Zombies are a metaphor for poor people. You can't make a battle plan for what to do when the proletariat rises, because the optics are bad, but you can plan for zombies. Yet another reason to do something about income inequality before it comes to that.
What they want is a robot that will not embarrass them, but that will do their killing for them. I want a pony, but I can't have one. The situation here is similar. Coding up a robot that makes ethical choices is so far beyond the state of the art that it's laughable. Sort of like the story the other day of the self-driving car that decides who to kill and who to save in an accident.
When will they figure out that what you really need is a robot that will walk into the insurgent's house, wrestle the gun from his grasp, and cuff him? There's no need to shoot anyone—the robot is not in danger.
The whole point of what that person was saying is "please do not make a decision. Please do _anything_ other than make a decision. The longer you can avoid making the decision, the more likely we can finally put a stake into Netflix, those evil vampires."
You're better off not watching. I watched for about five minutes and wanted to punch somebody. The eloquence with which these spindocs are explaining why black is white is disgusting.
If by "we" you mean U.S. citizens, we live in a representative democracy which we have allowed to become oligarchic by not exercising our duty as citizens to fucking pay attention to what our representatives are doing and fucking vote them out of office when they behave badly. Obscenities included to emphasize how annoying this is to citizens who do pay attention, and do vote accordingly. It's not a fucking popularity contest, kids.
Port scanning is already covered by existing IETF security standards. Pervasive monitoring is stuff like sniffing packet headers and keeping a database of them, looking at http traffic, and also attacks like the one slashdot still hasn't protected us against where GCHQ watched for people who surfed to slashdot and sent the ones from Belgacom maliciously hacked versions of the slashdot web site so that they could take over their work computers and use them as a stepping stone into the Belgacom network, on which they then installed more passive monitoring.
If the NSA have access to the root keys, this is quite an achievement. The possibility has been discussed at length post-Snowdon, and based on the discussion I think it's unlikely. Unfortunately, the same can't be assumed to be true for TLD zone keys, most of which are not maintained with the same degree of paranoia as the root key.
Fukushima is a hell of a big deal. And the NRC has historically shown that it is not willing to actually regulate the industry in any serious way. Can you cite an example of them shutting down a plant an operator wanted to continue operating, as you suggest they would? That's precisely the problem! If I believed that nuclear regulation could be depended upon to have real teeth, I'd be less concerned. History on this subject is not hopeful. Fukushima was predicted, and would not have happened if the engineer specifying the sea wall had been listened to.
There was unusual freezing in the northern plains states. Worst we've had in years. Not just "normal" winter cold. I put normal in quotes because of course when I was a kid back in the seventies, it would have been considered less unusual, although still unusual. But your basic point is correct, of course: the fact that it's cold in winter doesn't contradict the theory global warming, any more than an airplane in the sky contradicts the theory of gravity.
Back in the seventies, we were trying to figure out whether there was a likelihood of climate change in the near term, and the possibilities of both global warming and global cooling were considered. However, global warming was, even then, considered more likely. We have much more data and much better models now, which is why you aren't hearing about global cooling anymore.
This past winter, in Vermont, we had a pretty good late winter, but early winter was characterized by unseasonable melts. There was a melt in Alaska this winter that caused catastrophic avalanches and flooding. There were periods this winter when the temperature _at the north pole_ was above freezing.
The unusual freezing to the north was only unusual in recent times, and it was largely due to the same effect that brought warm air over the poles: the unusual lack of cohesiveness of the polar vortex this winter. This is something to be concerned about, not an indication that global warming isn't happening.
In theory, only the theoretical properties of a technology matter. In practice, though, the implementation matters. The fact that an implementation that failed was done poorly isn't really comforting unless there is some reason to believe that in the future it would be done better (not just differently).
"Other than a dirty bomb?" Yeah, that's comforting. A big fizzle that spreads nuclear contamination across half of New York wouldn't kill as many people immediately as a fat-boy style fission explosion would, but it would create an economic disaster of truly epic proportions. Net effect on the country would probably be worse. Hiroshima has recovered from its nuclear attack, because the fallout was over with quickly. That wouldn't be the case with a U-233 fizzle.
Just because someone finds fault in something you favor doesn't mean they are wrong.
Actually your chances of getting hit double when you ride on the sidewalk in the same direction as traffic. They quadruple if you ride the wrong way. Depends on the circumstances, of course—there are occasions where riding on the sidewalk _is_ safer. But it's not generally so.
Um. Roads are paid for mostly with income tax and property tax. There are substantial taxes collected from trucks, but not enough to defray the damage they cause, which is proportional to the cube of the mass of the vehicle. Your vehicle registration fee doesn't even remotely cover the cost of maintaining roads. Get over your entitled self.
Since you aren't a bicyclist, it's a bit shirty to claim that they "genuinely believe" anything. You don't know what people "genuinely believe" unless you are a psychic who can read minds, in which case we'd like some proof before we trust you.
No, this means that you don't understand physics. If I come to a full stop and then go, I am going slower, so the time during which I am exposed to cross traffic is longer, which increases the likelihood that I will get hit. So at two-way stops, any bicyclist with a strong sense of self-preservation and long lines of sight goes through the stop sign without stopping. It doesn't mean that we blast through without slowing down, but we do try to keep as much speed as we safely can. Life is full of tradeoffs...
The Idaho rolling stop law doesn't make taking your right of way legal. In fact, it makes it illegal. The proposed Oregon law increases the penalty for doing it. If you got to the intersection first in your car, you get the right of way. This is how I treat stop signs when I'm on my bike: if a car got there first, I stop. Unfortunately, they then usually motion me to go, which is really annoying, because I already stopped, so they aren't doing me a favor, but they think they are, so I have to be nice about it. One of the arguments in favor of the rolling stop law is that it avoids this annoying dance—drivers know what the law is, and are more likely to follow it, and so do bicyclists. The problem with the law in many states now is that it's bogus, so bicyclists and drivers collaborate to violate it.
It's really funny when someone says "I'm a professional, so my opinion matters more than the data." Well, maybe funny is the wrong word.
Holy shit, you're saying that if the whole country enacted the Idaho rolling stop, we'd be setting off the Zombie apocalypse? I wonder if this explains why Idahoans are so into guns...
Political correctness is not avoiding the use of offensive language. That's politeness. Political correctness is when you don't speak the truth because it's unacceptable for political reasons. So if I go to a Republican meeting and say that Obamacare delivers health coverage to more U.S. citizens than could have been provided previously, that's politically incorrect. Similarly, if I go to a Democratic meeting and say that the War on Drugs is a bad idea, that's politically incorrect. Both statements are true, but neither statement can be acknowledged to be true by the people attending those respective meetings.
Slashdot Mirror
What this is is another argument for using long keys. The improvement doesn't appear to be sufficient to render Diffie-Hellman unusable.
Zombies are a metaphor for poor people. You can't make a battle plan for what to do when the proletariat rises, because the optics are bad, but you can plan for zombies. Yet another reason to do something about income inequality before it comes to that.
What they want is a robot that will not embarrass them, but that will do their killing for them. I want a pony, but I can't have one. The situation here is similar. Coding up a robot that makes ethical choices is so far beyond the state of the art that it's laughable. Sort of like the story the other day of the self-driving car that decides who to kill and who to save in an accident.
When will they figure out that what you really need is a robot that will walk into the insurgent's house, wrestle the gun from his grasp, and cuff him? There's no need to shoot anyone—the robot is not in danger.
Exactly. Basically, what he's saying is "leave making cars to the big car companies." That would be... unfortunate.
The whole point of what that person was saying is "please do not make a decision. Please do _anything_ other than make a decision. The longer you can avoid making the decision, the more likely we can finally put a stake into Netflix, those evil vampires."
You're better off not watching. I watched for about five minutes and wanted to punch somebody. The eloquence with which these spindocs are explaining why black is white is disgusting.
It should be considered in each protocol, because general solutions often don't address specific risks.
If by "we" you mean U.S. citizens, we live in a representative democracy which we have allowed to become oligarchic by not exercising our duty as citizens to fucking pay attention to what our representatives are doing and fucking vote them out of office when they behave badly. Obscenities included to emphasize how annoying this is to citizens who do pay attention, and do vote accordingly. It's not a fucking popularity contest, kids.
Port scanning is already covered by existing IETF security standards. Pervasive monitoring is stuff like sniffing packet headers and keeping a database of them, looking at http traffic, and also attacks like the one slashdot still hasn't protected us against where GCHQ watched for people who surfed to slashdot and sent the ones from Belgacom maliciously hacked versions of the slashdot web site so that they could take over their work computers and use them as a stepping stone into the Belgacom network, on which they then installed more passive monitoring.
7258 is a BCP, not a protocol spec. How can it be in violation of 3339?
If the NSA have access to the root keys, this is quite an achievement. The possibility has been discussed at length post-Snowdon, and based on the discussion I think it's unlikely. Unfortunately, the same can't be assumed to be true for TLD zone keys, most of which are not maintained with the same degree of paranoia as the root key.
Fukushima is a hell of a big deal. And the NRC has historically shown that it is not willing to actually regulate the industry in any serious way. Can you cite an example of them shutting down a plant an operator wanted to continue operating, as you suggest they would? That's precisely the problem! If I believed that nuclear regulation could be depended upon to have real teeth, I'd be less concerned. History on this subject is not hopeful. Fukushima was predicted, and would not have happened if the engineer specifying the sea wall had been listened to.
There was unusual freezing in the northern plains states. Worst we've had in years. Not just "normal" winter cold. I put normal in quotes because of course when I was a kid back in the seventies, it would have been considered less unusual, although still unusual. But your basic point is correct, of course: the fact that it's cold in winter doesn't contradict the theory global warming, any more than an airplane in the sky contradicts the theory of gravity.
Confirmation bias. Also, honni soit qui mal y pense.
Back in the seventies, we were trying to figure out whether there was a likelihood of climate change in the near term, and the possibilities of both global warming and global cooling were considered. However, global warming was, even then, considered more likely. We have much more data and much better models now, which is why you aren't hearing about global cooling anymore.
This past winter, in Vermont, we had a pretty good late winter, but early winter was characterized by unseasonable melts. There was a melt in Alaska this winter that caused catastrophic avalanches and flooding. There were periods this winter when the temperature _at the north pole_ was above freezing.
The unusual freezing to the north was only unusual in recent times, and it was largely due to the same effect that brought warm air over the poles: the unusual lack of cohesiveness of the polar vortex this winter. This is something to be concerned about, not an indication that global warming isn't happening.
In theory, only the theoretical properties of a technology matter. In practice, though, the implementation matters. The fact that an implementation that failed was done poorly isn't really comforting unless there is some reason to believe that in the future it would be done better (not just differently).
"Other than a dirty bomb?" Yeah, that's comforting. A big fizzle that spreads nuclear contamination across half of New York wouldn't kill as many people immediately as a fat-boy style fission explosion would, but it would create an economic disaster of truly epic proportions. Net effect on the country would probably be worse. Hiroshima has recovered from its nuclear attack, because the fallout was over with quickly. That wouldn't be the case with a U-233 fizzle.
Just because someone finds fault in something you favor doesn't mean they are wrong.
Actually your chances of getting hit double when you ride on the sidewalk in the same direction as traffic. They quadruple if you ride the wrong way. Depends on the circumstances, of course—there are occasions where riding on the sidewalk _is_ safer. But it's not generally so.
Um. Roads are paid for mostly with income tax and property tax. There are substantial taxes collected from trucks, but not enough to defray the damage they cause, which is proportional to the cube of the mass of the vehicle. Your vehicle registration fee doesn't even remotely cover the cost of maintaining roads. Get over your entitled self.
Since you aren't a bicyclist, it's a bit shirty to claim that they "genuinely believe" anything. You don't know what people "genuinely believe" unless you are a psychic who can read minds, in which case we'd like some proof before we trust you.
No, this means that you don't understand physics. If I come to a full stop and then go, I am going slower, so the time during which I am exposed to cross traffic is longer, which increases the likelihood that I will get hit. So at two-way stops, any bicyclist with a strong sense of self-preservation and long lines of sight goes through the stop sign without stopping. It doesn't mean that we blast through without slowing down, but we do try to keep as much speed as we safely can. Life is full of tradeoffs...
The Idaho rolling stop law doesn't make taking your right of way legal. In fact, it makes it illegal. The proposed Oregon law increases the penalty for doing it. If you got to the intersection first in your car, you get the right of way. This is how I treat stop signs when I'm on my bike: if a car got there first, I stop. Unfortunately, they then usually motion me to go, which is really annoying, because I already stopped, so they aren't doing me a favor, but they think they are, so I have to be nice about it. One of the arguments in favor of the rolling stop law is that it avoids this annoying dance—drivers know what the law is, and are more likely to follow it, and so do bicyclists. The problem with the law in many states now is that it's bogus, so bicyclists and drivers collaborate to violate it.
It's really funny when someone says "I'm a professional, so my opinion matters more than the data." Well, maybe funny is the wrong word.
Holy shit, you're saying that if the whole country enacted the Idaho rolling stop, we'd be setting off the Zombie apocalypse? I wonder if this explains why Idahoans are so into guns...
Political correctness is not avoiding the use of offensive language. That's politeness. Political correctness is when you don't speak the truth because it's unacceptable for political reasons. So if I go to a Republican meeting and say that Obamacare delivers health coverage to more U.S. citizens than could have been provided previously, that's politically incorrect. Similarly, if I go to a Democratic meeting and say that the War on Drugs is a bad idea, that's politically incorrect. Both statements are true, but neither statement can be acknowledged to be true by the people attending those respective meetings.
Why do they need to do that? How will things get better if they do?