Between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba for the lease (subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two Governments) to the United States of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations.
Really? One was a place to hold people because of their race. The other is a place to hold combatants from a group that we were at war with. Should we drop them off in your neighborhood?
Let's not confuse monopolies with normal free enterprise. These two companies are acting in a monopolistic manner, and deserve to be slapped down. There's no logical, moral, or socially just reason for their position. And for whatever it's worth, I'm saying this as a conservative.
Since the loss of the Microsoft trial in '98, the feds have done little to prevent monopolistic behavior. There is no free enterprise when you have a monopoly, and I'm all in favor of busting them up, or in the case of utilities, controlling them closely.
I'm all for government regulation when it comes to safety, health and protecting our individual rights. Beyond that, IMHO, states rights should trump (no pun intended) feds.
The figures in the summary aren't even close to reality for anyone in a large company, or someone who's not living out in farm country. I see compensation data for over 400 folks in my organization, and have several in that pay range who aren't anywhere near the corner offices the article is referring to.
You can, but that's a very basic, and often inaccurate way to score a game. Simply put, I could checkmate you with a pawn, and be down a queen and a rook, but using the method you pointed out, you would have been "ahead" by 14 points. To better understand the game, "points" can be given for things like initiative (essentially, which side is the aggressor), how many squares a piece is attacking (a bishop blocked by a piece on it's diagonal would score less than one that's controlling squares across the board), control of the center is more valuable (generally) than the fringes of the board, etc.
Serious Chess programs haven't been using simple brute force for a couple decades now. I'm not talking about ChessMaster here. It's not all about the number of possible moves. Once you're out of the opening book, heuristics become much more important. Chess professionals used to beat brute force programs by playing strategic positional games, instead of tactical, because programs weren't good at understanding positional play, while they crushed people by brute force in tactical games.
FWIW, I played tournament chess for about ten years back in the 80s, and postal chess when I lived overseas, through USCF.
If you play those perfect probabilities alone you'll loose because after a while no one will bet you against them.
No, it doesn't work that way. "No one will bet you" is suboptimal play and will increase the number of wins by the computer. Now, maybe it'll be less take per sucker, but that's because the computer is optimizing for wins not swindling money from poor players.
But then you've removed the bluff, and increased pot that comes with winning when you're bluffing, which is suboptimal play.
Assuming the FBI is privy to the NSA's capabilities.
This is a terrorism case, so the FBI and the NSA are supposed to cooperate.
In general, that would be correct. But, just like when the Enigma was developed, you wouldn't have let that secret out for a single case like this when you're fighting a larger war.
But everybody already knows the NSA can crack your phone. Why pretend they can't just for this case?
Crack?...No, I don't think we've seen any evidence of that. Intercept the calls?...Yes.
Please don't try to twist my words. What you stated is simply not based upon any public evidence, and what you do have to deal with is that evidence isn't made public until it's brought up in court. After that, everything that's not brought out is subject to FOIA requests.
There are plenty of logical reasons for not making evidence public prior to a public hearing. You're welcome to disagree, but you'll have to live with the fact that it's the system we have, and for the most part, it works pretty well.
I neither love nor hate him, but I'm glad we've been having the national open discussion on the topics he exposed. I think it's been overdue dating back to the Patriot Act. I only question his methods/motives, but for me it would be up to a judge/jury to decide if he could have raised his concerns through existing channels or if he had no other recourse.
You're obviously speaking of the IRTPA of 2004, of which the https://www.ise.gov/ was created to execute the sharing you mention.
However, what you don't seem to be grasping is that this does not mandate that the agencies start sharing everything. In some cases, there may be compelling reasons to specifically not share, and those cases would never be adjudicated in a public manner.
Then they should have posted the ACLU submission. The point is that Snowden weighing in is like me making a claim about climate change...I've got an opinion, but I'm not an expert, and my belief shouldn't carry weight with anyone else.
Legally required to cooperate doesn't imply that they have to give up national secrets in order to do so, and I'm sure Congress didn't imply that they would need to.
In spite of his god-like status among some of you, Mr. Snowden wouldn't know what capabilities the FBI has or doesn't have. He didn't work there, and he wouldn't have had a need to know, so he would never have been briefed on such. But, let's not let that get in the way of the Snowden gospel.
Right! Because the FBI is unable to do what any lab that solders circuit boards and programs flash chips has the capability to do! If the FBI can't figure it out because they are too incompetent, then they can hire any one of these hundreds of companies that are fully capable to do it for them.
I wasn't arguing for/against their case, only that the article is basically just click-bait. For whatever it's worth, I side with Apple on this. Not because I don't feel for the victims, but because their loss shouldn't affect our freedom.
In spite of his god-like status among some of you, Mr. Snowden wouldn't know what capabilities the FBI has or doesn't have. He didn't work there, and he wouldn't have had a need to know, so he would never have been briefed on such. But, let's not let that get in the way of the Snowden gospel.
Posse comitatus was a Congressional act, and you can see in the text below "except in cases..." Congress also passed some other acts...FISA and Patriot come to mind...that have changed the rules. So, the "theory" has been OBE for a while.
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Please read the damn document....
Between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba for the lease (subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two Governments) to the United States of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations.
What good would annexing part of China's territory and the inevitable hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions in costs do?
Maybe you should ask the people who live there which side they wanted. I think they were generally more happy/free under UK rule.
Thanks for your service Rambo; you're so brave!
Written like a true AC
Moral relativism? Wrong is wrong.
Ah yes, it's all black and white in your mind. Let's drop these guys off at your place, okay?
Really? One was a place to hold people because of their race. The other is a place to hold combatants from a group that we were at war with. Should we drop them off in your neighborhood?
There's no correlation between being mature enough to make a logical decision, and fighting for your country, or drinking.
I say this as a formerly drunk veteran.
Let's not confuse monopolies with normal free enterprise. These two companies are acting in a monopolistic manner, and deserve to be slapped down. There's no logical, moral, or socially just reason for their position. And for whatever it's worth, I'm saying this as a conservative.
Since the loss of the Microsoft trial in '98, the feds have done little to prevent monopolistic behavior. There is no free enterprise when you have a monopoly, and I'm all in favor of busting them up, or in the case of utilities, controlling them closely.
I'm all for government regulation when it comes to safety, health and protecting our individual rights. Beyond that, IMHO, states rights should trump (no pun intended) feds.
The figures in the summary aren't even close to reality for anyone in a large company, or someone who's not living out in farm country. I see compensation data for over 400 folks in my organization, and have several in that pay range who aren't anywhere near the corner offices the article is referring to.
Last week I told a grad student "grad school is where you learn that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.
Shit, education has really gone downhill. We used to learn that leaving high school.
I'd mod you up if I had points, just to offset the Troll flag that some moron with an agenda assigned to your post.
I wasn't sure if my blanks were obvious enough..."I think he just did"
You can, but that's a very basic, and often inaccurate way to score a game. Simply put, I could checkmate you with a pawn, and be down a queen and a rook, but using the method you pointed out, you would have been "ahead" by 14 points. To better understand the game, "points" can be given for things like initiative (essentially, which side is the aggressor), how many squares a piece is attacking (a bishop blocked by a piece on it's diagonal would score less than one that's controlling squares across the board), control of the center is more valuable (generally) than the fringes of the board, etc.
You can't just say that and then not fill in the blanks...
I _hi_k h_ j_st d_d.
Serious Chess programs haven't been using simple brute force for a couple decades now. I'm not talking about ChessMaster here. It's not all about the number of possible moves. Once you're out of the opening book, heuristics become much more important. Chess professionals used to beat brute force programs by playing strategic positional games, instead of tactical, because programs weren't good at understanding positional play, while they crushed people by brute force in tactical games.
FWIW, I played tournament chess for about ten years back in the 80s, and postal chess when I lived overseas, through USCF.
If you play those perfect probabilities alone you'll loose because after a while no one will bet you against them.
No, it doesn't work that way. "No one will bet you" is suboptimal play and will increase the number of wins by the computer. Now, maybe it'll be less take per sucker, but that's because the computer is optimizing for wins not swindling money from poor players.
But then you've removed the bluff, and increased pot that comes with winning when you're bluffing, which is suboptimal play.
Assuming the FBI is privy to the NSA's capabilities.
This is a terrorism case, so the FBI and the NSA are supposed to cooperate.
In general, that would be correct. But, just like when the Enigma was developed, you wouldn't have let that secret out for a single case like this when you're fighting a larger war.
But everybody already knows the NSA can crack your phone. Why pretend they can't just for this case?
Crack?...No, I don't think we've seen any evidence of that. Intercept the calls?...Yes.
Please don't try to twist my words. What you stated is simply not based upon any public evidence, and what you do have to deal with is that evidence isn't made public until it's brought up in court. After that, everything that's not brought out is subject to FOIA requests.
There are plenty of logical reasons for not making evidence public prior to a public hearing. You're welcome to disagree, but you'll have to live with the fact that it's the system we have, and for the most part, it works pretty well.
I neither love nor hate him, but I'm glad we've been having the national open discussion on the topics he exposed. I think it's been overdue dating back to the Patriot Act. I only question his methods/motives, but for me it would be up to a judge/jury to decide if he could have raised his concerns through existing channels or if he had no other recourse.
You're obviously speaking of the IRTPA of 2004, of which the https://www.ise.gov/ was created to execute the sharing you mention.
However, what you don't seem to be grasping is that this does not mandate that the agencies start sharing everything. In some cases, there may be compelling reasons to specifically not share, and those cases would never be adjudicated in a public manner.
Then they should have posted the ACLU submission. The point is that Snowden weighing in is like me making a claim about climate change...I've got an opinion, but I'm not an expert, and my belief shouldn't carry weight with anyone else.
Legally required to cooperate doesn't imply that they have to give up national secrets in order to do so, and I'm sure Congress didn't imply that they would need to.
In spite of his god-like status among some of you, Mr. Snowden wouldn't know what capabilities the FBI has or doesn't have. He didn't work there, and he wouldn't have had a need to know, so he would never have been briefed on such. But, let's not let that get in the way of the Snowden gospel.
Right! Because the FBI is unable to do what any lab that solders circuit boards and programs flash chips has the capability to do! If the FBI can't figure it out because they are too incompetent, then they can hire any one of these hundreds of companies that are fully capable to do it for them.
I wasn't arguing for/against their case, only that the article is basically just click-bait. For whatever it's worth, I side with Apple on this. Not because I don't feel for the victims, but because their loss shouldn't affect our freedom.
My ear canals are cavity free!!!
The cavity is between them.
In spite of his god-like status among some of you, Mr. Snowden wouldn't know what capabilities the FBI has or doesn't have. He didn't work there, and he wouldn't have had a need to know, so he would never have been briefed on such. But, let's not let that get in the way of the Snowden gospel.
Posse comitatus was a Congressional act, and you can see in the text below "except in cases..." Congress also passed some other acts...FISA and Patriot come to mind...that have changed the rules. So, the "theory" has been OBE for a while.
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.