Mens rea is a component fact of guilt. There are different kinds of mens rea. The law or statue will usually define it. Some laws might require a mens rea of willful, that is you knew or at least expected a certain result form your actions and they it was criminal. Others might simply be 'negligent' like vehicular manslaughter, you reasonably could have known or reasonably should have know driving at excessive speed might result in the injury of others. There are other possible mens rea types as well.
My point is that even with a mens rea component a law can written that still more or less outlaws acting foolishly and the 'reasonably could have known' element covers simple ignorance of the law. So we have the "well I did not known I could not setup a rifle range in my residential back yard" we can still punish you for unlawful discharge because had you thought about it for a few short seconds you would have realized the inherent problems of firing weapons in populated areas and could checked into it.
I agree with you though strict liability is bogus. Statutory rape is a good example. There are plenty of 16/17 year olds who might lie to a 20 something about being 18 or 19 and there is no way that person could reasonably know they were under age. Social norms don't generally permit you to card the person you are flirting with.
Since LEOs aren't judges or legislature, it really isn't supposed to be within their power to make that determination.
Actually yes it is. Its very much the job of law enforcement to investigate if laws may be being broken. Its the judges or juries job when you go to trial to determine if you broke the law. Your defense certainly can be that the Police/Prosecutors interpretation of the statue is incorrect or does not fit the facts.
Yea I don't get it. It inst as if these groups have not found ways to prevent those they consider undesirables out in the past. What's the problem here, that it might be harder to infiltrate them or something. I don't imagine submitting someone elses sample to 23andMe is all that much tougher than using a fake name and photo on the web anyway.
Really old cars could be maintained! Prey war stuff had nice thick sheet metal that would never rust thru unless it was really abused, like you did not bother to keep paint on it. If that stuff does get a whole there is plenty of structurally good stuff near by to anchor putty or lead to or ideal weld an new section in.
Its the 1960s-late eighties stuff that is shit. Once rust gets to far along on any of those there is little you can do but replace a whole damn panel. Sure you can patch and if your goal is keep the thing on the road for another few years but if you are trying to preserve the vehicle its rarely worth while doing anything other than replacing an entire panel.
I take you point but we there is a very real and tangible difference between someone taking a deer out of season in the north woods of Minnesota and hunting a Rhino, Elephant or endangered Cat. Its entirely possible the first was done by mistake, ignorance of the hunting season etc, or the person really is trying to put some food on the table. I the Rhino case I will extend this benefit of doubt to say an aboriginal hunter using his peoples traditional tools etc. It strains credibility on the other hand to suggest the guys cruising the savanna in Jeeps with high power rifles, scopes, bait, chainsaws to dismember the corpses don't know exactly what they are doing. Its also hard to imagine they don't have at least some other options, given the found the money to acquire the vehicles, chainsaws, fuel, expensive weapons etc.
I think at some point we may have to recalibrate or moral compass a little bit to point somewhere besides humans are always the most important. There are 8.5 Billion of us. Its hard to get more commodity than that. As individuals we are all important to someone, but possibly near worthless to the world as a whole and perhaps even a detriment. So what should the collective we do when faced with someone who is bent on destroying something rare and possibly irreplaceable. Should we allow them to deprive the rest of us now and forever on an entire species like the black rhino? These people don't fear prison they know they either won't be caught or corruption will soon have them out. I am not saying its a simple calculation; certainly condoning or even looking the other way with regard to vigilantism is a slippery slope and its easy to imaging that path leading to all kinds of horrors or abuses but blindly accepting a philosophy of human life is fundamentally and always more important may not be right either.
it's A-OK to blow someone's guts out over your stereo rather than some rhino horns.
Burglary is a very specific crime. In most places. It usually requires breaking and entering a residence at night. The reason its more serious than theft or simple B&E is society has a strong interest in people feeling safe in their own homes. People are likely to be home at night so there is greater danger. Those are legal reasons.
The practical ones are: The burglar may decide to hurt or kill you and your family so that he isn't reported and described to the police. As you are not the one committing the crime and did not create the situation I think you are well justified in removing the danger, without waiting around to see what he or she is going to do. Sorry I don't see any moral or ethical problem with a shoot first ask questions later approach to someone who has invaded your home.
1) Limits the spread of sever incurable life altering diseases 2) Two adults provides a far more reliable and economically secure situation for raising children 3) Polyamory aside, most humans are jealous creatures and adultery and cheating in general frequently incite violence
Other than that no society really has no good reasons. Do you know what society is? Have you spent much time around other humans?
So the costs wasn't for the seat, but the tooling, setup and manufacture of a one off airplane part and documentation to prove it met the original manufacturer's specifications for use on an aircraft.
That right there though IS THE PROBLEM with BIG government. That sort of thinking. When it turned out the seat could not be easily sourced. Some other mandate to keep that particular air craft in service effectively put the government in a position of doing whatever it takes to keep that bird in the air.
Nobody stopped to say gee maybe we should just run the risk of using an 'out of spec toilet seat'. Its not likely to bring the plane down after all. How much could a injury law suit really cost us for this?
You get the point where the few ways to satisfy all the competing directives, agendas, rules box you into doing things that would be irrational in any other context.
Which is exactly why sequestration actually worked and why we need more of it.
There isn't political will to cut any specific program. Its like a comment up that page said "oh its only a nickle per tax payer" so the generally electorate does not get excited and won't vote for you because of you tough stance on support of Emu breading research. On the other hand the handful of Emu farmers and researchers out there will be very concerned about and run scary ads about how you are killing all the jobs in the Bumbfuck County [Insert Square State].
Congress is to freckles to deal with any specific budge line item or even any specific department level budget. On the other hand if you push big cross the board cuts it may leave all of our problems of in appropriate allocation in place, but at least you bring the aggregate numbers down.
In the best case: Someone figures out away to save a few million by negotiating better contracts and eliminating some waste.
In the next best case: That leaves the folks on the ground in a position to say well we don't have enough budget to do all this mandated activity lets divert resources from this effort we know really does not work so we can maintain this other that does or this other that is more important. Sure we have to "officially" still research Emu breading but will just have a intern book an hour to it once a month.
Worst case: Some actually productive and beneficial program / policy gets short shrift-ed because the money isn't there even though plenty of money is still being foolish spent elsewhere.
Still this is the best we can do in the current state of political system. Until some real calamity forces people to get real I don't see things changing. I thought the financial crisis might have done it, but the pols managed to kick the can down the road by printing their way out and our biggest trade partners were sufficiently upside down as well that is kept a lit on inflation. With Asia now getting the shakes they can probably get away with it for another decade.
The next president is going to be one luck SOB or DOB? whoever it is. They going to get to continue to enjoy the real stimulative effects of the low interest rate, policy, and the benefits of all the medical industry growth which is already a sixth of the economy. Obama care is going to be good short term here. It will move a lot of money around. 9-10 years from now when the next guy is on his way out office though its going all come off the rails.
1) Demographics will be further screwed older 2) We will likely be even more a service economy having seen little growth in real wages 3) The Debt will be larger, meaning more borrowing will cost more 4) The once insatiable appetites for our bonds in foreign markets that is now gone will still be 5) Even if the dollar is still the reserve currency of many alternative currency markets for commodities like oil will probably exist. 6) Mandatory health insurance while having prevented a handful of personal bankruptcies will have further reduced the savings rate among the general population.
I don't think the formula from 2008-10, which barely worked then will get us out of the next hole
1) Set up a site for cheaters 2) Charge a subscription fee 3) Profit! 4) Accidentally leave some live shells open and ipkvm with a super weak password or easy vuln on a high port 5) Let 4 slip to cousin Jimmy at the family reunion if he will split the take 6) Confirm to the press the hack to place so black mail victims will take Jimmy seriously. 7) Profit! some more
See there is isn't even a ?? step and two Profit! steps!
I would think the answer would be a qualified yes. Athletes like marathon runners, hikers, swimmers, cyclists etc who participate at the competitive levels of their sports tend to consume a lot more calories and other folks at their same approximate height and weight; same for people who do physical labor, farm workers, construction etc.
So on some level more energy out, means you will get to put more energy in. I suspect however you can't just "plug in" you 80W smart phone and double you calorie intake. Our bodies are complex systems of feedback and hysteresis mechanisms. Athletes and workers build up to those metabolic levels. Your body probably won't react appropriately to such a sudden change in demands. It might be possible to "work up" to being your phones sole power source.
Then again I would be concerned about gadgets and the metabolic effects of disconnecting them or turning them off. An athlete does not put away the extra muscle tissue when its not in use. It might not consume as much energy as when its performing but its still there metabolizing and throwing energy off as waste heat. So for like a pace maker that is always on and goes everywhere you do this probably makes sense and would be something body adapts to like any other parasite. I don't want to plug in my phone and pass out from low blood sugar because my body isn't expecting the sudden load.
I live in a fairly rural area. A great deal of my driving is on unmarked roads (no speed signs) with no center lines etc. The implicit rule is there is a speed limit of 55 mph. If a road is not marked and not within an incorporated city/town. Just because the speed limit is 55 does not mean its safe to be going that fast.
Its also mountainous here, the result is there are many blind corners and crests you can't see over. Sometimes the roads are camel back profile and you can a ways down the road at the peak of one hill, and that there are no opportunities of other vehicles/cattle/tractors/etc to enter the road way across the next two hills or something so you can stay at speed even when you can't momentarily see far up the road. If that isn't the case though you just have to slow to speed that you could safely stop in a few tens of feet should you discover that is required.
People who are not from around here don't understand. You get tailgated by some yahoo that is just passing thru and does not know how to drive thinking he is going to cut a bunch of interstate miles and save all kinds of time zipping across the county assuming its going be 55mph the whole way. I am a lead foot there are frequently places I do 70 if its all clear but the blind spots I do 35.
Whats worse is when you don't get tailgated and that yahoo does clip about doing 60+ where he ought not be, the result is often an unfortunite collision with a pedestrian, cyclist, farm animal, farm implement, deer, etc.
Yes because there are many many situations where the only mutually supported cipher between two end points is RC4 be it used for SSL/TLS or any other protocol. RC4 is also much faster when you are working with something that does not have hardware accelerated crypto. It does not matter much if we are talking some big SSL offload device but can matter a great deal when its some tiny MIPS or ARM chip in your industrial controller.
Studying the possible attacks on RC4 make sense because there are lots of people who may be faced with a decision requiring large investments of time and money replacing hardware or software that is otherwise still meeting their needs. You need to have some understanding of just how risky RC4 might be to make that decision. Its easy in a security role to just say "RC4 == bad must fix", but that isn't providing great service. Understanding the value of what you are protecting and the potential consequences if the encryption is broken are critical the next part is understanding how easy it is to break.
If a successful attack requires 10's of thousands of known plain texts that you can't imagine the likely attackers have any way of getting, and will take months of key space searching with 100's of GPUs and special purpose build software, vs some guy with a couple Radeons and a stock copy of Kali can do it in hour with handfull of plain texts it might change the decision.
I would argue that "sequestration" has been one of the greatest political success going back to at least 2010 when the GOP and President dug in their heals over the AFCA.
The GOP wanted spending cuts. Could not even agree internally what to cut. The President/DNC wanted an appropriations bill that did not slaughter any of their sacred cows. Both sides got what they wanted. We don't have the political will cut ANYTHING. We don't have resources to keep going as we are.
While top down cross the board cuts might not be the optimal solution, they do recover the dollars and at least within agencies allow people closer to the ground to decide which activities are less important and less effective to divert resources from. Its worked, non of the chicken little the sky is falling outcomes that people opposed to sequestration have happened. We got a small but significant improvement in the deficit outlook.
That's my point though. Given current trends they are not going to get paid for the story anyone. A tiny number of people subscribe to traditional media and they they blog about it and that is what everyone else reads. The people who still subscribe to traditional media are either old, or really want the greater depth or research and professional analysis, you don't get elsewhere.
Just the headlines are no longer worth much. Being first isn't really as important as it use to be either. Being first used to mean you were literally the only source for that headline for hours. If you broke a story in the morning paper, the other news agencies could not even respond until the evening paper, evening news cast etc.
Now days you get the information regurgitated on blog 10min later or less.
I doubt it. I bet many of them specifically target other blacks, with full knowledge that a legacy of racism means authorities are much less likely to look into the matter fully and they stand a better chance of getting away with it. Most criminals are dumb but not completely. They burgle the house in the shitty neighborhood because they know odds are their isn't a patrol car as near by if someone calls the cops as their would likely be in a more affluent neighborhood, even in the spoils of a successful job won't be as great.
There should be no such thing as a hate crime. The concept has no place in a just society. All victims should matter equally. Why you were victimized should not be a factor. If someone is murdered/raped/robbed etc society should put equal effort into securing justice no matter who the victim is. When it comes to punishing or rehabilitating the perpetrator those are serious crime the commission of which means at a very fundamental level the prep is deranged and needs to be handled accordingly no matter what their 'reasons'. If they formed intent to do those types of harms why isn't important.
When people cry about a like of diversity 90% of the time what they mean is there are not enough other people LIKE me to be comfortable. They don't want diversity, they want to be less of a minority. Suppose you have a majority Orange city council. A Green person on the council wants to create a new at large position to "increase diversity" Now do suppose if the position is created and a Purple is elected they will be happy or did they really want another Green but just won't admit it.
I having trouble feeling sorry for the journalists. Yes the scoop is important but we are not selling papers by having young boys shout "EXTRA" from the street corners anymore. Any novel facts uncovered will be repeated by 100s of blogers the moment the story drops anyway. A huge portion of the would have been in the old days readership/viewership will get that news from there anyway. So whats the big deal if the facts usually accompanied by with more chaff than most folks are willing to sort thru drop one more place?
Where journalism is useful is analysis. They still have a leg up there. If you have been working a story you for which you had to file those requests than other facts and sources must have lead you there. You already have a bigger picture view than anyone else. You know what material you are looking for in those documents. The rest of us just have a 1000 pages of US Forestry Service reports and questions, for example.
I don't by a paper to learn the "CIA has over 300 black sites" I buy a paper because I expect an article that will tell me not only are there 300 black sites, but what a black site is, how they are used, some reasons I should be concerned about that and may be reasons I should not be, what the broader implications for international law enforcement and political relationships are, etc. If my interested ended with a few odd facts the only news I would need are Slashdot summaries anyway.
On the flip side this will be a nice resource to have that will make linking to original source materials be they to support a news story, scholarly paper, Internet rant, or whatever much easier. That will be a good thing, but it will mean for the issues your really do care about you'll have direct access to the evidence itself to for your own judgments. I think this could be very valuable.
Why is it acceptable for the your local news paper or TV news program to profit? You don't think reports on crimes are a good portion of what sell news papers and draws viewers to programs that sell ad time? "If it bleeds it leads" they at least used to say in the industry. On some level we have to allow the news agencies to be economically viable or we won't have them. We still need these organizations and the investigative reporting the provide to have a functioning democracy. Internet bloggers alone don't provide a full substitute for people on the ground discovering new facts and bringing them to light. Now this might be evolving now that every phone practically has a good quality camera, and we have outlets like wikileaks where people can put information they are not supposed to know the capabilities of citizen journalism are expanding.
They we get into your implied question about what are " legitimately secret" secrets. When it comes to government secrets democracy has challenges. How can I know my representatives are not just keeping secrets to serve their interests rather than ones that I would agree need to be kept. Unless at least from time to time there are leaks and I get a true inkling of the sort of secrets they have. People seem to forget that the US government has long hist of keeping secrets to hide its miss deeds and crimes. Many young people today are surprised learn that Nixon actually created most of our modern programs of declassification that have given the public access it never had before. Of course his motives were out of a self serving desire to expose the actions of political rivals, but that proves the point; secrets keep those in power where they are deservedly or otherwise. Given all the abuses by the US that have come to light how would you guess more oppressive regimes behave?
Next, at least traditionally something was deemed to be a crime because it had some harmful real or perceived impact on society. Everyone seems to be essentially agreed that these acts of digital trespass, privacy violations, etc are harmful why should we discard any possible benefit form them by not allowing journalists to publish and use the information? The harms is already done; except when it isnt. That is what brings us to News Corp. Where News Corp crossed the line is their relationship to the crimes became causal. They were not publishing things they learned after some non-associated hacker for whatever their own reasons might have been broke into peoples voice mails and dumped the data someplace. They were effectively paying people to do it. They were inducing the crimes.
One of the problems the software world faces is when is something 'done'.
Suppose and application was carefully designed and written 5 years ago and was free of problems like buffer overflows, logic errors, bad assumptions about input domain, bad assumptions about scale. If these things were true 5 years ago why would they be less true today? The questions than becomes does this application still meet the need today?
Software isn't like a house or machine. It does not require maintenance unless a problem is discovered or a need changes, than you remodel. Software does not weather, nor does it have wearing surfaces.
I saw tcpd on the list. How much attention should that get? I mean I used tcpd for the same things I have used tcpd for more than a decade. I don't really have any new uses for it. It supports ipv6. I am not sure what changes are need. Why should anyone spend time migrating it to git hub? What would that accomplish?
I read one theory is that its not the pesticides that are killing them but modern farming in general. As more and more land is put under cultivation and farms industrialize and specialize you get more farm fields and less forest/wet lands/other. Additionally industrialization of agriculture is trading small farms that may have multiple crops on tens of acres each for farms that have a single crop on 100s of acres.
The impact is that rather than having a variety of plants blooming at all different times a large area might have only one or only a few kind of plants the bloom at a specific time. The effect is the bees are left with nothing to eat the rest of the time.
The issue as I see it are the economics of the network seem to be 180 degrees out of phase with their billing. There is so much spectrum available and so much time slice available on channel in a cell. Its a limited resource. I don't know how the cell towers are connected, you would hope its hub and spoke each tower having its own backhaul to some well connected POP, but maybe not perhaps some of the last mile towers are daisy chained.
In any case the voice requires consistent latency and fixed bandwidth. Data can be delivered best effort, with further QOS to provide fairness if you like, in terms of if the cell is congested the lower aggregate users get some favorable treatment on the network if you like.
Yet every carrier pretty much offers affordable unlimited voice, and charges for data. Its voice that forces them to upgrade the network because it has minimum performance requirements. Data can just get slower and slower the more congested things are. There is no reason to have unused airtime in a given cell. The sensible thing to I think would be discourage calls, by going back to metering them and let people have all the data they can eat. Again with the QOS rules in place to make sure normal customers get decent performance and are not choked out by handful of super heavy users.
Slashdot Mirror
I still say ATF should be a convince store not a government agency.
Mens rea is a component fact of guilt. There are different kinds of mens rea. The law or statue will usually define it. Some laws might require a mens rea of willful, that is you knew or at least expected a certain result form your actions and they it was criminal. Others might simply be 'negligent' like vehicular manslaughter, you reasonably could have known or reasonably should have know driving at excessive speed might result in the injury of others. There are other possible mens rea types as well.
My point is that even with a mens rea component a law can written that still more or less outlaws acting foolishly and the 'reasonably could have known' element covers simple ignorance of the law. So we have the "well I did not known I could not setup a rifle range in my residential back yard" we can still punish you for unlawful discharge because had you thought about it for a few short seconds you would have realized the inherent problems of firing weapons in populated areas and could checked into it.
I agree with you though strict liability is bogus. Statutory rape is a good example. There are plenty of 16/17 year olds who might lie to a 20 something about being 18 or 19 and there is no way that person could reasonably know they were under age. Social norms don't generally permit you to card the person you are flirting with.
Since LEOs aren't judges or legislature, it really isn't supposed to be within their power to make that determination.
Actually yes it is. Its very much the job of law enforcement to investigate if laws may be being broken. Its the judges or juries job when you go to trial to determine if you broke the law. Your defense certainly can be that the Police/Prosecutors interpretation of the statue is incorrect or does not fit the facts.
Yea I don't get it. It inst as if these groups have not found ways to prevent those they consider undesirables out in the past. What's the problem here, that it might be harder to infiltrate them or something. I don't imagine submitting someone elses sample to 23andMe is all that much tougher than using a fake name and photo on the web anyway.
Really old cars could be maintained! Prey war stuff had nice thick sheet metal that would never rust thru unless it was really abused, like you did not bother to keep paint on it. If that stuff does get a whole there is plenty of structurally good stuff near by to anchor putty or lead to or ideal weld an new section in.
Its the 1960s-late eighties stuff that is shit. Once rust gets to far along on any of those there is little you can do but replace a whole damn panel. Sure you can patch and if your goal is keep the thing on the road for another few years but if you are trying to preserve the vehicle its rarely worth while doing anything other than replacing an entire panel.
I take you point but we there is a very real and tangible difference between someone taking a deer out of season in the north woods of Minnesota and hunting a Rhino, Elephant or endangered Cat. Its entirely possible the first was done by mistake, ignorance of the hunting season etc, or the person really is trying to put some food on the table. I the Rhino case I will extend this benefit of doubt to say an aboriginal hunter using his peoples traditional tools etc. It strains credibility on the other hand to suggest the guys cruising the savanna in Jeeps with high power rifles, scopes, bait, chainsaws to dismember the corpses don't know exactly what they are doing. Its also hard to imagine they don't have at least some other options, given the found the money to acquire the vehicles, chainsaws, fuel, expensive weapons etc.
I think at some point we may have to recalibrate or moral compass a little bit to point somewhere besides humans are always the most important. There are 8.5 Billion of us. Its hard to get more commodity than that. As individuals we are all important to someone, but possibly near worthless to the world as a whole and perhaps even a detriment. So what should the collective we do when faced with someone who is bent on destroying something rare and possibly irreplaceable. Should we allow them to deprive the rest of us now and forever on an entire species like the black rhino? These people don't fear prison they know they either won't be caught or corruption will soon have them out. I am not saying its a simple calculation; certainly condoning or even looking the other way with regard to vigilantism is a slippery slope and its easy to imaging that path leading to all kinds of horrors or abuses but blindly accepting a philosophy of human life is fundamentally and always more important may not be right either.
it's A-OK to blow someone's guts out over your stereo rather than some rhino horns.
Burglary is a very specific crime. In most places. It usually requires breaking and entering a residence at night. The reason its more serious than theft or simple B&E is society has a strong interest in people feeling safe in their own homes. People are likely to be home at night so there is greater danger. Those are legal reasons.
The practical ones are:
The burglar may decide to hurt or kill you and your family so that he isn't reported and described to the police. As you are not the one committing the crime and did not create the situation I think you are well justified in removing the danger, without waiting around to see what he or she is going to do. Sorry I don't see any moral or ethical problem with a shoot first ask questions later approach to someone who has invaded your home.
1) Limits the spread of sever incurable life altering diseases
2) Two adults provides a far more reliable and economically secure situation for raising children
3) Polyamory aside, most humans are jealous creatures and adultery and cheating in general frequently incite violence
Other than that no society really has no good reasons. Do you know what society is? Have you spent much time around other humans?
So the costs wasn't for the seat, but the tooling, setup and manufacture of a one off airplane part and documentation to prove it met the original manufacturer's specifications for use on an aircraft.
That right there though IS THE PROBLEM with BIG government. That sort of thinking. When it turned out the seat could not be easily sourced. Some other mandate to keep that particular air craft in service effectively put the government in a position of doing whatever it takes to keep that bird in the air.
Nobody stopped to say gee maybe we should just run the risk of using an 'out of spec toilet seat'. Its not likely to bring the plane down after all. How much could a injury law suit really cost us for this?
You get the point where the few ways to satisfy all the competing directives, agendas, rules box you into doing things that would be irrational in any other context.
Which is exactly why sequestration actually worked and why we need more of it.
There isn't political will to cut any specific program. Its like a comment up that page said "oh its only a nickle per tax payer" so the generally electorate does not get excited and won't vote for you because of you tough stance on support of Emu breading research. On the other hand the handful of Emu farmers and researchers out there will be very concerned about and run scary ads about how you are killing all the jobs in the Bumbfuck County [Insert Square State].
Congress is to freckles to deal with any specific budge line item or even any specific department level budget. On the other hand if you push big cross the board cuts it may leave all of our problems of in appropriate allocation in place, but at least you bring the aggregate numbers down.
In the best case:
Someone figures out away to save a few million by negotiating better contracts and eliminating some waste.
In the next best case:
That leaves the folks on the ground in a position to say well we don't have enough budget to do all this mandated activity lets divert resources from this effort we know really does not work so we can maintain this other that does or this other that is more important. Sure we have to "officially" still research Emu breading but will just have a intern book an hour to it once a month.
Worst case:
Some actually productive and beneficial program / policy gets short shrift-ed because the money isn't there even though plenty of money is still being foolish spent elsewhere.
Still this is the best we can do in the current state of political system. Until some real calamity forces people to get real I don't see things changing. I thought the financial crisis might have done it, but the pols managed to kick the can down the road by printing their way out and our biggest trade partners were sufficiently upside down as well that is kept a lit on inflation. With Asia now getting the shakes they can probably get away with it for another decade.
The next president is going to be one luck SOB or DOB? whoever it is. They going to get to continue to enjoy the real stimulative effects of the low interest rate, policy, and the benefits of all the medical industry growth which is already a sixth of the economy. Obama care is going to be good short term here. It will move a lot of money around. 9-10 years from now when the next guy is on his way out office though its going all come off the rails.
1) Demographics will be further screwed older
2) We will likely be even more a service economy having seen little growth in real wages
3) The Debt will be larger, meaning more borrowing will cost more
4) The once insatiable appetites for our bonds in foreign markets that is now gone will still be
5) Even if the dollar is still the reserve currency of many alternative currency markets for commodities like oil will probably exist.
6) Mandatory health insurance while having prevented a handful of personal bankruptcies will have further reduced the savings rate among the general population.
I don't think the formula from 2008-10, which barely worked then will get us out of the next hole
1) Set up a site for cheaters
2) Charge a subscription fee
3) Profit!
4) Accidentally leave some live shells open and ipkvm with a super weak password or easy vuln on a high port
5) Let 4 slip to cousin Jimmy at the family reunion if he will split the take
6) Confirm to the press the hack to place so black mail victims will take Jimmy seriously.
7) Profit! some more
See there is isn't even a ?? step and two Profit! steps!
I would think the answer would be a qualified yes. Athletes like marathon runners, hikers, swimmers, cyclists etc who participate at the competitive levels of their sports tend to consume a lot more calories and other folks at their same approximate height and weight; same for people who do physical labor, farm workers, construction etc.
So on some level more energy out, means you will get to put more energy in. I suspect however you can't just "plug in" you 80W smart phone and double you calorie intake. Our bodies are complex systems of feedback and hysteresis mechanisms. Athletes and workers build up to those metabolic levels. Your body probably won't react appropriately to such a sudden change in demands. It might be possible to "work up" to being your phones sole power source.
Then again I would be concerned about gadgets and the metabolic effects of disconnecting them or turning them off. An athlete does not put away the extra muscle tissue when its not in use. It might not consume as much energy as when its performing but its still there metabolizing and throwing energy off as waste heat. So for like a pace maker that is always on and goes everywhere you do this probably makes sense and would be something body adapts to like any other parasite. I don't want to plug in my phone and pass out from low blood sugar because my body isn't expecting the sudden load.
I live in a fairly rural area. A great deal of my driving is on unmarked roads (no speed signs) with no center lines etc. The implicit rule is there is a speed limit of 55 mph. If a road is not marked and not within an incorporated city/town. Just because the speed limit is 55 does not mean its safe to be going that fast.
Its also mountainous here, the result is there are many blind corners and crests you can't see over. Sometimes the roads are camel back profile and you can a ways down the road at the peak of one hill, and that there are no opportunities of other vehicles/cattle/tractors/etc to enter the road way across the next two hills or something so you can stay at speed even when you can't momentarily see far up the road. If that isn't the case though you just have to slow to speed that you could safely stop in a few tens of feet should you discover that is required.
People who are not from around here don't understand. You get tailgated by some yahoo that is just passing thru and does not know how to drive thinking he is going to cut a bunch of interstate miles and save all kinds of time zipping across the county assuming its going be 55mph the whole way. I am a lead foot there are frequently places I do 70 if its all clear but the blind spots I do 35.
Whats worse is when you don't get tailgated and that yahoo does clip about doing 60+ where he ought not be, the result is often an unfortunite collision with a pedestrian, cyclist, farm animal, farm implement, deer, etc.
Yes because there are many many situations where the only mutually supported cipher between two end points is RC4 be it used for SSL/TLS or any other protocol. RC4 is also much faster when you are working with something that does not have hardware accelerated crypto. It does not matter much if we are talking some big SSL offload device but can matter a great deal when its some tiny MIPS or ARM chip in your industrial controller.
Studying the possible attacks on RC4 make sense because there are lots of people who may be faced with a decision requiring large investments of time and money replacing hardware or software that is otherwise still meeting their needs. You need to have some understanding of just how risky RC4 might be to make that decision. Its easy in a security role to just say "RC4 == bad must fix", but that isn't providing great service. Understanding the value of what you are protecting and the potential consequences if the encryption is broken are critical the next part is understanding how easy it is to break.
If a successful attack requires 10's of thousands of known plain texts that you can't imagine the likely attackers have any way of getting, and will take months of key space searching with 100's of GPUs and special purpose build software, vs some guy with a couple Radeons and a stock copy of Kali can do it in hour with handfull of plain texts it might change the decision.
I would argue that "sequestration" has been one of the greatest political success going back to at least 2010 when the GOP and President dug in their heals over the AFCA.
The GOP wanted spending cuts. Could not even agree internally what to cut. The President/DNC wanted an appropriations bill that did not slaughter any of their sacred cows. Both sides got what they wanted. We don't have the political will cut ANYTHING. We don't have resources to keep going as we are.
While top down cross the board cuts might not be the optimal solution, they do recover the dollars and at least within agencies allow people closer to the ground to decide which activities are less important and less effective to divert resources from. Its worked, non of the chicken little the sky is falling outcomes that people opposed to sequestration have happened. We got a small but significant improvement in the deficit outlook.
That's my point though. Given current trends they are not going to get paid for the story anyone. A tiny number of people subscribe to traditional media and they they blog about it and that is what everyone else reads. The people who still subscribe to traditional media are either old, or really want the greater depth or research and professional analysis, you don't get elsewhere.
Just the headlines are no longer worth much. Being first isn't really as important as it use to be either. Being first used to mean you were literally the only source for that headline for hours. If you broke a story in the morning paper, the other news agencies could not even respond until the evening paper, evening news cast etc.
Now days you get the information regurgitated on blog 10min later or less.
All the freaking time when some kisses the wrong girls or grabs an ass they should not have.
I doubt it. I bet many of them specifically target other blacks, with full knowledge that a legacy of racism means authorities are much less likely to look into the matter fully and they stand a better chance of getting away with it. Most criminals are dumb but not completely. They burgle the house in the shitty neighborhood because they know odds are their isn't a patrol car as near by if someone calls the cops as their would likely be in a more affluent neighborhood, even in the spoils of a successful job won't be as great.
There should be no such thing as a hate crime. The concept has no place in a just society. All victims should matter equally. Why you were victimized should not be a factor. If someone is murdered/raped/robbed etc society should put equal effort into securing justice no matter who the victim is. When it comes to punishing or rehabilitating the perpetrator those are serious crime the commission of which means at a very fundamental level the prep is deranged and needs to be handled accordingly no matter what their 'reasons'. If they formed intent to do those types of harms why isn't important.
When people cry about a like of diversity 90% of the time what they mean is there are not enough other people LIKE me to be comfortable. They don't want diversity, they want to be less of a minority. Suppose you have a majority Orange city council. A Green person on the council wants to create a new at large position to "increase diversity" Now do suppose if the position is created and a Purple is elected they will be happy or did they really want another Green but just won't admit it.
I having trouble feeling sorry for the journalists. Yes the scoop is important but we are not selling papers by having young boys shout "EXTRA" from the street corners anymore. Any novel facts uncovered will be repeated by 100s of blogers the moment the story drops anyway. A huge portion of the would have been in the old days readership/viewership will get that news from there anyway. So whats the big deal if the facts usually accompanied by with more chaff than most folks are willing to sort thru drop one more place?
Where journalism is useful is analysis. They still have a leg up there. If you have been working a story you for which you had to file those requests than other facts and sources must have lead you there. You already have a bigger picture view than anyone else. You know what material you are looking for in those documents. The rest of us just have a 1000 pages of US Forestry Service reports and questions, for example.
I don't by a paper to learn the "CIA has over 300 black sites" I buy a paper because I expect an article that will tell me not only are there 300 black sites, but what a black site is, how they are used, some reasons I should be concerned about that and may be reasons I should not be, what the broader implications for international law enforcement and political relationships are, etc. If my interested ended with a few odd facts the only news I would need are Slashdot summaries anyway.
On the flip side this will be a nice resource to have that will make linking to original source materials be they to support a news story, scholarly paper, Internet rant, or whatever much easier. That will be a good thing, but it will mean for the issues your really do care about you'll have direct access to the evidence itself to for your own judgments. I think this could be very valuable.
Why is it acceptable for the your local news paper or TV news program to profit? You don't think reports on crimes are a good portion of what sell news papers and draws viewers to programs that sell ad time? "If it bleeds it leads" they at least used to say in the industry. On some level we have to allow the news agencies to be economically viable or we won't have them. We still need these organizations and the investigative reporting the provide to have a functioning democracy. Internet bloggers alone don't provide a full substitute for people on the ground discovering new facts and bringing them to light. Now this might be evolving now that every phone practically has a good quality camera, and we have outlets like wikileaks where people can put information they are not supposed to know the capabilities of citizen journalism are expanding.
They we get into your implied question about what are " legitimately secret" secrets. When it comes to government secrets democracy has challenges. How can I know my representatives are not just keeping secrets to serve their interests rather than ones that I would agree need to be kept. Unless at least from time to time there are leaks and I get a true inkling of the sort of secrets they have. People seem to forget that the US government has long hist of keeping secrets to hide its miss deeds and crimes. Many young people today are surprised learn that Nixon actually created most of our modern programs of declassification that have given the public access it never had before. Of course his motives were out of a self serving desire to expose the actions of political rivals, but that proves the point; secrets keep those in power where they are deservedly or otherwise. Given all the abuses by the US that have come to light how would you guess more oppressive regimes behave?
Next, at least traditionally something was deemed to be a crime because it had some harmful real or perceived impact on society. Everyone seems to be essentially agreed that these acts of digital trespass, privacy violations, etc are harmful why should we discard any possible benefit form them by not allowing journalists to publish and use the information? The harms is already done; except when it isnt. That is what brings us to News Corp. Where News Corp crossed the line is their relationship to the crimes became causal. They were not publishing things they learned after some non-associated hacker for whatever their own reasons might have been broke into peoples voice mails and dumped the data someplace. They were effectively paying people to do it. They were inducing the crimes.
One of the problems the software world faces is when is something 'done'.
Suppose and application was carefully designed and written 5 years ago and was free of problems like buffer overflows, logic errors, bad assumptions about input domain, bad assumptions about scale. If these things were true 5 years ago why would they be less true today? The questions than becomes does this application still meet the need today?
Software isn't like a house or machine. It does not require maintenance unless a problem is discovered or a need changes, than you remodel. Software does not weather, nor does it have wearing surfaces.
I saw tcpd on the list. How much attention should that get? I mean I used tcpd for the same things I have used tcpd for more than a decade. I don't really have any new uses for it. It supports ipv6. I am not sure what changes are need. Why should anyone spend time migrating it to git hub? What would that accomplish?
I read one theory is that its not the pesticides that are killing them but modern farming in general. As more and more land is put under cultivation and farms industrialize and specialize you get more farm fields and less forest/wet lands/other. Additionally industrialization of agriculture is trading small farms that may have multiple crops on tens of acres each for farms that have a single crop on 100s of acres.
The impact is that rather than having a variety of plants blooming at all different times a large area might have only one or only a few kind of plants the bloom at a specific time. The effect is the bees are left with nothing to eat the rest of the time.
You joke but parts of Asia are already doing that; well with Asians anyway.
The issue as I see it are the economics of the network seem to be 180 degrees out of phase with their billing. There is so much spectrum available and so much time slice available on channel in a cell. Its a limited resource. I don't know how the cell towers are connected, you would hope its hub and spoke each tower having its own backhaul to some well connected POP, but maybe not perhaps some of the last mile towers are daisy chained.
In any case the voice requires consistent latency and fixed bandwidth. Data can be delivered best effort, with further QOS to provide fairness if you like, in terms of if the cell is congested the lower aggregate users get some favorable treatment on the network if you like.
Yet every carrier pretty much offers affordable unlimited voice, and charges for data. Its voice that forces them to upgrade the network because it has minimum performance requirements. Data can just get slower and slower the more congested things are. There is no reason to have unused airtime in a given cell. The sensible thing to I think would be discourage calls, by going back to metering them and let people have all the data they can eat. Again with the QOS rules in place to make sure normal customers get decent performance and are not choked out by handful of super heavy users.