If a secretary asked you to send personal information in the email, it's a good bet that she sends it around herself encrypted. You probably have a lot at stake dealing with this organization, but before you start out just be sure to understand that they WILL send your information unencrypted. The contact with them might still be worth it to you. But the loss of privacy is part of the price you'll pay. Now what's worth more to you depends entirely on your circumstances.
Oh, well, I am sure it's not NSA, then. NSA didn't exist in 2008. And even if it did, it wouldn't have a mobile security company as a front. lookout.com, btw was first registered in 2001 according to WhoIs records.
Lookout mobile security? Never heard of them before. Sounds like an NSA front getting back at Russian businesses. If they really cared about consumer safety, they would name the specific firms which are creating the harmful apps.
Don't build anything in states that promise zero business taxes. Not that hard if you a functioning human soul.
Aha. Because kowtowing to a government is what makes a person "moral". Please, go away. Despite the circle jerk that you and your pretend "friends" live in, you are not a good person. You are a tool. You and the people like you are responsible for the "society's ills" (that's how you ass holes put it, right?). You promote incompetence and waste. Its eventual inevitable results are waste and starvation.
allow no-benefit, slave-wage jobs
Let me fix that for you:
"allow jobs"
See: brief and to the point. You could have saved yourself so much effort in saying what you most definitely meant to say.
They are not desperate. They are methodical. This is war-ware for them. And, as in any warfare, if you can't fight on the battle field, you start trying to cut the supply lines.
I would agree, as long as unions weren't allowed to donate, either. Basically, the principle should be that you can't donate the money that you administer on someone else's behalf (whether as a corporate officer nor as a union leader). Voting is an expression of will. You can't express someone else's will, so you shouldn't be able to influence elections on someone else's behalf. Yes, yes, union reps are elected, but so are corporate officers. It just makes them surrogates. But if we establish the principle that surrogates of any kind cannot donate money to politicians, then it would be fair play.
Sorry, but the idea of having a small foot print, small learning curve, media device has been pre-emptied by Google's chromecast. It makes a phone like this irrelevant for most people. Even though it's not even remotely the same type of device, it does feel the gap of missing use cases for most users. There is a very good reason why donations to the phone project stopped when chromecast came out. It's not a coincidence.
You are missing the point of code being data. What it means in this context is that there is a duality between functions and the data they operate on. In other words, you can think of data as operating on the code instead of code operating on data. So your data becomes your maps (in the mathematical sense of the word map) and your functions become the mapped objects.
Obfuscation is woefully poor way to stop decomposition. Any program is a graph. Any program analysis tool will traverse obfuscated code just as easily as it will traverse an non-obfuscated one. In fact, it won't even know the difference between obfuscated and non-obfuscated code. Obfuscation only stops eyeballing analysis. But if eyeballing is the only tool you use, you are an amateur. You might be a very adroit amateur, but the difference between an adroit amateur and a decent professional is that the professional will handle much greater complexity with a yawn.
Roughly speaking, homomorphism is a map which preservers the properties pertinent to a category. Now think of data as acting on code instead of code acting on data. Since "acting" is a mapping, acting in a homomorphic way would produce program results which are equivalent but without the decrypting step.
Muller didn't "think that climate models were wrong". And it doesn't make any difference who sponsored his research. He correctly argued that a certain variable was not accounted for in the model. The study which you point to simply accounted for that variable (the proximity of population centers to the "actual" temperature readings). That doesn't mean he went from the "heretics" to the "believers" as your comment strongly suggests. It just shows that the hypothesis, while it might be true, is most accurately described as "not fully researched" (since unexplored variables exist). As for your grandfather vs a quantum physicist, I would take very seriously any objections both from a quantum physicist and from any quantitative hedge fund manger (because they have the best grasp of time series analysis). Or any applied mathematician. Or from any evolutionary biologist. In fact, the evolutionary biology aspect of it has not been explored AT ALL. We still don't know what causes Ice Ages (not even a guess). "Climate Science" is not a science as such. It's a survey of a bunch of scientific disciplines tied together with some time series analysis. You'd have to explain to me why you don't think a quantum physicist would have relevant point of view to energy absorption/emition topic. Seems relevant to the study of heat flow to me,but ok, maybe your understanding of the science is better. Do tell. Please, spare me the hysterics. The post is 1-2 days old. No one but you and will read this thread anyway.
No, it's definitely Soviet America. The modern leftist movements are ronin of the Soviet Union. They had their roots in Soviet world-wide (now widely-exposed) propaganda. But their sponsors are long gone. What you are seeing now is the ideas born pre-20th century which gave roots to the over-reaction which was the Communist movement. These ideas have grown into a nonsensical monstrosity fertilized by the pseudo psychology (debunked by actual neuroscience) of the Frankfurt school. And now they transformed into just idiotic ramblings of what is today's left. The roots of the "philosophy" are gone -- debunked both in theory and in practice. But, as all ronin, they exercise the accumulated power to continue to simply fight for their own survival without any definable goal. The hate for Soviet Russia has become nothing but xenophobia at this point. It's hate for Russia as a country -- not as an ideology. Because America has embraced and mainstreamed the ideology of the Soviet Union while Russia has vehemently rejected it.
Soviet Russia hasn't existed for 22 years now. Post-Soviet Russia is legal and can buy liquor now. It's Soviet America, in case you still haven't heard.
Based on what evidence do you say that they could be in the very narrow habitable range of all the necessary parameters? And what makes you think that they are a warning of any sort? AGW hysteria is premised on lack of understanding of the heat equation. It's biggest skeptics are physicists. It's biggest proponents are Hollywood actors and politicians. If you disagree, do tell why the heat equation doesn't apply all of a sudden. If you can't, then stop spewing bull shit.
Someone needs to remind these assholes that economic sanctions are an act of war.
They are not. Not if they are enforced only through legal means. If they are enforced through a military blockade, then they are not sanctions anymore. They are then a blockade. Sanctions are just trade policy. Restricting or allowing trade in order to further other national interests is par for the course.
I mean, why do you think that so many of these studies have been ended prematurely on ethics grounds? Total - TOTAL - mortality is elevated in the study group. 'Nuff said.
Why would such an ambiguous phrase be possibly "'nuff said"? It's just another deflection. Total mortality? Meaning what? Once again, less mortality from less occurring conditions, more mortality from more occurring conditions. The concept of "total mortality" can only make sense in this context if it were measuring life span. And there is no mention of length of the life span. So the whole argument is bogus.
Stalin's goal wasn't social equality, it was more power for Stalin.
You wish!!! Quite the opposite. He considered himself an equal to all. He wouldn't even trade his captured son for a German general during WWII because exchanging a private for a general was not a fair exchange. He wanted social justice. It's just that in a society in which incentivising through carrots is not optional the only thing that's left is incentivising through sticks. The millions who died at his hand were the sacrifice on the alter of YOUR thinking. Not of just some psychopath's thinking, but on the alter you'd create if given the chance. There is not "this time it would be different" or "I would go a different way." It is your kind of ethics that lead to murder -- not your kinds of ethics exercised by someone misguided. But your ethics themselves are the cause. The cause is the pursuit of equality instead of pursuit of justice (real justice, rather than "social justice", -- the tit-for-tat justice).
There is a difference between wanting to promote social equality and enforce it. Enforcers are often autocrats, but we can promote it on a volunteer basis, it will work with everybody except the sociopaths.
Aha. No. It will make people into sociopaths. Individuals living in collectivist societies are notoriously inconsiderate. Not because they are of different species. But because of the conditions they find themselves in. The only stable solution to the prisoner's dilemma is Nash equilibrium, which is to say justice. Actual justice. Not "social justice" or some word play co-opted to make people think that there are different types of justice. Both the co-operative and the exploitative solutions can be only locally (with respect to the timeline) stable. "Locally" in the mathematical sense. Meaning that they cannot (to mathematical certainty) persist for a long time. The only long-term solution is actual tit-for-tat justice. Human nature didn't arise arbitrarily. It arose as a stable solution to the problem of player interaction.
As a conservative, allow me to state
I don't care what label you ascribe to yourself. I'll judge which group you better fit in by the content of what you have to say rather than by what you wish you were.
Yes, but, once again, mortality from non-X-related illnesses is higher among those who survive X. Where X is any illness. If vitamins helped people avert any number of X,Y,Z conditions, then they would increase mortality from the other conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
If a secretary asked you to send personal information in the email, it's a good bet that she sends it around herself encrypted. You probably have a lot at stake dealing with this organization, but before you start out just be sure to understand that they WILL send your information unencrypted. The contact with them might still be worth it to you. But the loss of privacy is part of the price you'll pay. Now what's worth more to you depends entirely on your circumstances.
Oh, well, I am sure it's not NSA, then. NSA didn't exist in 2008. And even if it did, it wouldn't have a mobile security company as a front. lookout.com, btw was first registered in 2001 according to WhoIs records.
Lookout mobile security? Never heard of them before. Sounds like an NSA front getting back at Russian businesses. If they really cared about consumer safety, they would name the specific firms which are creating the harmful apps.
Don't build anything in states that promise zero business taxes. Not that hard if you a functioning human soul.
Aha. Because kowtowing to a government is what makes a person "moral". Please, go away. Despite the circle jerk that you and your pretend "friends" live in, you are not a good person. You are a tool. You and the people like you are responsible for the "society's ills" (that's how you ass holes put it, right?). You promote incompetence and waste. Its eventual inevitable results are waste and starvation.
allow no-benefit, slave-wage jobs
Let me fix that for you:
"allow jobs"
See: brief and to the point. You could have saved yourself so much effort in saying what you most definitely meant to say.
They are not desperate. They are methodical. This is war-ware for them. And, as in any warfare, if you can't fight on the battle field, you start trying to cut the supply lines.
I would agree, as long as unions weren't allowed to donate, either. Basically, the principle should be that you can't donate the money that you administer on someone else's behalf (whether as a corporate officer nor as a union leader). Voting is an expression of will. You can't express someone else's will, so you shouldn't be able to influence elections on someone else's behalf. Yes, yes, union reps are elected, but so are corporate officers. It just makes them surrogates. But if we establish the principle that surrogates of any kind cannot donate money to politicians, then it would be fair play.
Sorry, but the idea of having a small foot print, small learning curve, media device has been pre-emptied by Google's chromecast. It makes a phone like this irrelevant for most people. Even though it's not even remotely the same type of device, it does feel the gap of missing use cases for most users. There is a very good reason why donations to the phone project stopped when chromecast came out. It's not a coincidence.
You are missing the point of code being data. What it means in this context is that there is a duality between functions and the data they operate on. In other words, you can think of data as operating on the code instead of code operating on data. So your data becomes your maps (in the mathematical sense of the word map) and your functions become the mapped objects.
Obfuscation is woefully poor way to stop decomposition. Any program is a graph. Any program analysis tool will traverse obfuscated code just as easily as it will traverse an non-obfuscated one. In fact, it won't even know the difference between obfuscated and non-obfuscated code. Obfuscation only stops eyeballing analysis. But if eyeballing is the only tool you use, you are an amateur. You might be a very adroit amateur, but the difference between an adroit amateur and a decent professional is that the professional will handle much greater complexity with a yawn.
But UCLA doesn't get to claim the credit. MIT was first to present homomorphic encryption: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/algorithm-solves-homomorphic-encryption-problem-0610.html
Roughly speaking, homomorphism is a map which preservers the properties pertinent to a category. Now think of data as acting on code instead of code acting on data. Since "acting" is a mapping, acting in a homomorphic way would produce program results which are equivalent but without the decrypting step.
Muller didn't "think that climate models were wrong". And it doesn't make any difference who sponsored his research. He correctly argued that a certain variable was not accounted for in the model. The study which you point to simply accounted for that variable (the proximity of population centers to the "actual" temperature readings). That doesn't mean he went from the "heretics" to the "believers" as your comment strongly suggests. It just shows that the hypothesis, while it might be true, is most accurately described as "not fully researched" (since unexplored variables exist). As for your grandfather vs a quantum physicist, I would take very seriously any objections both from a quantum physicist and from any quantitative hedge fund manger (because they have the best grasp of time series analysis). Or any applied mathematician. Or from any evolutionary biologist. In fact, the evolutionary biology aspect of it has not been explored AT ALL. We still don't know what causes Ice Ages (not even a guess). "Climate Science" is not a science as such. It's a survey of a bunch of scientific disciplines tied together with some time series analysis. You'd have to explain to me why you don't think a quantum physicist would have relevant point of view to energy absorption/emition topic. Seems relevant to the study of heat flow to me,but ok, maybe your understanding of the science is better. Do tell. Please, spare me the hysterics. The post is 1-2 days old. No one but you and will read this thread anyway.
Not Soviet America. Socialist America.
No, it's definitely Soviet America. The modern leftist movements are ronin of the Soviet Union. They had their roots in Soviet world-wide (now widely-exposed) propaganda. But their sponsors are long gone. What you are seeing now is the ideas born pre-20th century which gave roots to the over-reaction which was the Communist movement. These ideas have grown into a nonsensical monstrosity fertilized by the pseudo psychology (debunked by actual neuroscience) of the Frankfurt school. And now they transformed into just idiotic ramblings of what is today's left. The roots of the "philosophy" are gone -- debunked both in theory and in practice. But, as all ronin, they exercise the accumulated power to continue to simply fight for their own survival without any definable goal. The hate for Soviet Russia has become nothing but xenophobia at this point. It's hate for Russia as a country -- not as an ideology. Because America has embraced and mainstreamed the ideology of the Soviet Union while Russia has vehemently rejected it.
Are they planning to make the Internet the only place in Russia that's free of cursing? Cursing is more endemic to Russia than drinking.
In Soviet Russia, foul language bans you!
Soviet Russia hasn't existed for 22 years now. Post-Soviet Russia is legal and can buy liquor now. It's Soviet America, in case you still haven't heard.
You already do. You trade them for the most precious commodity you have: your time.
Well, now that you've posted this on the Internet, you'll probably have an opportunity to buy them with blow jobs and cigarettes very shortly.
So you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. Good. Thought so.
I am serious. Are you? Put up or shut up. Explain why you think the heat equation doesn't apply. Or shut the fuck up.
Based on what evidence do you say that they could be in the very narrow habitable range of all the necessary parameters? And what makes you think that they are a warning of any sort? AGW hysteria is premised on lack of understanding of the heat equation. It's biggest skeptics are physicists. It's biggest proponents are Hollywood actors and politicians. If you disagree, do tell why the heat equation doesn't apply all of a sudden. If you can't, then stop spewing bull shit.
Yes because using the name 'Snowden' explicitly has clear links to the Syrian conflict.
As long as he is in Russia, it does. Syria houses the only Russian base in the Middle East.
Someone needs to remind these assholes that economic sanctions are an act of war.
They are not. Not if they are enforced only through legal means. If they are enforced through a military blockade, then they are not sanctions anymore. They are then a blockade. Sanctions are just trade policy. Restricting or allowing trade in order to further other national interests is par for the course.
I mean, why do you think that so many of these studies have been ended prematurely on ethics grounds? Total - TOTAL - mortality is elevated in the study group. 'Nuff said.
Why would such an ambiguous phrase be possibly "'nuff said"? It's just another deflection. Total mortality? Meaning what? Once again, less mortality from less occurring conditions, more mortality from more occurring conditions. The concept of "total mortality" can only make sense in this context if it were measuring life span. And there is no mention of length of the life span. So the whole argument is bogus.
Stalin's goal wasn't social equality, it was more power for Stalin.
You wish!!! Quite the opposite. He considered himself an equal to all. He wouldn't even trade his captured son for a German general during WWII because exchanging a private for a general was not a fair exchange. He wanted social justice. It's just that in a society in which incentivising through carrots is not optional the only thing that's left is incentivising through sticks. The millions who died at his hand were the sacrifice on the alter of YOUR thinking. Not of just some psychopath's thinking, but on the alter you'd create if given the chance. There is not "this time it would be different" or "I would go a different way." It is your kind of ethics that lead to murder -- not your kinds of ethics exercised by someone misguided. But your ethics themselves are the cause. The cause is the pursuit of equality instead of pursuit of justice (real justice, rather than "social justice", -- the tit-for-tat justice).
There is a difference between wanting to promote social equality and enforce it. Enforcers are often autocrats, but we can promote it on a volunteer basis, it will work with everybody except the sociopaths.
Aha. No. It will make people into sociopaths. Individuals living in collectivist societies are notoriously inconsiderate. Not because they are of different species. But because of the conditions they find themselves in. The only stable solution to the prisoner's dilemma is Nash equilibrium, which is to say justice. Actual justice. Not "social justice" or some word play co-opted to make people think that there are different types of justice. Both the co-operative and the exploitative solutions can be only locally (with respect to the timeline) stable. "Locally" in the mathematical sense. Meaning that they cannot (to mathematical certainty) persist for a long time. The only long-term solution is actual tit-for-tat justice. Human nature didn't arise arbitrarily. It arose as a stable solution to the problem of player interaction.
As a conservative, allow me to state
I don't care what label you ascribe to yourself. I'll judge which group you better fit in by the content of what you have to say rather than by what you wish you were.
Yes, but, once again, mortality from non-X-related illnesses is higher among those who survive X. Where X is any illness. If vitamins helped people avert any number of X,Y,Z conditions, then they would increase mortality from the other conditions.