There comes a time in every professional's career when he cannot do everything himself, and needs the assistance or support of others. When you reach that point, you will find you'll need those "social graces" you hold in such contempt, or else your career will stall or end abruptly.
Only if excessive credulity now counts as a virtue. The Mars One project has a very poor explanation how they are going to finance the construction and launch of the rocket, and none at all how they are going to finance all the testing they claim they'll do.
If a negative condition affects one sex, it's sexist. If it affects both sexes, it's still negative, but it's not sexist.
At this point we are more agreeing than disagreeing, and I would say we're quibbling over semantics. But please consider this fine point: if a condition is negative, and affects one sex to a greater extent because of the frequency and/or intensity of that condition, would you then consider it sexist? And does the context in which the condition occurs relevant to whether it's sexist?
I'm not sure you really expected a response, but yes, I think the "sexist" label fits that and other examples.
Two wrongs don't make a right -- the fact that boys and men can be exploited in degrading ways does not somehow make it OK to do that to girls and women, or vice versa.
This raises an interesting question I hadn't previously considered: in most states, liability insurance is required to drive on public roads. What insurance company will insure an autonomous car?
I am usually the last person to take the position, "the free market will take care of it," but in this case... maybe it can. When the insurance companies are ready to accept the risk, I think I will be as well.
I read TFA, and I wish I hadn't. It's just a fanboi gushing about how awesome Google is.
What it fails to mention is the fundamental tension between developing encryption technology and Google's business model of pervasive surveillance.
Quotations from Google executives such as:
"This is a just a point of personal honor," Grosse said. "It will not happen here."
fail to convince me. I am sure Mr. Grosse means what he says, but his actual ability to follow through on his personal honor is limited. It's the Almighty Dollar that is ultimately calling the shots at Google, or any company.
I didn't read the PDF, but probably what the DoD asked for was "cooling," and the poster or editor mistook "air conditioning" for an exact synonym. I am sure the DoD would be happy with any cooling mechanism that worked.
The buzzword is meant to be inclusive. Technically, Army personnel are soldiers, Air Force personnel are airmen, Marine Corps personnel are marines, and Navy personnel are sailors. It's easier to say "warfighter" than to say "soldier, sailor, airman, and/or marine" every other sentence -- or, apparently, to risk offending anyone by leaving one or more of the service branches out. (I would think the military is the last place where one should have to worry about whiners, but whatever.)
I read an op-ed by a retired soldier who lamented the rise of the new buzzwords "warrior" and "warfighter." To be a solider implies a certain code of honor. That's why, he said, the term had become unfashionable-- a scathing commentary on military culture.
I would argue that trust is what got us into the current mess of pervasive vulnerability. There's been too much trust, for too long. It is easier to program in a world where you can ignore the risk that someone is going to inject SQL commands into a Web form, or believe that once you've stored data on a server inside your firewall, that data is safe. That world is gone and it's not coming back. We, the tech community, have left too many back doors unlocked and unguarded for too long, and now there is a whole economy of data crime. The fact that the NSA has made sure there is no such thing as real encryption is just a piece - a significant piece, I'll admit - of an industry-wide failure.
What I'm saying is that designing systems based on trust is naive, and looking back, was a bad idea to begin with. Trust is for suckers. It doesn't scale: the larger the system, the greater the chance for a malefactor to infiltrate it. What we need today, I believe, is to approach re-engineering the Internet with a healthy does of *mistrust*.
The Cato Institute (a conservative think tank, for those who don't recognize the name) disagrees with your assessment that the Constitution gives the Federal government a monopoly on postal service. If what you say were as simple as that, wouldn't FedEx have been shut down by the real Feds?
Tell that to Congress. They're the ones micro-managing the Postal Service and setting arbitrary rates. Those rates, BTW, are not sufficient to fund the Postal Service pension system at the level Congress demands, which is why the Postal Service is in crisis.
I'm not a lawyer, but those terms seem to me so broadly written that PayPal can withhold your money on a flimsy pretext if they can claim it looked like you were doing something illegal.
Yeah, for instance, the unfortunate souls who have sleep apnea but don't respond positively to the CPAP machine or other devices. It would be nice to have another option for treating those folks (including my dad).
The economics of patent trolling are that one can make more money from extortion than from producing a product. Under those circumstances, it makes perfect sense to sue a company that "helps" them sell their stuff.
What people seem to fail to recognize about encryption is that it's not some kind of magic that makes the data perfectly "secure" forever. All it does is vastly increase the work factor for an attacker to read the data, because he first has to reconstruct the key.
Moore's law, GPU programming, and elastic clusters are radically lowering the costs of brute force attacks. An organization with the nigh-unlimited resources of the NSA is going to be able to crack your file a lot faster than J. Random Hacker. I imagine they have thousand-node GPU clusters. One cannot rule out the possibility that the NSA also has introduced or discovered shortcuts that weaken common crypto algorithms/implementations.
Not just your average Slashot poster, but Snowden himself seems to have fallen into the misconception that encryption is forever. Both China and Russia have access to the ciphertext of his full stash of documents. It is probably a matter of a few years, tops, before their best experts and supercomputers get their hands on the clear text.
The bottom line is, encryption can protect your data for a while, but the only way to protect it forever is to keep it from being intercepted.
That may be their next step. But the case against Amazon will be stronger if they first establish a precedent against a defendant with shallower pockets.
Don't Christians in the USA go around telling each other the president is infallible and that they should respect the police?
That's a laugh! In my church, literally every Sunday, we pray for God to give the President wisdom. Meaning, we don't think he has enough now.
This is part of the liturgy, in which we pray for all the leaders of the world. We've been doing it since Nixon was President, probably longer. Some Presidents have a bigger wisdom deficit than others; no mortal is "infallible*" and that's why it's so hard and so important to follow the teachings of Christ.
*My apologies to Catholics, who may be taught that the Pope is infallible in a certain, limited context. I'm a Protestant and we think the Pope is just a very expert theologian in a funny hat.
Slashdot Mirror
Only when it lets us, meaning, when hell freezes over.
There comes a time in every professional's career when he cannot do everything himself, and needs the assistance or support of others. When you reach that point, you will find you'll need those "social graces" you hold in such contempt, or else your career will stall or end abruptly.
You mean, mistakes such as posting without having read the fucking article?
Only if excessive credulity now counts as a virtue. The Mars One project has a very poor explanation how they are going to finance the construction and launch of the rocket, and none at all how they are going to finance all the testing they claim they'll do.
At this point we are more agreeing than disagreeing, and I would say we're quibbling over semantics. But please consider this fine point: if a condition is negative, and affects one sex to a greater extent because of the frequency and/or intensity of that condition, would you then consider it sexist? And does the context in which the condition occurs relevant to whether it's sexist?
I'm not sure you really expected a response, but yes, I think the "sexist" label fits that and other examples.
Two wrongs don't make a right -- the fact that boys and men can be exploited in degrading ways does not somehow make it OK to do that to girls and women, or vice versa.
Because he's trolling. Again.
This raises an interesting question I hadn't previously considered: in most states, liability insurance is required to drive on public roads. What insurance company will insure an autonomous car?
I am usually the last person to take the position, "the free market will take care of it," but in this case ... maybe it can. When the insurance companies are ready to accept the risk, I think I will be as well.
I submit that a nude statue of a woman is not sexist, but a wet T-shirt contest is. They both involve boobs, but the context matters.
I read TFA, and I wish I hadn't. It's just a fanboi gushing about how awesome Google is.
What it fails to mention is the fundamental tension between developing encryption technology and Google's business model of pervasive surveillance.
Quotations from Google executives such as:
fail to convince me. I am sure Mr. Grosse means what he says, but his actual ability to follow through on his personal honor is limited. It's the Almighty Dollar that is ultimately calling the shots at Google, or any company.
I didn't read the PDF, but probably what the DoD asked for was "cooling," and the poster or editor mistook "air conditioning" for an exact synonym. I am sure the DoD would be happy with any cooling mechanism that worked.
No, I mostly want it for the air conditioning. And the RF antennas.
The buzzword is meant to be inclusive. Technically, Army personnel are soldiers, Air Force personnel are airmen, Marine Corps personnel are marines, and Navy personnel are sailors. It's easier to say "warfighter" than to say "soldier, sailor, airman, and/or marine" every other sentence -- or, apparently, to risk offending anyone by leaving one or more of the service branches out. (I would think the military is the last place where one should have to worry about whiners, but whatever.)
I read an op-ed by a retired soldier who lamented the rise of the new buzzwords "warrior" and "warfighter." To be a solider implies a certain code of honor. That's why, he said, the term had become unfashionable-- a scathing commentary on military culture.
Dude, I want a suit like that for myself!
I would argue that trust is what got us into the current mess of pervasive vulnerability. There's been too much trust, for too long. It is easier to program in a world where you can ignore the risk that someone is going to inject SQL commands into a Web form, or believe that once you've stored data on a server inside your firewall, that data is safe. That world is gone and it's not coming back. We, the tech community, have left too many back doors unlocked and unguarded for too long, and now there is a whole economy of data crime. The fact that the NSA has made sure there is no such thing as real encryption is just a piece - a significant piece, I'll admit - of an industry-wide failure.
What I'm saying is that designing systems based on trust is naive, and looking back, was a bad idea to begin with. Trust is for suckers. It doesn't scale: the larger the system, the greater the chance for a malefactor to infiltrate it. What we need today, I believe, is to approach re-engineering the Internet with a healthy does of *mistrust*.
The Cato Institute (a conservative think tank, for those who don't recognize the name) disagrees with your assessment that the Constitution gives the Federal government a monopoly on postal service. If what you say were as simple as that, wouldn't FedEx have been shut down by the real Feds?
Tell that to Congress. They're the ones micro-managing the Postal Service and setting arbitrary rates. Those rates, BTW, are not sufficient to fund the Postal Service pension system at the level Congress demands, which is why the Postal Service is in crisis.
So, the Postal Service says DVD mailing competes with Internet streaming and ... that means they want to charge *more*?
"Competitive." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm not a lawyer, but those terms seem to me so broadly written that PayPal can withhold your money on a flimsy pretext if they can claim it looked like you were doing something illegal.
Probably something in those terms of service people don't read.
Yeah, for instance, the unfortunate souls who have sleep apnea but don't respond positively to the CPAP machine or other devices. It would be nice to have another option for treating those folks (including my dad).
The economics of patent trolling are that one can make more money from extortion than from producing a product. Under those circumstances, it makes perfect sense to sue a company that "helps" them sell their stuff.
What people seem to fail to recognize about encryption is that it's not some kind of magic that makes the data perfectly "secure" forever. All it does is vastly increase the work factor for an attacker to read the data, because he first has to reconstruct the key.
Moore's law, GPU programming, and elastic clusters are radically lowering the costs of brute force attacks. An organization with the nigh-unlimited resources of the NSA is going to be able to crack your file a lot faster than J. Random Hacker. I imagine they have thousand-node GPU clusters. One cannot rule out the possibility that the NSA also has introduced or discovered shortcuts that weaken common crypto algorithms/implementations.
Not just your average Slashot poster, but Snowden himself seems to have fallen into the misconception that encryption is forever. Both China and Russia have access to the ciphertext of his full stash of documents. It is probably a matter of a few years, tops, before their best experts and supercomputers get their hands on the clear text.
The bottom line is, encryption can protect your data for a while, but the only way to protect it forever is to keep it from being intercepted.
That may be their next step. But the case against Amazon will be stronger if they first establish a precedent against a defendant with shallower pockets.
That's a laugh! In my church, literally every Sunday, we pray for God to give the President wisdom. Meaning, we don't think he has enough now.
This is part of the liturgy, in which we pray for all the leaders of the world. We've been doing it since Nixon was President, probably longer. Some Presidents have a bigger wisdom deficit than others; no mortal is "infallible*" and that's why it's so hard and so important to follow the teachings of Christ.
*My apologies to Catholics, who may be taught that the Pope is infallible in a certain, limited context. I'm a Protestant and we think the Pope is just a very expert theologian in a funny hat.