Eeek that's not what I meant. Mostly I was saying that when we say "E equals MC squared", it's a strict mathematical equivalence, and it has no need for a measure of precise-ness. But from now on, I'm going to say "E equals MC squared, give or take" just for funsies.
Er well, yeah, but that's the precise-ness of our ability to measure, not the precise-ness of the theory itself. If we were able to measure GR effects to 1 part in a quadrillion, nothing about the theory itself would have changed -- only our ability to measure things. Eh, it don't matter. It just struck me as an odd way to refer to a characteristic of a theory.
From the same memo: "It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5- 10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."
(The $24 billion is a reference to the remittances sent from Mexicans in America back to Mexico.) Again, not necessarily a check, but a "one-time payment".
Straight from Trump's campaign website. In this case, he didn't say the instrument of payment would necessarily be a check per se, nevertheless the "Mexican government will contribute the funds". The plan was to pressure remittances to coerce the Mexican government into contributing the funds. There would be no need to put pressure on remittances if all along it was going to be a natural outcome of an improved trade deal.
On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to includewire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States. On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico. On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.
I see a lot of people make this claim, but it simply isn't true. It's directly contradicted by the black-letter text of the law in question:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. [...] No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [...] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
Note especially, it even goes out of the way to say it covers censorship of any material that is "otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". The provider simply has to deem something "otherwise objectionable" and they're clear of any civil liability, and explicitly so regardless of any free speech status of the material (the poster is of course free to speak, just not free to make use of someone else's platform without their consent).
Could you be more specific? For instance, here's Scalia writing for the majority in DC v Heller: âoeLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimitedâ¦â. It is âoeâ¦not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.â Now certainly, this is not carte blanche to confiscate all guns, but there is plenty of room to do the sorts of gun regulations I would support.
There's no particular need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The previous assault weapons ban withstood legal challenge, and our current legal regime regarding full-auto weapons has been humming along for decades. I'd recommend to gun safety advocates that, whenever someone brings up the 2nd Amendment, to simply say, "none of our proposals run afoul of the 2nd Amendment, so we're all good there".
DACA is not just a matter of leniency or allocation of resources. It created a whole new class of work permit, and the attendant administrative apparatus.
But here's the thing -- the policy *is* being followed, in both the letter and the spirit. The policy has a huge gaping hole in it, and intentionally so. To paraphrase the policy and give it just a pinch of exaggeration, it reads approximately as follows -- "dear NSA: please disclose vulnerabilities, except of course when you can otherwise make use of them."
There's no Federal statute such as you describe. It's not even an Executive Order -- it's just a matter of policy. The "Vulnerabilities Equities Process" allows this: "the government may choose to withhold the information to use it for purposes including law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and 'offensive' exploitation".
Which statute are you referring to? If I recall correctly, there's an executive order that encourages the reporting of vulnerabilities, but makes an exemption for zero-days retained for official cyber-espionage purposes. So (again, If I recall correctly), there is no violation of any Federal statute here.
Are the Burger King sockpuppet accounts the ones that are defending the corporation's behaviour, or are the sockpuppet accounts the ones that are fanning the flames of absurdist faux outrage?... Have I been trolled?... Well played, Burger King, well played.
I'm sure Burger King is positively gleeful about all the pearl-clutching, which serves to magnify their marketing reach to the people they're targeting (i.e., people with a sense of humor). The picture in my mind is this: a couple of kids just played Ding-Dong-Ditch and Old Man Grumperton streams out in his bathrobe, yelling, "I'm calling the FBI! You'll be brought up on RICO conspiracy charges before the week is out!" Yes, of course, somebody really ought to talk to those boys' mothers.
I imagine the "malicious app" might be a pinball game that you gave gyro permissions to, and/or a puzzle-sliding mini game that lays out on the screen in a manner suspiciously similar to the lock screen. After that it would need to be able to look up historical gyro data.
The article doesn't provide enough detail, so I'm just speculating. But I would imagine it might just take a little bit of cleverness to trojan this into a real world scenario.
I was amenable to the idea that we should give Trump a chance to govern and see how it goes -- and immediately we get the selection of Steve Bannon. D'oh! Terrible as that is, I think it's maybe a bit misleading to simply call him a racist. I wish we had some more nuanced ways to describe the particular kind of alt-right that Steve Bannon represents. I think he's more of a nationalist/chauvinist trafficking in generalized bigotry -- it's not really about Aryan-master-race, white supremacy for him. Still utterly despicable, but I think by mislabeling people like him, it gives them the out of saying, "you don't know what you're talking about". And then the whole conversation derails over the "racist" label.
Is it possible to have a substantive, non-racist discussion about, e.g., the murder rate in Baltimore, without being accused of coded racism? Is it possible to advocate for tax cuts based on other-than-racist motivations without being accused of coded racism? Is it possible to advocate for State's Rights for libertarian-ish reasons without being accused of coded racism?
I do agree that plenty of racists code up their despicable views under the guise of States Rates and such. But I hate it when a discussion is derailed because someone favors for valid reasons a policy that any white supremacist ever used anywhere as a dog-whistle.
I wonder if we can invert the "you're throwing your vote away" argument, which is used as a kind of blackmail by the parties against their base voters. Conservatives should say to the Republican party, and liberals to the Democrat party, "if you don't put up candidates worthy of my vote, then you're throwing the election to the other party". With that, the "blackmail" pressure runs the other direction -- now the moral imperative is placed on the party to put up worthy candidates.
I'm absolutely willing to call the party's bluff for the sake of the long-term health of our country. Even if that means Cthulhu gets the White House for 4 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Eeek that's not what I meant. Mostly I was saying that when we say "E equals MC squared", it's a strict mathematical equivalence, and it has no need for a measure of precise-ness. But from now on, I'm going to say "E equals MC squared, give or take" just for funsies.
Er well, yeah, but that's the precise-ness of our ability to measure, not the precise-ness of the theory itself. If we were able to measure GR effects to 1 part in a quadrillion, nothing about the theory itself would have changed -- only our ability to measure things. Eh, it don't matter. It just struck me as an odd way to refer to a characteristic of a theory.
I wonder how they measure the precise-ness of a theory? What's the second-most precise theory in science? What's the least precise?
From the same memo: "It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-
10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year
after year."
(The $24 billion is a reference to the remittances sent from Mexicans in America back to Mexico.) Again, not necessarily a check, but a "one-time payment".
Straight from Trump's campaign website. In this case, he didn't say the instrument of payment would necessarily be a check per se, nevertheless the "Mexican government will contribute the funds". The plan was to pressure remittances to coerce the Mexican government into contributing the funds. There would be no need to put pressure on remittances if all along it was going to be a natural outcome of an improved trade deal.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.co...
On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31
CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include
money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to
includewire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that
no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien
first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United
States.
On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24
billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United
States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de
facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety
net provided by the state in Mexico.
On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds
needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will
not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.
I see a lot of people make this claim, but it simply isn't true. It's directly contradicted by the black-letter text of the law in question:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. [...] No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [...] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
Do read the whole thing yourself, if you suspect me of nefarious elisions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Note especially, it even goes out of the way to say it covers censorship of any material that is "otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". The provider simply has to deem something "otherwise objectionable" and they're clear of any civil liability, and explicitly so regardless of any free speech status of the material (the poster is of course free to speak, just not free to make use of someone else's platform without their consent).
D'oh! Sorry about the mangled smart quotes.
Could you be more specific? For instance, here's Scalia writing for the majority in DC v Heller: âoeLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimitedâ¦â. It is âoeâ¦not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.â Now certainly, this is not carte blanche to confiscate all guns, but there is plenty of room to do the sorts of gun regulations I would support.
There's no particular need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The previous assault weapons ban withstood legal challenge, and our current legal regime regarding full-auto weapons has been humming along for decades. I'd recommend to gun safety advocates that, whenever someone brings up the 2nd Amendment, to simply say, "none of our proposals run afoul of the 2nd Amendment, so we're all good there".
DACA is not just a matter of leniency or allocation of resources. It created a whole new class of work permit, and the attendant administrative apparatus.
If only there was a way to conduct financial transactions beyond the reach of 3rd-party interference!
But here's the thing -- the policy *is* being followed, in both the letter and the spirit. The policy has a huge gaping hole in it, and intentionally so. To paraphrase the policy and give it just a pinch of exaggeration, it reads approximately as follows -- "dear NSA: please disclose vulnerabilities, except of course when you can otherwise make use of them."
Ah yes, here it is:
https://epic.org/privacy/cyber...
There's no Federal statute such as you describe. It's not even an Executive Order -- it's just a matter of policy. The "Vulnerabilities Equities Process" allows this: "the government may choose to withhold the information to use it for purposes including law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and 'offensive' exploitation".
Which statute are you referring to? If I recall correctly, there's an executive order that encourages the reporting of vulnerabilities, but makes an exemption for zero-days retained for official cyber-espionage purposes. So (again, If I recall correctly), there is no violation of any Federal statute here.
Are the Burger King sockpuppet accounts the ones that are defending the corporation's behaviour, or are the sockpuppet accounts the ones that are fanning the flames of absurdist faux outrage? ... Have I been trolled? ... Well played, Burger King, well played.
I'm sure Burger King is positively gleeful about all the pearl-clutching, which serves to magnify their marketing reach to the people they're targeting (i.e., people with a sense of humor). The picture in my mind is this: a couple of kids just played Ding-Dong-Ditch and Old Man Grumperton streams out in his bathrobe, yelling, "I'm calling the FBI! You'll be brought up on RICO conspiracy charges before the week is out!" Yes, of course, somebody really ought to talk to those boys' mothers.
I imagine the "malicious app" might be a pinball game that you gave gyro permissions to, and/or a puzzle-sliding mini game that lays out on the screen in a manner suspiciously similar to the lock screen. After that it would need to be able to look up historical gyro data.
The article doesn't provide enough detail, so I'm just speculating. But I would imagine it might just take a little bit of cleverness to trojan this into a real world scenario.
Oh man, I was so surprised when I read this headline, that I almost choked on my donut!
(PS I'm totally in agreement with everything you said; I'm just bringing up some related things that I've been pondering recently.)
I was amenable to the idea that we should give Trump a chance to govern and see how it goes -- and immediately we get the selection of Steve Bannon. D'oh! Terrible as that is, I think it's maybe a bit misleading to simply call him a racist. I wish we had some more nuanced ways to describe the particular kind of alt-right that Steve Bannon represents. I think he's more of a nationalist/chauvinist trafficking in generalized bigotry -- it's not really about Aryan-master-race, white supremacy for him. Still utterly despicable, but I think by mislabeling people like him, it gives them the out of saying, "you don't know what you're talking about". And then the whole conversation derails over the "racist" label.
Is it possible to have a substantive, non-racist discussion about, e.g., the murder rate in Baltimore, without being accused of coded racism? Is it possible to advocate for tax cuts based on other-than-racist motivations without being accused of coded racism? Is it possible to advocate for State's Rights for libertarian-ish reasons without being accused of coded racism?
I do agree that plenty of racists code up their despicable views under the guise of States Rates and such. But I hate it when a discussion is derailed because someone favors for valid reasons a policy that any white supremacist ever used anywhere as a dog-whistle.
Oh no! A snooty club won't have me as a member! Why should I care?
I think I will adopt the term "viscous cycle" and use it whenever I get in a sticky situation.
I wonder if we can invert the "you're throwing your vote away" argument, which is used as a kind of blackmail by the parties against their base voters. Conservatives should say to the Republican party, and liberals to the Democrat party, "if you don't put up candidates worthy of my vote, then you're throwing the election to the other party". With that, the "blackmail" pressure runs the other direction -- now the moral imperative is placed on the party to put up worthy candidates.
I'm absolutely willing to call the party's bluff for the sake of the long-term health of our country. Even if that means Cthulhu gets the White House for 4 years.
Apple's promise wasn't broken -- it was re-negotiated.