I think Adams is veering into lala land already. He started advocating for the simulation theory. And if that's not an atheist religion, it sure has all the signs of it.
They are still entitled to discovery. If they responded to the complaint against them, they are also entitled to a verdict. And before a verdict is rendered, they are entitled to examine the evidence against them.
Stone claims that Guccifer is Romanian. Romanian alphabet uses Latin letters plus a few diacritics which are present in extended ASCII. However, I don't know if they the ASCII encoding is the most commonly used one in Romania. It maybe. But given that Romania was part of the Soviet block, it could be something else.
Wikia says that Windows-1250 is the recommended encoding for Romanian. It doesn't have Cyrillic, but it is not ASCII (Cyrillic is in Windows-1251).
I am not arguing, btw. I don't know quite know how meaningful it is. Just thinking "out loud" I guess. If you can point to the document on a more-or-less safe site, maybe I could make more sense of it.
Except in both of those case it was pretty obvious that a President was involved. No one seriously thinks that Trump colluded with Russia. They just think it's a good albatross to hang on his neck.
Not to beat this dead horse again, but how exactly did they try to throw an election? None of those claims have ever been substantiated. Any request for details is always met with either "it's classified" or "it's an ongoing investigation". Either you personally have access to classified information or you bought into this not-too-carefully-orchestrated hysteria which for a while has been feeling like a Big Lie.
Now assuming that they were in it for profit, it's more likely that they would be planning a future astro-turf marketing campaign of some products. This would make them a commercial marketing firm. Albeit it would make them a commercial marketing firm which lacks any scruples. But that's still a far cry from what's being alleged.
The way to both respect freedom of association and freedom of speech while disarming foreign propaganda is simple. Force all media companies offering content to the public to publish what geographic area the comments (or media content) is coming from. Knowing which city/country comments are coming from would not violate anyone's privacy.
I have never understood why the "foe" relationship is on slashdot. It always seemed like one would want to hear from those with whom they disagreed; if nothing else than just to see why. In the 20 years that I have used slashdot you are the 1st person to demonstrate it. Your posts and signature are as uninsightful as they are obnoxious. You have shown me something new today. Thank you.
Personal lives? Your employers have a limited right to intrude in them, sure. But expecting that your customers would censor themselves in order to make your personal lives more comfortable? You better have a lot of customers and make sure that your requests for self-censorship don't piss off a lot of customers. Otherwise, it's not that you don't have a job anymore. It's that this job won't exist pretty soon.
That's actually interesting information. Of course, they should not have respect for the law if the law does not have any enforcement mechanism built into it. Are there any fines that can be levied on them if some state agency finds out? Can they be sued for not being forthcoming? Any law which does not have any enforcement mechanism attached is not really a law -- it's a proposed statement of etiquette.
You might not realize it, but peer review has been pushed as a gold-plated standard for whether scientific research is valid. People say "peer-reviewed" with a hushed breath when talking about scientific conclusions. Imagine if what you suggest is the real review were applied in the cases of drug approvals. If the drugs were allowed on the market until enough doctors voiced opinions on their harm or lack of efficacy, there would be pitchforks out. You are essentially proving that the process is so corrupted (and, therefore, corruptable) as to be inadequate for any fact finding that matters.
The whole theory behind peer review breaks down in a world in which areas of expertise are too narrow.
A study that no one seems to want to do is which fact finding ends up being more accurate? The criminal court system (with its trial system and adversarial review) or quality control system of scientific publications? Most advanced scientific research can only be checked by very few peers. And the only checks they perform is whether they can replicate the results. And even that is not always the standard. They often simply try to see if they can arrive at the same results with a different method. But then they know ahead of time what to expect (based on reputation of those "anonymous" results they are checking). And I put "anonymous" in quotes because if there is only 3 labs in the world which look into a certain area, then lab C knows whether they are checking results from lab A or lab B just by reading their proposals.
Again, no one is checking whether adversarial review produces better more fact-finding accurate results. And yet all the people who rely on grants for their work are against it.
Even commercial scientific research requires adversarial review. This is what drug trials are. Drug companies have to prove that their drugs perform better than placebo and that the drugs do not have a high frequencies of adverse effects. How would we like it if drug companies could put their drugs out on the market as long as they passed peer review? We definitely would think that was a scary proposition. Well, then why do we use such a weak standard for scientific exploration which is funded by public money (and which sometimes drives public policy)?
I've seen a number of good people leave Google over the past year. The completely toxic culture that Google created by doubling down on their abusive rhetoric can very-well drive people away.
Except Docker is trying to have it both ways. You can't compile it off line and it wants people to have the assurances that its auto-audited by being open source. Which makes it less secure than most closed-source projects.
She didn't "jump" into the market. She created the myth of doing cheaper blood tests, but she did it by not doing test and just sending back fake results. What's preventing other companies from doing that? Fear of the law mostly.
A lot of that had to do with they way she smartly spread money around.
Well, it worked for Zuckerberg. When it was discovered that he probably sold the company long before he even started, he made a $100mil donation to "Newark School System." None of it went to any Newark schools. For $100mil you can build that whole system from scratch. Population of all of Newark is only 200,000 people. All the money went to "consultants". Which means Zuch pretty much bribed the Democratic party to make sure Facebook wasn't taken away from him.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not dumb. So rethink your premises.
According to Wikipedia, Russian finance ministry considers transacting in all crypto-currencies illegal.
I think Adams is veering into lala land already. He started advocating for the simulation theory. And if that's not an atheist religion, it sure has all the signs of it.
They are still entitled to discovery. If they responded to the complaint against them, they are also entitled to a verdict. And before a verdict is rendered, they are entitled to examine the evidence against them.
It's a said day when the only person making sense is an AC.
Stone claims that Guccifer is Romanian. Romanian alphabet uses Latin letters plus a few diacritics which are present in extended ASCII. However, I don't know if they the ASCII encoding is the most commonly used one in Romania. It maybe. But given that Romania was part of the Soviet block, it could be something else.
Wikia says that Windows-1250 is the recommended encoding for Romanian. It doesn't have Cyrillic, but it is not ASCII (Cyrillic is in Windows-1251).
I am not arguing, btw. I don't know quite know how meaningful it is. Just thinking "out loud" I guess. If you can point to the document on a more-or-less safe site, maybe I could make more sense of it.
Except in both of those case it was pretty obvious that a President was involved. No one seriously thinks that Trump colluded with Russia. They just think it's a good albatross to hang on his neck.
It would be dishonorable and indecent to claim it without presenting strong evidence for it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
We do know it? I thought it was classified.
Not to beat this dead horse again, but how exactly did they try to throw an election? None of those claims have ever been substantiated. Any request for details is always met with either "it's classified" or "it's an ongoing investigation". Either you personally have access to classified information or you bought into this not-too-carefully-orchestrated hysteria which for a while has been feeling like a Big Lie.
Now assuming that they were in it for profit, it's more likely that they would be planning a future astro-turf marketing campaign of some products. This would make them a commercial marketing firm. Albeit it would make them a commercial marketing firm which lacks any scruples. But that's still a far cry from what's being alleged.
The way to both respect freedom of association and freedom of speech while disarming foreign propaganda is simple. Force all media companies offering content to the public to publish what geographic area the comments (or media content) is coming from. Knowing which city/country comments are coming from would not violate anyone's privacy.
I have never understood why the "foe" relationship is on slashdot. It always seemed like one would want to hear from those with whom they disagreed; if nothing else than just to see why. In the 20 years that I have used slashdot you are the 1st person to demonstrate it. Your posts and signature are as uninsightful as they are obnoxious. You have shown me something new today. Thank you.
Personal lives? Your employers have a limited right to intrude in them, sure. But expecting that your customers would censor themselves in order to make your personal lives more comfortable? You better have a lot of customers and make sure that your requests for self-censorship don't piss off a lot of customers. Otherwise, it's not that you don't have a job anymore. It's that this job won't exist pretty soon.
Well, if the position is filled, do they continue to advertise for it?
That's actually interesting information. Of course, they should not have respect for the law if the law does not have any enforcement mechanism built into it. Are there any fines that can be levied on them if some state agency finds out? Can they be sued for not being forthcoming? Any law which does not have any enforcement mechanism attached is not really a law -- it's a proposed statement of etiquette.
You might not realize it, but peer review has been pushed as a gold-plated standard for whether scientific research is valid. People say "peer-reviewed" with a hushed breath when talking about scientific conclusions. Imagine if what you suggest is the real review were applied in the cases of drug approvals. If the drugs were allowed on the market until enough doctors voiced opinions on their harm or lack of efficacy, there would be pitchforks out. You are essentially proving that the process is so corrupted (and, therefore, corruptable) as to be inadequate for any fact finding that matters.
The whole theory behind peer review breaks down in a world in which areas of expertise are too narrow.
A study that no one seems to want to do is which fact finding ends up being more accurate? The criminal court system (with its trial system and adversarial review) or quality control system of scientific publications? Most advanced scientific research can only be checked by very few peers. And the only checks they perform is whether they can replicate the results. And even that is not always the standard. They often simply try to see if they can arrive at the same results with a different method. But then they know ahead of time what to expect (based on reputation of those "anonymous" results they are checking). And I put "anonymous" in quotes because if there is only 3 labs in the world which look into a certain area, then lab C knows whether they are checking results from lab A or lab B just by reading their proposals.
Again, no one is checking whether adversarial review produces better more fact-finding accurate results. And yet all the people who rely on grants for their work are against it.
Even commercial scientific research requires adversarial review. This is what drug trials are. Drug companies have to prove that their drugs perform better than placebo and that the drugs do not have a high frequencies of adverse effects. How would we like it if drug companies could put their drugs out on the market as long as they passed peer review? We definitely would think that was a scary proposition. Well, then why do we use such a weak standard for scientific exploration which is funded by public money (and which sometimes drives public policy)?
Shut up, Hillary.
I've seen a number of good people leave Google over the past year. The completely toxic culture that Google created by doubling down on their abusive rhetoric can very-well drive people away.
Except Docker is trying to have it both ways. You can't compile it off line and it wants people to have the assurances that its auto-audited by being open source. Which makes it less secure than most closed-source projects.
That's slander against sociopathic narcissists
She didn't "jump" into the market. She created the myth of doing cheaper blood tests, but she did it by not doing test and just sending back fake results. What's preventing other companies from doing that? Fear of the law mostly.
A lot of that had to do with they way she smartly spread money around.
Well, it worked for Zuckerberg. When it was discovered that he probably sold the company long before he even started, he made a $100mil donation to "Newark School System." None of it went to any Newark schools. For $100mil you can build that whole system from scratch. Population of all of Newark is only 200,000 people. All the money went to "consultants". Which means Zuch pretty much bribed the Democratic party to make sure Facebook wasn't taken away from him.
Shut up, Hillary.
Shut up, Hillary!