Providing for the common defense is constitutional. Health Insurance is not.
We should be worrying about getting our government to do the things it is supposed to do correctly instead of pretending that since we're paying for A we're entitled to B, too.
Providing for the common defense? You must be delusional.
The question today is one of defending ourselves FROM the government.
The biggest threat to the people and the freedoms of the United States is not some imaginary external enemy. Its our own government, which, as has become patently obvious, we are powerless to control.
The founding fathers never intended the bill of rights to apply to the internet.
Actually, the founding fathers never intended the bill of rights PERIOD.
So many ordinary citizens saw the dangers of authoritarian government that some colonies refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added.
The first Bill of Rights was proposed during the convention but was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations after only a brief discussion. Madison, then an opponent of a Bill of Rights, later explained the vote by calling the state bills of rights "parchment barriers" that offered only an illusion of protection against tyranny. (More prophetic words were seldom spoken.) Madison only later became in favor of the BOR.
It wasn't till 11 states had ratified the Constitution and the first congress met that the Bill of Rights was actually added, after a bitter and protracted debate. The first 12 amendments were submitted to the states for ratification in 1789 (only 10 passed). Only after this did the holdout colonies decide to become part of the United States.
I'm not sure, though it doesn't seem strange to me. A magnet doesn't have to have its poles 180 degrees away from each other (think a horseshoe magnet).
But "racing to catch up"...!!?!!
Damn Northerners! They've stolen a march on our poor Southern horseshoes!!
i've been using minteye on my site. it's a visual captcha, works pretty well. you move a slider back and forth to unscramble an image.
I never heard of it, and upon googling it, their own website wouldn't couldn't get pass my no-script. So right there, a significant and growing number of customers would be turned away.
But, I wonder of that would remain effective, after all, bots already exist to recognize letters in images. (Those bots existed before captcha). So as soon as Minteye becomes popular it will be bot-stormed.
I've also seen the word games, these are fairly unique as well. But I'm not sure they couldn't be attacked as soon as they become popular. It almost seems that obscurity is the best we have these days.
It is possible to train an algorithm to recognize CAPTCHA, even if the success rate isn't 100%, it is high enough to enable bots to register on websites with CAPTCHA. So, Australia is only pushing people to find out better solutions than CAPTCHA. In short term, a large amount of spammers will rely on optical recognition algorithms to decipher CAPTCHA anyway.
True, but I think the OPs point is those smart bots are not that frequently encountered. We know it can be beat, but in everyday life it is still not common to encounter such bots, and even when you do, you end up blocking 98% of the bots.
As those bots become more common, captcha will become less and less useful. Its a self solving problem that probably doesn't need any help from government, because government will invariably impose something more stupid and useless.
If taking a couple seconds to answer a CAPTCHA is too much effort, I probably don't really care what you have to say in the comment section.
Or a couple of minutes considering most capchas are illegible.
This!
More and more, captchas take two or three attempts. (Disclaimer: IMHO, I'm not senile, dyslexic, a horrible typist. blind. Your opinion may vary).
I suspect some sites are intentionally forcing a fail once or twice, at least occasionally, especially when you enter the word in a timely interval. Bots probably give up after two failures, and they probably answer quickly.
So implementers make it more and more restrictive and throw in bogus failures.
Is Hockeimer Jr implying that he's OK with gaming the system if it's a national security case?
We might overlook that transgression, but claiming he didn't know this was going on on a massive scale suggests utter incompetence or willful ignorance.
Simply mentioning that the information was overheard by a undercover officer in a bar is sufficient probable cause for any police agency to take a closer look.
Probably even posting here in slashdot provides enough for someone to start looking deeper, and issuing an letter demanding that DICE fork over the IP address of the AC who posted post number (#44479039).
Sure we did. But we now know that the DEA probably gets its info from the NSA, and hands it down further to your local sheriff. Worst case, is the sheriff gets cornered on the witness stand and fesses up that the defendant's name came up in a DEA investigation.
That leaves a dead end, because nobody is going to get very far demanding discovery against the DEA, and no one will be any the wiser about the fact that your name came up from an email harvest by the NSA.
In other words, if you think you are only two layers deep (DEA--->Sheriff) you have to be kidding yourself.
Constructing a case against someone that you *cough* accidentally discovered was doing something wrong via an illegal wiretap or massive surveillance is almost an everyday occurrence in this country. Everyone from the tin-star country sheriff to the biggest police department does it.
This is why license plate scanners, mass email sifting, etc ad-nauseum is so insidious EVEN for people who do nothing wrong, except drive down the wrong street at the wrong time, or post on the wrong threads (like this one) on a public forum.
You can be made do look guilty enough to be detained, your reputation for ever ruined, or actual arrested and prosecuted and convicted by un-questioning juries who simply want to go home.
The wisest thing is for any defense attorney to do is to ask direct questions as to why this particular car was stopped on this particular day, or why that particular hoodie was a target of stop and risk. That forces the police and prosecutors to either fabricate a lie, or reveal these retro-investigations.
Will it have any immediate effect? I sincerely doubt it. But you catch them at it once, and you can taint a lot of cases.
One wonders if license plate scanners aren't really a huge scam to provide a vaguely dependable program for acquiring a pretense of probable cause. Looking for stolen vehicles, but only in the areas where drug sales or prostitutes are plentiful.
Anyway, I'm not sure picking up a tray of beef at the grocery store takes any more or less brain power than picking up a box of lentils.
True, but catching and harvesting the steer takes a tad more brain power than happening upon a lentil. Even the packaging takes more imagination.
Historically, an animal chasing bigger animals with pointy sticks would seem less likely to be preyed upon than an animal squatting stationary in a lentil patch.
Does the article discuss (or does anybody more familiar with today's dinosaurs, not the ones that they thought existed back when I was a kid, most of which seem to have been revised or eliminated, know) if the 'flight-capable' cranial capacities occurred in dinosaurs that, while not capable of flying, had enough pseudo-wing structure available that assorted flight-like stabilization and assisted locomotion strategies would be available, or is the conclusion that correlation between inferred brain structure and flight capabilities is surprisingly weak?
Surprisingly weak is my guess. (This seems generally true of so many theories pushed into the mainstream press these days). Phrenology revisited.
Flight may well have been preceded by centuries of hopping around in tree tops or cliff sides, and gliding down (like "flying" squirrels) thereby selecting for those capable of developing mental models of 3D space, and processing not necessary for ground animals. That life style would also favor those animals with lighter bodies, flattened tails and grasping claws.
The theory, as characterized in the summary, suggests by analogy that humans were already specialized for typing long before inventing the typewriter. Clearly they didn't mean that, (one hopes), but they without access to the paywall, its hard to know which animals were selected for analysis.
Admittedly getting past the learning curve is just too hard. Which is why Microsoft is finally going to give back some semblance of the start bar. I'm waiting eagerly for that.
But to correct one thing you said, you can definitely create a Metro shortcut to any program you want. Install as usual, right click (long tap) icon in the windows desktop, and select pin to start. Done.
Why would you prefer the Surface Pro over an ultraportable though? It sounds like you don't use it much as a tablet. I have a monster Dell that I hate and wish I had something like a Zenbook or Air.
Funny you should say that, because that was exactly the debate I was having with myself. In the end, small size, portability, performance, and novelty won the day. Haven't looked back. Not saying its the best device, just that its a very well made and faster than the ultras I was considering.
Slashdot Mirror
Providing for the common defense is constitutional. Health Insurance is not.
We should be worrying about getting our government to do the things it is supposed to do correctly instead of pretending that since we're paying for A we're entitled to B, too.
Providing for the common defense? You must be delusional.
The question today is one of defending ourselves FROM the government.
The biggest threat to the people and the freedoms of the United States is not some imaginary external enemy. Its our own government,
which, as has become patently obvious, we are powerless to control.
The founding fathers never intended the bill of rights to apply to the internet.
Actually, the founding fathers never intended the bill of rights PERIOD.
So many ordinary citizens saw the dangers of authoritarian government that some colonies refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added.
The first Bill of Rights was proposed during the convention but was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations after only a brief discussion. Madison, then an opponent of a Bill of Rights, later explained the vote by calling the state bills of rights "parchment barriers" that offered only an illusion of protection against tyranny. (More prophetic words were seldom spoken.) Madison only later became in favor of the BOR.
It wasn't till 11 states had ratified the Constitution and the first congress met that the Bill of Rights was actually added, after a bitter and protracted debate. The first 12 amendments were submitted to the states for ratification in 1789 (only 10 passed). Only after this did the holdout colonies decide to become part of the United States.
Ahh, relays!
I just can't warm up to these superconducting thingamajigs.
Wait, don't you have a 20 second video?
It takes only a minute to read the summary and TFA.
You sir are purveyor of false economy!
I'm not sure, though it doesn't seem strange to me. A magnet doesn't have to have its poles 180 degrees away from each other (think a horseshoe magnet).
But "racing to catch up"...!!?!!
Damn Northerners! They've stolen a march on our poor Southern horseshoes!!
Caint never trust them dad burn Yankee magnets!
Those guys are giving away all your exploits.
Also its the wrong web site: Its http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/curiosity-nearing-first-anniversary-on-Mars/index.html or http://nasa.gov/ .
Why this constant pumping of space.com and all their ads, instead of the official sources?
He's keeping the same Chief Editor, so its not clear to me how much it will change.
I expect him to make it free on Kindle. Seems like a long way to go to get content.
If taking a couple seconds to answer a CAPTCHA is too much effort, I probably don't really care what you have to say in the comment section.
It's not longer just a couple of seconds when one has to hit the reload button a dozen or so times before they get a CAPTCHA that's remotely readable.
And half the sites bit-bucket at least some of the data you've entered just as further punishment. So you have to type that in again.
Show me the captcha before I enter any data please. That alone would confuse half the bots out there. (For a while).
i've been using minteye on my site. it's a visual captcha, works pretty well. you move a slider back and forth to unscramble an image.
I never heard of it, and upon googling it, their own website wouldn't couldn't get pass my no-script. So right there, a significant and growing number of customers would be turned away.
But, I wonder of that would remain effective, after all, bots already exist to recognize letters in images. (Those bots existed before captcha). So as soon as Minteye becomes popular it will be bot-stormed.
I've also seen the word games, these are fairly unique as well. But I'm not sure they couldn't be attacked as soon as they become popular. It almost seems that obscurity is the best we have these days.
It is possible to train an algorithm to recognize CAPTCHA, even if the success rate isn't 100%, it is high enough to enable bots to register on websites with CAPTCHA. So, Australia is only pushing people to find out better solutions than CAPTCHA. In short term, a large amount of spammers will rely on optical recognition algorithms to decipher CAPTCHA anyway.
True, but I think the OPs point is those smart bots are not that frequently encountered. We know it can be beat, but in everyday life it is still not common to encounter such bots, and even when you do, you end up blocking 98% of the bots.
As those bots become more common, captcha will become less and less useful. Its a self solving problem that probably doesn't need any help from government, because government will invariably impose something more stupid and useless.
If taking a couple seconds to answer a CAPTCHA is too much effort, I probably don't really care what you have to say in the comment section.
Or a couple of minutes considering most capchas are illegible.
This!
More and more, captchas take two or three attempts.
(Disclaimer: IMHO, I'm not senile, dyslexic, a horrible typist. blind. Your opinion may vary).
I suspect some sites are intentionally forcing a fail once or twice, at least occasionally, especially when you enter the word
in a timely interval. Bots probably give up after two failures, and they probably answer quickly.
So implementers make it more and more restrictive and throw in bogus failures.
Is Hockeimer Jr implying that he's OK with gaming the system if it's a national security case?
We might overlook that transgression, but claiming he didn't know this was going on on a massive scale suggests utter incompetence or willful ignorance.
And then attacked the officers fist with your jaw.
You are probably right.
Simply mentioning that the information was overheard by a undercover officer in a bar is sufficient probable cause for any police agency to take a closer look.
Probably even posting here in slashdot provides enough for someone to start looking deeper, and issuing an letter demanding that DICE fork over the IP address of the AC who posted post number (#44479039).
Like we didn't already know this was going on...
Sure we did.
But we now know that the DEA probably gets its info from the NSA, and hands it down further to your local sheriff.
Worst case, is the sheriff gets cornered on the witness stand and fesses up that the defendant's name came up in
a DEA investigation.
That leaves a dead end, because nobody is going to get very far demanding discovery against the DEA, and no one will be any the wiser about the fact that your name came up from an email harvest by the NSA.
In other words, if you think you are only two layers deep (DEA--->Sheriff) you have to be kidding yourself.
Constructing a case against someone that you *cough* accidentally discovered was doing something wrong via an illegal wiretap or massive surveillance is almost an everyday occurrence in this country. Everyone from the tin-star country sheriff to the biggest police department does it.
This is why license plate scanners, mass email sifting, etc ad-nauseum is so insidious EVEN for people who do nothing wrong, except drive down the wrong street at the wrong time, or post on the wrong threads (like this one) on a public forum.
You can be made do look guilty enough to be detained, your reputation for ever ruined, or actual arrested and prosecuted and convicted by un-questioning juries who simply want to go home.
The wisest thing is for any defense attorney to do is to ask direct questions as to why this particular car was stopped on this particular day, or why that particular hoodie was a target of stop and risk. That forces the police and prosecutors to either fabricate a lie, or reveal these retro-investigations.
Will it have any immediate effect? I sincerely doubt it. But you catch them at it once, and you can taint a lot of cases.
One wonders if license plate scanners aren't really a huge scam to provide a vaguely dependable program for acquiring a pretense of probable cause. Looking for stolen vehicles, but only in the areas where drug sales or prostitutes are plentiful.
Low hanging fruit. Low hanging fruit.
Anyway, I'm not sure picking up a tray of beef at the grocery store takes any more or less brain power than picking up a box of lentils.
True, but catching and harvesting the steer takes a tad more brain power than happening upon a lentil. Even the packaging takes more imagination.
Historically, an animal chasing bigger animals with pointy sticks would seem less likely to be preyed upon than an animal squatting stationary in a lentil patch.
Does the article discuss (or does anybody more familiar with today's dinosaurs, not the ones that they thought existed back when I was a kid, most of which seem to have been revised or eliminated, know) if the 'flight-capable' cranial capacities occurred in dinosaurs that, while not capable of flying, had enough pseudo-wing structure available that assorted flight-like stabilization and assisted locomotion strategies would be available, or is the conclusion that correlation between inferred brain structure and flight capabilities is surprisingly weak?
Surprisingly weak is my guess. (This seems generally true of so many theories pushed into the mainstream press these days). Phrenology revisited.
Flight may well have been preceded by centuries of hopping around in tree tops or cliff sides, and gliding down (like "flying" squirrels) thereby selecting for those capable of developing mental models of 3D space, and processing not necessary for ground animals. That life style would also favor those animals with lighter bodies, flattened tails and grasping claws.
The theory, as characterized in the summary, suggests by analogy that humans were already specialized for typing long before inventing the typewriter. Clearly they didn't mean that, (one hopes), but they without access to the paywall, its hard to know which animals were selected for analysis.
How will it disguise my terrible opinions that are obviously wrong?
It won't, it will just attribute them to Francis Bacon.
RT has a high return rate, not the PRO.
How did you get this deep into the thread without realizing that?
Admittedly getting past the learning curve is just too hard. Which is why Microsoft is finally going to give back some semblance of the start bar. I'm waiting eagerly for that.
But to correct one thing you said, you can definitely create a Metro shortcut to any program you want.
Install as usual, right click (long tap) icon in the windows desktop, and select pin to start. Done.
http://www.amazon.com/Genuine-Dell-Bluetooth-receiver-included/dp/B0057QKZS4/ref=sr_1_10?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1375670810&sr=1-10&keywords=travel+bluetooth+mouse
Cheap.
You're right of course, it shows in device manager as 4 cores, but it's two threads per core.
Why would you prefer the Surface Pro over an ultraportable though? It sounds like you don't use it much as a tablet. I have a monster Dell that I hate and wish I had something like a Zenbook or Air.
Funny you should say that, because that was exactly the debate I was having with myself.
In the end, small size, portability, performance, and novelty won the day. Haven't looked back.
Not saying its the best device, just that its a very well made and faster than the ultras I was considering.