Sure. A higher temperature has nothing to do with the chance on wildfires. Everyone knows that! Oh, yes. I forgot. You don't 'believe' that average temperature has risen by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit...
Compared to:
- Something like an order-of-magnitude increase in fuel load, due primarily to environmentalist driven legal action.
- Injunctions against cutting fire lines or re-clearing existing ones.
- Substantial delays in reporting the start of wildfires, due to similar activity - closing roads, limiting access, stopping logging. (Hint: Loggers are one of the main sources of reports of wildfire starts in remote places. They may be the only people working outdoors in a particular valley, and they have a lot of incentive to avoid becoming trapped in a forest fire, or lose both their livelihood's raw material and their tools.)
- Substantial interference with access for firefighting equipment and personnel - again by such things as road closures and road maintenance interference. You can't build much of a fire engine on a Jeep or other 4x4 chassis, and when that's all you can GET to the fire line you have a problem establishing containment before things get out of hand.
There are thousands of wildfires every year. In the absence of human activity they get started by lightning. The issue isn't the chance they get started. It's how they spread and what it takes to put them out. The change in that is well documented, and it's all a matter of how the management of forests and fires has changed, mainly thanks to environmental legislation, regulation, and environmentalist-driven legal activity. A couple degrees change in the global average temperature, even if it exists, is buried in weather-noise compared to these interventions.
But how convenient: First turn the continents' forests and planes into tinderboxes. Then, when they burn up (destroying more homes and killing more firefighters), deflect the blame from your own groups' activities onto "global warming", and use it for MORE interventions against your political opposition.
Government has been said to be a disease masquerading as its own cure. It seems to me that, with this pronouncement, the environmental movement had graduated to the same status.
Why does being rich and famous...make so many people lose their grip on reality?
Because (like beauty), having money, power, and/or fame distorts the feedback they get from other people about their ideas. When they say something oddball, they may receive encouragement, rather than discouragement, from people who want them to be attracted and friendly to them, in the hopes of receiving benefits (such as money, beneficial exercise of power, or physical intimacy). Reward their wrong and/or wierd opinions and you can expect them to become more common and more entrenched.
Then again, there's selection bias in reporting. When somebody rich and/or famous says something ordinary, sane, and obviously common sense, it's not news. When they say something odd, it is news. So most of them may have quite ordinary ideas, but the ones who espouse odd ones get the press. (And for people TRYING to increase their fame, it may be useful to come up with some oddball stuff just to get more press, and thus more free advertisement. B-) )
Who knows: Though most of their oddball opinions may no more than that, some particular uncommon opinion may happen to be part of how they BECAME rich and/or famous, and thus useful to others. This also makes their off-the-beaten-path sayings newsworthy. (All of them - because the newsie has no idea WHICH ingredient might be the base of the "secret sauce".)
3. High-temperature superconducting Helmholtz coils around the planet at about the equivalent of the Arctic and Antarctic circles should do nicely, and take a LOT less energy and resources.
It's a serious issue for settlers, though, if they ever want to do stuff on the surface. While the trip to Mars might take years, for settlers, life on Mars would take the rest of their lives (as well as the entire lives of of the bulk of their descendants.)
My fingers do vim automatically too, sometimes when I don't even want them to.:wq
Yeah.[esc]
When I bought my firsrt unix machine, back in the '70s, it had memory expansion - two whole megabytes of RAM total - but no demand-paged virtual memory. I had to use vi because emacs was too big for it to compile, let alone run
(Joke at the time was the name was an acronym for Eight Megabytes and Constantly Swapping. My now-wife was in college about then, and her prof read mail in emacs - on his highly-privileged account which would let emacs have as much of the swap disk as it wanted. That would bring the time-shared machine to its knees and keep his class from getting their homework done.)
For a couple years I was one of the sysops and a heavy poster on the first site to use picospan - the conferencing software that The Well eventually migrated to. That drove the vi command set into my brain's automation, until it was more familiar than just typing.
Several times I tried to use emacs, thinking that if I became even moderately proficient in the editing funtions, having the kitchen-sink feature set available would be a net gain. But every time I tried I'd find it would take three times as many keystrokes to do some useful stuff I did a LOT.
I even thought to try a vi emulation mode as a way to ease in. Oops: It had TWO of them - with different shortfalls. WIth one I might have persevered, learning the deltas and their workarounds (which might have been an incentive to migrate to the native command set). But with two, both broken in different ways, there was no clear correct path.
Then came vim, with more capability (including language decoration contexts) and only minor deltas. That works for me. I have unix/linux tools/utilities and scripting languages to do as much of the other stuff that emacs provides its users as I'd be likely to use anyhow.
So I'm a confirmed vithian. Nothing against emacsians: Whatever works for you works for you. vi/vim works for me.
With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.
Looks to me like, though Global Warming / Climate Change disaster theory has not done a very good job at predicting weather problems, this editorial cartoon was dead-on at predictimg your posting.
That's absurd. That only works if you have a long-range crystal ball.
Of COURSE it's absurd. Of COURSE it doesn't make any sense. Of COURSE you need a crystal ball to figure out what the courts will decide. Of COURSE you have no way to make good business or other behavioral decisions with any certainty that the courts will back you up.
So what? It's the LAW. It doesn't HAVE to make sense. It doesn't HAVE give you a usable guide for your decisions, or any way a reasonable person can possibly figure out how to avoid breaking the law or incurring liability.
It just TRIES to be reasonably internally consistent - after the courts iron out the places where it is self contradictory.
I wonder if it will be available in Silicon Valley any time before the twenty-SECOND century.
You'd think they'd string Silicon Valley early. But historically they seem to leave it for last.
Maybe it's left over bad blood from the "bellheads vs. netheads" feud that led to the growth, and eventual takeover of networking, by packet-switched networks culminating in the Internet.
At each crossing, and at structurally sensitive points on bridges and tunnels, advanced cameras and sensors will be installed to... test emerging facial recognition software and equipment.
That sounds like a great way to encourage jaywalking.
But the law isn't "unconstitutional", right up until the day the Supreme Court says it is. Until that day, it's a fully fledged law with all the force of every other law.
No. That's the whole POINT of the supreme court judgement I referenced.
The law is void from the day it was passed.
You don't have the court's DECLARATION that is was always void until the court gets around to it (if it ever does - like when you successfully fight it "all the way up to the Supreme Court" AND win there). But it's void, always was, and if the courts agree with you any penalties and such from the period between the passage and the declaration go "poof". (You may even be entitled to some compensation, though you're usually out your costs and suffering.)
Sure the police and prosecutors will try to enforce the non-law before it's DECLARED void. And this is at least as much hassle as if it WAS valid - maybe even more. But they will sometimes also try to enforce laws and rules AFTER they're declared void, or make up laws or interpretations of them as they go along, without any legislature or rulemaking body actually promulgating what they claim to be enforcing. Settling such issues is what's courts are FOR.
Sure it's tough to figure out which alleged laws are real and which are void. Especially for us ordinary folk, when often nearly half the defined-to-be-experts on the Supreme Court may have the "wrong" opinion when they get around to having one. But that's the law for you. B-b
Your first reference quotes Joe Scarborough making the claim, without substantiation, in the course of interviewing former CIA Director Michael Hayden (who is NOT the source). That takes the libel (and maybe the felony) out of your mouth and puts both into his.
The second, and as many of its links as I've followed (I don't promise to have followed them ALL, but I tried to follow each that seemed appropriate), doesn't mention the "asked three times in his first security briefing" claim. They try to spin the remarks he DID make into "he's clueless and will drop the bomb". But the actual quotes just seem to show that he's a competent high-level negotiator who understands the "Mutual Assured Destruction" doctrine of the cold war.
In case you're not familiar with it, it's a variant on the game of "chicken". It's built on making potential attackers believe that, if they attack us (or our allies) with nukes (or other suitable "weapons of mass destruction" such as biological or chemical weapons), we might just nuke them into slag regardless of any "fallout" - literal or otherwise - to ourselves or the rest of life on earth.
The trick to "The MAD Doctrine" is that the leaders of the maybe-retaliating power have to LOOK just crazy enough that they MIGHT do it, or the threat doesn't work.
Republican Party political figures have tended to play that game well, achieving success in international relations, though it costs them dearly in elections. Democratic figures tend to play it poorly, going for the election win and screwing up the credible threat and international relations. Then they get pushed progressively farther until they eventually strike out, but with "measured" and "proportionate response", which gets us into ever-escalating wars (and gives the opponents no opportunity to capitulate). This is part of why Democrats have historically started wars and Republican ended them.
Little as I like Republican Party politicians, this is a subject where they have (at least pre-Neocon) had a lot more on the ball than their major competition.
As I understand it, what he did was sponsor legislation to open the Internet / ARPANet, to general use, including commercial use, removing the limitations on who could connect and what they could say. Prior to that the connections and traffic had to have some connection to education, the military, or dealings with them.
So on one hand he helped give the general Internet a great boost, enabling it to become the public utility we know, love, and use.
But on the other hand he effectively legalized Spam, because going from very limited business uses to any business use is OK took away the main tool for suppressing unsolicited commercial email and network newsgroup postings.
If they were a law-abiding company, they would DENY requests for warrantless wiretaps.
Indeed. Because, if the law or regulation under which they are demanded is unconstitutional, it was unconstitutional from the moment it was passed. It "never existed":
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. - U.S. Supreme Court: Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
If the law is unconstitutional, not only does Yahoo not have any legal requirement to grant the access, but the non-existent legal framework doesn't protect them from any action against them by people who were harmed, or against prosecution for the violation of any laws they broke in the process of "obeying" the non-law.
You mean the Trump that asked, in his first national security briefing, three times why we couldn't use the nuclear bomb?
And how do you know what he supposedly said, in order to make the claim? Aren't such security briefings CLASSIFIED? That would make your claim, if true, a felony.
Please don't try to hide behind "I was only joking." There was nothing in your posting to indicate that it was satirical, rather than straight-up libel. Some readers might very well think your claim was true (and a reference to some reasonably reliable news coverage they hadn't seen) and change their votes accordingly.
The selection of the next POTUS by the US voters is an very important thing - not just for us, but for the whole world. Polluting the discussion with extra lies is not good for the future of humanity.
[maybe it's] Fewer [bogus] complaints because they know they would be [detected to be] in the wrong....
Or MUCH more likely, the police behaved themselves better because they were being watched [and knew the cameras were there even if the people they interacted with did not].
I don't really care how much of it is formerly bad-behaving policemen avoiding the harassment of civilians and how much is bad-behaving civilians avoiding the filing fake harassment reports to inconvenience and deflect the attention of properly-behaving officers. BOTH are improvements.
And a 93% improvement of the aggregate is FANTASTIC!
It's not open source if it doesn't come with the complete source that someone else can "compile" into hardware. It's not open source if it comes with a "look but don't touch" license.
Huh?
I thought that was the distinction between "open source" and "free foo":
"open source" software MIGHT come with a license that ALSO makes it "free software", but "free software" includes an explicit license to use and modify (with the only restrictions being some variant on requiring derivative works to also be open - which may include not enforcing patents against license-conforming users ) while "open source" may only guarantee you can read and pass on the design, not that you can modify it, run it, "practice the invention" or whatever.
Of course open source software is USUALLY also free software, or close to it, depending on the license.
Has the language drifted? Did I misunderstand from the beginning? Or is the second part of your assertion mistaken?
IMHO the Cuban Embargo was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Federal Government.
Think about it: Telling US citizens that they can't go to some place the government doesn't like because they're forbidden to spend US currency there (or spend other "hard" currency they bought with US currency), and going there requires spending money? Shades of the Iron Curtain and Catch-22. (If the US government wants to forbid such a thing and have even a chance of finding a Constitutional authorization, they need to DECLARE WAR against Cuba - and then actively fight it.)
If a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't exist, and hasn't from the moment of its passage. Why should The Donald obey a non-law?
But even if you don't believe the law is unconstitutional: The hypocrisy of anti-trump forces zinging him for dealing with Castro just floors me. These are the people who have made - and still make - heroes and heroines of Castro, Che Guevara, Bill Ayers, Angela Davis, and "Hanoi Jane'" Fonda, and a virtue of "Civil Disobedience" to laws they don't think are right, politically correct, or convenient. Do they REALLY think Trump's supporters would be swayed by this argument from THEM? B-)
The solution is pretty simple, but often skipped: 1) The reason for every search should be required and logged by the searcher.... 2) The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched.
But to check it the auditors need detailed access to the records. So who audits THEM?
This kind of question has been asked repeatedly since at least the Roman Empire.
(The U.S. answer to "Who guards the guardians?" , at least for direct abuse of person under color of law, is the Fourth and Fifth amendments and the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine: Fail to follow the law and you don't get a conviction, because misbehaving police are FAR more of a problem for the population than even a lot of violent private-enterprise crooks going back to work. But while it does reduce the incentive, it doesn't block the behavior.)
Not one organization I have ever worked for has seriously cared about IT security.
When it comes to rolling out new products, ignoring security is the norm.
This is because the "window of opportunity" is only "open" for a short time - until the first, second, and maybe third movers go through it and grab most of the potential customers. Companies that spent the time to get the security right arrive at the window after it closes.
This happens anywhere the customers don't test for and reject non-secure versions of the "new shiny" - which means enterprises sometimes hold suppliers' feet to the fire (if the new thing doesn't give them an advantage commensurate with, or perceived as outweighing, the risk) but consumer stuff goes out wide open.
Then, if you're lucky and the supplier is clueful, they retrofit SOME security before the bad guys exploit enough holes to kill them.
I expect this will continue until several big-name tech companies get an effective corporate death penalty in response to the damages their customer base took from their security failings. Then the financial types will start including having a good, and improving with time, security story (no doubt called "best practices") among their check boxes for funding.
And the reason you cannot do this with radio is that the noise from the transmitter is greater than the received signal.
Actually you CAN manage it with radio - very difficultly, with very careful antenna design.
But the combined antenna has to be far from anything that reflects, absorbs, or just phase-shifts any substantial amount of the transmitted signal energy. If not, the discontinuity destroys the careful balance that nulls out the transmitted signal at the receiver. That gets you back to the "transmitter shouts in the receiver's ear much louder than the distant communications partner" case. So it's not very practical in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. A higher temperature has nothing to do with the chance on wildfires. Everyone knows that!
Oh, yes. I forgot. You don't 'believe' that average temperature has risen by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit...
Compared to:
- Something like an order-of-magnitude increase in fuel load, due primarily to environmentalist driven legal action.
- Injunctions against cutting fire lines or re-clearing existing ones.
- Substantial delays in reporting the start of wildfires, due to similar activity - closing roads, limiting access, stopping logging. (Hint: Loggers are one of the main sources of reports of wildfire starts in remote places. They may be the only people working outdoors in a particular valley, and they have a lot of incentive to avoid becoming trapped in a forest fire, or lose both their livelihood's raw material and their tools.)
- Substantial interference with access for firefighting equipment and personnel - again by such things as road closures and road maintenance interference. You can't build much of a fire engine on a Jeep or other 4x4 chassis, and when that's all you can GET to the fire line you have a problem establishing containment before things get out of hand.
There are thousands of wildfires every year. In the absence of human activity they get started by lightning. The issue isn't the chance they get started. It's how they spread and what it takes to put them out. The change in that is well documented, and it's all a matter of how the management of forests and fires has changed, mainly thanks to environmental legislation, regulation, and environmentalist-driven legal activity. A couple degrees change in the global average temperature, even if it exists, is buried in weather-noise compared to these interventions.
But how convenient: First turn the continents' forests and planes into tinderboxes. Then, when they burn up (destroying more homes and killing more firefighters), deflect the blame from your own groups' activities onto "global warming", and use it for MORE interventions against your political opposition.
Government has been said to be a disease masquerading as its own cure. It seems to me that, with this pronouncement, the environmental movement had graduated to the same status.
Why does being rich and famous...make so many people lose their grip on reality?
Because (like beauty), having money, power, and/or fame distorts the feedback they get from other people about their ideas. When they say something oddball, they may receive encouragement, rather than discouragement, from people who want them to be attracted and friendly to them, in the hopes of receiving benefits (such as money, beneficial exercise of power, or physical intimacy). Reward their wrong and/or wierd opinions and you can expect them to become more common and more entrenched.
Then again, there's selection bias in reporting. When somebody rich and/or famous says something ordinary, sane, and obviously common sense, it's not news. When they say something odd, it is news. So most of them may have quite ordinary ideas, but the ones who espouse odd ones get the press. (And for people TRYING to increase their fame, it may be useful to come up with some oddball stuff just to get more press, and thus more free advertisement. B-) )
Who knows: Though most of their oddball opinions may no more than that, some particular uncommon opinion may happen to be part of how they BECAME rich and/or famous, and thus useful to others. This also makes their off-the-beaten-path sayings newsworthy. (All of them - because the newsie has no idea WHICH ingredient might be the base of the "secret sauce".)
3. High-temperature superconducting Helmholtz coils around the planet at about the equivalent of the Arctic and Antarctic circles should do nicely, and take a LOT less energy and resources.
Live underground, perhaps?The
Also, the atmosphere provides SOME help.
It's a serious issue for settlers, though, if they ever want to do stuff on the surface. While the trip to Mars might take years, for settlers, life on Mars would take the rest of their lives (as well as the entire lives of of the bulk of their descendants.)
First, every politician does have a public and private position on issues.
I guess that means Ron Paul wasn't a politician.
My fingers do vim automatically too, sometimes when I don't even want them to. :wq
Yeah.[esc]
When I bought my firsrt unix machine, back in the '70s, it had memory expansion - two whole megabytes of RAM total - but no demand-paged virtual memory. I had to use vi because emacs was too big for it to compile, let alone run
(Joke at the time was the name was an acronym for Eight Megabytes and Constantly Swapping. My now-wife was in college about then, and her prof read mail in emacs - on his highly-privileged account which would let emacs have as much of the swap disk as it wanted. That would bring the time-shared machine to its knees and keep his class from getting their homework done.)
For a couple years I was one of the sysops and a heavy poster on the first site to use picospan - the conferencing software that The Well eventually migrated to. That drove the vi command set into my brain's automation, until it was more familiar than just typing.
Several times I tried to use emacs, thinking that if I became even moderately proficient in the editing funtions, having the kitchen-sink feature set available would be a net gain. But every time I tried I'd find it would take three times as many keystrokes to do some useful stuff I did a LOT.
I even thought to try a vi emulation mode as a way to ease in. Oops: It had TWO of them - with different shortfalls. WIth one I might have persevered, learning the deltas and their workarounds (which might have been an incentive to migrate to the native command set). But with two, both broken in different ways, there was no clear correct path.
Then came vim, with more capability (including language decoration contexts) and only minor deltas. That works for me. I have unix/linux tools/utilities and scripting languages to do as much of the other stuff that emacs provides its users as I'd be likely to use anyhow.
So I'm a confirmed vithian. Nothing against emacsians: Whatever works for you works for you. vi/vim works for me.
With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.
Looks to me like, though Global Warming / Climate Change disaster theory has not done a very good job at predicting weather problems, this editorial cartoon was dead-on at predictimg your posting.
That's absurd. That only works if you have a long-range crystal ball.
Of COURSE it's absurd. Of COURSE it doesn't make any sense. Of COURSE you need a crystal ball to figure out what the courts will decide. Of COURSE you have no way to make good business or other behavioral decisions with any certainty that the courts will back you up.
So what? It's the LAW. It doesn't HAVE to make sense. It doesn't HAVE give you a usable guide for your decisions, or any way a reasonable person can possibly figure out how to avoid breaking the law or incurring liability.
It just TRIES to be reasonably internally consistent - after the courts iron out the places where it is self contradictory.
I wonder if it will be available in Silicon Valley any time before the twenty-SECOND century.
You'd think they'd string Silicon Valley early. But historically they seem to leave it for last.
Maybe it's left over bad blood from the "bellheads vs. netheads" feud that led to the growth, and eventual takeover of networking, by packet-switched networks culminating in the Internet.
At each crossing, and at structurally sensitive points on bridges and tunnels, advanced cameras and sensors will be installed to ... test emerging facial recognition software and equipment.
That sounds like a great way to encourage jaywalking.
But the law isn't "unconstitutional", right up until the day the Supreme Court says it is. Until that day, it's a fully fledged law with all the force of every other law.
No. That's the whole POINT of the supreme court judgement I referenced.
The law is void from the day it was passed.
You don't have the court's DECLARATION that is was always void until the court gets around to it (if it ever does - like when you successfully fight it "all the way up to the Supreme Court" AND win there). But it's void, always was, and if the courts agree with you any penalties and such from the period between the passage and the declaration go "poof". (You may even be entitled to some compensation, though you're usually out your costs and suffering.)
Sure the police and prosecutors will try to enforce the non-law before it's DECLARED void. And this is at least as much hassle as if it WAS valid - maybe even more. But they will sometimes also try to enforce laws and rules AFTER they're declared void, or make up laws or interpretations of them as they go along, without any legislature or rulemaking body actually promulgating what they claim to be enforcing. Settling such issues is what's courts are FOR.
Sure it's tough to figure out which alleged laws are real and which are void. Especially for us ordinary folk, when often nearly half the defined-to-be-experts on the Supreme Court may have the "wrong" opinion when they get around to having one. But that's the law for you. B-b
No joke. Choose your source. It happened.
Your first reference quotes Joe Scarborough making the claim, without substantiation, in the course of interviewing former CIA Director Michael Hayden (who is NOT the source). That takes the libel (and maybe the felony) out of your mouth and puts both into his.
The second, and as many of its links as I've followed (I don't promise to have followed them ALL, but I tried to follow each that seemed appropriate), doesn't mention the "asked three times in his first security briefing" claim. They try to spin the remarks he DID make into "he's clueless and will drop the bomb". But the actual quotes just seem to show that he's a competent high-level negotiator who understands the "Mutual Assured Destruction" doctrine of the cold war.
In case you're not familiar with it, it's a variant on the game of "chicken". It's built on making potential attackers believe that, if they attack us (or our allies) with nukes (or other suitable "weapons of mass destruction" such as biological or chemical weapons), we might just nuke them into slag regardless of any "fallout" - literal or otherwise - to ourselves or the rest of life on earth.
The trick to "The MAD Doctrine" is that the leaders of the maybe-retaliating power have to LOOK just crazy enough that they MIGHT do it, or the threat doesn't work.
Republican Party political figures have tended to play that game well, achieving success in international relations, though it costs them dearly in elections. Democratic figures tend to play it poorly, going for the election win and screwing up the credible threat and international relations. Then they get pushed progressively farther until they eventually strike out, but with "measured" and "proportionate response", which gets us into ever-escalating wars (and gives the opponents no opportunity to capitulate). This is part of why Democrats have historically started wars and Republican ended them.
Little as I like Republican Party politicians, this is a subject where they have (at least pre-Neocon) had a lot more on the ball than their major competition.
So in other words, Al Gore funded the internet.
As I understand it, what he did was sponsor legislation to open the Internet / ARPANet, to general use, including commercial use, removing the limitations on who could connect and what they could say. Prior to that the connections and traffic had to have some connection to education, the military, or dealings with them.
So on one hand he helped give the general Internet a great boost, enabling it to become the public utility we know, love, and use.
But on the other hand he effectively legalized Spam, because going from very limited business uses to any business use is OK took away the main tool for suppressing unsolicited commercial email and network newsgroup postings.
If they were a law-abiding company, they would DENY requests for warrantless wiretaps.
Indeed. Because, if the law or regulation under which they are demanded is unconstitutional, it was unconstitutional from the moment it was passed. It "never existed":
If the law is unconstitutional, not only does Yahoo not have any legal requirement to grant the access, but the non-existent legal framework doesn't protect them from any action against them by people who were harmed, or against prosecution for the violation of any laws they broke in the process of "obeying" the non-law.
You mean the Trump that asked, in his first national security briefing, three times why we couldn't use the nuclear bomb?
And how do you know what he supposedly said, in order to make the claim? Aren't such security briefings CLASSIFIED? That would make your claim, if true, a felony.
Please don't try to hide behind "I was only joking." There was nothing in your posting to indicate that it was satirical, rather than straight-up libel. Some readers might very well think your claim was true (and a reference to some reasonably reliable news coverage they hadn't seen) and change their votes accordingly.
The selection of the next POTUS by the US voters is an very important thing - not just for us, but for the whole world. Polluting the discussion with extra lies is not good for the future of humanity.
[maybe it's] Fewer [bogus] complaints because they know they would be [detected to be] in the wrong....
Or MUCH more likely, the police behaved themselves better because they were being watched [and knew the cameras were there even if the people they interacted with did not].
I don't really care how much of it is formerly bad-behaving policemen avoiding the harassment of civilians and how much is bad-behaving civilians avoiding the filing fake harassment reports to inconvenience and deflect the attention of properly-behaving officers. BOTH are improvements.
And a 93% improvement of the aggregate is FANTASTIC!
You are wrong. The OSI definition of open source software is basically the same as the free software definition:...
Thank you.
It's not open source if it doesn't come with the complete source that someone else can "compile" into hardware. It's not open source if it comes with a "look but don't touch" license.
Huh?
I thought that was the distinction between "open source" and "free foo":
"open source" software MIGHT come with a license that ALSO makes it "free software", but "free software" includes an explicit license to use and modify (with the only restrictions being some variant on requiring derivative works to also be open - which may include not enforcing patents against license-conforming users ) while "open source" may only guarantee you can read and pass on the design, not that you can modify it, run it, "practice the invention" or whatever.
Of course open source software is USUALLY also free software, or close to it, depending on the license.
Has the language drifted? Did I misunderstand from the beginning? Or is the second part of your assertion mistaken?
I tried to "Check out [your] sci-fi trilogy at PatriotsBooks.com [patriotsbooks.com]." Got "server not found".
You might want to take a look at whether one of your income sources is also affected.
What we take issue with are hypocrites who secretly break laws they actively promote and expect others to follow.
Political crooks like that will promise, pass, and campaign for the thing, while doing it on an industrial level in the down-low.
Less competition means more for them, and they're okay with using big government to put you little guys away for the same shit they do.
You mean like Joe Kennedy, right?
IMHO the Cuban Embargo was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Federal Government.
Think about it: Telling US citizens that they can't go to some place the government doesn't like because they're forbidden to spend US currency there (or spend other "hard" currency they bought with US currency), and going there requires spending money? Shades of the Iron Curtain and Catch-22. (If the US government wants to forbid such a thing and have even a chance of finding a Constitutional authorization, they need to DECLARE WAR against Cuba - and then actively fight it.)
If a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't exist, and hasn't from the moment of its passage. Why should The Donald obey a non-law?
But even if you don't believe the law is unconstitutional: The hypocrisy of anti-trump forces zinging him for dealing with Castro just floors me. These are the people who have made - and still make - heroes and heroines of Castro, Che Guevara, Bill Ayers, Angela Davis, and "Hanoi Jane'" Fonda, and a virtue of "Civil Disobedience" to laws they don't think are right, politically correct, or convenient. Do they REALLY think Trump's supporters would be swayed by this argument from THEM? B-)
The solution is pretty simple, but often skipped: ...
1) The reason for every search should be required and logged by the searcher.
2) The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched.
But to check it the auditors need detailed access to the records. So who audits THEM?
This kind of question has been asked repeatedly since at least the Roman Empire.
(The U.S. answer to "Who guards the guardians?" , at least for direct abuse of person under color of law, is the Fourth and Fifth amendments and the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine: Fail to follow the law and you don't get a conviction, because misbehaving police are FAR more of a problem for the population than even a lot of violent private-enterprise crooks going back to work. But while it does reduce the incentive, it doesn't block the behavior.)
Not one organization I have ever worked for has seriously cared about IT security.
When it comes to rolling out new products, ignoring security is the norm.
This is because the "window of opportunity" is only "open" for a short time - until the first, second, and maybe third movers go through it and grab most of the potential customers. Companies that spent the time to get the security right arrive at the window after it closes.
This happens anywhere the customers don't test for and reject non-secure versions of the "new shiny" - which means enterprises sometimes hold suppliers' feet to the fire (if the new thing doesn't give them an advantage commensurate with, or perceived as outweighing, the risk) but consumer stuff goes out wide open.
Then, if you're lucky and the supplier is clueful, they retrofit SOME security before the bad guys exploit enough holes to kill them.
I expect this will continue until several big-name tech companies get an effective corporate death penalty in response to the damages their customer base took from their security failings. Then the financial types will start including having a good, and improving with time, security story (no doubt called "best practices") among their check boxes for funding.
In England they call this "penny wise, pound foolish".
That one's old enough that it made it into American English (where it is still in use despite more than two centuries on a non penny-pound currency.)
And the reason you cannot do this with radio is that the noise from the transmitter is greater than the received signal.
Actually you CAN manage it with radio - very difficultly, with very careful antenna design.
But the combined antenna has to be far from anything that reflects, absorbs, or just phase-shifts any substantial amount of the transmitted signal energy. If not, the discontinuity destroys the careful balance that nulls out the transmitted signal at the receiver. That gets you back to the "transmitter shouts in the receiver's ear much louder than the distant communications partner" case. So it's not very practical in the real world.