I suspect that you unknowingly confirmed that the desire of the left is to further dependency of the people on either the government or the elites for everything by making home ownership a luxury. Nothing like a society of renter's to be kicked around...
Somehow none of the antigunners have managed to find and publicize this loophole despite years of trying. If a single leftist reporter hasn't found it, don't you think it's time to relegate it to the status of a myth... like "more guns more crime"?
So if I use this tool that is designed to penetrate security, and don't commit a crime, then I haven't committed a crime. Yet if I pick up a firearm and don't shoot anyone I can be a criminal. Thought crime?
I routinely use Hangouts for video calling because most of the people I know use Gmail and have Google accounts, and it tends to be very easy. I've used it cross-platform with Linux, windows, Android, etc with no problems. I have found that it tends to have higher video quality compared to Skype and it's easy to have a conversation with multiple participants who can join and leave at their leisure.
plateauing at a level where they can afford everything they want to consume
Are you f-ing kidding me? In what alternate universe can the author live to write utter dreck like that?
Any hood will tell you they want to live in a mansion with a pool, servants, drive Ferraris, and get served caviar by scantily clad objects of desire with champagne on the side.
That's bullshit. My family came into this country as refugees with almost nothing. We depended on social services while my parents were learning English. I earned my way into school, got a scholarship to go to college. I worked my ass off in college to have a high GPA, worked 20+ hours a week in a lab in addition. I earned my way into an MD PhD program and didn't have to pay for medical school... worked my way into residency and fellowship. In the meantime my parents are earning 5 figures.
United States is the most amazing country in the world, where opportunity is still pretty open. I am so thankful to be here.
For duck's sake, please don't turn it into the country I ran away from.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
At least in the United States, the intent of the Founders was specifically to discourage that interpretation. You don't need to be granted the right to unbreakable encryption, it is reserved for you by default.
The problem is that this is the precise definition of slippery slope. As attractive as it would be to scan for such content legally, this is not the kind of toys we want the government to have. Would the government as with a foreign enemy, we should be discussing capabilities, not intentions. The one inescapable truth is that any capabilities of a bureaucratic entity are going to be abused. If you don't want the abuse, don't give them these capabilities took begin with.
This is as brilliant as their gun control agendas, which now want to include prohibition on buying enough ammunition to go target shooting for longer than 15 minutes per year. When the legislators are so removed from reality, it's just a symptom of public that is so exquisitely scared that they are willing to support notions that are clearly against their interests, with a far higher probability of causing harm than good.
...which is that some people in the U.S. legitimately believe that the 2nd Amendment is archaic and needs to be restricted a bit more......and I respect people who think we should make some changes...
The same polls also show that the majority of the US is willing to be under surveillance for a promise of fighting terrorist, pedophiles, etc...
What I do NOT respect are people who think we should just "reinterpret" the plain text to mean something new and different from the original
You mean like the 2nd amendment? You do realize, that the founding fathers would have thought that the "liberal" interpretation of the 2nd amendment to restrict INDIVIDUAL rights, was the definition of the government overstepping its bounds and exactly what they were TRYING to prevent.
If you're willing to lose one right for the promise of safety, you should be willing (and you will) lose them all.
And why is it that you yourself, while acting as if you care about constitutional rights, disparage those who support the right to be armed? I don't want a random person deciding which of my rights I should or shouldn't have based on their individual biases. I want them all.
Those who support infringing your right to privacy while supporting the 2nd amendment are making a terrible mistake. But by directing your anger towards them and supporting infringing on the right they hold dear, you are not only making the same mistake, but you are also playing into the hands of those who are perfectly happy taking our rights away a little bit at a time.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your ACLU card can't live next to an NRA one, or that the EFF membership depends on you having a specific political allowance as opposed to being committed to preserving as many rights as we can.
It's good to have different opinions and a debate... But once you say that you're okay sacrificing one right for the false hope of security, just because you don't care to exercise it, you don't get to argue for preservation of others against a similar promise of safety.
Actually that's not really true. The correct statement would be.
1. for people with money, the US healthcare system is the best one in the world 2. for people with no money at all who live in a city with excellent public hospitals, the US healthcare system is one of the best in the world 3. for the working poor, and the middle class for whom their employer doesn't provide coverage, the US healthcare system sucks. ironically, it sucks for them even more after the "affordable healthcare act".
It's a terrible idea to live in a bad area, generally I would prefer to commute further. In terms of getting a home security system, get one that works. If you want an independent surveillance system use Synology, but make sure the NAS is located in the party of the house that won't be searched for valuables such as an entry hallway closet. However, in home security I'm not sure DYI is a wise route.
There is no proven theory, there's merely ones that have not been disproved. A hypothesis may be substantiated by evidence, and when our observations are repeatedly verified and the theory is shown to have significant predictive power we start teaching it as fact. That doesn't mean that tomorrow we won't find a better explanation for our observation. I stand by my wording. It may be redundant, but I think it gets the point across better. Just trying not to be an arrogant academic...
Your reply is meaningless pseudophilosophic tripe.
I'm so ignorant that I am ignorant about the sheer amount of ignorance I'm ignorant of. OK, I agree. Now what? Should I prostrate myself out of amazement with the amount of stuff I don't know? How about I try to improve what I can and stop worrying about the rest.
Actually I also disagree with the title... not because it's wrong but because it will be coopted by the truly ignorant to "prove" that everything they disagree with has no scientific basis. This is the academic equivalent of clickbait, with the unfortunate consequence of being distributed outside the academic community.
I do think that the author has a point in that we are taught "best available" theory as fact. That's not wrong, however, it's only missing the concept that our school system has been ignoring for decades - actually teaching the basis of the scientific method, logic, critical thinking... not to mention applied statistics. All of these are necessary in the modern world to do the one important civic duty that most people exercise in a state of utter ignorance - voting.
I have pursued a rather rigorous scientific training career (MD, PhD) and getting the PhD training really altered my way of thinking about the world, and learning how to ask questions that are appropriate, can be answered, and how to design ways to answer them. I can understand where they author is coming from. I just think that to truly understand what he is saying one needs much more training than lay people get, and this headline just gets me into more trouble when I talk to patients and they refuse to believe me cause they read in the paper that everything science does is bollocks.
Exactly. Took him a year to heal from working 100 hours a week? Talk to the tens of thousands who do that for much of a decade. They're called residents.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that you unknowingly confirmed that the desire of the left is to further dependency of the people on either the government or the elites for everything by making home ownership a luxury. Nothing like a society of renter's to be kicked around...
Somehow none of the antigunners have managed to find and publicize this loophole despite years of trying. If a single leftist reporter hasn't found it, don't you think it's time to relegate it to the status of a myth... like "more guns more crime"?
I bet the bunkers built for the Hollywood anti-gun elite are packed with weapons.
Is that like getting your airport experience optimized by the TSA?
So if I use this tool that is designed to penetrate security, and don't commit a crime, then I haven't committed a crime. Yet if I pick up a firearm and don't shoot anyone I can be a criminal. Thought crime?
So does that outrage mean that the left will agree that holding firearm manufacturers liable for shootings is fucking ridiculous?
I routinely use Hangouts for video calling because most of the people I know use Gmail and have Google accounts, and it tends to be very easy. I've used it cross-platform with Linux, windows, Android, etc with no problems. I have found that it tends to have higher video quality compared to Skype and it's easy to have a conversation with multiple participants who can join and leave at their leisure.
Maybe more than actual users.
Remember, the internet is where men are men, women are men, and kids are FBI agents.
The users of Facebook are not it's customers... They're the merchandise.
plateauing at a level where they can afford everything they want to consume
Are you f-ing kidding me?
In what alternate universe can the author live to write utter dreck like that?
Any hood will tell you they want to live in a mansion with a pool, servants, drive Ferraris, and get served caviar by scantily clad objects of desire with champagne on the side.
There is no plateau.
That's bullshit. My family came into this country as refugees with almost nothing. We depended on social services while my parents were learning English. I earned my way into school, got a scholarship to go to college. I worked my ass off in college to have a high GPA, worked 20+ hours a week in a lab in addition. I earned my way into an MD PhD program and didn't have to pay for medical school... worked my way into residency and fellowship. In the meantime my parents are earning 5 figures.
United States is the most amazing country in the world, where opportunity is still pretty open. I am so thankful to be here.
For duck's sake, please don't turn it into the country I ran away from.
Time to infringe on some rights... I can't believe that president Obama's legacy is about to get even dimmer.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
At least in the United States, the intent of the Founders was specifically to discourage that interpretation. You don't need to be granted the right to unbreakable encryption, it is reserved for you by default.
The problem is that this is the precise definition of slippery slope. As attractive as it would be to scan for such content legally, this is not the kind of toys we want the government to have. Would the government as with a foreign enemy, we should be discussing capabilities, not intentions. The one inescapable truth is that any capabilities of a bureaucratic entity are going to be abused. If you don't want the abuse, don't give them these capabilities took begin with.
This is as brilliant as their gun control agendas, which now want to include prohibition on buying enough ammunition to go target shooting for longer than 15 minutes per year. When the legislators are so removed from reality, it's just a symptom of public that is so exquisitely scared that they are willing to support notions that are clearly against their interests, with a far higher probability of causing harm than good.
...which is that some people in the U.S. legitimately believe that the 2nd Amendment is archaic and needs to be restricted a bit more... ...and I respect people who think we should make some changes...
The same polls also show that the majority of the US is willing to be under surveillance for a promise of fighting terrorist, pedophiles, etc...
What I do NOT respect are people who think we should just "reinterpret" the plain text to mean something new and different from the original
You mean like the 2nd amendment? You do realize, that the founding fathers would have thought that the "liberal" interpretation of the 2nd amendment to restrict INDIVIDUAL rights, was the definition of the government overstepping its bounds and exactly what they were TRYING to prevent.
If you're willing to lose one right for the promise of safety, you should be willing (and you will) lose them all.
And why is it that you yourself, while acting as if you care about constitutional rights, disparage those who support the right to be armed? I don't want a random person deciding which of my rights I should or shouldn't have based on their individual biases. I want them all.
Those who support infringing your right to privacy while supporting the 2nd amendment are making a terrible mistake. But by directing your anger towards them and supporting infringing on the right they hold dear, you are not only making the same mistake, but you are also playing into the hands of those who are perfectly happy taking our rights away a little bit at a time.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your ACLU card can't live next to an NRA one, or that the EFF membership depends on you having a specific political allowance as opposed to being committed to preserving as many rights as we can.
It's good to have different opinions and a debate... But once you say that you're okay sacrificing one right for the false hope of security, just because you don't care to exercise it, you don't get to argue for preservation of others against a similar promise of safety.
You mean an anonymous hacker site if not the gold standard of reliability to be used in developing a list of people to persecute?
Great. It's time to increase medical and surgical resident work hours. Surely we can get to we'll over 100 hours per week now!
Actually that's not really true. The correct statement would be.
1. for people with money, the US healthcare system is the best one in the world
2. for people with no money at all who live in a city with excellent public hospitals, the US healthcare system is one of the best in the world
3. for the working poor, and the middle class for whom their employer doesn't provide coverage, the US healthcare system sucks. ironically, it sucks for them even more after the "affordable healthcare act".
It's a terrible idea to live in a bad area, generally I would prefer to commute further.
In terms of getting a home security system, get one that works. If you want an independent surveillance system use Synology, but make sure the NAS is located in the party of the house that won't be searched for valuables such as an entry hallway closet. However, in home security I'm not sure DYI is a wise route.
There is no proven theory, there's merely ones that have not been disproved. A hypothesis may be substantiated by evidence, and when our observations are repeatedly verified and the theory is shown to have significant predictive power we start teaching it as fact. That doesn't mean that tomorrow we won't find a better explanation for our observation. I stand by my wording. It may be redundant, but I think it gets the point across better. Just trying not to be an arrogant academic ...
Your reply is meaningless pseudophilosophic tripe.
I'm so ignorant that I am ignorant about the sheer amount of ignorance I'm ignorant of. OK, I agree. Now what? Should I prostrate myself out of amazement with the amount of stuff I don't know? How about I try to improve what I can and stop worrying about the rest.
Actually I also disagree with the title... not because it's wrong but because it will be coopted by the truly ignorant to "prove" that everything they disagree with has no scientific basis. This is the academic equivalent of clickbait, with the unfortunate consequence of being distributed outside the academic community.
I do think that the author has a point in that we are taught "best available" theory as fact. That's not wrong, however, it's only missing the concept that our school system has been ignoring for decades - actually teaching the basis of the scientific method, logic, critical thinking... not to mention applied statistics. All of these are necessary in the modern world to do the one important civic duty that most people exercise in a state of utter ignorance - voting.
I have pursued a rather rigorous scientific training career (MD, PhD) and getting the PhD training really altered my way of thinking about the world, and learning how to ask questions that are appropriate, can be answered, and how to design ways to answer them. I can understand where they author is coming from. I just think that to truly understand what he is saying one needs much more training than lay people get, and this headline just gets me into more trouble when I talk to patients and they refuse to believe me cause they read in the paper that everything science does is bollocks.
Exactly. Took him a year to heal from working 100 hours a week? Talk to the tens of thousands who do that for much of a decade. They're called residents.