In other words, you can't answer the questions and are so delusional that you have to cherry pick portions of my statements in an attempt to feel rational. Have a nice day.
No, it wasn't. Most people here know how fast 32Gb/s is. In fact most of us work with, or on, gear that may not be wireless, but is much faster than 32Gb/s.
Expounding on your statistics point as I agree that there is no significant increase in accuracy, notice the key phrase in the article.
The team used an anonymised dataset of O2 mobile phone users in the London metropolitan area during December 2012 and January 2013. They then used a small portion of the data to train a machine learning algorithm to find correlations between this and local crime statistics in the same period.
In other words, they took everything they gathered and pulled a subset that matched criteria that would back the claim that they could detect future crimes.
Computers can surely show what law enforcement already knows. E.G. That area is a known crime area. Computers don't make tea leaf reading possible, which is the claim that both Governments and Tech companies peddling software claim. Even worse, this type of technology does absolutely nothing to address the problems that actually cause most criminal activities. It exacerbates those problems because the economy this generates does not transfer down to desperate and impoverished people.
The reference to 4G limits has exactly what to do with this story? This was not 32Gb/s over a 4G network, it was 32Gb/s over an unknown protocol at a very short distance. I'm guessing that the basement was isolated from signal noise, which means this pretty much a non story or extremely premature.
There are many people that invent some batshit crazy things that simply don't work in the real world. Honestly that is not an insult directed at the inventors, because their work tends to lead to other developments down the road. It's more an insult at media which focuses on hyping everything possible.
Did all the real mods get fired, or did they all just take a PTO day at the same time? Maybe Dice is facing too much pressure from big business and the Government, so we can't get discussion worthy topics on the main page? With all of the other submissions in queue I really don't get it. I guess this one is not as bad as the crappy robot video story, but neither of them are worthy of the main page.
This and this story may at least generate some dialogue.
Probably to you I am old, but I have a critical ear for music. I proably know more bands than you youngsters, and bet I play music at least as loud. I have played Drums since age 4 when I received my first Ludwig concert snare, kit since 11 when I received my first Rogers kit, and percussion since it was required for concert and jazz band since age 13. I listen to a variety of music, which in my opinion requires some ability with a musical instrument or real (not synthesized) vocals. I dig progressive rock because it's the most challenging to play (usually) so you will usually find me working on playing Dream Theater, Liquid Tension Experiment, etc.. but I also play a lot of metal for warmup and exercise.
I prefer a band that can perform live as well as they can in the studio, to me that's the mark of great musicians. I don't really have anything against a synthesizer because a great keyboardist integrates that into music. "Everything" being synthesized to me is just not music. It's one person with enough skill to enter some input into a program.
In the true spirit of the Socratic method I should have also added that my question number 1. is not really required to gaining the rational answer to primary question. It does however relate\ directly to the answer I gave in my first post.
The primary question is why anyone would believe that 2 forms of justice can exist simultaneously in the same society? The separation of infrastructure is not necessary in the grand scheme of your claim that certain people should be excluded from justice. Just like accident vs. attack should be no different in seeking justice.
Why do you keep introducing invalid and unrelated arguments? Did I or anyone else claim that a dry cleaner needs a private army? The latter question I can answer, and that answer is "NO". Further, it does not at all relate to the debate. The first question I can only answer with the fact that that you continue to muddy the waters instead of answering the questions I posed earlier. Contrary to your 2nd paragraph, I have never shifted my position even the slightest. I stated that if people are not accountable society fails, and we have seen a massive growth in this exact issue in the US. My position that accountability and liability must exist has never changed in the slightest, in fact my first post explicitly stated that people must be held accountable for their actions, which you argued against.
Stick with the arguments and the Socratic method (reduce the arguments to their lowest form). Prove to me that your argument that politicians and some executives in charge of other people's "things" should not be held accountable for their management of those "things". You are the one claiming that a double standard should exist, not I. As Socrates stated, Justice never changes form. If person A does something just and person B does the same thing, it is also just (and visa versa). It can not be any other way and still be called "Justice".
If you can prove to me that there is a logical reason not to hold politicians and certain executives accountable while they manage other peoples property (including public property), I will concede the debate. If you can not, your belief is simply not rational.
Remove everything you just said and start over with where you were a post ago and answer the questions I posed. These two in particular.
1. Why should the boat (infrastructure) be in the Ocean (attached to the Internet)? As previously stated, "profit" is not an answer.
2. Why should any politician or executive in charge of property they do not own not be held accountable, when everyone else in society is held accountable?
As stated above, if you can not answer those two questions rationally your opinion is not rational. In my last posts, I demonstrated that an attack is no different than an accident in terms of accountability. The difference _may_ be in liability, but that would be for a court to decide. I may not have explicitly stated this, but it should have been obvious enough not to need calling out (I am assuming you read and write English).
Alternatively, if you can prove to me that nobody should ever be held accountable for anything they do with other people's property I will also concede the debate. I seriously doubt you would take that position, as that would indicate advocacy for complete lawlessness. E.G. Someone breaks into your house and rapes everyone inside, then steals everything of value you have no recourse.
You seem to be attempting to mangle the meaning of infrastructure. Infrastructure is "foundational", not "not needed" as you seem to be implying with the term "below". Even though the term has a similar root "infra" to "infrared", the use of "infra" is absolutely not the same.
You are trying to claim, falsely I'll add, that some infrastructure is not actually infrastructure. In terms of Infrastructure, there is absolutely no difference. If someone can take out roads then we have an infrastructure problem, we can make the same claim for electricity, water, sewage, communications, etc... There is no difference except that "roads" would be much harder for some management person to create a single point of failure out in the ocean somewhere. In other words, your implication that "critical infrastructure" existed anywhere in my points is absolutely incorrect.
To prove that is incorrect, notice that I don't restrict the argument to just infrastructure. It's commerce as well, where some person/company accepts responsibility for another person's wealth or property (as with the original post and their stock exchange comment). All of these things are the same, and the argument is the same.
When it is not yours, you have no right to put other people's "things" at risk. Public property is no different than private property in this regard. If you take unnecessary risks with other people's "things" you must be held accountable and liable for your actions. As with the former, there is no difference between public and private property in this regard.
Obviously things change if the courts reveal that something completely unexpected happens. The distinction from that statement is that "Liability" can change, but "Accountability" can not or society breaks down (very much like the US has been heading for the last couple decades).
Not only a guy suffering from a midlife crisis, but pretending to play guitar while crappy synthetic sounds blast your ears. That "music" video should come with a disclaimer and warning. "Probably does not contain what you consider music, start with the volume really really low."
I didn't study the rest of the article or person. I simply assume that his self proclaimed titles in other areas match his self proclaimed "musician" title, and are pretty much ego boosting statements with little to no truth. In fairness, I could be wrong but generally the first opinion is correct.
I fully agree that an attack is not an accident, but you are really not addressing the issue. Lets continue down our Boat and Ocean path using the tried and true Socratic method.
Is a boat required to have necessary gear to run on the Ocean? Yes or No? Realizing that the only proper answer here is "yes" then we to ask whether or not any other prior questions should be asked ahead of this. Low and behold there is a question we should ask ahead of this. "Should the boat be in the ocean to begin with?".
In the case of infrastructure, like the example I responded to, the answer is NO the boat should not be in the our proverbial ocean. There is no reason to have infrastructure sitting in the middle of an ocean. "Infrastructure" means that everyone relies on this, and society can not function without it. (A loose definition I agree, but surely suffices the needs and not incorrect.). That boat should not be a boat at all, but a little fortress with some people guarding it and inspectors making sure that nobody is messing with it.
The only reasons that people can cite for having our proverbial boat out in our proverbial ocean is to increase profits. Profit should be the absolute last consideration in protecting and maintaining infrastructure of any kind. If an executive decides to increase profits by putting this infrastructure out in the middle of the ocean, why should he not be held accountable?
All other forms of business _would_ be held accountable for decisions that caused harm to society (including citizens). That people want to give politicians and large company executives a pass for their bad decisions is quite baffling.
Outside of your imagination, where did I state that the quote I provided was from Franklin? Go ahead and re-ready my post, read it three or four times if you must. All of your accusations are false and baseless.
Resorting to a personal attack just shows how weak your argument truly is.
In response to repeated false accusation and fabricated information, I find my ad hominem is not without basis. If you prefer people to be kind and proper holding dialogue, consider your input into the conversation first.
Your arguments are really quite poor. Let me expound on your two attempted examples. For posterity, "the Ocean" is at least close to the function of the Internet, where "New York" is not.
If a person runs a boat on the ocean are they not required to have gear to operate safely? If a boat owner had no lifeboats, no radar, no radio, not enough people to staff the boat would they not be held accountable if the boat had an accident?
If your job is to carry around cash for people and you live in New York, are you not required to do everything possible people's money safe? If an operator had no secure storage (locked briefcase, armored car, bodyguards, etc..) and just sent people walking down the street with wads of cash, they would not be held accountable when people's money ends up missing?
I'll even add one, using the always favorite car analogy. If a business is supposed to drive goods from point A to point B and has no insurance, no licensed drivers, trucks with no brakes, etc.. the company should face no civil or criminal action when an accident occurs? Are you trying to claim that accountability can only exist if they are on a highway and not a country road?
These are examples not dealing with critical infrastructure where you know damn well that people _should_ be held accountable for their poor decisions. They may simply be terminated from employment, or they may face criminal and or civil cases.
Why on Earth would the rules for critical infrastructure be any different than those examples? Hint: They should not be.
Oh how I love false accusations by the ignorant who have refused to do the work to gain knowledge they claim others lack. Here is a good source for you, but I'm guessing that you won't do the work. With that in mind, the actual quote from Benjamin Franklin is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." That said, there are numerous other quotes others have given paraphrasing that quote.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
You are not knowledgeable nor are you special, no matter what mommy told you.
If you read past the first two sentences, he stated that the administration (US) should have been held accountable for 9/11 instead of passing the Patriot Act. Yes, seems contradictory from the first 2 sentences...
I believe it's much more likely that they know the difference, but gauging the crowd to see how much they can get away with. It helps keep the pressure off people that should be facing criminal charges for lying to Congress, and offers a great diversion.
What happens when cooling systems at a nuclear power plant are taken offline by an aggressor?
Then I would say that the management of the facility has been negligent in their duties and should all face criminal prosecution. The same would go for water treatment plants where someone could access a computer over the internet, or any other utility.
How about a major stock exchange being crippled?
I think this depends on the damages. At best, I would say that civil liability would exist and the owners of the stock exchange should be liable to reimburse losses. If there are non recoverable damages, then we have a criminal case as well.
Why does it matter if it was done by a hacker or by a warhead? No amount of repairs will undo the direct effects of these events.
Why don't you hold people accountable for their actions instead of allowing them pass blame as they see fit? Anyone in any business that does not realize that the Internet is not a safe playground is an absolute idiot that has no right to work in an environment that touches the Internet.
As proven repeatedly, most citizens commit at least 3 felonies every day. If you want criminals off the street, please be the first to turn yourself in. Don't forget to turn yourself in for future crimes too, which the many so called "Progressive" regimes are pushing for (including the US, UK, Australia, etc...)
Funny how you won't admit that the system is broken because you are not currently the target of an investigation. Piss off the wrong people, and that will change really quickly won't it?
People in the US today are afraid to express opinions, knowing that they can be a target for all sorts of trouble. So not only do people far criminals, the Government that is supposed to defend our Freedoms elicits as much or more fear.
This is the exact reason so many quotes exist like "Those who give up Liberty for temporary security will get neither". It's really too bad that people refuse to learn the lessons history can teach, and just as much of a shame that our "public" education system refuses to provide the lessons.
And when they graft your face into photos that are not real you will do the same? This has already been done for political purposes (see Ross Perot) and used as blackmail.
The problem here is that Literature != Liberal Arts, even though some wish to classify it as such. A Liberal Arts degrees should require Philosophy I and II, Ethics, Logic, and Symbolic Logic. Not that long ago, the heavy focus on Philosophy was what defined the degree.
If a person has Liberal Arts degree with all of the Philosophy classes they do get better at critical thinking and detecting irrational and illogical thought. Just like a person with a Math degree gets better at solving equations. I have a degree in both Liberal Arts and Mathematics, and yes my Liberal Arts required everything I stated above.
A "STEM" degree on it's own presents some basic critical thinking problems, as I would say all education does. These are not exercises focused on critical thinking in a broad sense, but rather linear logic. "Critical thinking" in a traditional sense is not the same as the critical thinking in Math. For example, in politics one must take into account human nature, which is a variable set of rules. People often lie, tell partial truths, and use broken logic to make conclusions. Critical thinking in Math always works toward a single mathematical truth. With that in mind, a person can be very intelligent in programming logic, but be very poor in overall critical thinking abilities.
Many of the current non-lethal weapons have long lasting side effects. Such as severe pain lasting up to a days after the person is exposed (Lasers/Taser), vomiting and nausea (LRAD), loss of equilibrium (Lasers/LRAD), and if you read warnings you will find more. Side effect durations often vary, so giving 24 hours was not intended as a literal (we know bob can't fight for 23 hours and 59 seconds after he left the field).
Tear gas as a non-lethal weapon is actually not that bad assuming exposure is short and concentrations don't remain consistently high. Long term exposure can cause tissue damage in high concentrations. Short term exposure to tear gas actually gives many people an energy boost due to increased oxygen levels and adrenaline. It's amazing how much fluid your body can hold in the lungs and sinuses, and tear gas causes it all to be expelled.
Fine, I'll take you as literally as you claim. Your claim, even as a potential is completely without basis. I have worked extensively with VR technology, including motion tracking so can back my perspective.
Why you find this offensive is beyond me. (And yes I didn't read the article, this is slashdot after all).
First, shame on you for not reading. Second, the education system in the US is a horrible mess. Every time some new technology arrives, someone attempts to claim that it benefits education without any proof (and I'll add tremendous evidence to the contrary) and "sells" a sham system to the US Government. These are then sold to the public under a "save the children" fallacy to ensure that some people make lots of cash while the system continues to deteriorate.
These false claims started with radio, extended to television, then again with computers. Funding some new VR initiative will surely make some company money on the tax payers back, but won't correct issues with education.
There is enough material out there where you don't need to take my word for it, and I sure hope that you will go investigate.
Right, because the military is the worst possible place to learn about the military. I'm better asking Richard Jewel about 2 man tactics than I am reading a military TM, which provides the history and theory as well as the tactics.
Just like your stupid ass bayonet claim, it's fucking wrong. The US Military does not have any serrations on their weapons because of Geneva conventions. It can not be used as a multipurpose tool, and has not been issued as a multipurpose tool for that exact reason. If you need to saw rope, you have to use an entrenching tool.
Contrary to your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem, the source is usually the best way to get information. Not always, but military doctrine and principles are very well documented and available to every soldier that wants to go read. Those same books are not always available to the public, so your Wiki page != US Military Libraries.
Lastly, before you go another round of pathetic fallacy, learn what "one of many" means and then reread the post.
Slashdot Mirror
They did not submit a smaller sample as academia would teach, they submitted a small set of "select" data (their words, not mine).
If you are only teaching a bias only a bias will be understood.
In other words, you can't answer the questions and are so delusional that you have to cherry pick portions of my statements in an attempt to feel rational. Have a nice day.
No, it wasn't. Most people here know how fast 32Gb/s is. In fact most of us work with, or on, gear that may not be wireless, but is much faster than 32Gb/s.
Expounding on your statistics point as I agree that there is no significant increase in accuracy, notice the key phrase in the article.
The team used an anonymised dataset of O2 mobile phone users in the London metropolitan area during December 2012 and January 2013. They then used a small portion of the data to train a machine learning algorithm to find correlations between this and local crime statistics in the same period.
In other words, they took everything they gathered and pulled a subset that matched criteria that would back the claim that they could detect future crimes.
Computers can surely show what law enforcement already knows. E.G. That area is a known crime area. Computers don't make tea leaf reading possible, which is the claim that both Governments and Tech companies peddling software claim. Even worse, this type of technology does absolutely nothing to address the problems that actually cause most criminal activities. It exacerbates those problems because the economy this generates does not transfer down to desperate and impoverished people.
The reference to 4G limits has exactly what to do with this story? This was not 32Gb/s over a 4G network, it was 32Gb/s over an unknown protocol at a very short distance. I'm guessing that the basement was isolated from signal noise, which means this pretty much a non story or extremely premature.
There are many people that invent some batshit crazy things that simply don't work in the real world. Honestly that is not an insult directed at the inventors, because their work tends to lead to other developments down the road. It's more an insult at media which focuses on hyping everything possible.
Did all the real mods get fired, or did they all just take a PTO day at the same time? Maybe Dice is facing too much pressure from big business and the Government, so we can't get discussion worthy topics on the main page? With all of the other submissions in queue I really don't get it. I guess this one is not as bad as the crappy robot video story, but neither of them are worthy of the main page.
This and this story may at least generate some dialogue.
Probably to you I am old, but I have a critical ear for music. I proably know more bands than you youngsters, and bet I play music at least as loud. I have played Drums since age 4 when I received my first Ludwig concert snare, kit since 11 when I received my first Rogers kit, and percussion since it was required for concert and jazz band since age 13. I listen to a variety of music, which in my opinion requires some ability with a musical instrument or real (not synthesized) vocals. I dig progressive rock because it's the most challenging to play (usually) so you will usually find me working on playing Dream Theater, Liquid Tension Experiment, etc.. but I also play a lot of metal for warmup and exercise.
I prefer a band that can perform live as well as they can in the studio, to me that's the mark of great musicians. I don't really have anything against a synthesizer because a great keyboardist integrates that into music. "Everything" being synthesized to me is just not music. It's one person with enough skill to enter some input into a program.
In the true spirit of the Socratic method I should have also added that my question number 1. is not really required to gaining the rational answer to primary question. It does however relate\ directly to the answer I gave in my first post.
The primary question is why anyone would believe that 2 forms of justice can exist simultaneously in the same society? The separation of infrastructure is not necessary in the grand scheme of your claim that certain people should be excluded from justice. Just like accident vs. attack should be no different in seeking justice.
Why do you keep introducing invalid and unrelated arguments? Did I or anyone else claim that a dry cleaner needs a private army? The latter question I can answer, and that answer is "NO". Further, it does not at all relate to the debate. The first question I can only answer with the fact that that you continue to muddy the waters instead of answering the questions I posed earlier. Contrary to your 2nd paragraph, I have never shifted my position even the slightest. I stated that if people are not accountable society fails, and we have seen a massive growth in this exact issue in the US. My position that accountability and liability must exist has never changed in the slightest, in fact my first post explicitly stated that people must be held accountable for their actions, which you argued against.
Stick with the arguments and the Socratic method (reduce the arguments to their lowest form). Prove to me that your argument that politicians and some executives in charge of other people's "things" should not be held accountable for their management of those "things". You are the one claiming that a double standard should exist, not I. As Socrates stated, Justice never changes form. If person A does something just and person B does the same thing, it is also just (and visa versa). It can not be any other way and still be called "Justice".
If you can prove to me that there is a logical reason not to hold politicians and certain executives accountable while they manage other peoples property (including public property), I will concede the debate. If you can not, your belief is simply not rational.
Remove everything you just said and start over with where you were a post ago and answer the questions I posed. These two in particular.
1. Why should the boat (infrastructure) be in the Ocean (attached to the Internet)? As previously stated, "profit" is not an answer.
2. Why should any politician or executive in charge of property they do not own not be held accountable, when everyone else in society is held accountable?
As stated above, if you can not answer those two questions rationally your opinion is not rational. In my last posts, I demonstrated that an attack is no different than an accident in terms of accountability. The difference _may_ be in liability, but that would be for a court to decide. I may not have explicitly stated this, but it should have been obvious enough not to need calling out (I am assuming you read and write English).
Alternatively, if you can prove to me that nobody should ever be held accountable for anything they do with other people's property I will also concede the debate. I seriously doubt you would take that position, as that would indicate advocacy for complete lawlessness. E.G. Someone breaks into your house and rapes everyone inside, then steals everything of value you have no recourse.
You seem to be attempting to mangle the meaning of infrastructure. Infrastructure is "foundational", not "not needed" as you seem to be implying with the term "below". Even though the term has a similar root "infra" to "infrared", the use of "infra" is absolutely not the same.
You are trying to claim, falsely I'll add, that some infrastructure is not actually infrastructure. In terms of Infrastructure, there is absolutely no difference. If someone can take out roads then we have an infrastructure problem, we can make the same claim for electricity, water, sewage, communications, etc... There is no difference except that "roads" would be much harder for some management person to create a single point of failure out in the ocean somewhere. In other words, your implication that "critical infrastructure" existed anywhere in my points is absolutely incorrect.
To prove that is incorrect, notice that I don't restrict the argument to just infrastructure. It's commerce as well, where some person/company accepts responsibility for another person's wealth or property (as with the original post and their stock exchange comment). All of these things are the same, and the argument is the same.
When it is not yours, you have no right to put other people's "things" at risk. Public property is no different than private property in this regard. If you take unnecessary risks with other people's "things" you must be held accountable and liable for your actions. As with the former, there is no difference between public and private property in this regard.
Obviously things change if the courts reveal that something completely unexpected happens. The distinction from that statement is that "Liability" can change, but "Accountability" can not or society breaks down (very much like the US has been heading for the last couple decades).
Not only a guy suffering from a midlife crisis, but pretending to play guitar while crappy synthetic sounds blast your ears. That "music" video should come with a disclaimer and warning. "Probably does not contain what you consider music, start with the volume really really low."
I didn't study the rest of the article or person. I simply assume that his self proclaimed titles in other areas match his self proclaimed "musician" title, and are pretty much ego boosting statements with little to no truth. In fairness, I could be wrong but generally the first opinion is correct.
I fully agree that an attack is not an accident, but you are really not addressing the issue. Lets continue down our Boat and Ocean path using the tried and true Socratic method.
Is a boat required to have necessary gear to run on the Ocean? Yes or No? Realizing that the only proper answer here is "yes" then we to ask whether or not any other prior questions should be asked ahead of this. Low and behold there is a question we should ask ahead of this. "Should the boat be in the ocean to begin with?".
In the case of infrastructure, like the example I responded to, the answer is NO the boat should not be in the our proverbial ocean. There is no reason to have infrastructure sitting in the middle of an ocean. "Infrastructure" means that everyone relies on this, and society can not function without it. (A loose definition I agree, but surely suffices the needs and not incorrect.). That boat should not be a boat at all, but a little fortress with some people guarding it and inspectors making sure that nobody is messing with it.
The only reasons that people can cite for having our proverbial boat out in our proverbial ocean is to increase profits. Profit should be the absolute last consideration in protecting and maintaining infrastructure of any kind. If an executive decides to increase profits by putting this infrastructure out in the middle of the ocean, why should he not be held accountable?
All other forms of business _would_ be held accountable for decisions that caused harm to society (including citizens). That people want to give politicians and large company executives a pass for their bad decisions is quite baffling.
Outside of your imagination, where did I state that the quote I provided was from Franklin? Go ahead and re-ready my post, read it three or four times if you must. All of your accusations are false and baseless.
Resorting to a personal attack just shows how weak your argument truly is.
In response to repeated false accusation and fabricated information, I find my ad hominem is not without basis. If you prefer people to be kind and proper holding dialogue, consider your input into the conversation first.
Your arguments are really quite poor. Let me expound on your two attempted examples. For posterity, "the Ocean" is at least close to the function of the Internet, where "New York" is not.
If a person runs a boat on the ocean are they not required to have gear to operate safely? If a boat owner had no lifeboats, no radar, no radio, not enough people to staff the boat would they not be held accountable if the boat had an accident?
If your job is to carry around cash for people and you live in New York, are you not required to do everything possible people's money safe? If an operator had no secure storage (locked briefcase, armored car, bodyguards, etc..) and just sent people walking down the street with wads of cash, they would not be held accountable when people's money ends up missing?
I'll even add one, using the always favorite car analogy. If a business is supposed to drive goods from point A to point B and has no insurance, no licensed drivers, trucks with no brakes, etc.. the company should face no civil or criminal action when an accident occurs? Are you trying to claim that accountability can only exist if they are on a highway and not a country road?
These are examples not dealing with critical infrastructure where you know damn well that people _should_ be held accountable for their poor decisions. They may simply be terminated from employment, or they may face criminal and or civil cases.
Why on Earth would the rules for critical infrastructure be any different than those examples? Hint: They should not be.
Oh how I love false accusations by the ignorant who have refused to do the work to gain knowledge they claim others lack. Here is a good source for you, but I'm guessing that you won't do the work. With that in mind, the actual quote from Benjamin Franklin is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." That said, there are numerous other quotes others have given paraphrasing that quote.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
You are not knowledgeable nor are you special, no matter what mommy told you.
If you read past the first two sentences, he stated that the administration (US) should have been held accountable for 9/11 instead of passing the Patriot Act. Yes, seems contradictory from the first 2 sentences...
I believe it's much more likely that they know the difference, but gauging the crowd to see how much they can get away with. It helps keep the pressure off people that should be facing criminal charges for lying to Congress, and offers a great diversion.
What happens when cooling systems at a nuclear power plant are taken offline by an aggressor?
Then I would say that the management of the facility has been negligent in their duties and should all face criminal prosecution. The same would go for water treatment plants where someone could access a computer over the internet, or any other utility.
How about a major stock exchange being crippled?
I think this depends on the damages. At best, I would say that civil liability would exist and the owners of the stock exchange should be liable to reimburse losses. If there are non recoverable damages, then we have a criminal case as well.
Why does it matter if it was done by a hacker or by a warhead? No amount of repairs will undo the direct effects of these events.
Why don't you hold people accountable for their actions instead of allowing them pass blame as they see fit? Anyone in any business that does not realize that the Internet is not a safe playground is an absolute idiot that has no right to work in an environment that touches the Internet.
As proven repeatedly, most citizens commit at least 3 felonies every day. If you want criminals off the street, please be the first to turn yourself in. Don't forget to turn yourself in for future crimes too, which the many so called "Progressive" regimes are pushing for (including the US, UK, Australia, etc...)
Funny how you won't admit that the system is broken because you are not currently the target of an investigation. Piss off the wrong people, and that will change really quickly won't it?
People in the US today are afraid to express opinions, knowing that they can be a target for all sorts of trouble. So not only do people far criminals, the Government that is supposed to defend our Freedoms elicits as much or more fear.
This is the exact reason so many quotes exist like "Those who give up Liberty for temporary security will get neither". It's really too bad that people refuse to learn the lessons history can teach, and just as much of a shame that our "public" education system refuses to provide the lessons.
And when they graft your face into photos that are not real you will do the same? This has already been done for political purposes (see Ross Perot) and used as blackmail.
Then you either lied, or purchased a degree and did not do the work.
The problem here is that Literature != Liberal Arts, even though some wish to classify it as such. A Liberal Arts degrees should require Philosophy I and II, Ethics, Logic, and Symbolic Logic. Not that long ago, the heavy focus on Philosophy was what defined the degree.
If a person has Liberal Arts degree with all of the Philosophy classes they do get better at critical thinking and detecting irrational and illogical thought. Just like a person with a Math degree gets better at solving equations. I have a degree in both Liberal Arts and Mathematics, and yes my Liberal Arts required everything I stated above.
A "STEM" degree on it's own presents some basic critical thinking problems, as I would say all education does. These are not exercises focused on critical thinking in a broad sense, but rather linear logic. "Critical thinking" in a traditional sense is not the same as the critical thinking in Math. For example, in politics one must take into account human nature, which is a variable set of rules. People often lie, tell partial truths, and use broken logic to make conclusions. Critical thinking in Math always works toward a single mathematical truth. With that in mind, a person can be very intelligent in programming logic, but be very poor in overall critical thinking abilities.
Many of the current non-lethal weapons have long lasting side effects. Such as severe pain lasting up to a days after the person is exposed (Lasers/Taser), vomiting and nausea (LRAD), loss of equilibrium (Lasers/LRAD), and if you read warnings you will find more. Side effect durations often vary, so giving 24 hours was not intended as a literal (we know bob can't fight for 23 hours and 59 seconds after he left the field).
Tear gas as a non-lethal weapon is actually not that bad assuming exposure is short and concentrations don't remain consistently high. Long term exposure can cause tissue damage in high concentrations. Short term exposure to tear gas actually gives many people an energy boost due to increased oxygen levels and adrenaline. It's amazing how much fluid your body can hold in the lungs and sinuses, and tear gas causes it all to be expelled.
Fine, I'll take you as literally as you claim. Your claim, even as a potential is completely without basis. I have worked extensively with VR technology, including motion tracking so can back my perspective.
Why you find this offensive is beyond me. (And yes I didn't read the article, this is slashdot after all).
First, shame on you for not reading. Second, the education system in the US is a horrible mess. Every time some new technology arrives, someone attempts to claim that it benefits education without any proof (and I'll add tremendous evidence to the contrary) and "sells" a sham system to the US Government. These are then sold to the public under a "save the children" fallacy to ensure that some people make lots of cash while the system continues to deteriorate.
These false claims started with radio, extended to television, then again with computers. Funding some new VR initiative will surely make some company money on the tax payers back, but won't correct issues with education.
There is enough material out there where you don't need to take my word for it, and I sure hope that you will go investigate.
Right, because the military is the worst possible place to learn about the military. I'm better asking Richard Jewel about 2 man tactics than I am reading a military TM, which provides the history and theory as well as the tactics.
Just like your stupid ass bayonet claim, it's fucking wrong. The US Military does not have any serrations on their weapons because of Geneva conventions. It can not be used as a multipurpose tool, and has not been issued as a multipurpose tool for that exact reason. If you need to saw rope, you have to use an entrenching tool.
Contrary to your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem, the source is usually the best way to get information. Not always, but military doctrine and principles are very well documented and available to every soldier that wants to go read. Those same books are not always available to the public, so your Wiki page != US Military Libraries.
Lastly, before you go another round of pathetic fallacy, learn what "one of many" means and then reread the post.