their desk.
Yes, if only the UK had that $500 back, they could balance the budget.
You can not institute the reform of a Republic, by instituting the toolset of Facebook.
Fake electronic "Democracy" for a fake, electronic nation. The "ideological divide" is a stage prop, for legerdemain. There is no ideological difference between the parties on supremacy of Financial Capitalists, or on the primacy of American Imperial adventurism.
"Centrist"? Don't make me laugh! The "left" in today's Amercian establishment politics is to the right of RIchard Milhouse Nixon.
Really? You may be surprised to learn there's been this "Occupy Wall Street" movement that speaks with a human microphone to demonstrate their dedication to collectivism, calls for a class warfare between the 99% and 1% and rants about the evils of banks and capitalism. I guess they were only camped out for the past four months, holding vocal demonstrations in just about every city in the country, so you might have missed them.
Why do you pick Nixon as your exemplar conservative, when he took us off the gold standard and implemented the EPA? Do you think Keynesian economics is popular among the American right? Right now in just this GOP primary, we have the full spectrum of conservatives from centrist to fiscal conservative to social conservative, as well as two solidly libertarian candidates.
And how is the establishment left not liberal enough? Bernie Sanders is every part the American establishment, and he's an avowed socialist; and Obama was rated further to the left of him when he was in the Senate. In the 2008 election, the democrats also ran the full spectrum of American liberalism, as well as Kucinich's perennial run.
Just because you haven't got a clue who the parties are doesn't mean that there's no ideological difference between the two. Your inability to grasp politics in this country doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That's just European left-wing propaganda, an oft repeated lie, but a lie all the same. Europe has a large and vibrant conservative movement, and is generally only marginally more leftist than America. The real shame of it is that the European policy makers simply ignore public opinion on far more issues than American policy makers, but that means your system is broken, not ours. And, just as in America, European socialism is failing and the Euro is falling apart, and the European conservative movement will be picking up the pieces over the next decade.
I don't understand why QR codes are needed. Why can't the camera use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) instead?
Okay, a QR code can transmit up to a kilobyte of data, with error correction, even with blurring. But you can't read it.
A typical MICR code is a roughly 10 digit account or routing number, and it's typical use case is it's printed on a check that has information indicating which way is up, and is scanned by a machine with a fixed lens.
Even with an OCR font, any blurring makes features run together, so you have to get the focal length just right. The MICR fonts only handle numerals; many English glyphs are homographs, let alone accents or Kanji. People will, at minimum, hold the camera at an angle if not upside down, so you'd need additional decoration to indicate orientation. And you'd need a universal standard to indicate character set. And the camera is square, so you'd either want a very short URL, or make it into a block of text. And you'd want additional garbage characters or decoration to add some error correction or at least checksum.
If you did all this, it would probably not look much like intelligible English, let alone most other languages. And a URL is not going to be very intelligible to begin with and would only hold a tiny amount of actual data.
Forgive my ignorance, but why do we always seem to presume alien life has to be hydrocarbon bases like ourselves? Couldn't their metabolism be based on some other chemical process?
It's a known problem. We're like the guy looking for his car keys under the streetlight. Yeah, he could have dropped them anywhere but that's the only place he's got light.
"The term 'Earth-like worlds' is a vastly overused and hopelessly incorrect term"
"Earth-like worlds" is not an incorrect term. Misused perhaps, but not incorrect.
I thought it was pretty correct and well used, in context. After all, a planet outside the temperate zone or that is a gas giant or too small generally can't have liquid water at all, so "earth-like" can easily mean "it doesn't have the factors that obviously rule out life as we know it." And considering the context, which is usually, "we know how big it is and its orbit because we detected incredibly faint wobbles in a far larger star," I think a typically curious layman is going to grasp that no one is claiming to see majestic fjords.
This should be entertaining to me; it is a pretty sweet burn to someone that appears to deserve his fate. Yet I can't laugh at the exchange; it's like taking joy in reality television. Many people do, but I just feel dirty watching the downward trajectory of humanity. Is the customer that less of a dick? Is his motivation at making this exchange public to help other frustrated gamers or to make revenge so sweet and cold? The motive is probably somewhere closer to revenge than help.
I've got mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, yes, it's good when customers are rude because it gives businesses a huge incentive to make sure their operation runs smoothly.
But this guy won't learn anything from this, he's fired and won't work in that area any more. It's just a spectacle, and a pretty tawdry one at that.
Internet dick-waving contest extraordinaire. I was with Dave until he wrote this:
p.p.s. Welcome to the internet, bitch. That’s how I roll.
In my book this puts Dave in the same douchey category as the Ocean Marketing guy.
Yeah, Dave is leaving this huge mess out there on the internet. If he ever is looking to do work that requires any kind of tact or delicacy, a five minute Google search will get him turned down for it.
what anti-science positions have they taken? they may do it on a small scale, but nothing so blatant as what you see from those the author mentioned.
The GP mentioned economics. Given that Congress's main job is to make decisions that directly affect the economy, that's pretty much the most significant area they could be anti-science.
Large collaborations, be they criminal or not, can be and are well-kept secrets for long times. It only requires constant monitoring of the secret knowers and the power to punish them severely if they mess up.
Whether they are criminal or not is everything. If people believe they're working for something that's at least legal, if not positively good, they're going to see no moral gain to leaking and every practical danger. But if they believe that it's wrong, they'll be highly motivated to leak, and the possibility of getting caught leaking anonymously is very small. (Case in point: Manning had to *tell* someone he had been leaking.)
For example the US government uses regular polygraph tests (accepting the costs of the high rate of false positives) and encourages ratting out your co-workers. Would-be whistle blowers and spies know they can go to prison after a secret trial. It works pretty well especially if you use misinformation to confuse the public about occasional leaks.
Similarly with mafias, I imagine, except the punishment is more often death
Ya, people who say that conspiracies cannot happen and secrets cannot be kept have never studied history. More then a few things have come to light involving entire government branches and multiple big companies that kept secrets for decades (and of course any that lasted longer then a normal human life are less likely to come to light after that).
What people are usually saying is that large scale criminal conspiracies can't be kept under wraps. It's too easy for one person to quietly leak the secret if they feel it's justified.
Also, they usually point out that the large scale criminal conspiracy theories make no sense.
The reason I keep using PGP, however, is because of digital signing: there's a good guarantee that signed messages were actually sent by me. Headers are fairly trivial to spoof. With PGP, a 'hacker' can only impersonate me if they have access to the private key, which requires physical or ssh access, and he or she must be able to decrypt that key.
But a hacker can spoof you by sending an unauthenticated email just as easily for everything you could want to do online. I've never worked with a business that would take a public key. Without an agreement with the recipient that they only accept authenticated email, you gain nothing.
And I never use that feature when I'm on a network (using e.g. Outlook's secured mail) that offers it unless we're all forced to, which I've never seen. If most people are sending stuff unsigned and unauthenticated, the standard of evidence winds up being "if you've got a copy of what they wrote and what you wrote." So if I keep copies of my email, that's plenty. My digital authentication, in most circumstances, just seems to a potential source of confusion or, worse, ammo for an unscrupulous person to use against me.
Raising children is hard (I say this as a mid-forties bachelor not living in my parents' basement), and I would never dare to presume that avoiding all accidents is possible regarding the welfare of a child. I'd doubly not dare to presume such if I were a parent.
Ignorant as I am, I at least know better than to cast smug blame on the parents of children who have undergone a medical emergency.
Maybe I'm just a terrible person, but I don't think The Children make any person or any claim blameless or beyond scrutiny.
Usually a difficulty of distributing encryption keys to soldiers on the field watching the video stream.
Not a commo guy, but I got stuck with it a few times. The SINCGARS system alone goes back to the 80s, and there were various frequency-hopping and scrambling ciphers before the ones that SINCGARS uses. Since you've got secured communications, you need a mechanism to distribute keys to every vehicle and portable radio already.
As I recall from the news reports, only some drone feeds weren't encrypted. My understanding was they didn't think the enemy in question (the Taliban) was sophisticated enough to exploit the unencrypted feed.
Virtually all of that money will go into the general economy. The only part that won't will be a relatively tiny portion that will be invested in precious metals, typically less than a percent. All the rest will:
* be invested in other companies, either directly through stocks or indirectly through the banking system * be spent on consumer goods and services * be spent on real estate and the upkeep of real estate * be donated to charity * be paid to the public sector as taxes * be invested in the public sector as bonds
The notion that wealth "trickles" down is total bullshit. It's like a flat-earth theory of economics.
Jury nulification means finding the defendant innocent regardless of the evidence against them. This is something jurors have a constitutional right to do. If you don't think the act the defendant was charged with should be against the law, you can find them not innocent even if it is absolutely obvious they did it.
It's not a constitutional right, it's a consequence of a practice that derives from common law. Basically, the issue is that juries must be free from intimidation to present their verdict, and that the possibility that they will reach a verdict not in concurrence with law is a possibility that we live with. It's much the same as the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty: it's not some fundamental right, it's just a compromise we make because our legal system is naturally imperfect.
The only operative rights here are the defendant's right to due process, and the right of the people to have their elected representatives draft the laws they live by and of the courts and police to execute those laws faithfully. As a juror, being drafted into judicial service, you don't have any right whatsoever to unilaterally overturn those laws, instead, you have the *power* to do so without repercussions. You are violating the trust society put in you, and you're really not any better than a crooked cop.
tl;dr: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
I don't have one because I don't see the point. If I'm home I use the desktop which is more powerful, has better screen, better input and better software. If I'm out of home I use the notebook. If I want to check something quickly, smartphone. Tablets are too small to use at home and too big to be carried on your pocket. You get worse screen, less software and worse input methods for almost the same size as a much better netbook. It could have some use to let it lying on the sofa to check some internet while watching TV I guess but that doesn’t justify that price tag. Tablets are mostly pointless and there are very few people that have real uses for them, I just wonder why everybody is trying to convince us that tablets are good. Marketing does work I guess.
I don't carry a laptop or netbook any more as the iPad is enough to get stuff done. Once you have a Dropbox enabled text editor, a few cron jobs and Jenkins to handle builds, you can do development on the shitter, or anywhere you can get cell reception. All my organizers are cloudy, too, so I can figure out what I want to do, glom together mockups in OmniGraffle, etc, on the iPad.
That's the real question with a hybrid drive. If you're running any kind of database, your performance is limited by how quickly you can fsync. A hybrid ought to be instant, which would be a major speed and reliability win.
Slashdot Mirror
While your country is in a rescission, your people are in the streets protesting, and having to budget for a simple can of beans what does the government do?
Buy the most expensive, most shiny status symbol toy cause they cant be bothered to check their fucking email at their desk.
Yes, if only the UK had that $500 back, they could balance the budget.
You can not institute the reform of a Republic, by instituting the toolset of Facebook.
Fake electronic "Democracy" for a fake, electronic nation. The "ideological divide" is a stage prop, for legerdemain. There is no ideological difference between the parties on supremacy of Financial Capitalists, or on the primacy of American Imperial adventurism.
"Centrist"? Don't make me laugh! The "left" in today's Amercian establishment politics is to the right of RIchard Milhouse Nixon.
Really? You may be surprised to learn there's been this "Occupy Wall Street" movement that speaks with a human microphone to demonstrate their dedication to collectivism, calls for a class warfare between the 99% and 1% and rants about the evils of banks and capitalism. I guess they were only camped out for the past four months, holding vocal demonstrations in just about every city in the country, so you might have missed them.
Why do you pick Nixon as your exemplar conservative, when he took us off the gold standard and implemented the EPA? Do you think Keynesian economics is popular among the American right? Right now in just this GOP primary, we have the full spectrum of conservatives from centrist to fiscal conservative to social conservative, as well as two solidly libertarian candidates.
And how is the establishment left not liberal enough? Bernie Sanders is every part the American establishment, and he's an avowed socialist; and Obama was rated further to the left of him when he was in the Senate. In the 2008 election, the democrats also ran the full spectrum of American liberalism, as well as Kucinich's perennial run.
Just because you haven't got a clue who the parties are doesn't mean that there's no ideological difference between the two. Your inability to grasp politics in this country doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That's just European left-wing propaganda, an oft repeated lie, but a lie all the same. Europe has a large and vibrant conservative movement, and is generally only marginally more leftist than America. The real shame of it is that the European policy makers simply ignore public opinion on far more issues than American policy makers, but that means your system is broken, not ours. And, just as in America, European socialism is failing and the Euro is falling apart, and the European conservative movement will be picking up the pieces over the next decade.
Haha, good point.
I don't understand why QR codes are needed. Why can't the camera use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) instead?
Okay, a QR code can transmit up to a kilobyte of data, with error correction, even with blurring. But you can't read it.
A typical MICR code is a roughly 10 digit account or routing number, and it's typical use case is it's printed on a check that has information indicating which way is up, and is scanned by a machine with a fixed lens.
Even with an OCR font, any blurring makes features run together, so you have to get the focal length just right. The MICR fonts only handle numerals; many English glyphs are homographs, let alone accents or Kanji. People will, at minimum, hold the camera at an angle if not upside down, so you'd need additional decoration to indicate orientation. And you'd need a universal standard to indicate character set. And the camera is square, so you'd either want a very short URL, or make it into a block of text. And you'd want additional garbage characters or decoration to add some error correction or at least checksum.
If you did all this, it would probably not look much like intelligible English, let alone most other languages. And a URL is not going to be very intelligible to begin with and would only hold a tiny amount of actual data.
Forgive my ignorance, but why do we always seem to presume alien life has to be hydrocarbon bases like ourselves? Couldn't their metabolism be based on some other chemical process?
It's a known problem. We're like the guy looking for his car keys under the streetlight. Yeah, he could have dropped them anywhere but that's the only place he's got light.
"The term 'Earth-like worlds' is a vastly overused and hopelessly incorrect term"
"Earth-like worlds" is not an incorrect term. Misused perhaps, but not incorrect.
I thought it was pretty correct and well used, in context. After all, a planet outside the temperate zone or that is a gas giant or too small generally can't have liquid water at all, so "earth-like" can easily mean "it doesn't have the factors that obviously rule out life as we know it." And considering the context, which is usually, "we know how big it is and its orbit because we detected incredibly faint wobbles in a far larger star," I think a typically curious layman is going to grasp that no one is claiming to see majestic fjords.
This should be entertaining to me; it is a pretty sweet burn to someone that appears to deserve his fate. Yet I can't laugh at the exchange; it's like taking joy in reality television. Many people do, but I just feel dirty watching the downward trajectory of humanity. Is the customer that less of a dick? Is his motivation at making this exchange public to help other frustrated gamers or to make revenge so sweet and cold? The motive is probably somewhere closer to revenge than help.
I've got mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, yes, it's good when customers are rude because it gives businesses a huge incentive to make sure their operation runs smoothly.
But this guy won't learn anything from this, he's fired and won't work in that area any more. It's just a spectacle, and a pretty tawdry one at that.
Internet dick-waving contest extraordinaire. I was with Dave until he wrote this:
In my book this puts Dave in the same douchey category as the Ocean Marketing guy.
Yeah, Dave is leaving this huge mess out there on the internet. If he ever is looking to do work that requires any kind of tact or delicacy, a five minute Google search will get him turned down for it.
what anti-science positions have they taken? they may do it on a small scale, but nothing so blatant as what you see from those the author mentioned.
The GP mentioned economics. Given that Congress's main job is to make decisions that directly affect the economy, that's pretty much the most significant area they could be anti-science.
Large collaborations, be they criminal or not, can be and are well-kept secrets for long times. It only requires constant monitoring of the secret knowers and the power to punish them severely if they mess up.
Whether they are criminal or not is everything. If people believe they're working for something that's at least legal, if not positively good, they're going to see no moral gain to leaking and every practical danger. But if they believe that it's wrong, they'll be highly motivated to leak, and the possibility of getting caught leaking anonymously is very small. (Case in point: Manning had to *tell* someone he had been leaking.)
For example the US government uses regular polygraph tests (accepting the costs of the high rate of false positives) and encourages ratting out your co-workers. Would-be whistle blowers and spies know they can go to prison after a secret trial. It works pretty well especially if you use misinformation to confuse the public about occasional leaks.
Similarly with mafias, I imagine, except the punishment is more often death
The above quote is complete and utter horseshit.
Ya, people who say that conspiracies cannot happen and secrets cannot be kept have never studied history.
More then a few things have come to light involving entire government branches and multiple big companies that kept secrets for decades (and of course any that lasted longer then a normal human life are less likely to come to light after that).
What people are usually saying is that large scale criminal conspiracies can't be kept under wraps. It's too easy for one person to quietly leak the secret if they feel it's justified.
Also, they usually point out that the large scale criminal conspiracy theories make no sense.
The reason I keep using PGP, however, is because of digital signing: there's a good guarantee that signed messages were actually sent by me. Headers are fairly trivial to spoof. With PGP, a 'hacker' can only impersonate me if they have access to the private key, which requires physical or ssh access, and he or she must be able to decrypt that key.
But a hacker can spoof you by sending an unauthenticated email just as easily for everything you could want to do online. I've never worked with a business that would take a public key. Without an agreement with the recipient that they only accept authenticated email, you gain nothing.
And I never use that feature when I'm on a network (using e.g. Outlook's secured mail) that offers it unless we're all forced to, which I've never seen. If most people are sending stuff unsigned and unauthenticated, the standard of evidence winds up being "if you've got a copy of what they wrote and what you wrote." So if I keep copies of my email, that's plenty. My digital authentication, in most circumstances, just seems to a potential source of confusion or, worse, ammo for an unscrupulous person to use against me.
Raising children is hard (I say this as a mid-forties bachelor not living in my parents' basement), and I would never dare to presume that avoiding all accidents is possible regarding the welfare of a child. I'd doubly not dare to presume such if I were a parent.
Ignorant as I am, I at least know better than to cast smug blame on the parents of children who have undergone a medical emergency.
Maybe I'm just a terrible person, but I don't think The Children make any person or any claim blameless or beyond scrutiny.
Usually a difficulty of distributing encryption keys to soldiers on the field watching the video stream.
Not a commo guy, but I got stuck with it a few times. The SINCGARS system alone goes back to the 80s, and there were various frequency-hopping and scrambling ciphers before the ones that SINCGARS uses. Since you've got secured communications, you need a mechanism to distribute keys to every vehicle and portable radio already.
As I recall from the news reports, only some drone feeds weren't encrypted. My understanding was they didn't think the enemy in question (the Taliban) was sophisticated enough to exploit the unencrypted feed.
Virtually all of that money will go into the general economy. The only part that won't will be a relatively tiny portion that will be invested in precious metals, typically less than a percent. All the rest will:
* be invested in other companies, either directly through stocks or indirectly through the banking system
* be spent on consumer goods and services
* be spent on real estate and the upkeep of real estate
* be donated to charity
* be paid to the public sector as taxes
* be invested in the public sector as bonds
The notion that wealth "trickles" down is total bullshit. It's like a flat-earth theory of economics.
Jury nulification means finding the defendant innocent regardless of the evidence against them. This is something jurors have a constitutional right to do. If you don't think the act the defendant was charged with should be against the law, you can find them not innocent even if it is absolutely obvious they did it.
It's not a constitutional right, it's a consequence of a practice that derives from common law. Basically, the issue is that juries must be free from intimidation to present their verdict, and that the possibility that they will reach a verdict not in concurrence with law is a possibility that we live with. It's much the same as the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty: it's not some fundamental right, it's just a compromise we make because our legal system is naturally imperfect.
The only operative rights here are the defendant's right to due process, and the right of the people to have their elected representatives draft the laws they live by and of the courts and police to execute those laws faithfully. As a juror, being drafted into judicial service, you don't have any right whatsoever to unilaterally overturn those laws, instead, you have the *power* to do so without repercussions. You are violating the trust society put in you, and you're really not any better than a crooked cop.
tl;dr: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Really? I watched several Republican Primary Debates, and I have to disagree with you...
Yes, you are the perfect example of someone whose thinking is stuck in the '60s. Good work!
well now that the Twitter archive is part of the Library of Congress it can only reflected as a portion of the Library of Congress.
So does this mean we've invented the recursive unit?
I don't have one because I don't see the point. If I'm home I use the desktop which is more powerful, has better screen, better input and better software. If I'm out of home I use the notebook. If I want to check something quickly, smartphone. Tablets are too small to use at home and too big to be carried on your pocket. You get worse screen, less software and worse input methods for almost the same size as a much better netbook.
It could have some use to let it lying on the sofa to check some internet while watching TV I guess but that doesn’t justify that price tag. Tablets are mostly pointless and there are very few people that have real uses for them, I just wonder why everybody is trying to convince us that tablets are good. Marketing does work I guess.
I don't carry a laptop or netbook any more as the iPad is enough to get stuff done. Once you have a Dropbox enabled text editor, a few cron jobs and Jenkins to handle builds, you can do development on the shitter, or anywhere you can get cell reception. All my organizers are cloudy, too, so I can figure out what I want to do, glom together mockups in OmniGraffle, etc, on the iPad.
I have to ask:
Toad farm? Really? Why farm toads? To eat?
To test how gullible the moderators are.
That's the real question with a hybrid drive. If you're running any kind of database, your performance is limited by how quickly you can fsync. A hybrid ought to be instant, which would be a major speed and reliability win.
and still people will use this as FUD for the next 3 decades.
Frankly, I think any study that finds a new cause for infertility or impotence is trolling for attention.
Lets try again, shall we?
Original iPhone: iPhone 1,1
iPhone 3G: iPhone 2,1
iPhone 3GS: iPhone 2,2
iPhone 4: iPhone 3,1 (its really the 3!)
If they had called it iPhone 3, there would have been a serious case of heads asploding.
Fuck you whale, and fuck you dolphin!