I was thinking the technology would be more about being linked to their actual body, not necessarily trying to translate meows but reading neural patterns, hormones, etc.
I saw this article as well, but doing (a bare minimum) of research, I couldn't find the actual sources of this conclusion. CEBR is paywalled (and I've never heard of them) and redwood looks like a corporation that will benefit from this conclusion. Also, I couldn't find their data either.
Not only this, but as 'tech savvy' people, I know of only two people using PGP for personal email purposes. I think the future of encrypted email needs to be lead by someone like Google implementing it into gmail by default, generating keys easily for common folk, etc.
I noticed you still haven't backed up one thing you believe with an actual reference. Time is more important to me than making you smarter. This will be my last response to you.
"Grenada & Panama sized operations", you must have glossed over my list of other operations in my last comment. I will not repeat, reread yourself.
I still have not seen you back up your opinion with any sort of real world example.
Instead of me proving you wrong with countless other examples, how about you show me one example where congress has stopped a military operation with funding cuts, or the supreme court with judicial rulings. History has proven time and time again that these ideological checks & balances are not working as well as they should. The executive branch is becoming stronger, with both political parties pushing for it in their own unique way.
You are missing the point. Congress funded those operations AFTER the fact, when the military was already committed.
Here is the restriction I think you are trying to reference (since you can't bother to look up information to back up your opinion): "The War Powers Resolution requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations". -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
So the president can fully commit our military for 90 days without authorization from congress, plenty of time to invade / conquer / destroy a nation with our current military resources (approved budget of $680 billion, this does not include the supplemental budgets, which is what you are referring to). Afghanistan - government overthrown within Oct - Dec 200, less than 3 months, mostly done within a month. Iraq - government overthrown within 3 weeks of major combat operations. The thing that takes time is rebuilding and 'keeping the peace'. Those two examples, were also approved by congress, but that doesn't really matter, because he could have done it without them. Vietnam & Korea are better examples, or the lesser known Kosovo, Syria, Nicaragua, and broad cold war, but they are probably unfamiliar to you, because I'm guessing you are young.
The supreme court has little to no effect on military operations.
Read up on history kid, your ideological beliefs (however much I wish they were true) do not mirror reality.
This is not reflective of history when you consider executive orders. " as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea). "...
"Executive Orders: In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
"The United States Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. All of our wars in the Middle East have been authorized using other means, which rather goes to the heart of the nature of those different conflicts. " - http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Well of course he's going to say this nonsense, no surprise there. What is surprising is hearing about it from a british newspaper without a bleep in U.S. news. I imagine apple, microsoft, google and the likes will have a response soon.
Except the intern I am paying and teaching, but maybe I am getting old. I can't justify having someone work for me and not pay them, especially since I am making money off him and expect deadlines to be met.
For the record, I had two paid internships while I was in college and both were above minimum wage in computer science industry. I found them through my college, which offered a co-op program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For me, I've learned more from on job experience than I did studying computer science at college. You get paid to learn and it also eliminates the "I don't know what to program" question.
You are ranting nonsense and haven't looked at any new research obviously. Do yourself a favor and catch up on the last 30 years of peer reviewed research and not the pop-psych garbage you are referring to.
I have no problem with monitoring parolees, that's part of the bargain. Wearing a tracking device to get out of jail early, submit to drug testing, etc. However, tracking people who have not committed any crime is a different story. Here's a scenario, a 'clean record' man loses his wife due to a drunk driver. He buys a gun and starts hanging out near the defendant (all realistically trackable by an algorithm collecting records & gps data), what is an appropriate response, if any?
Care to comment on your last answer from your last interview here on slashdot?
McAfee: The attorney for the House Ways and Means Committee contacted me and asked if I would help. I said “no”. I would never run for office, neither would I want to be in office, of any kind. I would rather drive a nail through my foot.
"Overall, this indicates an incredible amount of sloppiness and laziness in the peer-review field" No, it indicates sloppiness & laziness from these awful journals. The "peer-review field" (science) is still working just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
cout
I was thinking the technology would be more about being linked to their actual body, not necessarily trying to translate meows but reading neural patterns, hormones, etc.
I saw this article as well, but doing (a bare minimum) of research, I couldn't find the actual sources of this conclusion. CEBR is paywalled (and I've never heard of them) and redwood looks like a corporation that will benefit from this conclusion. Also, I couldn't find their data either.
The point being to create enough of a user base for the rest of us to communicate with.
Not only this, but as 'tech savvy' people, I know of only two people using PGP for personal email purposes. I think the future of encrypted email needs to be lead by someone like Google implementing it into gmail by default, generating keys easily for common folk, etc.
And how much did they profit from selling that data?
I noticed you still haven't backed up one thing you believe with an actual reference. Time is more important to me than making you smarter. This will be my last response to you.
"Grenada & Panama sized operations", you must have glossed over my list of other operations in my last comment. I will not repeat, reread yourself.
I still have not seen you back up your opinion with any sort of real world example.
Instead of me proving you wrong with countless other examples, how about you show me one example where congress has stopped a military operation with funding cuts, or the supreme court with judicial rulings. History has proven time and time again that these ideological checks & balances are not working as well as they should. The executive branch is becoming stronger, with both political parties pushing for it in their own unique way.
You are missing the point. Congress funded those operations AFTER the fact, when the military was already committed.
Here is the restriction I think you are trying to reference (since you can't bother to look up information to back up your opinion):
"The War Powers Resolution requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations". -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
So the president can fully commit our military for 90 days without authorization from congress, plenty of time to invade / conquer / destroy a nation with our current military resources (approved budget of $680 billion, this does not include the supplemental budgets, which is what you are referring to). Afghanistan - government overthrown within Oct - Dec 200, less than 3 months, mostly done within a month. Iraq - government overthrown within 3 weeks of major combat operations. The thing that takes time is rebuilding and 'keeping the peace'. Those two examples, were also approved by congress, but that doesn't really matter, because he could have done it without them. Vietnam & Korea are better examples, or the lesser known Kosovo, Syria, Nicaragua, and broad cold war, but they are probably unfamiliar to you, because I'm guessing you are young.
The supreme court has little to no effect on military operations.
Read up on history kid, your ideological beliefs (however much I wish they were true) do not mirror reality.
This is not reflective of history when you consider executive orders. ...
" as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea). "
"Executive Orders:
In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
"The United States Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. All of our wars in the Middle East have been authorized using other means, which rather goes to the heart of the nature of those different conflicts. " - http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Have you not been following the news?
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
Well of course he's going to say this nonsense, no surprise there. What is surprising is hearing about it from a british newspaper without a bleep in U.S. news. I imagine apple, microsoft, google and the likes will have a response soon.
A totally different story!
Except the intern I am paying and teaching, but maybe I am getting old. I can't justify having someone work for me and not pay them, especially since I am making money off him and expect deadlines to be met.
For the record, I had two paid internships while I was in college and both were above minimum wage in computer science industry. I found them through my college, which offered a co-op program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For me, I've learned more from on job experience than I did studying computer science at college. You get paid to learn and it also eliminates the "I don't know what to program" question.
Also comparing to other countries.
Check this out: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/...
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/...
You are ranting nonsense and haven't looked at any new research obviously. Do yourself a favor and catch up on the last 30 years of peer reviewed research and not the pop-psych garbage you are referring to.
Weird, what does being right-handed have to do with anything? Did you notice that was a requirement?
Psychology is a science, although a fairly new one.
Or just track their cell phones.
I have no problem with monitoring parolees, that's part of the bargain. Wearing a tracking device to get out of jail early, submit to drug testing, etc. However, tracking people who have not committed any crime is a different story. Here's a scenario, a 'clean record' man loses his wife due to a drunk driver. He buys a gun and starts hanging out near the defendant (all realistically trackable by an algorithm collecting records & gps data), what is an appropriate response, if any?
Care to comment on your last answer from your last interview here on slashdot?
McAfee: The attorney for the House Ways and Means Committee contacted me and asked if I would help. I said “no”. I would never run for office, neither would I want to be in office, of any kind. I would rather drive a nail through my foot.
"Overall, this indicates an incredible amount of sloppiness and laziness in the peer-review field" No, it indicates sloppiness & laziness from these awful journals. The "peer-review field" (science) is still working just fine.