The article's assessment is mostly correct. It even correctly mentioned that the previous net neutrality rules were unconstitutional. Except the article neglected the fact that new rules forcing local municipality to open up rights of way would also be unconstitutional because Federal agency has no power over local jurisdiction.
Forget about the federal or even the state government for a moment. The problem is that most people don't even know how to keep their local government in check. They increase local sales and property tax rates and/or tax assessment at will. They are behind in repairing public roads and other infrastructures, and even so they are mostly funded by Federal grants. The teachers are paid poorly, but the local officials are paid handsomely.
This is all caused by the lack of local government oversight. All governments are pests, be it federal, state, or local, but the local government is usually overlooked. We pay too much attention to federal and state. Better show up at your local town hall meeting next time, or they will slowly erode away your rights and property.
I think his boss is trying to renegotiate this poor guy's salary. In any case it's a power play, so there is no use to explain to the boss how software engineering differs from brick laying. Simply assert that: (1) he'll work in excess of 40 hours a week only on overtime salary as required by law, (2) market rate already takes into account software maintenance cost due to defect or changing requirement, and (3) his performance evaluation should have already taken into account the quality of his output.
Why is this a power play? If he's actually not meeting expectation, the boss is free to simply fire him and hire someone else. The boss would not have to employ such power play tactics.
Of course nothing is going to stop him from saying "ok boss ur right" and take a voluntary pay cut.
That's because the outdated infrastructure had been economically viable to use, so there had been no reason to update it, until now, that is.
Many ways of the US rely on an honor system. There used to be unattended shops where you take the goods and put money in a box. The box didn't use to require a lock. This might be possible in a small town where everyone trusted each other, but in a city where crime is rampant, this business model is simply not economically viable. Public transportation used to allow monthly or weekly pass holders to board from the rear doors without verifying their passes, but they don't allow that anymore because nowadays enough non-paying passengers take advantage of that such that the honor system is no longer economically viable.
The honor system is always able to absorb a small percentage of fraud cases and remain economically viable. It's only when the fraud rate rises past a certain threshold when the system breaks down.
When a merchant displays a credit card logo, you trust the merchant. When the merchant hands you a receipt and you sign it, the merchant trusts you to pay. Again, this is an honor system. The rest of the world also started off with a complete "out of date" manual-imprint or swipe-card honor system. They were forced to upgrade the infrastructure because they suffered enough fraud such that the old system was no longer economically viable. The new smart card system is designed to enforce contractual agreement so that you don't need to rely on the honor system anymore, making credit payments economically viable again.
The US simply held off this long because the honor system had worked until now. Economic viability is the reason. The bad news is that the US has morally declined to the level of the rest of the world. The good news is that the US upheld its morals longer, being the last to abandon the honor system.
I think you confused the purpose of IOMMU. It's for restricting the device's memory access. Without IOMMU, it just means that any firmware running on the device's coprocessor can access the main memory unrestricted, meaning that a hacked firmware can root the machine. IOMMU virtualizes device's access to main memory so that doesn't happen. On a machine without IOMMU, you can still run device drivers in user space as long as the kernel sets up the correct memory mapping for the device's PCI address space. That's called memory mapped I/O and has nothing to do with IOMMU.
Bill Gates played too conservatively so that he couldn't mobilize his pieces before getting checkmated. It's a common mistake if you care too much about losing pieces (presumably because that might appear embarrassing). I think it's uncharacteristic of Bill actually. He was known to be a lot more aggressive when he was younger, but I have to admit he's a lot more admirable now that he's older and mellowed.
If after several years holding seat and having a lucrative political career, you tell your congressmen that you're going to replace them because they no longer represent you, they'll keep doing the same and ignore you.
If, just after a new congressman got elected, you tell him how the last one was voted off of his seat because he stopped representing his people, that'll stick to him for his whole term of service. Congratulate him and tell him you look forward to his servitude.
Poul-Henning Kamp is probably best known for his phkmalloc used in FreeBSD, and Varnish http cache. He's one of the few who understood that virtual memory under stress essentially behaves like a block device, so he writes software to exploit that.
Let's suppose you're the fund manager and you want to maximize impact of your dollars. But there are too many researchers applying for grant. What do you do? You divest rather than invest, and hope that one of the projects will churn out useful outcome.
If you want to focus your money for deeper impact, people will definitely accuse you of favoritism. It is hard to prove innocent because research is, intrinsically, a very specialized craft, and only very specialized people understand the qualifications. Sometimes experts don't agree on the qualifications either. Once you are accused and unable to prove yourself innocent, your career as a fund manager would be ruined due to academic misconduct allegations. If you distribute your funds fairly and squarely, people can still accuse you of favoritism, but at least you have plausible deniability.
From a researcher's point of view, research is really about begging money to do things you want to do. Or if you end up not doing what you want to do, simply begging money. Historically only the nobles have the time and money to do research. This is what I always tell my friends:
If you have no money and no time, make time.
Now you have time but still no money. Make money with your time.
Now you have money but no time. Make money smarter so you save time.
Now you have both time and money, do whatever you want.
That may be why there is a propensity to build luxury four year resorts with fancy dorms and gyms at the universities. It may be the marketing that keeps students around.
It's complicated. The universities reap what they sow, attracting the wrong kind of students. And then after exhausting funds on fancy buildings, the universities are unable to provide education to the students who actually enrolled to study. I can't blame the students if you're fostering an environment not for learning but for distractions.
Back on to the subject of MOOC, I think it could be useful as a deterrent to curb the squandering of resources. But universities have in the past found ways to provide affordable education, so something else must have gone wrong other than the manner the courses are taught.
This is how the Oxford Dictionary defines wonder: "a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable." Pink Floyd can fulfill this definition of wonder.
But I think ultimately, I disagree with your idea how the notion of wonder relates to theoretical CS or physics. In a pure mathematical sense, a theoretical study is the exploration of what logical consequences can be shown to follow from a set of well defined axioms. Theoretical CS uses a given computational model as the axioms and seeks to derive logical consequences that concern the complexity and computability of algorithms or problems under that computational model. Theoretical physics is concerned with coming up with the well defined axioms that have logical consequences which explain real-world, observable phenomenon. Maybe to some people that is wonderful, but wonder is neither sufficient nor required if you want to be a theoretician. If you do find wonder in theory and formal methods, kudos to you.:-)
I'm not saying I don't find wonder in theoretical studies, but both Discovery Channel and National Geographic have the scale to fund many educational programs beyond what most universities can afford. And broadcast media have developed a narrative style and format that makes conveying knowledge effective and attractive, with the purpose to induce a feeling of wonder. Otherwise it depends on the individual to find wonder themselves. As another way to look at it, some professors are very good at inducing a feeling of wonder in their students, but I wouldn't count on it if your goal is to study a subject matter and become an expert. There are ways to relate to a professor and his/her work even if the professor turns out to be an extremely boring person. If you go to a university just to find wonder, that's a waste of time and money.
If you just want wonder and culture and insight, Discovery Channel and National Geographic can easily outdo accredited universities while at the same time be more effective at conveying knowledge. I wish more broadcast media outlet would fulfill their educational responsibility. In the ideal sense, good news reporting can also fill you in a lot of context that leads to the current event. Only a few news outlets that I know of practice that kind of perspective news reporting, which is sad because I wish there is more. In the same vein, you can also find universities forfeiting their educational responsibilities, preferring to build luxury four year resorts with fancy dorms and gyms.
What universities should be providing is: (1) access to and relationship with experts of some subject matter, who can guide you for your own studies, and (2) a good research library or online publication subscription so you can study a subject in depth yourself and become an expert. Going to college just to enroll in some courses really is a waste of time and money. Next time you get the chance, ask your professor (current or former) what he/she works on for research, why the work is important, and how did the professor end up doing it.
That's assuming you are actually interested in studying. If you just want a good paying job, and depending on what that job is, education may be neither sufficient nor required.
The reason why Microsoft got their lunch ate is because they've gotten complacent, after securing monopoly of desktop operating systems and office productivity suite. But they could still get away with it for at least another decade precisely because they delivered exceptional value in what they did in that market. Past performance is no guarantee if they will continue to deliver exceptional value.
Microsoft's problem with mobile and gaming console is that they didn't deliver exceptional value, but they still decided to enter the market anyway. Even so, it would have been a fruitful experiment if they could have applied their experience in mobile and gaming to motivate for a real-time resource-constrained operating system that could help making their main flagship OS more nimble and responsive, but we've seen no progress in that regard because their departments apparently don't talk to each other.
Trying to be the monopoly of the everything store is very difficult. Jeff Bezos likes to play the predatory strategy where price is lowered to a loss in order to drive competitor out of market. But you can't do that to every market simultaneously all the times, and given enough incentive, someone will always figure out how to enter the market by adding more value. Amazon will eventually crumble under its own weight if it continues down that strategy.
A good strategy is to deliver exceptional value in a market, but you can only do that if you focus on only a few things.
For the sake of argument, put our personal opinion on whether a given law is just or unjust aside, and also put aside our personal feelings on the tactics used by law enforcement. If you want to argue logically, you cannot appeal to feelings.
Obviously, If you were the plaintiff, you are clearly not in the position to decide whether the law you are charged with is just or unjust. The jury can exercise their judgment, and that could result in jury nullification. But you cannot persuade the jury by talking to the prosecutor.
In your fictional Bob robbing the liquor store scenario, he did not have to talk to the police as long as he's apprehended in his act. Even if that is not enough to build a strong case to prosecute him (which is very unlikely), the fact you cannot rob a liquor store without being apprehended is enough of a deterrent. On the other hand, if you cannot apprehend Bob, then he will do it again even if he knows he might one day be caught. And he will do it again even if he has been caught before and served his sentence. If you believe that serving a sentence is the just way to repay for one's crime, then to Bob, the state transition between committing a crime and serving his sentence is merely a lifestyle choice. Maybe the cycle will end when he grows tired of it. In the mean time, I still don't think you would want to live in the same neighborhood as Bob. I am less concerned about whether Bob gets convicted after a robbery. I'm more concerned about being able to stop him in his act, ensuring that liquor store robbery will never happen.
I've actually been mugged once, but after filing the police report, they never asked for my testimony. This has really puzzled me for a long time. I finally understood that, because the thief had attempted to use both my credit and debit cards, he left an electronic trail with enough evidence to prosecute him of a greater crime. If the police did not need my testimony, what makes you think they needed the suspect's?
Your main argument is how talking to the police benefits the society as a whole rather than the individual. Let's take a look at two recent high profile examples which contradict your point.
On the one hand we have Ross Ulbricht who was caught running Silk Road. The evidence that lead to his arrest is pretty solid as you can read in the criminal complaint. If he had cooperated with the investigation, he gets a reduced sentence. How is that fair to the society as a whole?
On the other hand we have Aaron Swartz. He clearly understood not talking to the police, but his girlfriend Quinn didn't, as a result subjected herself and Aaron to unnecessary harassment by the prosecutor. It costed their relationship, and eventually, Aaron caved under the pressure and took his own life. In Aaron's case, it wasn't clear what is the maximum extent he could be charged for what he did, but cooperating definitely made it worse. It's like the prosecution ripped him off by charging him 10x for his crime, and then generously offered a 10% discount as leniency.
If you believe what Aaron did was good for the society, you would have advised Aaron and Quinn not to talk to the investigators.
Make it legally required for mugshot sites to display a prominent warning along with the image, stating that a mugshot does not necessarily imply charges or conviction or criminal record. Google can also voluntarily display a statement to that effect if the image algorithm can tell it's a mugshot.
The main problem is when people mistake mugshots for what they really are. Just fix this problem. It doesn't impinge journalist right to publish.
If you look at it this way, the mugshot sites are obviously up to no good. Since criminal records are also public record, the responsible way to disclose mugshot is by making the actual criminal record or the absence of the record available. And if you've seen their ads, they clearly insinuate that mugshots represent a person's criminal history but that is a lie. Not all lying is illegal, but the law could indeed enforce truthful disclosure without running afoul of the First Amendment.
A defendant could only be tried for the highest charge stated or implied.
To work around that, the prosecutor would simply break the charges down to multiple suits. Even though the Fifth Amendment prohibits a single offense to be tried twice, the same act typically involves multiple offenses and multiple counts and can be tried separately.
It simply has to become more common knowledge that prosecutors can use any intimidation tactic, including pressing charges that are way out of the ballpark, but it is the final court ruling that holds. It also must become common knowledge that appealing is the legal remedy to fight unfavorable court rulings. As an extension of Miranda Rights, there should be law restricting the interaction between the defendant and the prosecutor. In addition to the right to remain silent, the defendant has the right to dismiss any contact with the prosecutor, maybe even going as far as allowing the defendant to file restraining order for himself and on behalf of his family and friends to be free from harassment from the prosecution. The right would openly state that cooperating with the prosecutor will not result in leniency.
It makes perfect sense in the context of this article. In general no algorithm faster than Pollard's rho algorithm is known, but if you choose bad constants for EC, then NSA might have already found a way to heuristically crack it quickly. In practice, people might be using a key size that is way too small and way too easy for NSA to crack.
If that made no sense to you, go brush up on your number theory.
If you don't want to learn number theory, then accept that you are incapable of having an informed opinion on asymmetrical cryptography standards. (Which is okay, we can't all have an informed opinion on every issue; your brain can only hold so much stuff, right?)
Seriously, you can brush up on your manners. Stop being anonymous and start being responsible for your statements.
Color me ignorant, but could someone please explain that elliptic curve is more secure than RSA? Wikipedia even claims that a 128-bit EC key is equivalent to 3072-bit RSA key. Even if it's computation complexity brute forcing discrete log or integer factorization on a non-deterministic turing machine, it should differ by no more than a small constant factor, e.g. 512-bit versus 1024-bit, not by O(sqrt(n)) as Wikipedia claims. Wikipedia is simply quoting NSA.
PogoPlug v4 supports GigE and two USB3. It's up to you to install your own Linux on it with ZFS support. However, since the CPU is a bit slow, if you want any performance at all, you will want something like an in-kernel NFS for file sharing. I have mine configured with OpenLDAP, Kerberos, and NFSv4. But I mostly use it to stream videos using Nginx over HTTP to my iPad.
For something a bit faster than PogoPlug v4, try MiraBox from GlobalScale technologies.
One plausible reason someone might find vinyl sound better is that the analog electronic circuitry is vastly simpler than that of a CD player, so there is less chance to mess it up.
For the high frequency, the digital circuits could produce prominent interference because the wave shape of a digital signal has a lot of harmonics (square wave as opposed to sinusoidal). It's the same reason that on some computers you can hear whenever you move your mouse or when your CPU is doing work.
For the low frequency, the digital-analog converter might not have enough "omph" to drive the output, so you hear distortion on bases.
Vinyl players have mostly analog circuits, and analog distortions are harder to notice by ear. Digital distortion tends to be more noticeable again due to the harmonics of the digital signal. Of course I'm not talking about one of those digital laser vinyl players which I've not listened to, but I could imagine the device's designer must be careful to avoid the pitfall of both worlds, namely lower dynamic range of the vinyl and the possibility of introducing digital distortion.
Granted, what I described are generally "digital audio" problems not specific to CDs. Not all digital audio circuits are created equal. Consumer grade hardware is more hit or miss. Prosumer stuff tends to be more scrutinized so you can read reviews on zZounds or Musician's Friend or BH photo video to see if anyone is having noise or distortion problems. True for both CD player or if you're just looking for an external audio interface for your computer.
Briefly, it says "In 2011, the relative value of $13.00 from 1798 ranges from $236.00 to $480,000.00. In detail it is revealed that $236 is calculated using GDP deflator which is similar to CPI, which assumes that gun costs are scaled the same as commodity goods such as bread and butter, but it is not. The figure $480,000 is based on share of total GDP which is akin to saying if the whole nation dedicated the same percentage of economy power to making guns, that would be the price the government pays today per gun. Bellesiles could have argued that $480,000 is the best estimate, and surely that's in the ballpark of the price of a Lamborghini. My personal choice of a fair estimate would be $7,680 based on nominal GDP per capita, which is more indicative of the financial burden to an average individual (both unskilled and skilled labor) for purchasing a gun.
And to be fair, the critics of Bellesiles are unreasonably harsh, not in the counter-evidence they presented, but on the interpretation of the evidences. Basically they show A as an evidence, and assert that A implies B where B typically falls along the line to discredit Bellesiles. I don't disagree with A, but I disagree with almost every count of A implies B they asserted. Nonetheless, the collection of evidences A is still valuable, just that the critics do not appear to understand the evidences themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
The article's assessment is mostly correct. It even correctly mentioned that the previous net neutrality rules were unconstitutional. Except the article neglected the fact that new rules forcing local municipality to open up rights of way would also be unconstitutional because Federal agency has no power over local jurisdiction.
Forget about the federal or even the state government for a moment. The problem is that most people don't even know how to keep their local government in check. They increase local sales and property tax rates and/or tax assessment at will. They are behind in repairing public roads and other infrastructures, and even so they are mostly funded by Federal grants. The teachers are paid poorly, but the local officials are paid handsomely.
This is all caused by the lack of local government oversight. All governments are pests, be it federal, state, or local, but the local government is usually overlooked. We pay too much attention to federal and state. Better show up at your local town hall meeting next time, or they will slowly erode away your rights and property.
I think his boss is trying to renegotiate this poor guy's salary. In any case it's a power play, so there is no use to explain to the boss how software engineering differs from brick laying. Simply assert that: (1) he'll work in excess of 40 hours a week only on overtime salary as required by law, (2) market rate already takes into account software maintenance cost due to defect or changing requirement, and (3) his performance evaluation should have already taken into account the quality of his output.
Why is this a power play? If he's actually not meeting expectation, the boss is free to simply fire him and hire someone else. The boss would not have to employ such power play tactics.
Of course nothing is going to stop him from saying "ok boss ur right" and take a voluntary pay cut.
That's because the outdated infrastructure had been economically viable to use, so there had been no reason to update it, until now, that is.
Many ways of the US rely on an honor system. There used to be unattended shops where you take the goods and put money in a box. The box didn't use to require a lock. This might be possible in a small town where everyone trusted each other, but in a city where crime is rampant, this business model is simply not economically viable. Public transportation used to allow monthly or weekly pass holders to board from the rear doors without verifying their passes, but they don't allow that anymore because nowadays enough non-paying passengers take advantage of that such that the honor system is no longer economically viable.
The honor system is always able to absorb a small percentage of fraud cases and remain economically viable. It's only when the fraud rate rises past a certain threshold when the system breaks down.
When a merchant displays a credit card logo, you trust the merchant. When the merchant hands you a receipt and you sign it, the merchant trusts you to pay. Again, this is an honor system. The rest of the world also started off with a complete "out of date" manual-imprint or swipe-card honor system. They were forced to upgrade the infrastructure because they suffered enough fraud such that the old system was no longer economically viable. The new smart card system is designed to enforce contractual agreement so that you don't need to rely on the honor system anymore, making credit payments economically viable again.
The US simply held off this long because the honor system had worked until now. Economic viability is the reason. The bad news is that the US has morally declined to the level of the rest of the world. The good news is that the US upheld its morals longer, being the last to abandon the honor system.
I think you confused the purpose of IOMMU. It's for restricting the device's memory access. Without IOMMU, it just means that any firmware running on the device's coprocessor can access the main memory unrestricted, meaning that a hacked firmware can root the machine. IOMMU virtualizes device's access to main memory so that doesn't happen. On a machine without IOMMU, you can still run device drivers in user space as long as the kernel sets up the correct memory mapping for the device's PCI address space. That's called memory mapped I/O and has nothing to do with IOMMU.
I think you're looking for the Applications Menu panel plugin.
Bill Gates played too conservatively so that he couldn't mobilize his pieces before getting checkmated. It's a common mistake if you care too much about losing pieces (presumably because that might appear embarrassing). I think it's uncharacteristic of Bill actually. He was known to be a lot more aggressive when he was younger, but I have to admit he's a lot more admirable now that he's older and mellowed.
If after several years holding seat and having a lucrative political career, you tell your congressmen that you're going to replace them because they no longer represent you, they'll keep doing the same and ignore you.
If, just after a new congressman got elected, you tell him how the last one was voted off of his seat because he stopped representing his people, that'll stick to him for his whole term of service. Congratulate him and tell him you look forward to his servitude.
Poul-Henning Kamp is probably best known for his phkmalloc used in FreeBSD, and Varnish http cache. He's one of the few who understood that virtual memory under stress essentially behaves like a block device, so he writes software to exploit that.
Let's suppose you're the fund manager and you want to maximize impact of your dollars. But there are too many researchers applying for grant. What do you do? You divest rather than invest, and hope that one of the projects will churn out useful outcome.
If you want to focus your money for deeper impact, people will definitely accuse you of favoritism. It is hard to prove innocent because research is, intrinsically, a very specialized craft, and only very specialized people understand the qualifications. Sometimes experts don't agree on the qualifications either. Once you are accused and unable to prove yourself innocent, your career as a fund manager would be ruined due to academic misconduct allegations. If you distribute your funds fairly and squarely, people can still accuse you of favoritism, but at least you have plausible deniability.
From a researcher's point of view, research is really about begging money to do things you want to do. Or if you end up not doing what you want to do, simply begging money. Historically only the nobles have the time and money to do research. This is what I always tell my friends:
It's complicated. The universities reap what they sow, attracting the wrong kind of students. And then after exhausting funds on fancy buildings, the universities are unable to provide education to the students who actually enrolled to study. I can't blame the students if you're fostering an environment not for learning but for distractions.
Back on to the subject of MOOC, I think it could be useful as a deterrent to curb the squandering of resources. But universities have in the past found ways to provide affordable education, so something else must have gone wrong other than the manner the courses are taught.
This is how the Oxford Dictionary defines wonder: "a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable." Pink Floyd can fulfill this definition of wonder.
But I think ultimately, I disagree with your idea how the notion of wonder relates to theoretical CS or physics. In a pure mathematical sense, a theoretical study is the exploration of what logical consequences can be shown to follow from a set of well defined axioms. Theoretical CS uses a given computational model as the axioms and seeks to derive logical consequences that concern the complexity and computability of algorithms or problems under that computational model. Theoretical physics is concerned with coming up with the well defined axioms that have logical consequences which explain real-world, observable phenomenon. Maybe to some people that is wonderful, but wonder is neither sufficient nor required if you want to be a theoretician. If you do find wonder in theory and formal methods, kudos to you. :-)
I'm not saying I don't find wonder in theoretical studies, but both Discovery Channel and National Geographic have the scale to fund many educational programs beyond what most universities can afford. And broadcast media have developed a narrative style and format that makes conveying knowledge effective and attractive, with the purpose to induce a feeling of wonder. Otherwise it depends on the individual to find wonder themselves. As another way to look at it, some professors are very good at inducing a feeling of wonder in their students, but I wouldn't count on it if your goal is to study a subject matter and become an expert. There are ways to relate to a professor and his/her work even if the professor turns out to be an extremely boring person. If you go to a university just to find wonder, that's a waste of time and money.
If you just want wonder and culture and insight, Discovery Channel and National Geographic can easily outdo accredited universities while at the same time be more effective at conveying knowledge. I wish more broadcast media outlet would fulfill their educational responsibility. In the ideal sense, good news reporting can also fill you in a lot of context that leads to the current event. Only a few news outlets that I know of practice that kind of perspective news reporting, which is sad because I wish there is more. In the same vein, you can also find universities forfeiting their educational responsibilities, preferring to build luxury four year resorts with fancy dorms and gyms.
What universities should be providing is: (1) access to and relationship with experts of some subject matter, who can guide you for your own studies, and (2) a good research library or online publication subscription so you can study a subject in depth yourself and become an expert. Going to college just to enroll in some courses really is a waste of time and money. Next time you get the chance, ask your professor (current or former) what he/she works on for research, why the work is important, and how did the professor end up doing it.
That's assuming you are actually interested in studying. If you just want a good paying job, and depending on what that job is, education may be neither sufficient nor required.
The reason why Microsoft got their lunch ate is because they've gotten complacent, after securing monopoly of desktop operating systems and office productivity suite. But they could still get away with it for at least another decade precisely because they delivered exceptional value in what they did in that market. Past performance is no guarantee if they will continue to deliver exceptional value.
Microsoft's problem with mobile and gaming console is that they didn't deliver exceptional value, but they still decided to enter the market anyway. Even so, it would have been a fruitful experiment if they could have applied their experience in mobile and gaming to motivate for a real-time resource-constrained operating system that could help making their main flagship OS more nimble and responsive, but we've seen no progress in that regard because their departments apparently don't talk to each other.
Trying to be the monopoly of the everything store is very difficult. Jeff Bezos likes to play the predatory strategy where price is lowered to a loss in order to drive competitor out of market. But you can't do that to every market simultaneously all the times, and given enough incentive, someone will always figure out how to enter the market by adding more value. Amazon will eventually crumble under its own weight if it continues down that strategy.
A good strategy is to deliver exceptional value in a market, but you can only do that if you focus on only a few things.
For the sake of argument, put our personal opinion on whether a given law is just or unjust aside, and also put aside our personal feelings on the tactics used by law enforcement. If you want to argue logically, you cannot appeal to feelings.
Obviously, If you were the plaintiff, you are clearly not in the position to decide whether the law you are charged with is just or unjust. The jury can exercise their judgment, and that could result in jury nullification. But you cannot persuade the jury by talking to the prosecutor.
In your fictional Bob robbing the liquor store scenario, he did not have to talk to the police as long as he's apprehended in his act. Even if that is not enough to build a strong case to prosecute him (which is very unlikely), the fact you cannot rob a liquor store without being apprehended is enough of a deterrent. On the other hand, if you cannot apprehend Bob, then he will do it again even if he knows he might one day be caught. And he will do it again even if he has been caught before and served his sentence. If you believe that serving a sentence is the just way to repay for one's crime, then to Bob, the state transition between committing a crime and serving his sentence is merely a lifestyle choice. Maybe the cycle will end when he grows tired of it. In the mean time, I still don't think you would want to live in the same neighborhood as Bob. I am less concerned about whether Bob gets convicted after a robbery. I'm more concerned about being able to stop him in his act, ensuring that liquor store robbery will never happen.
I've actually been mugged once, but after filing the police report, they never asked for my testimony. This has really puzzled me for a long time. I finally understood that, because the thief had attempted to use both my credit and debit cards, he left an electronic trail with enough evidence to prosecute him of a greater crime. If the police did not need my testimony, what makes you think they needed the suspect's?
Your main argument is how talking to the police benefits the society as a whole rather than the individual. Let's take a look at two recent high profile examples which contradict your point.
On the one hand we have Ross Ulbricht who was caught running Silk Road. The evidence that lead to his arrest is pretty solid as you can read in the criminal complaint. If he had cooperated with the investigation, he gets a reduced sentence. How is that fair to the society as a whole?
On the other hand we have Aaron Swartz. He clearly understood not talking to the police, but his girlfriend Quinn didn't, as a result subjected herself and Aaron to unnecessary harassment by the prosecutor. It costed their relationship, and eventually, Aaron caved under the pressure and took his own life. In Aaron's case, it wasn't clear what is the maximum extent he could be charged for what he did, but cooperating definitely made it worse. It's like the prosecution ripped him off by charging him 10x for his crime, and then generously offered a 10% discount as leniency.
If you believe what Aaron did was good for the society, you would have advised Aaron and Quinn not to talk to the investigators.
Make it legally required for mugshot sites to display a prominent warning along with the image, stating that a mugshot does not necessarily imply charges or conviction or criminal record. Google can also voluntarily display a statement to that effect if the image algorithm can tell it's a mugshot.
The main problem is when people mistake mugshots for what they really are. Just fix this problem. It doesn't impinge journalist right to publish.
If you look at it this way, the mugshot sites are obviously up to no good. Since criminal records are also public record, the responsible way to disclose mugshot is by making the actual criminal record or the absence of the record available. And if you've seen their ads, they clearly insinuate that mugshots represent a person's criminal history but that is a lie. Not all lying is illegal, but the law could indeed enforce truthful disclosure without running afoul of the First Amendment.
To work around that, the prosecutor would simply break the charges down to multiple suits. Even though the Fifth Amendment prohibits a single offense to be tried twice, the same act typically involves multiple offenses and multiple counts and can be tried separately.
It simply has to become more common knowledge that prosecutors can use any intimidation tactic, including pressing charges that are way out of the ballpark, but it is the final court ruling that holds. It also must become common knowledge that appealing is the legal remedy to fight unfavorable court rulings. As an extension of Miranda Rights, there should be law restricting the interaction between the defendant and the prosecutor. In addition to the right to remain silent, the defendant has the right to dismiss any contact with the prosecutor, maybe even going as far as allowing the defendant to file restraining order for himself and on behalf of his family and friends to be free from harassment from the prosecution. The right would openly state that cooperating with the prosecutor will not result in leniency.
The guy in the video used his index finger for identification, and the middle finger for wearing the mold.
It makes perfect sense in the context of this article. In general no algorithm faster than Pollard's rho algorithm is known, but if you choose bad constants for EC, then NSA might have already found a way to heuristically crack it quickly. In practice, people might be using a key size that is way too small and way too easy for NSA to crack.
Seriously, you can brush up on your manners. Stop being anonymous and start being responsible for your statements.
Color me ignorant, but could someone please explain that elliptic curve is more secure than RSA? Wikipedia even claims that a 128-bit EC key is equivalent to 3072-bit RSA key. Even if it's computation complexity brute forcing discrete log or integer factorization on a non-deterministic turing machine, it should differ by no more than a small constant factor, e.g. 512-bit versus 1024-bit, not by O(sqrt(n)) as Wikipedia claims. Wikipedia is simply quoting NSA.
PogoPlug v4 supports GigE and two USB3. It's up to you to install your own Linux on it with ZFS support. However, since the CPU is a bit slow, if you want any performance at all, you will want something like an in-kernel NFS for file sharing. I have mine configured with OpenLDAP, Kerberos, and NFSv4. But I mostly use it to stream videos using Nginx over HTTP to my iPad.
For something a bit faster than PogoPlug v4, try MiraBox from GlobalScale technologies.
One plausible reason someone might find vinyl sound better is that the analog electronic circuitry is vastly simpler than that of a CD player, so there is less chance to mess it up.
For the high frequency, the digital circuits could produce prominent interference because the wave shape of a digital signal has a lot of harmonics (square wave as opposed to sinusoidal). It's the same reason that on some computers you can hear whenever you move your mouse or when your CPU is doing work.
For the low frequency, the digital-analog converter might not have enough "omph" to drive the output, so you hear distortion on bases.
Vinyl players have mostly analog circuits, and analog distortions are harder to notice by ear. Digital distortion tends to be more noticeable again due to the harmonics of the digital signal. Of course I'm not talking about one of those digital laser vinyl players which I've not listened to, but I could imagine the device's designer must be careful to avoid the pitfall of both worlds, namely lower dynamic range of the vinyl and the possibility of introducing digital distortion.
Granted, what I described are generally "digital audio" problems not specific to CDs. Not all digital audio circuits are created equal. Consumer grade hardware is more hit or miss. Prosumer stuff tends to be more scrutinized so you can read reviews on zZounds or Musician's Friend or BH photo video to see if anyone is having noise or distortion problems. True for both CD player or if you're just looking for an external audio interface for your computer.
Yes, forget about everything else he might have said. Let's focus on gun price alone because that's the only point that matters here.
Let's find another source here that says "Whitney got a contract for $134,000 to produce 10,000 muskets in 1798. That's $13.40 per musket." Let's attempt to convert that to today's dollar.
Briefly, it says "In 2011, the relative value of $13.00 from 1798 ranges from $236.00 to $480,000.00. In detail it is revealed that $236 is calculated using GDP deflator which is similar to CPI, which assumes that gun costs are scaled the same as commodity goods such as bread and butter, but it is not. The figure $480,000 is based on share of total GDP which is akin to saying if the whole nation dedicated the same percentage of economy power to making guns, that would be the price the government pays today per gun. Bellesiles could have argued that $480,000 is the best estimate, and surely that's in the ballpark of the price of a Lamborghini. My personal choice of a fair estimate would be $7,680 based on nominal GDP per capita, which is more indicative of the financial burden to an average individual (both unskilled and skilled labor) for purchasing a gun.
And to be fair, the critics of Bellesiles are unreasonably harsh, not in the counter-evidence they presented, but on the interpretation of the evidences. Basically they show A as an evidence, and assert that A implies B where B typically falls along the line to discredit Bellesiles. I don't disagree with A, but I disagree with almost every count of A implies B they asserted. Nonetheless, the collection of evidences A is still valuable, just that the critics do not appear to understand the evidences themselves.
Actually step 2 should be quite obvious. Sell the Tesla and use the money to pay for tuition, and then you default.