They never claimed that it wasn't. Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers. Science doesn't make any claims on absolute truth. Science gives you observations with error-bars. I can't, and never will be able to prove that a malicious god didn't create the universe, and then make it look like he didn't. I can state with 95% confidence that a big-bank-like event happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and I have measurements and observations to back that up.
But surely you can see the difference between science, which has a built-in method for self-correction, and the largely static tenants of a faith. If I discover that it is the rich, not the meek, who tend to inherit the earth, I have no avenue for correcting the Bible. However, if I discover that all life on earth is made of one of five base-pairs of DNA, rather than four, scientific journals would be falling all over themselves to publish my work.
You're assuming that Linux and Microsoft are, in fact, competing in the same arena, and that one can be said to "win". If Microsoft's goals are to dominate PCs, and Linux has no such goals, it's incongruous to say that Microsoft is "beating" Linux, in the same manner that it would be incongruous to say that Gebre Gebremariam beat me in the New York Marathon last year. Certainly he placed better than me; I did not run at all!
Market shares can be spoken of with a certain level of objectivity; however, using emotionally charged words such as "win" or "beat" is only going draw out fanboys eager to justify their own convictions.
The problem with this logic is that cross-site-scripting, flash, hell, even your garden-variety "computer virus" all require you to run software "only on your own computer." Any hot-swapping technology has to be implemented with extreme care, and even then, you're still opening up a new attack vector. I seem to recall Greasemonkey, an open-source Firefox addon which allowed users to run external scripts within their browsers, having a history of vulnerabilities to this type of attack.
Buying politicians isn't ever going to go away. Unions are the balance to corporations, which is why corporate-held politicians are pushing so hard to dissolve them. Not only are Unions fighting for anti-corporate working conditions for their members, but they're supporting pro-union politicians that have a chance of replacing the politicians who are more interested in what's good for big-business than working-class people.
While it is valuable to keep security in mind, I think that you might be taking it a little over the edge. Despite the fact that identity theft does happen, the rate at which it happens is low enough that the benefit of using credit outweighs the risk of having your identity stolen. Keeping an eye on your bank statements, and immediately contacting your bank in the event that any suspicious charges show up,seems to be much more reasonable strategy for 95% of the population than carrying large amounts of cash.
There are legitimate concerns regarding the structural integrity of the concrete after the hydrogen explosion, but this would be from cracks forming in the concrete, not anything that the fuel itself could possibly do.
I can occasionally understand people not reading TFA, but come on! The post you responded to was 4 sentences long, and one of them was specifically addressing the point you brought up.
I'm not saying that the situation is perfectly safe, or even moderately okay. I'm simply saying that it's ridiculous to worry about the concrete containment vessel melting, and that the nuclear engineers who created the concrete containment vessel surely thought through the possibility that it would have to contain hot material.
The core absolutely cannot melt through the concrete. The melting point of concrete is an order of magnitude higher than that of the containment vessel - the fuel cannot get this hot, short of a nuclear reaction. There are legitimate concerns regarding the structural integrity of the concrete after the hydrogen explosion, but this would be from cracks forming in the concrete, not anything that the fuel itself could possibly do.
Rest assured that the concrete container is designed exactly for this eventuality. It would be a pretty poor design if it was incapable of holding that which it was created to contain.
A pen and notepad is not a broadcasting device. And use of many other recording devices is restricted: you will often only see hand-drawn illustrations of court cases because cameras were not allowed in the courthouse.
Without a specific legal basis, I would imagine that Mr. King's speech would be public domain because it was a public speech and plays such a large role in our cultural identity.
This certainly isn't a legal argument, and isn't intended to be. However, as a legal layman, it simply seems perverse that such a historically significant appeal to the public isn't in the public domain.
Can you clarify what exactly you mean when you say that game prices should be an order of magnitude lower? There's certainly no historical trend that would indicate this: adjusted for inflation, SNES games retailed for about $80. If you're referring to the fact that there are games available for $5, you should keep in mind that those were developed under a vastly different model than the big-studio, multi-million-dollar-development-cost games that retail for $60 for console. If you simply prefer indie games like Angry Birds, you're certainly entitled to your opinion; however, even you have to admit that the gameplay experience is completely different from that offered by Halo, and that it's unreasonable to demand both for the same price.
This is all well and good if the DoJ was requesting information regarding Manning's Twitter account. However, they are requesting the direct messages and session logs of three other Twitter users who simply had contact with Manning: "American computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum; Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament; and Rop Gonggrijp, a Dutch computer programmer." (TFA) To my knowledge, no charges have been brought against these individuals, so it would, at a glance, seem inappropriate to file a warrant in an unrelated case in order to perform discovery on them. This seems to be the case that Twitter is making, at least. In any case, it's a legal distinction worth making, and not just a frivolous filing by Twitter's lawyers in order to stall for time.
The DoJ doesn't want the tweets, they want the account info for the users posting the tweets: email addresses, real names, IP addresses, session logs; the types of things that cannot be found with a simple google search.
Twitter's argument is that the warrant is overly-broad. In addition to information salient to the ongoing case, Twitter feels that the warrant asks them to turn over information with no bearing on the current case, which they feel is an invasion of their users privacy. To be clear, Twitter isn't trying to overturn "warrants can be used to gather information," they're just saying that this warrant should be overturned.
I disagree. Information has no natural tendencies of its own - it can only exist in the context of a person interpreting or disseminating it. When we talk about the behavior of information, we're really talking about the behaviors of the people who have that information. When you say "Information wants to be free," you're saying "people can distribute information for free," which has very little to do with the natural tendencies of the information itself. Unlike water, which flows downhill even if no one is watching, information will not distribute itself if no person acts to distribute it.
No, I didn't miss that clause, I guess I just didn't understand the distinction. Surely we're not talking about the information's desires, as it, in itself, has none. It's also not quite right to talk about the information's "natural" or "teleological inclinations", because, unlike opposite charges "wanting" to move closer together in nature, information cannot really exist outside of the context of the people understanding and disseminating it. The only explanation that I am left with is that you're making a statement about how people tend to behave regarding information.
So, are you making a statement regarding how people do act when sharing information, or how they should act when sharing information? If you're making the "is"-argument, I couldn't agree more. If you don't prevent people from sharing information via technological or legal means, they will, because they want to. If you're making the "ought"-argument, though, we have legitimate differences. I believe that there is value in information that took effort to acquire, and that it's reasonable to charge people for this information. In this case, I feel that it's disingenuous to say that "information wants to be free," because you're making a statement about how you believe that people ought to behave, while masking it as a statement about the nature of information itself.
Please, correct any incorrect assumptions that I've made. Believe it or not, I want to understand the point that you're trying to make.
So "information wants to be free" in the same exact sense that "banks want to be robbed" - in that, if you don't put a whole lot of time and effort into preventing it, self-interested people will attempt to take what they have no real right to, simply because it's easy.
Or you could check Wikipedia. (High Voltage Direct Current). It's as simple as "higher voltage means less power lost to resistance." Since Power = Voltage * Current, and Power Loss to Resistance = (Current)^2 * Resistance, you can ramp up your power transmitted without affecting power loss by increasing voltage while leaving current constant.
It would make packet sniffing impossible. It wouldn't prevent AT&T from claiming that you were tethering based on your sheer volume of traffic, and it wouldn't do you any good on the off-chance that there is something in the iPhone's hardware which indicates whether it is currently tethered to another device via USB. (Both of which have been proposed in the comments on this story.)
No, but that doesn't mean that people are doing it. There are twenty different ways that AT&T could be detecting tethering, each with a workaround that would defeat AT&T's snooping. This doesn't mean that each tethered user is aware of each of these methods, or even aware that AT&T is snooping on them in the first place. Nor should we assume that everyone with a jailbroken iPhone has the technical wherewithal to correctly implement any or all of these workarounds.
Huh, I wonder how well a Markov model applied here would work? Given a large body of your own writing, as well as a large body of writing from the internet, a computer could compare the likelihood of both you and the average person using any given 4- or 5- word tuple, and notify you where you use a phrase that you are statistically much more likely to use than the average person.
Is this some how the college's fault? Did the college fail to adequately prepare your wife for life in the artistic metal-smithing field? Did they give her a sub-par education, which should have been heavily discounted? Or did she choose to focus on an area which has, and has always had dismal economic prospects? Surely it isn't her institution's fault for offering a program that she couldn't really afford. I understand that the "American Dream" involves going off to college to pursue your passions, but the sad truth is that sometimes you can't make a great living doing what you love. In those cases, it's probably not a great idea to rack up tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt, and I have a hard time blaming the schools when that happens.
Slashdot Mirror
They never claimed that it wasn't. Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers. Science doesn't make any claims on absolute truth. Science gives you observations with error-bars. I can't, and never will be able to prove that a malicious god didn't create the universe, and then make it look like he didn't. I can state with 95% confidence that a big-bank-like event happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and I have measurements and observations to back that up.
But surely you can see the difference between science, which has a built-in method for self-correction, and the largely static tenants of a faith. If I discover that it is the rich, not the meek, who tend to inherit the earth, I have no avenue for correcting the Bible. However, if I discover that all life on earth is made of one of five base-pairs of DNA, rather than four, scientific journals would be falling all over themselves to publish my work.
You're assuming that Linux and Microsoft are, in fact, competing in the same arena, and that one can be said to "win". If Microsoft's goals are to dominate PCs, and Linux has no such goals, it's incongruous to say that Microsoft is "beating" Linux, in the same manner that it would be incongruous to say that Gebre Gebremariam beat me in the New York Marathon last year. Certainly he placed better than me; I did not run at all!
Market shares can be spoken of with a certain level of objectivity; however, using emotionally charged words such as "win" or "beat" is only going draw out fanboys eager to justify their own convictions.
The problem with this logic is that cross-site-scripting, flash, hell, even your garden-variety "computer virus" all require you to run software "only on your own computer." Any hot-swapping technology has to be implemented with extreme care, and even then, you're still opening up a new attack vector. I seem to recall Greasemonkey, an open-source Firefox addon which allowed users to run external scripts within their browsers, having a history of vulnerabilities to this type of attack.
Since when is "taxing the wealthy" a greater moral evil than "allowing orphans to die of easily curable diseases"?
Buying politicians isn't ever going to go away. Unions are the balance to corporations, which is why corporate-held politicians are pushing so hard to dissolve them. Not only are Unions fighting for anti-corporate working conditions for their members, but they're supporting pro-union politicians that have a chance of replacing the politicians who are more interested in what's good for big-business than working-class people.
While it is valuable to keep security in mind, I think that you might be taking it a little over the edge. Despite the fact that identity theft does happen, the rate at which it happens is low enough that the benefit of using credit outweighs the risk of having your identity stolen. Keeping an eye on your bank statements, and immediately contacting your bank in the event that any suspicious charges show up,seems to be much more reasonable strategy for 95% of the population than carrying large amounts of cash.
There are legitimate concerns regarding the structural integrity of the concrete after the hydrogen explosion, but this would be from cracks forming in the concrete, not anything that the fuel itself could possibly do.
I can occasionally understand people not reading TFA, but come on! The post you responded to was 4 sentences long, and one of them was specifically addressing the point you brought up.
I'm not saying that the situation is perfectly safe, or even moderately okay. I'm simply saying that it's ridiculous to worry about the concrete containment vessel melting, and that the nuclear engineers who created the concrete containment vessel surely thought through the possibility that it would have to contain hot material.
The core absolutely cannot melt through the concrete. The melting point of concrete is an order of magnitude higher than that of the containment vessel - the fuel cannot get this hot, short of a nuclear reaction. There are legitimate concerns regarding the structural integrity of the concrete after the hydrogen explosion, but this would be from cracks forming in the concrete, not anything that the fuel itself could possibly do.
Rest assured that the concrete container is designed exactly for this eventuality. It would be a pretty poor design if it was incapable of holding that which it was created to contain.
A pen and notepad is not a broadcasting device. And use of many other recording devices is restricted: you will often only see hand-drawn illustrations of court cases because cameras were not allowed in the courthouse.
Without a specific legal basis, I would imagine that Mr. King's speech would be public domain because it was a public speech and plays such a large role in our cultural identity.
This certainly isn't a legal argument, and isn't intended to be. However, as a legal layman, it simply seems perverse that such a historically significant appeal to the public isn't in the public domain.
Can you clarify what exactly you mean when you say that game prices should be an order of magnitude lower? There's certainly no historical trend that would indicate this: adjusted for inflation, SNES games retailed for about $80. If you're referring to the fact that there are games available for $5, you should keep in mind that those were developed under a vastly different model than the big-studio, multi-million-dollar-development-cost games that retail for $60 for console. If you simply prefer indie games like Angry Birds, you're certainly entitled to your opinion; however, even you have to admit that the gameplay experience is completely different from that offered by Halo, and that it's unreasonable to demand both for the same price.
Sorry, above should be "session logs of three other Twitter users who simply had contact with Wikileaks"
This is all well and good if the DoJ was requesting information regarding Manning's Twitter account. However, they are requesting the direct messages and session logs of three other Twitter users who simply had contact with Manning: "American computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum; Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament; and Rop Gonggrijp, a Dutch computer programmer." (TFA) To my knowledge, no charges have been brought against these individuals, so it would, at a glance, seem inappropriate to file a warrant in an unrelated case in order to perform discovery on them. This seems to be the case that Twitter is making, at least. In any case, it's a legal distinction worth making, and not just a frivolous filing by Twitter's lawyers in order to stall for time.
The DoJ doesn't want the tweets, they want the account info for the users posting the tweets: email addresses, real names, IP addresses, session logs; the types of things that cannot be found with a simple google search.
Twitter's argument is that the warrant is overly-broad. In addition to information salient to the ongoing case, Twitter feels that the warrant asks them to turn over information with no bearing on the current case, which they feel is an invasion of their users privacy. To be clear, Twitter isn't trying to overturn "warrants can be used to gather information," they're just saying that this warrant should be overturned.
I disagree. Information has no natural tendencies of its own - it can only exist in the context of a person interpreting or disseminating it. When we talk about the behavior of information, we're really talking about the behaviors of the people who have that information. When you say "Information wants to be free," you're saying "people can distribute information for free," which has very little to do with the natural tendencies of the information itself. Unlike water, which flows downhill even if no one is watching, information will not distribute itself if no person acts to distribute it.
No, I didn't miss that clause, I guess I just didn't understand the distinction. Surely we're not talking about the information's desires, as it, in itself, has none. It's also not quite right to talk about the information's "natural" or "teleological inclinations", because, unlike opposite charges "wanting" to move closer together in nature, information cannot really exist outside of the context of the people understanding and disseminating it. The only explanation that I am left with is that you're making a statement about how people tend to behave regarding information.
So, are you making a statement regarding how people do act when sharing information, or how they should act when sharing information? If you're making the "is"-argument, I couldn't agree more. If you don't prevent people from sharing information via technological or legal means, they will, because they want to. If you're making the "ought"-argument, though, we have legitimate differences. I believe that there is value in information that took effort to acquire, and that it's reasonable to charge people for this information. In this case, I feel that it's disingenuous to say that "information wants to be free," because you're making a statement about how you believe that people ought to behave, while masking it as a statement about the nature of information itself.
Please, correct any incorrect assumptions that I've made. Believe it or not, I want to understand the point that you're trying to make.
So "information wants to be free" in the same exact sense that "banks want to be robbed" - in that, if you don't put a whole lot of time and effort into preventing it, self-interested people will attempt to take what they have no real right to, simply because it's easy.
Or you could check Wikipedia. (High Voltage Direct Current). It's as simple as "higher voltage means less power lost to resistance." Since Power = Voltage * Current, and Power Loss to Resistance = (Current)^2 * Resistance, you can ramp up your power transmitted without affecting power loss by increasing voltage while leaving current constant.
It would make packet sniffing impossible. It wouldn't prevent AT&T from claiming that you were tethering based on your sheer volume of traffic, and it wouldn't do you any good on the off-chance that there is something in the iPhone's hardware which indicates whether it is currently tethered to another device via USB. (Both of which have been proposed in the comments on this story.)
$70-80 USD/mo is standard for a smartphone with a data plan in the United States.
No, but that doesn't mean that people are doing it. There are twenty different ways that AT&T could be detecting tethering, each with a workaround that would defeat AT&T's snooping. This doesn't mean that each tethered user is aware of each of these methods, or even aware that AT&T is snooping on them in the first place. Nor should we assume that everyone with a jailbroken iPhone has the technical wherewithal to correctly implement any or all of these workarounds.
Huh, I wonder how well a Markov model applied here would work? Given a large body of your own writing, as well as a large body of writing from the internet, a computer could compare the likelihood of both you and the average person using any given 4- or 5- word tuple, and notify you where you use a phrase that you are statistically much more likely to use than the average person.
Mod parent up. This is some timecube-quality insane rambling.
Is this some how the college's fault? Did the college fail to adequately prepare your wife for life in the artistic metal-smithing field? Did they give her a sub-par education, which should have been heavily discounted? Or did she choose to focus on an area which has, and has always had dismal economic prospects? Surely it isn't her institution's fault for offering a program that she couldn't really afford. I understand that the "American Dream" involves going off to college to pursue your passions, but the sad truth is that sometimes you can't make a great living doing what you love. In those cases, it's probably not a great idea to rack up tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt, and I have a hard time blaming the schools when that happens.