I understand that cutting of the money supply for terrorist is very effective, and I can understand bitcoin as it can move large amounts of money, however I don't get pre-paid cards? Do they want traceability when people use these items when using a VPN?
It's money laundering. The terrorism is in part an excuse, but realistically a massive portion of the criminal economy runs on cash. If you have a way to turn cash into transmittable currency, you have easy money laundering and untraceable transactions.
We appreciate our privacy, but there are *billions* of dollars of illegal transactions because cash exists and is largely untraced. Any sane government would want to crack down on cash transactions up to the point where it starts hurting their own economy in a serious way.
That sounds really impractical, at least if you're including practical censorship. Facebook already chooses which posts to hide from normal views on each others' walls, for example. Or here on slashdot, modding comments someone or an entity disagrees with down to zero. There must be billions of instances of censorship and effective censorship, a lot of it (but not all of it) aimed at shutting up trolls.
Yes, I saw the wired statement first, which is more weasely, but the point stands--it is not an effective denial because it's not a statement as to what exactly happened. It is a non-statement that has gone through a communications office and/or legal counsel so that it ends up not saying anything. No sane reader would believe it as a denial, because it's not one. Of course that *could* be incompetence and stupidity, but why assume incompetence and stupidity when you're dealing with a high-quality engineering school accused of helping mass surveillance efforts?
The only ones able to stand up in court for our constitutional rights as Americans... are the terrorists. What a fucked-up world we live in.
Not really. You have to show standing. If you can prove you've been harmed by the violation of your rights in some way other than being arrested, you can sue.
We have enough corrupt politicians, time to vote in the ethical ones.
Ethics tests don't help a lot. Professions with ethics tests tend to be the ones with the biggest assholes and some of the most immoral behavior, like lawyers and reporters. The problem is the ethics tell you the rules and maybe punish you if you get caught, but they don't actually strongly incentivize moral behavior. You're still dealing with self-regulating professions, and self-regulating professions inevitably support their own people. Even Joe McCarthy stayed in the Senate after he was censured. It takes a LOT for an attorney to get seriously disciplined by the bar, although the bar looks into things utterly irrelevant to being an attorney, too. Good luck trying to get a panel of doctors to discipline a colleague. Reporters harass people trying to get them angry and badmouth other people as *part of their business model*, but always say "I'm just doing my job."
There are plenty of intelligent, educated conservatives who just happen to have been taught some lessons that are really, really wrong. It's kind of like racist kids--they can still be bright, intelligent kids, they were just taught to be an asshole by their parents and haven't learned better yet.
Are they publishing it because (1) they have something better, (2) they have figured out a way to beat it and hope we will use it, or (3) they were simply incompetent?
Shouldn't, but as a practical matter do. What you're talking about is going too slow as part of reasonable suspicion for stop related to a different crime.
I can't figure out how this brand of witchcraft was ever seen suitable to refer patients to.
A certain amount has to do with money. You can have a solution to a problem which has been useful for centuries but nobody has done a study on it because there isn't money to run the clinical trials, since nobody can patent it.
A good doc may still suggest a patient try it if they've heard it's successful enough. Hospitals (at least in some healthcare systems) have a vested interest in banning it (or having a no traditional cures policy, etc...) because they make money selling a drug even if less effective, and without proof of efficacy it's hard politically to blame them for banning the old remedy. That doesn't mean most medical professionals think that way or that homeopathy is reliable overall--of course it's not, see the nutritional supplement market.
But in the absence of patent protection for old remedies that you *test*, there's not much incentive for people to run the test to prove efficacy.
Cops pull people over for "driving too slowly" regardless of safety reasons all the time. And if you're from out of town they fine you. They didn't ticket the google car because it would have brought scrutiny, not because it was legal to drive that slowly on the road.
Sure but this isn't just about making the FBI play nice and stop cheating. This is about a bunch of defendants at risk of being convicted on evidence that should not be admissible without a warrant or that was only subsequently obtainable because of the information illegally obtained without a warrant and therefore also should not be admissible.
No, it's not about the defendants. The defendants did something illegal. That's about drug policy.
This is about everyone *other* than the defendants, who might be the victim of an illegal search by the state tomorrow.
Courts don't exclude evidence obtained from an illegal search in order to protect defendants. They do it to protect everyone else. They don't have the physical power to make police act legally on the street (cops have to consent to do that), but they do have the power to let defendants go when the cops violate the Constitution. That makes cops mad, so the cops want to follow the Constitution to avoid letting criminals go.
No, it's just illegal. Not legal under the fourth amendment (lack of probable cause) and not legal under the fourteenth (lack of due process). There are counterarguments, but if this comes up in trial it will go to SCOTUS and they will definitely rule that it is illegal.
Unless you elect a republican. (Next President gets to appoint a lot of justices; republican justices tend to be more anti-criminal and a little less about safeguarding individuals against overreaching by law enforcement). Then they will probably rule that it is illegal, but might not.
The only thing that keeps them alive is lack of broadband to some viewers. Once the infrastructure is completed the only way to watch TV will be over the web.
Not really. People who are wealthy will have cable for decades yet. At some point It will become decoupled from the infrastructure, but they'll still have it. The biggest thing about it is still its role as a content aggregator, plus the fact that amazingly, nobody has the killer media search interface yet.
I was shopping for VCRs about 20 years back and asked the Future Shop guy how much better it was for having (quoting from the card beside the VCR) a "19 micron tape head". Turns out they ALL had 19 micron tape-heads (whatever the hell that *meant*) as it was the spec for a VCR tape head, at the time, at least. It was just another bit of science-y sounding technobabble to put on the card. Buying based on core count is like buying for the 19-micron thing; it's either a fast machine for your purposes or not. Absolutely the only way to tell that for sure is a test. The only thing that was ever useful with, say, "megahertz" was that it had for a decade or so there a correlation with the performance you'd get in real use. I've never found "cores" to have anything of the sort.
When I went apartment-hunting five years ago, one of the buildings was advertising its unit features to include polarized plugs. And auto-defrost refrigerators.
I'm not sure who told them that the best plan was to attempt to pay criminals not to be... well, criminals. Call Law enforcement, and make arrangements with companies that mitigate these attacks? Absolutely, and the latter may cost a few bucks. But paying out a blackmail threat is about as foolish as it gets.
Hell, even small time crimes rarely benefit from appeasing a threat. Plenty of people have given an attacker cash on demand, only to find themselves waking up in a hospital few hours later missing their belongings and a few teeth. The most unlucky of that bunch ended up raped, or dead.
Never trust a criminal! If their morality allows them to bend you over once, somehow believing they won't do it twice is completely irrational.
It's about incentives. If the criminal fails to honor the payment too much, people stop paying. The amount of harm to the company also goes up, as does the interest of major law enforcement task forces. That's why ransomware operators send you keys and private corporations are frequently willing to pay ransoms. But people with a major presence whose operations will be strongly hurt by allowing criminal operations to continue--most obviously the United States Government when dealing with terrorism--are much less likely to pay.
I incorporate, issue 1000 shares, put one share up for sale and buy it for $10,000. You are saying my company has a value of $10,000,000? Because that's essentially how dotcom IPOs work.
No, *you* are saying your company has a value of $10M, because that's what you paid for the one share. Or your buyer is. They are making a bet that your future profits will justify that or that someone will be willing to pay more for the company in the future. If it's just you, obviously you can be creating a fake expectation in the hope of sending a valuation signal. If I can sell a company for $10M and the present value of its future profit is $1M, of course I'm going to sell it unless I have some extrinsic reason for keeping it--but the value of the company to me right now is still $10M because I can sell it for that.
This is *exactly* the problem, and is why constant government-funded work bringing new antibiotics to market should be the norm.
If that were true then why does this problem exist? There are all sorts of governments all over the planet that fund their medical services and R&D through the government. Yet somehow, the only viable place one might find the necessary resources is the US......... and since that isn't working to your satisfaction, your solution is to make the US just like all the places that aren't even considered by those seeking to do R&D......... Brilliant!
You stupid haters are going to crush the last place in the world where there might be some hope of finding funding.
Not at all--I think there is amazing innovation in US healthcare and a massive amount of interest in further innovation. But that innovation follows the money and has to run the gauntlet. When there is something that we clearly need that the current innovation engine will not steer us toward for a long time, it can make sense to tweak that innovation engine a bit--and that can mean throwing public dollars at private industry to incentivize them to actually develop the thing that we need. Part of government's value is to take a longer-term view.
There is actually one really good reason for the salespeople not to discuss this, at least not unless they're specifically vetted and approved to: the salespeople *Don't understand the numbers*. I've had times on the phone with ISP sales reps when I have to make them check whether the "b" is lowercase or uppercase when they're marketing speeds. This is their job and they don't know whether they're advertising megabits or megabytes. If they start trying to explain to customers how many movies they can watch without following a very good script, most of them are going to be *wrong*.
I talked to a doctor about new antibiotics. The problem is you won't make your money back from them.
This is *exactly* the problem, and is why constant government-funded work bringing new antibiotics to market should be the norm.
Eventually the market will correct the problem without government intervention, notably when the additional costs to providers from having to deal with resistant complications become too high, but we will take a long time to get there, longer for our investment strategies to catch up, and a lot of people needlessly dead in the meantime.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the best definition of life I've ever heard.
There are still a huge number of line drawing problems--when is life intelligent, when is it permissible to end a life, etc...
But it's a really great way of encompassing pretty much every form of theoretical life.
I understand that cutting of the money supply for terrorist is very effective, and I can understand bitcoin as it can move large amounts of money, however I don't get pre-paid cards? Do they want traceability when people use these items when using a VPN?
It's money laundering. The terrorism is in part an excuse, but realistically a massive portion of the criminal economy runs on cash. If you have a way to turn cash into transmittable currency, you have easy money laundering and untraceable transactions.
We appreciate our privacy, but there are *billions* of dollars of illegal transactions because cash exists and is largely untraced. Any sane government would want to crack down on cash transactions up to the point where it starts hurting their own economy in a serious way.
That sounds really impractical, at least if you're including practical censorship. Facebook already chooses which posts to hide from normal views on each others' walls, for example. Or here on slashdot, modding comments someone or an entity disagrees with down to zero. There must be billions of instances of censorship and effective censorship, a lot of it (but not all of it) aimed at shutting up trolls.
I believe Seattle does this as well.
Yes, I saw the wired statement first, which is more weasely, but the point stands--it is not an effective denial because it's not a statement as to what exactly happened. It is a non-statement that has gone through a communications office and/or legal counsel so that it ends up not saying anything. No sane reader would believe it as a denial, because it's not one. Of course that *could* be incompetence and stupidity, but why assume incompetence and stupidity when you're dealing with a high-quality engineering school accused of helping mass surveillance efforts?
"hadn’t received any direct payment for its Tor research from the FBI or any other government funder"...
So they have received indirect payments or have received direct payments from non-government funders.
That's like when the Bush administration found "dozens of weapons of mass destruction related program activities" in Iraq, but no actual WMDs.
The only ones able to stand up in court for our constitutional rights as Americans... are the terrorists. What a fucked-up world we live in.
Not really. You have to show standing. If you can prove you've been harmed by the violation of your rights in some way other than being arrested, you can sue.
We have enough corrupt politicians, time to vote in the ethical ones.
Ethics tests don't help a lot. Professions with ethics tests tend to be the ones with the biggest assholes and some of the most immoral behavior, like lawyers and reporters. The problem is the ethics tell you the rules and maybe punish you if you get caught, but they don't actually strongly incentivize moral behavior. You're still dealing with self-regulating professions, and self-regulating professions inevitably support their own people. Even Joe McCarthy stayed in the Senate after he was censured. It takes a LOT for an attorney to get seriously disciplined by the bar, although the bar looks into things utterly irrelevant to being an attorney, too. Good luck trying to get a panel of doctors to discipline a colleague. Reporters harass people trying to get them angry and badmouth other people as *part of their business model*, but always say "I'm just doing my job."
There are plenty of intelligent, educated conservatives who just happen to have been taught some lessons that are really, really wrong. It's kind of like racist kids--they can still be bright, intelligent kids, they were just taught to be an asshole by their parents and haven't learned better yet.
So it turns out "Proxy War" doesn't mean what Anonymous thought...
Are they publishing it because (1) they have something better, (2) they have figured out a way to beat it and hope we will use it, or (3) they were simply incompetent?
Shouldn't, but as a practical matter do. What you're talking about is going too slow as part of reasonable suspicion for stop related to a different crime.
I can't figure out how this brand of witchcraft was ever seen suitable to refer patients to.
A certain amount has to do with money. You can have a solution to a problem which has been useful for centuries but nobody has done a study on it because there isn't money to run the clinical trials, since nobody can patent it.
A good doc may still suggest a patient try it if they've heard it's successful enough. Hospitals (at least in some healthcare systems) have a vested interest in banning it (or having a no traditional cures policy, etc...) because they make money selling a drug even if less effective, and without proof of efficacy it's hard politically to blame them for banning the old remedy. That doesn't mean most medical professionals think that way or that homeopathy is reliable overall--of course it's not, see the nutritional supplement market.
But in the absence of patent protection for old remedies that you *test*, there's not much incentive for people to run the test to prove efficacy.
Cops pull people over for "driving too slowly" regardless of safety reasons all the time. And if you're from out of town they fine you. They didn't ticket the google car because it would have brought scrutiny, not because it was legal to drive that slowly on the road.
My guess: If you post on a major technical site asking as an anonymous coward how to find out if you are on a watch list, you are on a watch list.
You may not be on a no fly list, and it may a watch list of "mostly harmless" people, but you're on a watch list.
Sure but this isn't just about making the FBI play nice and stop cheating. This is about a bunch of defendants at risk of being convicted on evidence that should not be admissible without a warrant or that was only subsequently obtainable because of the information illegally obtained without a warrant and therefore also should not be admissible.
No, it's not about the defendants. The defendants did something illegal. That's about drug policy.
This is about everyone *other* than the defendants, who might be the victim of an illegal search by the state tomorrow.
Courts don't exclude evidence obtained from an illegal search in order to protect defendants. They do it to protect everyone else. They don't have the physical power to make police act legally on the street (cops have to consent to do that), but they do have the power to let defendants go when the cops violate the Constitution. That makes cops mad, so the cops want to follow the Constitution to avoid letting criminals go.
No, it's just illegal. Not legal under the fourth amendment (lack of probable cause) and not legal under the fourteenth (lack of due process). There are counterarguments, but if this comes up in trial it will go to SCOTUS and they will definitely rule that it is illegal.
Unless you elect a republican. (Next President gets to appoint a lot of justices; republican justices tend to be more anti-criminal and a little less about safeguarding individuals against overreaching by law enforcement). Then they will probably rule that it is illegal, but might not.
Is there ANY government IT project that has been completed on time, under budget and exceeds specifications?
This one, obviously. $100 for a scanner, $1B for black projects.
The only thing that keeps them alive is lack of broadband to some viewers. Once the infrastructure is completed the only way to watch TV will be over the web.
Not really. People who are wealthy will have cable for decades yet. At some point It will become decoupled from the infrastructure, but they'll still have it. The biggest thing about it is still its role as a content aggregator, plus the fact that amazingly, nobody has the killer media search interface yet.
I was shopping for VCRs about 20 years back and asked the Future Shop guy how much better it was for having (quoting from the card beside the VCR) a "19 micron tape head". Turns out they ALL had 19 micron tape-heads (whatever the hell that *meant*) as it was the spec for a VCR tape head, at the time, at least. It was just another bit of science-y sounding technobabble to put on the card.
Buying based on core count is like buying for the 19-micron thing; it's either a fast machine for your purposes or not. Absolutely the only way to tell that for sure is a test. The only thing that was ever useful with, say, "megahertz" was that it had for a decade or so there a correlation with the performance you'd get in real use. I've never found "cores" to have anything of the sort.
When I went apartment-hunting five years ago, one of the buildings was advertising its unit features to include polarized plugs. And auto-defrost refrigerators.
You know, in case you had been living in 1950.
I'm not sure who told them that the best plan was to attempt to pay criminals not to be... well, criminals. Call Law enforcement, and make arrangements with companies that mitigate these attacks? Absolutely, and the latter may cost a few bucks. But paying out a blackmail threat is about as foolish as it gets.
Hell, even small time crimes rarely benefit from appeasing a threat. Plenty of people have given an attacker cash on demand, only to find themselves waking up in a hospital few hours later missing their belongings and a few teeth. The most unlucky of that bunch ended up raped, or dead.
Never trust a criminal! If their morality allows them to bend you over once, somehow believing they won't do it twice is completely irrational.
It's about incentives. If the criminal fails to honor the payment too much, people stop paying. The amount of harm to the company also goes up, as does the interest of major law enforcement task forces. That's why ransomware operators send you keys and private corporations are frequently willing to pay ransoms. But people with a major presence whose operations will be strongly hurt by allowing criminal operations to continue--most obviously the United States Government when dealing with terrorism--are much less likely to pay.
Let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
I incorporate, issue 1000 shares, put one share up for sale and buy it for $10,000. You are saying my company has a value of $10,000,000? Because that's essentially how dotcom IPOs work.
No, *you* are saying your company has a value of $10M, because that's what you paid for the one share. Or your buyer is. They are making a bet that your future profits will justify that or that someone will be willing to pay more for the company in the future. If it's just you, obviously you can be creating a fake expectation in the hope of sending a valuation signal. If I can sell a company for $10M and the present value of its future profit is $1M, of course I'm going to sell it unless I have some extrinsic reason for keeping it--but the value of the company to me right now is still $10M because I can sell it for that.
This is *exactly* the problem, and is why constant government-funded work bringing new antibiotics to market should be the norm.
If that were true then why does this problem exist? There are all sorts of governments all over the planet that fund their medical services and R&D through the government. Yet somehow, the only viable place one might find the necessary resources is the US......... and since that isn't working to your satisfaction, your solution is to make the US just like all the places that aren't even considered by those seeking to do R&D......... Brilliant!
You stupid haters are going to crush the last place in the world where there might be some hope of finding funding.
Not at all--I think there is amazing innovation in US healthcare and a massive amount of interest in further innovation. But that innovation follows the money and has to run the gauntlet. When there is something that we clearly need that the current innovation engine will not steer us toward for a long time, it can make sense to tweak that innovation engine a bit--and that can mean throwing public dollars at private industry to incentivize them to actually develop the thing that we need. Part of government's value is to take a longer-term view.
There is actually one really good reason for the salespeople not to discuss this, at least not unless they're specifically vetted and approved to: the salespeople *Don't understand the numbers*. I've had times on the phone with ISP sales reps when I have to make them check whether the "b" is lowercase or uppercase when they're marketing speeds. This is their job and they don't know whether they're advertising megabits or megabytes. If they start trying to explain to customers how many movies they can watch without following a very good script, most of them are going to be *wrong*.
I talked to a doctor about new antibiotics. The problem is you won't make your money back from them.
This is *exactly* the problem, and is why constant government-funded work bringing new antibiotics to market should be the norm.
Eventually the market will correct the problem without government intervention, notably when the additional costs to providers from having to deal with resistant complications become too high, but we will take a long time to get there, longer for our investment strategies to catch up, and a lot of people needlessly dead in the meantime.