Just because the Supreme Court says so, doesn't mean we have to accept it. I mean, as a practical matter we do, because we're afraid of law enforcement. But when the Supreme Court reaches an opinion that's at odds with most civically minded Americans, there's a real question about whether or not the government has the consent of the governed.
How about this: Your passphrase is only known to someone outside the jurisdiction of the court in question. Before you commit any criminal act, you instruct that person to never unlock the device for you if you appear to be under durress.
Right now an effective anti mortar and rocket system could be saving a LOT of lives in Misurata and the other cities Ghadafi has been sieging. Heck if we could effectively stop his offense it would even save lives on his side as we wouldn't have a reason to bomb his armor columns.
I don't doubt that. But I'm just guessing that if that $7M+ could have been spent on malaria research, cancer research, water purification systems, etc., there could have been more lives saved. If Libya was at peace, that is, which goes back to my main point.
I think that's overly simplistic. The U.S. does lots of jerky things. But I think there's no shortage of non-U.S. jerks who would take over any land that they felt they could successfully conquer. ( China/Tibet and Russia/Georgia are two recent examples. )
Don't get me wrong, I'm not Pollyanna. I believe we need the ability to defend ourselves against the world's jerks. It's just... sometimes I really wished we could work more towards helping each other than hurting each other. It kind of wears on you after a while.
Seems like in the old days they wouldn't have allowed a usability issue like this to last for so long.
I'd say it seems like/. has lost its mojo, but given the lack of people publicly complaining about this, I still wonder if it's only biting a few of us.
I'm sorry that this is off-topic, but I can't find any other forum to ask this.
Starting a month or two ago, Slashdot is showing me very few postings when I read the discussions. It's not the rating filter; I've tried many different settings on that. I've tried both D1 and D2 discussion systems, and that doesn't help. I just want things to be the way they used to be.
Is this a problem that many people are having, or have I done something uniquely stupid to my settings?
I wonder how easily it could be used to engineer the opposite case: a virus against which humans have no effective defenses.
Heck, just make on that takes out chickens, cows, and pigs, and humans all of a sudden have a major protein deficiency until alternatives (nuts, fish, etc.) could be ramped up, which would probably take at least 1-2 years.
Well, normally I think companies try and figure a ballpark figure that might be good for their bid. They then round it arbitrarily to "round" numbers that are near their ballpark figure. This is susceptible to the same overpaying problem in that a round number may be greater than the lowest bid the would have won.
In this case, they were just using universal constants as their round numbers.
Fair point. If you're right, then MBA's preference for bid amounts ending in lots of zeros is no more efficient than Google's preference for numbers ending in digits other than zero.
At best, they were engaged in an advertising campaign that had the potential for being extremely expensive (marketing cost = magic number that became their winning bid - lowest bid that would have won). At worst, they were being extremely foolish with shareholders' money, potentially overpaying by hundreds of millions of dollars just because they think some numbers are cool.
What I mean by political conservatism is a preference for limited scope of the federal government, an general aversion to a welfare state, and a preference for limited taxation. Also, it's underpinnings are a general distrust in the competence of central planning, and an assumption that power corrupts.
None of that entails pretending that corporations are persons, which I think is the root of this current nonsense.
When will the American populace finally tire of the country being for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations and take it for the people instead?
Perhaps when overthrowing the corporations wouldn't lead to massive, immediate shortages in food, fuel, and medicine that would kill 20% of us in the first year?
I'm all for ending corporatism, but I think anything but a gradual approach would lead to massive death (see above) or a dictatorship (see Hugo Chavez).
The main reason academic publishing is what it is is that in theory if something is published in a journal, they've gone through some sort of vetting project that says that the article is both useful and credible.
I believe that work's done by unpaid, volunteer editors.
I pretty much agree with the OP. Aside from branding, which purely volunteer organizations can establish as well, I don't see any real value to academic journal publishers.
Hey, guess how passwords work? They're hard to guess.
But when you're using HTTPS, a password is usually passed along a pre-secured channel. Aren't these URI's visible to all routers in between you and the file site, as well as any computer monitoring traffic on your local LAN?
If so, that's somewhat less secure than passwords.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because the Supreme Court says so, doesn't mean we have to accept it. I mean, as a practical matter we do, because we're afraid of law enforcement. But when the Supreme Court reaches an opinion that's at odds with most civically minded Americans, there's a real question about whether or not the government has the consent of the governed.
How about this: Your passphrase is only known to someone outside the jurisdiction of the court in question. Before you commit any criminal act, you instruct that person to never unlock the device for you if you appear to be under durress.
Right now an effective anti mortar and rocket system could be saving a LOT of lives in Misurata and the other cities Ghadafi has been sieging. Heck if we could effectively stop his offense it would even save lives on his side as we wouldn't have a reason to bomb his armor columns.
I don't doubt that. But I'm just guessing that if that $7M+ could have been spent on malaria research, cancer research, water purification systems, etc., there could have been more lives saved. If Libya was at peace, that is, which goes back to my main point.
Dude, we ARE the world's jerks.
I think that's overly simplistic. The U.S. does lots of jerky things. But I think there's no shortage of non-U.S. jerks who would take over any land that they felt they could successfully conquer. ( China/Tibet and Russia/Georgia are two recent examples. )
Now we can kill each other better...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not Pollyanna. I believe we need the ability to defend ourselves against the world's jerks. It's just... sometimes I really wished we could work more towards helping each other than hurting each other. It kind of wears on you after a while.
Seems like in the old days they wouldn't have allowed a usability issue like this to last for so long.
I'd say it seems like /. has lost its mojo, but given the lack of people publicly complaining about this, I still wonder if it's only biting a few of us.
I'm sorry that this is off-topic, but I can't find any other forum to ask this.
Starting a month or two ago, Slashdot is showing me very few postings when I read the discussions. It's not the rating filter; I've tried many different settings on that. I've tried both D1 and D2 discussion systems, and that doesn't help. I just want things to be the way they used to be.
Is this a problem that many people are having, or have I done something uniquely stupid to my settings?
I wonder how easily it could be used to engineer the opposite case: a virus against which humans have no effective defenses.
Heck, just make on that takes out chickens, cows, and pigs, and humans all of a sudden have a major protein deficiency until alternatives (nuts, fish, etc.) could be ramped up, which would probably take at least 1-2 years.
Could be. I think you also help make the case against software patents.
Well, normally I think companies try and figure a ballpark figure that might be good for their bid. They then round it arbitrarily to "round" numbers that are near their ballpark figure. This is susceptible to the same overpaying problem in that a round number may be greater than the lowest bid the would have won.
In this case, they were just using universal constants as their round numbers.
Fair point. If you're right, then MBA's preference for bid amounts ending in lots of zeros is no more efficient than Google's preference for numbers ending in digits other than zero.
At best, they were engaged in an advertising campaign that had the potential for being extremely expensive (marketing cost = magic number that became their winning bid - lowest bid that would have won). At worst, they were being extremely foolish with shareholders' money, potentially overpaying by hundreds of millions of dollars just because they think some numbers are cool.
Would it work to have the kernel default to using whatever the BIOS indicated, but also have a database of overrides based on the exact card model?
If that's his attitude, perhaps his former employees should kill him and steal his possessions. If "winning" is all that really matters, that is.
I'm actually trying to draw a distinction between the Republican party, and conservatism.
The Republicans have gone so insane that, sadly, I find myself far closer to Libertarians than Republicans.
What I mean by political conservatism is a preference for limited scope of the federal government, an general aversion to a welfare state, and a preference for limited taxation. Also, it's underpinnings are a general distrust in the competence of central planning, and an assumption that power corrupts.
None of that entails pretending that corporations are persons, which I think is the root of this current nonsense.
I'm mostly a conservative, and I don't recognize these rulings as conservative. These are corporatist, which I mostly view as a form of treason.
I think his point was that we don't know in this particular case, which I think is a fair point.
I'm sorry he died, but he wasn't wearing a seat belt. He presumably understood the risk that entailed.
This is even worse than claiming that waterboarding isn't torture. WTF? I can't believe that I donated money to this douche in 2008.
No, I'd say it's a tie.
If you fully believed that, you wouldn't have gone through the effort of making a rational argument for in your posting.
I totally agree! Some people are dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!
Put up recipes for bacon-wrapped scallops and for bacon cheese burgers. I just can't see how they could stay Muslim.
When will the American populace finally tire of the country being for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations and take it for the people instead?
Perhaps when overthrowing the corporations wouldn't lead to massive, immediate shortages in food, fuel, and medicine that would kill 20% of us in the first year?
I'm all for ending corporatism, but I think anything but a gradual approach would lead to massive death (see above) or a dictatorship (see Hugo Chavez).
The main reason academic publishing is what it is is that in theory if something is published in a journal, they've gone through some sort of vetting project that says that the article is both useful and credible.
I believe that work's done by unpaid, volunteer editors.
I pretty much agree with the OP. Aside from branding, which purely volunteer organizations can establish as well, I don't see any real value to academic journal publishers.
Hey, guess how passwords work? They're hard to guess.
But when you're using HTTPS, a password is usually passed along a pre-secured channel. Aren't these URI's visible to all routers in between you and the file site, as well as any computer monitoring traffic on your local LAN?
If so, that's somewhat less secure than passwords.