No, speed limits are set LOWER in much of the US. I learned to drive when all of the interstate highway system was 65 or higher. The "fuel crisis" response was to lower the limits to 55. They have been raised again in some areas, but not all.
.... just because it can. And because they have to justify their existence. People who design physical products are aware that changing costs money and takes time; web designers have neither problem. The good part of that, of course, is that you can get information out there dynamically; the bad part is that people don't distinguish between changing the CONTAINER and changing the CONTENTS. The container shouldn't change, because people are used to using it.
... and while incapable (my wife had a cast on her right ankle for multiple months), and while incapacitated (elder relatives are OK in sunlight but not in rain or darkness).
As another poster noted: As long as I can take manual control when I want to. But for law enforcement: It needs a mode that is PROVABLY un-take-controllable so that we can show we KNEW we were sleepy, inebriated, incapable, etc. and "handed over the keys".
Point 1: Confidentiality contracts are not illegal, and the security clearance system is of long standing and validity. Your example is beside the point.
Point 2: You didn't *read* my argument, or you would realize we agree, both in my original statement and in my mention of an article about how law enforcement is abusing a law.
I see people arguing "You shouldn't punish the violation of security clearance because this was whistleblowing". I say these are two separate issues that have nothing to do with each other.
A drunk driver collides with another car which, during medevac of the driver, is found to be full of explosives en route to a terror bombing. Does this make the drunk driving acceptable? No, they are two separate issues; the car could have been full of children instead. (Yes, it's a ridiculously overblown example.)
Like he could have closed Guantanamo with one stroke of a pen? Or done lots of other things, with the filibuster rules having become trivial, and the leaders of Congress seemingly dedicated to doing nothing? Oh, wait, that's the VICTORY CONDITION for some of them - instead of actually achieving smaller government, they'll leave the size alone and just make sure it does nothing! An ugly win, but a win!
That sack was left for us by the administration that started wars on two fronts without paying for it, and changed the missions multiple times, and stopped the maybe-useful part of it to pursue a completely different and unrelated direction.
From the very beginning of this fiasco, as soon as the publicity hit the fan, the NSA should have been out front saying: "Of course we listen to signal intelligence, that's what the NSA was founded for back in the 1950s, and we're doing our best to implement the will of Congress as expressed in multiple laws. We're going to make sure that we never again miss signs of plots against the safety of American citizens."
Then, when the backlash started, they could have apologized for taking those laws so literally and doing their job too well.
Instead, because of their core mission and training, the first reaction was to lie. And the more that comes out, the more obvious and blatant the lies are.
Because there are two completely separate issues, in both fact and law, which have nothing to do with each other.
1. Snowden had a clearance, and violated it. He signed contracts, and broke them. The facts are clear on this side.
2. Snowden was disclosing illegal acts, which would *seem* to come under whistleblower protection . . . if maybe he were disclosing a company dumping toxic waste . . . but if the legal system itself is doing something, how can it be illegal? (My answer is "of course it can", but I don't work in the legal system.)
Read the New Yorker article on civil forfeiture and see how police departments all over the country are stealing people's property. Oh, sorry, I mean "remanding as evidence". We should all be more vigilant about ALL levels of government. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman
Gag orders have a place - when they are being used openly. Like, in a blackmail case, the accused shouldn't be able to blab about the core blackmail issue.
Sorry, I don't blame the current administration anywhere near as much as the last one - and, even more, the stupid congresspeople who voted for the Patriot Act, rode roughshod over objections with the blanket accusation "whose side are you on?", and are now shocked - SHOCKED - that the NSA is doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY ASKED FOR.
I've never understood why you can't get them (perhaps with a doctor's prescription) if you're NOT participating in anything where they are banned. I'm not a pro athlete, I'm not looking to cheat anyone, I'm just a man over 55 who would like my workouts and cycling to be as effective as they were 20 years ago.
I was trying to picture biking in a heated pool, and gave up . . . Seriously though, it would seem that people with mobility problems would be the most helped.
This is just like the recent XKCD. Percentages are meaningless without bases. The Tesla will have lost more of its crumple zone - of which it has A LOT MORE TOTAL by your own earlier statement.
People forget that once upon a time computers were expensive,and you didn't just go get more of them at the local market. They were designed for hot-swap, stability, and more stability. Of course if one were starting today one would buy a cluster of 64-bit machines with RAM all over the place and run rings around a 9370, but stability has its place.
Sorry, I think you missed my intent. Lots of people have pointed out how much of their hot new computer power winds up being wasted on fancy-frosted-translucent-glass GUI effects which don't actually achieve anything. Not only is that a waste of my CPU time, it's a waste of so much computing resource around the world - and equally a waste of the time and effort of presumably clever and artistic developers.
In college in the 1970s, I had to read the Multics documents and von Neumann's publications. We're still reinventing things that some very clever people spent a lot of time thinking about - and solving - in the 1960s. It's great that we have the computer power and memory and graphics to just throw resources at things and make them work, but imagine how much we could make those resources achieve if we used them with the attitude those people had towards their *limited* resources. And we have exactly the same sets of bottlenecks and tradeoffs; we just move the balance around as the hardware changes. Old ideas often aren't *wrong*, they're just no longer appropriate - until the balance of tradeoffs comes around again, at which point those same ideas are right again, or at least useful as the basis for new improved ideas.
Agreed - In similar vein, I have seen one-star reviews of restaurants stating that 'the line/wait was too long", meaning they never even *tried* the place;
Slashdot Mirror
No, speed limits are set LOWER in much of the US. I learned to drive when all of the interstate highway system was 65 or higher. The "fuel crisis" response was to lower the limits to 55. They have been raised again in some areas, but not all.
I want to see a law specifying what it takes to be an Accessory to Stupidity.
Come live near New York City. Stars? What are stars?
... and there's already enough discussion of 11 . . .
.... just because it can. And because they have to justify their existence. People who design physical products are aware that changing costs money and takes time; web designers have neither problem. The good part of that, of course, is that you can get information out there dynamically; the bad part is that people don't distinguish between changing the CONTAINER and changing the CONTENTS. The container shouldn't change, because people are used to using it.
Mal wears that long coat because it was on sale. He explained that in the bar in the first broadcast episode.
Good point. And it's probably easier to make a secure "black box" than the "locked mode" that I was thinking of.
If such a car doesn't cooperate with government surveillance, it doesn't degrade your freedom . .
"If". Such a small word, to express so much hope.
... and while incapable (my wife had a cast on her right ankle for multiple months), and while incapacitated (elder relatives are OK in sunlight but not in rain or darkness).
As another poster noted: As long as I can take manual control when I want to. But for law enforcement: It needs a mode that is PROVABLY un-take-controllable so that we can show we KNEW we were sleepy, inebriated, incapable, etc. and "handed over the keys".
Point 1: Confidentiality contracts are not illegal, and the security clearance system is of long standing and validity. Your example is beside the point.
Point 2: You didn't *read* my argument, or you would realize we agree, both in my original statement and in my mention of an article about how law enforcement is abusing a law.
I see people arguing "You shouldn't punish the violation of security clearance because this was whistleblowing". I say these are two separate issues that have nothing to do with each other.
A drunk driver collides with another car which, during medevac of the driver, is found to be full of explosives en route to a terror bombing. Does this make the drunk driving acceptable? No, they are two separate issues; the car could have been full of children instead. (Yes, it's a ridiculously overblown example.)
Do you really think he found out about every detail of this garbage on Day One? I'll bet they question *his* clearance.
Like he could have closed Guantanamo with one stroke of a pen? Or done lots of other things, with the filibuster rules having become trivial, and the leaders of Congress seemingly dedicated to doing nothing? Oh, wait, that's the VICTORY CONDITION for some of them - instead of actually achieving smaller government, they'll leave the size alone and just make sure it does nothing! An ugly win, but a win!
That sack was left for us by the administration that started wars on two fronts without paying for it, and changed the missions multiple times, and stopped the maybe-useful part of it to pursue a completely different and unrelated direction.
From the very beginning of this fiasco, as soon as the publicity hit the fan, the NSA should have been out front saying: "Of course we listen to signal intelligence, that's what the NSA was founded for back in the 1950s, and we're doing our best to implement the will of Congress as expressed in multiple laws. We're going to make sure that we never again miss signs of plots against the safety of American citizens."
Then, when the backlash started, they could have apologized for taking those laws so literally and doing their job too well.
Instead, because of their core mission and training, the first reaction was to lie. And the more that comes out, the more obvious and blatant the lies are.
Because there are two completely separate issues, in both fact and law, which have nothing to do with each other.
1. Snowden had a clearance, and violated it. He signed contracts, and broke them. The facts are clear on this side.
2. Snowden was disclosing illegal acts, which would *seem* to come under whistleblower protection . . . if maybe he were disclosing a company dumping toxic waste . . . but if the legal system itself is doing something, how can it be illegal? (My answer is "of course it can", but I don't work in the legal system.)
Read the New Yorker article on civil forfeiture and see how police departments all over the country are stealing people's property. Oh, sorry, I mean "remanding as evidence". We should all be more vigilant about ALL levels of government. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman
Gag orders have a place - when they are being used openly. Like, in a blackmail case, the accused shouldn't be able to blab about the core blackmail issue.
Sorry, I don't blame the current administration anywhere near as much as the last one - and, even more, the stupid congresspeople who voted for the Patriot Act, rode roughshod over objections with the blanket accusation "whose side are you on?", and are now shocked - SHOCKED - that the NSA is doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY ASKED FOR.
I've never understood why you can't get them (perhaps with a doctor's prescription) if you're NOT participating in anything where they are banned. I'm not a pro athlete, I'm not looking to cheat anyone, I'm just a man over 55 who would like my workouts and cycling to be as effective as they were 20 years ago.
I was trying to picture biking in a heated pool, and gave up . . . Seriously though, it would seem that people with mobility problems would be the most helped.
This is just like the recent XKCD. Percentages are meaningless without bases. The Tesla will have lost more of its crumple zone - of which it has A LOT MORE TOTAL by your own earlier statement.
>>>>> with no engine block it will be possible to add more cross-bracing to the engine bay
:-)
What engine bay?
. . . for the car to go up in a fireball. Especially if you're chasing James Bond at the time. No gasoline == no fireball. So sad.
People forget that once upon a time computers were expensive,and you didn't just go get more of them at the local market. They were designed for hot-swap, stability, and more stability. Of course if one were starting today one would buy a cluster of 64-bit machines with RAM all over the place and run rings around a 9370, but stability has its place.
Sorry, I think you missed my intent. Lots of people have pointed out how much of their hot new computer power winds up being wasted on fancy-frosted-translucent-glass GUI effects which don't actually achieve anything. Not only is that a waste of my CPU time, it's a waste of so much computing resource around the world - and equally a waste of the time and effort of presumably clever and artistic developers.
In college in the 1970s, I had to read the Multics documents and von Neumann's publications. We're still reinventing things that some very clever people spent a lot of time thinking about - and solving - in the 1960s. It's great that we have the computer power and memory and graphics to just throw resources at things and make them work, but imagine how much we could make those resources achieve if we used them with the attitude those people had towards their *limited* resources. And we have exactly the same sets of bottlenecks and tradeoffs; we just move the balance around as the hardware changes. Old ideas often aren't *wrong*, they're just no longer appropriate - until the balance of tradeoffs comes around again, at which point those same ideas are right again, or at least useful as the basis for new improved ideas.
Agreed - In similar vein, I have seen one-star reviews of restaurants stating that 'the line/wait was too long", meaning they never even *tried* the place;