Damn it... Sometimes I really hate the fact that you can't edit posts even though it stops the Orwellian post-fact changes. Well, at least, you should be able to edit if there has been no comments or ratings on the post. Every other markdown site allows it... You can always preserve the history of edits for viewing, anyway. BUT... obviously I made a mistake in saying that the series was set in the Fall... It's in the NAME. It's 17 moments in SPRING. It's set in the Spring fall of the Nazi Germany.
Anyone who hasn't seen "17 moments in Spring", doesn't understand the Russian attitude towards espionage and modern statehood. And no Russian Federation official has not seen it. It's the biggest cult-like movie in the modern russian language and it has contributed more to the modern Russian idiom than Casablanca has to the modern American English idiom. Putin openly modeled his political persona on the protagonist of this 12-part miniseries which is known to every russian. And the series (while it is set in the fall/Fall of Nazi Germany) makes a point of mocking the effectiveness of secret voice recordings over actual human investigating through infiltration and getting in the heads of the investigated subjects. There is no way RF would fall trap to this false sense of security given this central culture piece. The reason KGB was as feared and as central to the internal surveillance culture of the Soviet Union was that it was understood to have human informants who would do just such investigating in every organization in the Soviet Union.
They didn't need to have warrantless spying on the guy in Orlando. They could have gotten a warrant on him. They interviewed him. Twice. Anyone interviewed by the FBI twice probably has done enough to get an electronic records warrant on them. The question is what to do with guys who are just talking smack vs the guys who are really ready to snap and act on it. I think a continued surveillance warrant is justified to observe a potential proverbial ticking bomb. But warrantless surveillance? Of browser history? That's a bad idea not only from civil liberties point of view. It's a bad idea from a technical point of view. Part of extracting of information from data is culling of data. The more data is collected, the more difficult the complexity of analytics. And the big-O of analytics grows as O( (n!)^K ), where K is constant, but n grows as the amount of data grows. In other words, it grows even faster than the exponential O(n^k). Even under the best case scenario, the computational capacity grows as exponential. So the amount of collected data will very quickly outpace the amount of analyzable data. If nothing else, warrants act as a way to cull to the data to be analyzed. The fact the data is initially analyzable can create a false sense of security and allow complacency of investigators to set in. This is not just wrong. This is dangerous.
And, to be honest, I don't recommend it, but it doesn't sound like you have any good options, so it you may as well try a better bad option. Base it on internal billing. Since the project managers will prioritize based on their projects, the priorities will be inherently heterogeneous. You need a homogenizing metric and that's the purpose which money serves.
You submit passport photos for the purpose of putting them on the passport which only YOU need to keep to use for international travel (as an example).
NO. Resoundingly, no. If that were the case, you would be able to affix it to the passport yourself and have the affixing notorized. As it is, you send it away to be kept in government records in case your face is necessary to verify (if you go dead or missing or show up at an embassy in a foreign country and claim that your passport and all documents were stolen or confiscated). Your passport is a government document requesting that you be permitted passage through foreign countries. The request is made by the US Federal Government on behalf of the government. And the passport itself is government property. You can be denied a passport (without cause). Government taking actions on your behalf is very much a privilege you (and all of us) enjoy. You don't have the expectation, for example, that US would go to war with a country if it arrested you without giving you access to a US ambassador. But the US State Department will go out of its way to make sure you are not arbitrarily thrown in jail while travelling abroad. You don't think expecting all of this comes without the expectation that they will keep a copy of your picture so that they can verify who you are, do you?
How many times have you heard a news report that "the perpetrator/victim was known to police". Ever wonder what that means? Now, do you think, "OK, they have an entry in a government worker/citizen database, nothing special about that." Or do you think, "Aha, that person has a criminal record, it's a good thing they were caught"?
No, not really. Anyone who calls the police to report a crime in progress, or even loud noises late at night, can be "known to the police". So, no, I don't assume this phrase means anything other than that the police knew the identity of the person.
This is an extra-judicial database. It has much the same status as the No Fly List.
Not at all. The No Fly List is actually preventing legal behavior. A database of faces just allows the government to put a face to a name. I hope you understand that before the cell phones, the police actually had easier time of doing that than they do now. Most people's names and addresses were in white page. If you are arguing that now you can put a name to a face instead of just a face to a name... that's probably true, but to it's in itself an accusation. Camera's can capture faces of eyewitness of crimes. Just as eyewitnesses can recognize other bystander eyewitnesses and inform the police that those people might have observed more. Realistically, all this does is make cameras act as eyewitnesses. The ability of the government to misuse these resource for non-designated purposes is not new. Cops could always follow innocent people to catch them in embarrassing acts or minor infractions if they had a strong desire to do so. Now it has a reduced cost, but, in principle, no new capability has been created. This makes the investigating of public behavior cheaper. It does not intrude into private behavior, so it does not and should not need a warrant.
Medical marijuana is legal in the state of Washington. Although it's still against federal law to even be in possession of the drug. So technically this could pave a way for the federal government's civil forfeiture of some of MS assets.
How can it not be? Why do you need a warrant for the government to search government records? These are not even private records. You face is not a private record. You show it in public all the time.
Government can more efficiently search government records (legally obtained in this case). You submit passport photos and police is legally within their rights to take mug shots when they arrest someone. I am confused about why this is an issue. Even if they use it to search for a face captured on some camera during a purported crime, isn't this why these records are kept in the 1st place? Or is it ok if a victim looks through 20 folders of mugshots, but not ok if a computer looks through the same records based on an image from a store cam after a store got robbed? Where is the problem?
No, the reason scores are so low is because of how much effort is put into taking the competitive element out of schooling. I still remember my HS teacher saying that the price that the Japanese paid for higher levels of education was that Japan had higher suicide rate among teens. Well, she was probably right. Suicide does follow stress when people snap. But it's not a reason to remove competition out of schooling (everyone's a winner and everyone gets at least a B crap). For one, kids are naturally competitive. If they don't compete academically, they channel it into competing athletically or in sexual conquests. Both are parts of life, but the only thing which makes it the central part of their lives is the absence of emphasis on academic competition. If getting good grades was actually difficult, kids would compete for them.
Yeah, that's true to a degree. But it's not the same as, for example, teaching or being a physician. These are jobs in which your work-product is changes in people. It's different from working in teams where your work product is changes in non-live matter. I'd say programmers are somewhere on the level of car-mechanics in the amount of human interaction that they need to be involved with.
You really out to look at some "toy" languages (like scratch) and tell me that viewing the code in this manner doesn't amount to real coding. The only difference between *it* and typing is that the structuring and attention to details is automated.
If it weren't so heavily regulated, medicine would have been revolutionized a while ago. Computers are very good at doing repetitive tasks. And diagnosis is nothing if not a repetitive task.
Who cares what EU thinks about how people should use the Internet? If it wasn't an American-led endeavor, it would have died a long time ago. France had a national electronic communications network long before "information superhighway". It died because it was so heavily regulated by the government that it lacked agility to evolve. The same can be expected of any endeavor led by political bureaucracies rather than engineering bureaucracies. Ultimately, the agility of the Internet comes from the fact that it is US owned and US has the legal protection of freedom of speech. This protection trumps almost all other considerations in any legal challenge. This prevents any political bureaucracy from asserting absolute control over the Internet.
As an example, what if someone in Belgium wants to rant against increased Islamic immigration to Europe? Is he going to dare to do that if his name can be easily found through a court order? Well, if he does it through a US website, that would be laughable.
For live to have a chance, the planet has to have a large body which shields from periodic life-wiping asteroids hitting it. Every crater on the moon was caused by something hitting it which would wipe life on earth if the moon's gravitation didn't pull it in. Because the moon is far enough from earth and rotates quickly around it, it's able to attract most of the asteroids with a stronger gravitational pull than the earth's pull.
Unlimited operating budged, increased staff and full autonomy. And he is complaining about what exactly? Oh, I get it -- the unlimited acquisition budget. Yep. Money is the root of all evil. And it looks like he's been struck with this pernicious curse and doesn't know what to do about it.
Don't worry. Most cultures are not worried about cultural appropriation. In fact, they go out of their way to create export their culture. In fact, even the people complaining about cultural appropriation are more likely just trying to stymie cultural import. I can just see it: europeans apologizing to americans for eating burgers, wearing blue jeans and watching Hollywood movies because its a microaggression in the form of cultural appropriation.
A million different reasons. Some noble, some sinister, some mercantile.
To see who would try to buy it. To flush out any would-be attackers.
To see what ways of anonymizing potential buyers would try to use. To explore which vectors of attacking anonymous transactions they may need to explore.
To raise money.
To lure potential attackers into honeypot sandboxes to see what they would try to do with the info once they are in.
Microsoft enters markets in which it believes it can make money.
Once again, Ballmer (the CEO of MS at the time) bought 2% of Facebook with his own money. Do you think there are not strings attached there? That's not 2% of Ballmer's money. That's 2% of Facebook... which is significantly more than 2% of Ballmer's money. It's not Microsoft which owns this stake. It's Ballmer himself.
Every single hair-brained scheme they tried under Ballmer's reign to capture niche retail and consumer markets ended badly.
What? XBox has quite a following. I am not enough of a gamer to know the details of each platform, but it's certain one of the main players in that market.
No, my friend, the Ballmer era Microsoft wanted it all and ended up stalling the company for years.
No, Ballmer era Microsoft was looking for new markets because they couldn't possibly do better in their primary market then they already did. Windows 7 is the best desktop OS bar none. The closest 2nd was Windows XP which, until phones started having their own full-fledged operating systems, was the most popular operating system of all time despite having a cult-like hate following.
MS was quite happy to buy Quicken until the Justice Department told it not to. It doesn't insist on killing all which isn't it. The formula is to try partner, then try to buy or to compete head on. They make enough money from FB's commitment to play nice with MS products and not play at all with Google. Until Google stops being the biggest innovation platform, I would say MS-FB alliance will stand.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn it... Sometimes I really hate the fact that you can't edit posts even though it stops the Orwellian post-fact changes. Well, at least, you should be able to edit if there has been no comments or ratings on the post. Every other markdown site allows it... You can always preserve the history of edits for viewing, anyway. BUT... obviously I made a mistake in saying that the series was set in the Fall... It's in the NAME. It's 17 moments in SPRING. It's set in the Spring fall of the Nazi Germany.
Anyone who hasn't seen "17 moments in Spring", doesn't understand the Russian attitude towards espionage and modern statehood. And no Russian Federation official has not seen it. It's the biggest cult-like movie in the modern russian language and it has contributed more to the modern Russian idiom than Casablanca has to the modern American English idiom. Putin openly modeled his political persona on the protagonist of this 12-part miniseries which is known to every russian. And the series (while it is set in the fall/Fall of Nazi Germany) makes a point of mocking the effectiveness of secret voice recordings over actual human investigating through infiltration and getting in the heads of the investigated subjects. There is no way RF would fall trap to this false sense of security given this central culture piece. The reason KGB was as feared and as central to the internal surveillance culture of the Soviet Union was that it was understood to have human informants who would do just such investigating in every organization in the Soviet Union.
They didn't need to have warrantless spying on the guy in Orlando. They could have gotten a warrant on him. They interviewed him. Twice. Anyone interviewed by the FBI twice probably has done enough to get an electronic records warrant on them. The question is what to do with guys who are just talking smack vs the guys who are really ready to snap and act on it. I think a continued surveillance warrant is justified to observe a potential proverbial ticking bomb. But warrantless surveillance? Of browser history? That's a bad idea not only from civil liberties point of view. It's a bad idea from a technical point of view. Part of extracting of information from data is culling of data. The more data is collected, the more difficult the complexity of analytics. And the big-O of analytics grows as O( (n!)^K ), where K is constant, but n grows as the amount of data grows. In other words, it grows even faster than the exponential O(n^k). Even under the best case scenario, the computational capacity grows as exponential. So the amount of collected data will very quickly outpace the amount of analyzable data. If nothing else, warrants act as a way to cull to the data to be analyzed. The fact the data is initially analyzable can create a false sense of security and allow complacency of investigators to set in. This is not just wrong. This is dangerous.
if ever there was Streisand effect.... yeah, yeah... money is not speech. Until it's code.
And, to be honest, I don't recommend it, but it doesn't sound like you have any good options, so it you may as well try a better bad option. Base it on internal billing. Since the project managers will prioritize based on their projects, the priorities will be inherently heterogeneous. You need a homogenizing metric and that's the purpose which money serves.
Holy shit... so this is what it's like if you mix Mad Men with Mean Girls. The war of passive aggressive project managers.
PGP in Gmail for business
You submit passport photos for the purpose of putting them on the passport which only YOU need to keep to use for international travel (as an example).
NO. Resoundingly, no. If that were the case, you would be able to affix it to the passport yourself and have the affixing notorized. As it is, you send it away to be kept in government records in case your face is necessary to verify (if you go dead or missing or show up at an embassy in a foreign country and claim that your passport and all documents were stolen or confiscated). Your passport is a government document requesting that you be permitted passage through foreign countries. The request is made by the US Federal Government on behalf of the government. And the passport itself is government property. You can be denied a passport (without cause). Government taking actions on your behalf is very much a privilege you (and all of us) enjoy. You don't have the expectation, for example, that US would go to war with a country if it arrested you without giving you access to a US ambassador. But the US State Department will go out of its way to make sure you are not arbitrarily thrown in jail while travelling abroad. You don't think expecting all of this comes without the expectation that they will keep a copy of your picture so that they can verify who you are, do you?
How many times have you heard a news report that "the perpetrator/victim was known to police". Ever wonder what that means? Now, do you think, "OK, they have an entry in a government worker/citizen database, nothing special about that." Or do you think, "Aha, that person has a criminal record, it's a good thing they were caught"?
No, not really. Anyone who calls the police to report a crime in progress, or even loud noises late at night, can be "known to the police". So, no, I don't assume this phrase means anything other than that the police knew the identity of the person.
This is an extra-judicial database. It has much the same status as the No Fly List.
Not at all. The No Fly List is actually preventing legal behavior. A database of faces just allows the government to put a face to a name. I hope you understand that before the cell phones, the police actually had easier time of doing that than they do now. Most people's names and addresses were in white page. If you are arguing that now you can put a name to a face instead of just a face to a name... that's probably true, but to it's in itself an accusation. Camera's can capture faces of eyewitness of crimes. Just as eyewitnesses can recognize other bystander eyewitnesses and inform the police that those people might have observed more. Realistically, all this does is make cameras act as eyewitnesses. The ability of the government to misuse these resource for non-designated purposes is not new. Cops could always follow innocent people to catch them in embarrassing acts or minor infractions if they had a strong desire to do so. Now it has a reduced cost, but, in principle, no new capability has been created. This makes the investigating of public behavior cheaper. It does not intrude into private behavior, so it does not and should not need a warrant.
Medical marijuana is legal in the state of Washington. Although it's still against federal law to even be in possession of the drug. So technically this could pave a way for the federal government's civil forfeiture of some of MS assets.
How can it not be? Why do you need a warrant for the government to search government records? These are not even private records. You face is not a private record. You show it in public all the time.
Government can more efficiently search government records (legally obtained in this case). You submit passport photos and police is legally within their rights to take mug shots when they arrest someone. I am confused about why this is an issue. Even if they use it to search for a face captured on some camera during a purported crime, isn't this why these records are kept in the 1st place? Or is it ok if a victim looks through 20 folders of mugshots, but not ok if a computer looks through the same records based on an image from a store cam after a store got robbed? Where is the problem?
No, the reason scores are so low is because of how much effort is put into taking the competitive element out of schooling. I still remember my HS teacher saying that the price that the Japanese paid for higher levels of education was that Japan had higher suicide rate among teens. Well, she was probably right. Suicide does follow stress when people snap. But it's not a reason to remove competition out of schooling (everyone's a winner and everyone gets at least a B crap). For one, kids are naturally competitive. If they don't compete academically, they channel it into competing athletically or in sexual conquests. Both are parts of life, but the only thing which makes it the central part of their lives is the absence of emphasis on academic competition. If getting good grades was actually difficult, kids would compete for them.
Yeah, that's true to a degree. But it's not the same as, for example, teaching or being a physician. These are jobs in which your work-product is changes in people. It's different from working in teams where your work product is changes in non-live matter. I'd say programmers are somewhere on the level of car-mechanics in the amount of human interaction that they need to be involved with.
You really out to look at some "toy" languages (like scratch) and tell me that viewing the code in this manner doesn't amount to real coding. The only difference between *it* and typing is that the structuring and attention to details is automated.
If it weren't so heavily regulated, medicine would have been revolutionized a while ago. Computers are very good at doing repetitive tasks. And diagnosis is nothing if not a repetitive task.
Who cares what EU thinks about how people should use the Internet? If it wasn't an American-led endeavor, it would have died a long time ago. France had a national electronic communications network long before "information superhighway". It died because it was so heavily regulated by the government that it lacked agility to evolve. The same can be expected of any endeavor led by political bureaucracies rather than engineering bureaucracies. Ultimately, the agility of the Internet comes from the fact that it is US owned and US has the legal protection of freedom of speech. This protection trumps almost all other considerations in any legal challenge. This prevents any political bureaucracy from asserting absolute control over the Internet.
As an example, what if someone in Belgium wants to rant against increased Islamic immigration to Europe? Is he going to dare to do that if his name can be easily found through a court order? Well, if he does it through a US website, that would be laughable.
For live to have a chance, the planet has to have a large body which shields from periodic life-wiping asteroids hitting it. Every crater on the moon was caused by something hitting it which would wipe life on earth if the moon's gravitation didn't pull it in. Because the moon is far enough from earth and rotates quickly around it, it's able to attract most of the asteroids with a stronger gravitational pull than the earth's pull.
Yet they take my money outta the tax pile.
Why would russian trolls be paying taxes in the US?
Enlighten me as to who IS a straight player??
"Trust, but verify" would imply those who are open to external inspections.
Unlimited operating budged, increased staff and full autonomy. And he is complaining about what exactly? Oh, I get it -- the unlimited acquisition budget. Yep. Money is the root of all evil. And it looks like he's been struck with this pernicious curse and doesn't know what to do about it.
Don't worry. Most cultures are not worried about cultural appropriation. In fact, they go out of their way to create export their culture. In fact, even the people complaining about cultural appropriation are more likely just trying to stymie cultural import. I can just see it: europeans apologizing to americans for eating burgers, wearing blue jeans and watching Hollywood movies because its a microaggression in the form of cultural appropriation.
When did Slashdot go capitalist? It has always been crawling with neo-communists.
A million different reasons. Some noble, some sinister, some mercantile.
The list goes on.
Microsoft enters markets in which it believes it can make money.
Once again, Ballmer (the CEO of MS at the time) bought 2% of Facebook with his own money. Do you think there are not strings attached there? That's not 2% of Ballmer's money. That's 2% of Facebook... which is significantly more than 2% of Ballmer's money. It's not Microsoft which owns this stake. It's Ballmer himself.
Every single hair-brained scheme they tried under Ballmer's reign to capture niche retail and consumer markets ended badly.
What? XBox has quite a following. I am not enough of a gamer to know the details of each platform, but it's certain one of the main players in that market.
No, my friend, the Ballmer era Microsoft wanted it all and ended up stalling the company for years.
No, Ballmer era Microsoft was looking for new markets because they couldn't possibly do better in their primary market then they already did. Windows 7 is the best desktop OS bar none. The closest 2nd was Windows XP which, until phones started having their own full-fledged operating systems, was the most popular operating system of all time despite having a cult-like hate following.
MS was quite happy to buy Quicken until the Justice Department told it not to. It doesn't insist on killing all which isn't it. The formula is to try partner, then try to buy or to compete head on. They make enough money from FB's commitment to play nice with MS products and not play at all with Google. Until Google stops being the biggest innovation platform, I would say MS-FB alliance will stand.