Harm is only justified in order to prevent even greater harm. And yes, that is the ethical justification behind war. According to Libertarians, one should never initiate the use of violence, but it is perfectly ethical to respond to violence with violence. So it's not that "violence is never the answer", it's more like "the only thing violence is the answer to is violence." Which doesn't even mean violence is the _only_ answer to violence.
In a no-hostage situation, sending in a robot with explosives seems like a pretty rational response to terrorist claiming to have explosives. And, law enforcement can always claim, "We were just trying to trigger his explosives, we weren't trying to kill the guy." The Dallas case isn't quite like that, but still I approve. Someone wants to hold police in an armed standoff, no sense putting law enforcement officers at risk -- go ahead and sign the guy's death certificate, then send in the robots. They told him, "Surrender or die", and he chose "die". Greatest common good is the path that harms the least number of additional persons. Property damage is cheap by comparison.
Follow the money. Are the people making this "fair use stifles innovation" argument the original artists creating new content, or is the argument being advanced by companies that have bought the rights from long dead artists?
Copyright extension to 70 years encourages innovation, because of course the original creator expects to still be alive and deriving revenue from their work 70 years later, right? This get one thing straight: Copyright isn't encouraging innovation, it's guaranteeing a revenue stream for the corporation that commissions the work for hire or buys the copyright from the original creator. Oh, and ALL creative works are derivative to begin with, so don't even try to tell me copyright is protecting "original" work.
Today I had the thought, "When is BLM going to start doxing all the officers who unjustifiably shoot people?" Appears it has already started. Not that I support vigilante justice, but at some point perhaps thought of the risk of pissing off people so much that mentally unstable folk starting hunting you down _should_ cross officers minds.
As a contractor, I have more than once had a manager come to me on friday afternoon and tell me, "Don't bother coming in Monday... or ever!" As such, when I was offered $25/hour more than I was currently working to start another contract, but I had to start right away, I didn't bother giving notice, and was informed "yeah, just leave your page and parking permit with the security guard on your way out." As far as I can tell, nobody cares about notice anymore.
Every Intel employee computer used to boot up with the message "Unauthorized use of Intel computer equipment is prohibited." Always seemed kind of circular to me. Also seemed strange they felt they had to explicitly tell everybody that unauthorized use wasn't authorized. But I agree on your point: "authorization" means whatever the _owner_ of the data or equipment says it means!
You should vote for the party that promises to move government in a more libertarian direction, but not swallow the libertarian bullshit hook, line, and sinker. Given the existing geopolitical climate, libertarian non-interventionism is rather naive, even if it may have made sense 200 years ago. The Republican party currently appears to contain more people that claim to have libertarian leanings, but since it also currently comes with this mass of baggage known as "Trump", I think we should hold off on supporting it. The protectionist propaganda Trump is spouting is the antithesis of a free market. Unfortunately, the globalist regime dominated by huge corporate interests that Clinton seems to be supporting also bears no resemblance to a free market. I guess you could always vote for Gary Johnson. He claims to be a libertarian even though he isn't, but he seems to acknowledge there are some reasonable things that government can achieve.
In the libertarian view, a class action lawsuit by those who paid for unreliable blood tests with unlimited damages should discourage people from attempting this scam (as well as lawsuits from investors that were defrauded). The problem with that is that in practice most real fraudsters are smart enough to take the money and leave the country before the shit hits the fan, while lawsuits take years to resolve. So to be effective, discouraging fraud requires a global legal and financial framework that leaves them no literally place to hide -- that sounds pretty un-libertarian, but it's the only way to make it work.
They had a business model based on developing cheaper medical testing technology and then LYING about the results. They should face serious time in federal poiund-me-in-the-ass prison, if for no other reason than to discourage other people from trying this business model. They forgot the most important step in any scam business: take the money and run _before_ people catch on that you're committing fraud!
When I was a kid, I started designing a computer that could play tic-tac-toe using only mechanical relays. About the time I realized how many thousands of relays were required, I decided it wasn't worth the effort. I don't understand this guy's thought processes... why spend thousands of dollars and use up half your house for some you could easily do with a $5 Rasberry Pi Zero?
You'd think by now Google would know what kind of porn I liked, and could recommend the good stuff for me, wouldn't you? Unless... they are actually taking this "incognito window" stuff seriously.
No... which is why the dog comes in to check on me literally every time I use the toilet. Or shower. Apparently she has decided someone sitting on a toilet is a captive audience for her attention whoring.
Since I use Google Navigate to warn me about traffic problems every time I drive anywhere, this information would be very useful to any assassin wanted to track my movement patterns. Or any wives/mistresses/girlfriends, for that matter. And yes, my ex-wife used to go through my phone while I was sleeping to see what I had been doing.
The Nyquist limit only applies to amplitude encoding. Higher bitrates can be achieved by encoding information via attributes like phase as well, which should get you up to 16 times the bit rate. Not sure what the actual bandwidth of a WiFi channel is, there may be some overlap between adjacent channels.
Thanks for the reminder that I screwed myself by getting an integrated cable modem/802.11ac router. Meaning the router is controlled by Comcast. Meaning the firmware cannot be upgraded. Ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Harm is only justified in order to prevent even greater harm. And yes, that is the ethical justification behind war. According to Libertarians, one should never initiate the use of violence, but it is perfectly ethical to respond to violence with violence. So it's not that "violence is never the answer", it's more like "the only thing violence is the answer to is violence." Which doesn't even mean violence is the _only_ answer to violence.
In a no-hostage situation, sending in a robot with explosives seems like a pretty rational response to terrorist claiming to have explosives. And, law enforcement can always claim, "We were just trying to trigger his explosives, we weren't trying to kill the guy." The Dallas case isn't quite like that, but still I approve. Someone wants to hold police in an armed standoff, no sense putting law enforcement officers at risk -- go ahead and sign the guy's death certificate, then send in the robots. They told him, "Surrender or die", and he chose "die". Greatest common good is the path that harms the least number of additional persons. Property damage is cheap by comparison.
Follow the money. Are the people making this "fair use stifles innovation" argument the original artists creating new content, or is the argument being advanced by companies that have bought the rights from long dead artists?
Copyright extension to 70 years encourages innovation, because of course the original creator expects to still be alive and deriving revenue from their work 70 years later, right? This get one thing straight: Copyright isn't encouraging innovation, it's guaranteeing a revenue stream for the corporation that commissions the work for hire or buys the copyright from the original creator. Oh, and ALL creative works are derivative to begin with, so don't even try to tell me copyright is protecting "original" work.
Today I had the thought, "When is BLM going to start doxing all the officers who unjustifiably shoot people?" Appears it has already started. Not that I support vigilante justice, but at some point perhaps thought of the risk of pissing off people so much that mentally unstable folk starting hunting you down _should_ cross officers minds.
Jesus... is he a wave, or a particle?
As a contractor, I have more than once had a manager come to me on friday afternoon and tell me, "Don't bother coming in Monday... or ever!" As such, when I was offered $25/hour more than I was currently working to start another contract, but I had to start right away, I didn't bother giving notice, and was informed "yeah, just leave your page and parking permit with the security guard on your way out." As far as I can tell, nobody cares about notice anymore.
Right... because there is ALWAYS a WiFi hotspot every place I take pictures and video... NOT!
Every Intel employee computer used to boot up with the message "Unauthorized use of Intel computer equipment is prohibited." Always seemed kind of circular to me. Also seemed strange they felt they had to explicitly tell everybody that unauthorized use wasn't authorized. But I agree on your point: "authorization" means whatever the _owner_ of the data or equipment says it means!
You should vote for the party that promises to move government in a more libertarian direction, but not swallow the libertarian bullshit hook, line, and sinker. Given the existing geopolitical climate, libertarian non-interventionism is rather naive, even if it may have made sense 200 years ago. The Republican party currently appears to contain more people that claim to have libertarian leanings, but since it also currently comes with this mass of baggage known as "Trump", I think we should hold off on supporting it. The protectionist propaganda Trump is spouting is the antithesis of a free market. Unfortunately, the globalist regime dominated by huge corporate interests that Clinton seems to be supporting also bears no resemblance to a free market. I guess you could always vote for Gary Johnson. He claims to be a libertarian even though he isn't, but he seems to acknowledge there are some reasonable things that government can achieve.
Wait... they have radiation therapy for self-driving cars now? I obviously haven't been keeping up!
In the libertarian view, a class action lawsuit by those who paid for unreliable blood tests with unlimited damages should discourage people from attempting this scam (as well as lawsuits from investors that were defrauded). The problem with that is that in practice most real fraudsters are smart enough to take the money and leave the country before the shit hits the fan, while lawsuits take years to resolve. So to be effective, discouraging fraud requires a global legal and financial framework that leaves them no literally place to hide -- that sounds pretty un-libertarian, but it's the only way to make it work.
They had a business model based on developing cheaper medical testing technology and then LYING about the results. They should face serious time in federal poiund-me-in-the-ass prison, if for no other reason than to discourage other people from trying this business model. They forgot the most important step in any scam business: take the money and run _before_ people catch on that you're committing fraud!
When I was a kid, I started designing a computer that could play tic-tac-toe using only mechanical relays. About the time I realized how many thousands of relays were required, I decided it wasn't worth the effort. I don't understand this guy's thought processes... why spend thousands of dollars and use up half your house for some you could easily do with a $5 Rasberry Pi Zero?
Military personnel are held to a different standard than civilians.
You'd think by now Google would know what kind of porn I liked, and could recommend the good stuff for me, wouldn't you? Unless... they are actually taking this "incognito window" stuff seriously.
No... which is why the dog comes in to check on me literally every time I use the toilet. Or shower. Apparently she has decided someone sitting on a toilet is a captive audience for her attention whoring.
I believe the subroutine that tracks what you care enough about to delete is called streisand_effect().
Too bad that today you programmed it for your false persona that posts bullshit to slashdot...
Since I use Google Navigate to warn me about traffic problems every time I drive anywhere, this information would be very useful to any assassin wanted to track my movement patterns. Or any wives/mistresses/girlfriends, for that matter. And yes, my ex-wife used to go through my phone while I was sleeping to see what I had been doing.
The Nyquist limit only applies to amplitude encoding. Higher bitrates can be achieved by encoding information via attributes like phase as well, which should get you up to 16 times the bit rate. Not sure what the actual bandwidth of a WiFi channel is, there may be some overlap between adjacent channels.
The "tripping over the cable" problem?
Thanks for the reminder that I screwed myself by getting an integrated cable modem/802.11ac router. Meaning the router is controlled by Comcast. Meaning the firmware cannot be upgraded. Ever.
Pretty sure Hope Hicks is voting for Trump. She'll probably talk her whole family into doing so as well!
We just need to visit the sun AT NIGHT to collect the helium!