Face it, the people don't want to really be free. They want to feel safe above all else. They are so afraid of terrorism when the fact is they are most likely to die from complications of their obesity or from a car accident because they were distracted while they were updating their facebook page.
I wonder about this.
Who would take one for the team, if it meant no mass surveillance?
Who would accept the cost in lives from the unstopped terrorism that could* result from a lack of surveillance? (*I know this is a stretch)
Who would be willing to die, if it meant their family would be free from surveillance?
Why not ask people in countries torn by terrorism? Would they exchange terrorism for excessive surveillance?
Over the first two years, 57% of optune users died, compared to 70% of standard regimen patients.
Over the final two years, out of the survivors from the first two years,
about 63% of optune users died, and about 66% of standard regimen patients died.
Maybe it just buys time, maybe the cancer adapts, maybe it just needs to be refined.
Increased capacity makes battery explosions even more of an issue than increased discharge rate. A battery that lasts 100 times as long will release 100 times as much energy during a catastrophic failure.
I really don't understand this us/them mentality that people keep spewing. We all work together, we are family members, coworkers and fellow human beings with the same exact needs.
It's easy to look at them as humans until you're faced with someone who believes that the founder of Planned Parenthood has intended all along for minorities to be aborted out of existence, and that contraceptives encourage perverted behavior and ultimately cause more unwanted pregnancies than abstinence. I can see the slippery slope from his point of view, but it's not like he is advocating for harsher laws to force wayward fathers into raising their unplanned offspring.
That said, I'm entirely sick of hearing this endless rant about how everyone who voted Trump is a racist, misogynist, bigoted xenophobe. People voted for him because they felt he would better represent them. And guess what, if half of the population really is just a bunch of xenophobes, you aren't going to change it with rampant name calling.
Why not? You load them into containers and ship them across the Pacific. The logistics get less immediately flexible, because it does take time to cross the Pacific, but it isn't expensive.
More than a third of their suppliers are in China.
If they get sent the wrong part, or have a quality control issue, it will take them weeks to find out they have a problem. If that quality control issue isn't discovered while the ship is in route, the duration of the trip will be wasted manufacturing non-conforming product.
It also seems intuitive to me that the logistics of making sure that the 300+ suppliers (already in China) get their product to the right place gets more difficult/expensive when you have to cross the ocean, as opposed to tracking completed iPhones from a few factories in China to the US. Is that flawed? Is it really not that much more expensive, despite someone having to manage those logistics?
No, I got it from a different resource called "my brain" using a technique called "thinking". There is no reason whatsoever that component costs will significantly change just because the phone is assembled in America. Only assembly costs would change.
I see your point, but the logistics of shipping a variety of components (that were natively available in China) can't be cheap.
Also, a US factory worker costs at least 10 times as much as a Chinese worker. If it costs $10 in Chinese labor, its at least $100 for US labor.
I think they just used small pieces of scrap meal taken out of a scrap yard. Still not as exciting as headline entails, "researchers use scrap pieces that were already a good candidate for the job and probably not representative of whats just lying around"
To make such a future possible, Pint headed a research team that used scraps of steel and brass - two of the most commonly discarded materials -
The obtained scrap carbon steel (1010 steel) and brass sheets (Yellow brass, 67%
Cu/33% Zn)
So while the yard may be full of the materials, the majority probably needs to be refined in some way to be a particular form factor... brass sheets, and whatever shape the steel needs to be.
Previous/. Article said they were 98% the efficiency of other solar cells. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a catch, like time of day / wavelength of light / which solar cell is it being compared to
Emails seem to be from 2014, so I would not say this is conclusive evidence one way or the other about Russia and WikiLeaks.
I would expect WikiLeaks to show up in Russian emails regardless of their involvement. If I was Putin, and not involved in the hacking, I would be delighted to receive credit for mucking up US politics. I can easily imagine Putin bragging or laughing it up with his cronies over email.
I have a fantasy in which Liam Neeson gets a robo call and proceeds to dispense vigilante justice (and fire) worldwide.
I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for a sucker, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you take me off your list, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.
Assange never claimed to be objective, but as a purported newsman he doesn't need to. News organizations all over the world have taken an opinion in this race. Assange isn't pro-Trump; he's just anti-Clinton. As am I.
WikiLeaks was founded under the premise of exposing secret/leaked/classified information, as a non-profit. They have unpaid volunteers and pro bono lawyers. They operate on donated money. I think that people donating their time and money have a reasonable expectation for WikiLeaks to be at least somewhat impartial in their activities. I do have a problem with a political agenda emerging after WikiLeaks portrayed themselves for so long as politically agnostic. I think a lot of people who once rooted for Wikileaks do.
Do I think attacking the Hillary campaign is wrong? Not particularly. Especially if the information is being dropped right in their lap. I do expect them to release whatever damning information they receive. What I don't expect is for them to pick favorites. They can't even be bothered to make a token effort to find something on Trump.
Take the EFF. If they started showing partiality towards certain internet providers, certain media groups, certain tech companies, I would have an issue with that. If they gave Google a free pass on a major pirvacy goof, I would be concerned. They have a stated purpose, and I expect them to live up to it.
What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?
I don't know, maybe post anything at all about Trump?
Offer a bounty on his tax returns?
At this point, it seems like Assange is just trying to solidify a relationship with the Republican party in order to get the US off his back.
I'm interested in a Wikileaks that posts about all abuses and corruption in my government. Not just the ones that help Assange meet his agenda.
If I were Yahoo, and my reputation was damaged from this, and I had received a government FISA order that I couldn't talk about, then I would do exactly this same thing. I see this as similar to a canary
Well, that would be similar to a canary if they had done it when it happened, before their reputation was damaged. Now, the damage is done, and they're just looking for someone else to take the blame for them, as opposed to trying to expose unreasonable surveillance.
even if the catalyst wasn't poisoned, a biofilm would clog those activity sites in an open body of water.
Intuition tells me that ethanol should destroy the biofilm. Research tells me otherwise. It actually seems to encourage it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Julian Assange was a hero too [huffingtonpost.com], as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq [wired.com] after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive" [cbsnews.com].
But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.
Maybe Assange tried to barter with or blackmail Hillary to get the US to back off and leave him alone. And maybe that failed, so he is forced to double down on Trump. Either way, god help Assange when Hillary is elected.
The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.
Like Assange?
The US has been after him for years, all under Obama's administration.
Suppose Assange has appealed to Obama for leniency. Obviously, leniency hasn't happened.
Now suppose Assange approaches Hillary. And for whatever reason, she doesn't want to deal. Maybe she doesn't want to be tarnished by a relationship with Assange/Wikileaks coming out. Maybe Assange tried to blackmail her or force a deal, threatening to leak information if Hillary doesn't call off the hounds when she gets in.
Whatever reason Assange has for alienating Hillary, he may have an opportunity with Trump. Trump might throw him a bone for his hard work.
And having made Hillary into an enemy, Assange really doesn't want to see her elected.
Theranos later voided all results from its proprietary device for 2014 and 2015, though the company said it wasn't aware of any patient harm resulting form its tests.
They're just about inviting lawsuits with that gem. I hadn't thought about the patient harm aspect until I read that quote, only the fraud aspect. Once people realize that their misdiagnosis stemming from a false test result is what landed them in the hospital or prevented treatment of a disease, Theranos won't even need a clean up crew.
I'm no cop apologist, (often quite the opposite), but I wonder -
On one hand, you have bad cops - and "good" cops who don't turn the bad cops, and are corrupted by that and are therefore "good" instead of good.
On the other hand, you have any other job, where there is a balancing act of "getting the job done" and weeding out bad behavior. You have to get the job done, and you can only police your coworkers to a certain extent. You can report bad behavior, but it erodes your environment. Without higher level support, you are open to retaliation from coworkers (or even from higher ups). If you do not report the behavior, you are, in a way, complicit in it. But if you do report it, it may be near impossible to have an effective working arrangement to get the job done at all.
Not saying that makes it okay. But with body cams, it helps take the onus off the "good" cops to turn in their coworkers.
Police that shut down their own recording would have nothing to gain by doing so... since any they would have no verifiable defense even if they were falsely accused of doing something wrong.
You mean other than avoiding the creation of evidence of wrongdoing, if they were in fact doing something wrong?
A contract is a contract. They agreed to it, they need to follow through until the contract is fulfilled.
I think this is important to keep in mind. If a small publisher had negotiated poorly with Amazon and wanted out of a contract, would Amazon let them off the hook?
Amazon is trying to leverage their way out of the situation. They have removed some of the publishers' content from the service, which will probably lower their costs for the rest of the contract. But it also sends a message, "Well, look at how much exposure we give you. It would be a shame if we had to cut back on it."
The argument FOR backdoors have crumbled, so is it really necessary at this point to defend encryption?
Every day there is another call from this or that government to backdoor or ban encryption. Often it is made with the claim that it will prevent terrorism. There are few voices supporting encryption. If Apple can make it fashionable, by all means, let us not dissuade them.
Slashdot Mirror
If Uber wanted to - ask drivers to report problem users, maintain a list of banned phone numbers and stop them from summoning Uber drivers.
Face it, the people don't want to really be free. They want to feel safe above all else. They are so afraid of terrorism when the fact is they are most likely to die from complications of their obesity or from a car accident because they were distracted while they were updating their facebook page.
I wonder about this.
Who would take one for the team, if it meant no mass surveillance?
Who would accept the cost in lives from the unstopped terrorism that could* result from a lack of surveillance? (*I know this is a stretch)
Who would be willing to die, if it meant their family would be free from surveillance?
Why not ask people in countries torn by terrorism? Would they exchange terrorism for excessive surveillance?
Over the first two years, 57% of optune users died, compared to 70% of standard regimen patients.
Over the final two years, out of the survivors from the first two years,
about 63% of optune users died, and about 66% of standard regimen patients died.
Maybe it just buys time, maybe the cancer adapts, maybe it just needs to be refined.
Increased capacity makes battery explosions even more of an issue than increased discharge rate. A battery that lasts 100 times as long will release 100 times as much energy during a catastrophic failure.
I really don't understand this us/them mentality that people keep spewing. We all work together, we are family members, coworkers and fellow human beings with the same exact needs.
It's easy to look at them as humans until you're faced with someone who believes that the founder of Planned Parenthood has intended all along for minorities to be aborted out of existence, and that contraceptives encourage perverted behavior and ultimately cause more unwanted pregnancies than abstinence. I can see the slippery slope from his point of view, but it's not like he is advocating for harsher laws to force wayward fathers into raising their unplanned offspring.
That said, I'm entirely sick of hearing this endless rant about how everyone who voted Trump is a racist, misogynist, bigoted xenophobe. People voted for him because they felt he would better represent them. And guess what, if half of the population really is just a bunch of xenophobes, you aren't going to change it with rampant name calling.
Why not? You load them into containers and ship them across the Pacific. The logistics get less immediately flexible, because it does take time to cross the Pacific, but it isn't expensive.
More than a third of their suppliers are in China.
If they get sent the wrong part, or have a quality control issue, it will take them weeks to find out they have a problem. If that quality control issue isn't discovered while the ship is in route, the duration of the trip will be wasted manufacturing non-conforming product.
It also seems intuitive to me that the logistics of making sure that the 300+ suppliers (already in China) get their product to the right place gets more difficult/expensive when you have to cross the ocean, as opposed to tracking completed iPhones from a few factories in China to the US. Is that flawed? Is it really not that much more expensive, despite someone having to manage those logistics?
No, I got it from a different resource called "my brain" using a technique called "thinking". There is no reason whatsoever that component costs will significantly change just because the phone is assembled in America. Only assembly costs would change.
I see your point, but the logistics of shipping a variety of components (that were natively available in China) can't be cheap.
Also, a US factory worker costs at least 10 times as much as a Chinese worker. If it costs $10 in Chinese labor, its at least $100 for US labor.
To make such a future possible, Pint headed a research team that used scraps of steel and brass - two of the most commonly discarded materials -
The obtained scrap carbon steel (1010 steel) and brass sheets (Yellow brass, 67% Cu/33% Zn)
So while the yard may be full of the materials, the majority probably needs to be refined in some way to be a particular form factor... brass sheets, and whatever shape the steel needs to be.
Previous /. Article said they were 98% the efficiency of other solar cells. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a catch, like time of day / wavelength of light / which solar cell is it being compared to
Emails seem to be from 2014, so I would not say this is conclusive evidence one way or the other about Russia and WikiLeaks.
I would expect WikiLeaks to show up in Russian emails regardless of their involvement. If I was Putin, and not involved in the hacking, I would be delighted to receive credit for mucking up US politics. I can easily imagine Putin bragging or laughing it up with his cronies over email.
Sell a license instead of a service/product...
I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for a sucker, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you take me off your list, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.
Which would you honestly prefer?
And which would the government prefer?
Assange never claimed to be objective, but as a purported newsman he doesn't need to. News organizations all over the world have taken an opinion in this race. Assange isn't pro-Trump; he's just anti-Clinton. As am I.
WikiLeaks was founded under the premise of exposing secret/leaked/classified information, as a non-profit. They have unpaid volunteers and pro bono lawyers. They operate on donated money. I think that people donating their time and money have a reasonable expectation for WikiLeaks to be at least somewhat impartial in their activities. I do have a problem with a political agenda emerging after WikiLeaks portrayed themselves for so long as politically agnostic. I think a lot of people who once rooted for Wikileaks do.
Do I think attacking the Hillary campaign is wrong? Not particularly. Especially if the information is being dropped right in their lap. I do expect them to release whatever damning information they receive. What I don't expect is for them to pick favorites. They can't even be bothered to make a token effort to find something on Trump.
Take the EFF. If they started showing partiality towards certain internet providers, certain media groups, certain tech companies, I would have an issue with that. If they gave Google a free pass on a major pirvacy goof, I would be concerned. They have a stated purpose, and I expect them to live up to it.
What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?
I don't know, maybe post anything at all about Trump?
Offer a bounty on his tax returns?
At this point, it seems like Assange is just trying to solidify a relationship with the Republican party in order to get the US off his back.
I'm interested in a Wikileaks that posts about all abuses and corruption in my government.
Not just the ones that help Assange meet his agenda.
If I were Yahoo, and my reputation was damaged from this, and I had received a government FISA order that I couldn't talk about, then I would do exactly this same thing. I see this as similar to a canary
Well, that would be similar to a canary if they had done it when it happened, before their reputation was damaged. Now, the damage is done, and they're just looking for someone else to take the blame for them, as opposed to trying to expose unreasonable surveillance.
even if the catalyst wasn't poisoned, a biofilm would clog those activity sites in an open body of water.
Intuition tells me that ethanol should destroy the biofilm. Research tells me otherwise. It actually seems to encourage it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
However, as hankwang mentioned, bacteria doesn't do so well in elecrolyzed water.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Algae might not be safe either:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Julian Assange was a hero too [huffingtonpost.com], as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq [wired.com] after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive" [cbsnews.com].
But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.
Maybe Assange tried to barter with or blackmail Hillary to get the US to back off and leave him alone. And maybe that failed, so he is forced to double down on Trump. Either way, god help Assange when Hillary is elected.
The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.
Like Assange?
The US has been after him for years, all under Obama's administration.
Suppose Assange has appealed to Obama for leniency. Obviously, leniency hasn't happened.
Now suppose Assange approaches Hillary. And for whatever reason, she doesn't want to deal. Maybe she doesn't want to be tarnished by a relationship with Assange/Wikileaks coming out. Maybe Assange tried to blackmail her or force a deal, threatening to leak information if Hillary doesn't call off the hounds when she gets in.
Whatever reason Assange has for alienating Hillary, he may have an opportunity with Trump. Trump might throw him a bone for his hard work.
And having made Hillary into an enemy, Assange really doesn't want to see her elected.
Theranos later voided all results from its proprietary device for 2014 and 2015, though the company said it wasn't aware of any patient harm resulting form its tests.
They're just about inviting lawsuits with that gem. I hadn't thought about the patient harm aspect until I read that quote, only the fraud aspect. Once people realize that their misdiagnosis stemming from a false test result is what landed them in the hospital or prevented treatment of a disease, Theranos won't even need a clean up crew.
A UPS for cable might run 3-12 hours, depending on load... After that, they would need to deploy a generator at each UPS.
Not sure what the capacity of the telecom system is like. Also not sure what the coverage area is like when the two are compared.
I'm no cop apologist, (often quite the opposite), but I wonder -
On one hand, you have bad cops - and "good" cops who don't turn the bad cops, and are corrupted by that and are therefore "good" instead of good.
On the other hand, you have any other job, where there is a balancing act of "getting the job done" and weeding out bad behavior. You have to get the job done, and you can only police your coworkers to a certain extent. You can report bad behavior, but it erodes your environment. Without higher level support, you are open to retaliation from coworkers (or even from higher ups). If you do not report the behavior, you are, in a way, complicit in it. But if you do report it, it may be near impossible to have an effective working arrangement to get the job done at all.
Not saying that makes it okay. But with body cams, it helps take the onus off the "good" cops to turn in their coworkers.
Police that shut down their own recording would have nothing to gain by doing so... since any they would have no verifiable defense even if they were falsely accused of doing something wrong.
You mean other than avoiding the creation of evidence of wrongdoing, if they were in fact doing something wrong?
A contract is a contract. They agreed to it, they need to follow through until the contract is fulfilled.
I think this is important to keep in mind. If a small publisher had negotiated poorly with Amazon and wanted out of a contract, would Amazon let them off the hook?
Amazon is trying to leverage their way out of the situation. They have removed some of the publishers' content from the service, which will probably lower their costs for the rest of the contract. But it also sends a message, "Well, look at how much exposure we give you. It would be a shame if we had to cut back on it."
The argument FOR backdoors have crumbled, so is it really necessary at this point to defend encryption?
Every day there is another call from this or that government to backdoor or ban encryption. Often it is made with the claim that it will prevent terrorism. There are few voices supporting encryption. If Apple can make it fashionable, by all means, let us not dissuade them.