What if I encrypted a block of my data, broke those blocks up, then stored separate (non-duplicate) pieces in every country in the world? Would a court need to get every country's permission to assemble the data? Is the data an entity that has to be pursued independently of the owner (me)? Or as the owner, can my citizenship country (or a country that is pursuing me) instead demand all pieces based on me as the owner?
To summarize: Is my data legally independent from me?
There was and will be none, because at least 70-80% of the population of NY was cheering the police on when they busted up OWS, and seeing those images again probably makes them happy.
Nooo... because 99% of those images lack context of a situation where force was justified. Do some ride-alongs with cops and see the entire story.
Also the video shows them splitting some very easy to split wood.
Yep. Axes don't split wood - Malls split wood. And there were several times that the axe flung itself sideways which looks both dangerous and painful. I've split about 200 cord of wood in my lifetime so have a wee bit of experience... don't think I'll even touch this gadget. If you need a splitting axe for small wood then I'd recommend Fiskars.
"Learning to live poor" is the most education that people get in college. They have money... they just don't know how to manage it properly. I've been there. Many years, the $1 burger king friday special burger was my treat for the entire week.
Looking back, I could have done far better. Why? Because I've learned. Why did I learn? Because things got tight so I got motivated. People are capable of far more than they'd like to be.
There's a simpler solution... less people. Actually, that's the only real solution. Won't happen for decades though because everyone wants their easy solution rather than real solution.
# people * resource usage = total available resources
OK, so how precisely do you write the rules such that the ISP can't game them with "fake throttling". Again, in the recent case where Comcast was throttling Netflix they weren't breaking the rules as written. This isn't a simple engineering problem where you just have to find something that makes sense, this is like security hardening where you have to continuously correct problems as your attackers point them out. Do you believe a simple set of rules could work?
Yes, actually. I boil things down to the simplest (but not too simple) components for a living... and there are more experienced and smarter people than me available to do this. It's complexity that creates holes.
Type of traffic matters. 1/10th a second for VOIP, 1 second for HTTP, 1 minute for p2p. There's always going to be bottlenecks... an honest prioritization is by far the most efficient way to deal with it. Today's problem is that internet corporations aren't honest and purposely throttle what doesn't benefit them. Solve the real problem instead of a pushing a high level theory debate.
Your link seems to say the opposite of what you stated. "On average, annual over drafting is around 2,200,000 acre feet (2.7 km3) across the state" " About 80-85% of all developed water in California is used for agricultural purposes."
I see 3 outlandish replies without anything to back them up.
X gallons per person at minimal cost. Above that is a sliding cost. It works for income tax - and is used for water in the desert where I live with very good effect. Want to know what happened? People replace their lawns with xerescape and new houses re-purpose 90% of water (soap/food is mostly separate and flushed) from showers, dish washers, and clothing washers to instead water their back yard and feed the canal systems. Also, front loading clothing washer sales increased because they use 30% less water. Cost effectiveness works.
As far as competitiveness goes, water is a basic utility that is managed as a controlled monopoly - just like electricity, streets, etc.
Government is best at setting standards. Industry is best at efficiently meeting them.
Does anyone else see another annihilation of privacy here?
If you want to reduce water use then eliminate the corporate welfare for agriculture. Better yet, reduce the number of people in the strained geography. It's simple math: Total Resources Available = Resource Consumption Rate x Number of People
What's the best way to control this? Cost. Remove all the subsidies beyond a minimum X gallons per person. Let people and markets drive the rest.
It seems that only food and energy have gotten more expensive.
Saying that "the price hasn't increased for 9 years" is misdirection. It was too expensive 9 years ago. Today... doable when you factor in it's also a Netflix replacement.
I still play my Loki games despite every clueless git trying to make pronouncements about things they don't have any experience with (game programming or app programming in general).
1 example proves infinite? Now which logic fallacy is that...
Dynamic linking usually fails. New versions of code rarely adequately support backwards compatibility. Java is probably the worst offender. Any long term stable system is going to have 20+ versions of java or other libraries to maintain stability of its programs.
Union Pros: Long term training, retention of skill, knowledge, and quality.
Union Cons: Mandating inefficiencies, protecting bad workers.
This most definitely seems a case showing the negative side of unions. They are mandating more expense, more employees, higher paid employees, all for next to zero gain. Actually, negative gain because armed guards will add to the intimidation they already enjoy. This is why so many people have an extremely negative view of unions. They are shooting themselves in the foot for the long term when they make emotional (irrational) demands like this.
We already have more than 45% job loss. Guess what people do now? Sales. Totally non-productive but since there is so much product and competition they seem the only way to get people to buy stuff (shove it down their throat). Heck, take a look at medications. Only 10% of the cost to bring a new med to market is research that creates it. Sure, there's a bit of production cost, but as an example generic benedryl is less than 1 cent per pill... well, that's a pretty low production cost.
"The right tool for the job" is always worth striving for. However, rhetoric such as "tyranny of slow, expensive relational databases" merely shows incompetence when it comes to understanding what a database is. If you have structured data then there is nothing more efficient, effective, or faster than a relational database. For unstructured data, go Google indexing or Perl heaps.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I encrypted a block of my data, broke those blocks up, then stored separate (non-duplicate) pieces in every country in the world? Would a court need to get every country's permission to assemble the data? Is the data an entity that has to be pursued independently of the owner (me)? Or as the owner, can my citizenship country (or a country that is pursuing me) instead demand all pieces based on me as the owner?
To summarize: Is my data legally independent from me?
There was and will be none, because at least 70-80% of the population of NY was cheering the police on when they busted up OWS, and seeing those images again probably makes them happy.
Nooo... because 99% of those images lack context of a situation where force was justified. Do some ride-alongs with cops and see the entire story.
Also the video shows them splitting some very easy to split wood.
Yep. Axes don't split wood - Malls split wood. And there were several times that the axe flung itself sideways which looks both dangerous and painful. I've split about 200 cord of wood in my lifetime so have a wee bit of experience... don't think I'll even touch this gadget. If you need a splitting axe for small wood then I'd recommend Fiskars.
Scrub potato. Nuke it. Stick it in a ziplock bag with catchup. Lunch for 25 cents.
Potatoes are 10 cents a pound here.
"Learning to live poor" is the most education that people get in college. They have money... they just don't know how to manage it properly. I've been there. Many years, the $1 burger king friday special burger was my treat for the entire week.
Looking back, I could have done far better. Why? Because I've learned. Why did I learn? Because things got tight so I got motivated. People are capable of far more than they'd like to be.
I have neither rats nor cockroaches where I live. Well, at least not counting the politicians.
There's a simpler solution... less people. Actually, that's the only real solution. Won't happen for decades though because everyone wants their easy solution rather than real solution.
# people * resource usage = total available resources
That complexity creates obfuscation which creates holes to take advantage of. That's abused far more in the real world.
OK, so how precisely do you write the rules such that the ISP can't game them with "fake throttling". Again, in the recent case where Comcast was throttling Netflix they weren't breaking the rules as written. This isn't a simple engineering problem where you just have to find something that makes sense, this is like security hardening where you have to continuously correct problems as your attackers point them out. Do you believe a simple set of rules could work?
Yes, actually. I boil things down to the simplest (but not too simple) components for a living... and there are more experienced and smarter people than me available to do this. It's complexity that creates holes.
Type of traffic matters. 1/10th a second for VOIP, 1 second for HTTP, 1 minute for p2p. There's always going to be bottlenecks... an honest prioritization is by far the most efficient way to deal with it. Today's problem is that internet corporations aren't honest and purposely throttle what doesn't benefit them. Solve the real problem instead of a pushing a high level theory debate.
I'd accept packet prioritization. That way video calls don't drop while p2p downgrades. Maintain full use of resources.
The problem is fake throttling that chokes out netflix and others by 75% or more regardless of system capacity.
Your link seems to say the opposite of what you stated.
"On average, annual over drafting is around 2,200,000 acre feet (2.7 km3) across the state"
" About 80-85% of all developed water in California is used for agricultural purposes."
You're using a 1 in a Million argument. Logic Fallacy.
I see 3 outlandish replies without anything to back them up.
X gallons per person at minimal cost. Above that is a sliding cost. It works for income tax - and is used for water in the desert where I live with very good effect. Want to know what happened? People replace their lawns with xerescape and new houses re-purpose 90% of water (soap/food is mostly separate and flushed) from showers, dish washers, and clothing washers to instead water their back yard and feed the canal systems. Also, front loading clothing washer sales increased because they use 30% less water. Cost effectiveness works.
As far as competitiveness goes, water is a basic utility that is managed as a controlled monopoly - just like electricity, streets, etc.
Government is best at setting standards. Industry is best at efficiently meeting them.
Ignoring that we are omnivores is unethical. Vegan is just a large fad clique based on marketing over science.
Does anyone else see another annihilation of privacy here?
If you want to reduce water use then eliminate the corporate welfare for agriculture. Better yet, reduce the number of people in the strained geography. It's simple math: Total Resources Available = Resource Consumption Rate x Number of People
What's the best way to control this? Cost. Remove all the subsidies beyond a minimum X gallons per person. Let people and markets drive the rest.
It seems that only food and energy have gotten more expensive.
Saying that "the price hasn't increased for 9 years" is misdirection. It was too expensive 9 years ago. Today... doable when you factor in it's also a Netflix replacement.
Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles
Test case #1: Psychosis at age X, pot = 0
Test case #2: Psychosis at age (X - 6), pot = N
I'm sure someone can take that and do a proof.
I still play my Loki games despite every clueless git trying to make pronouncements about things they don't have any experience with (game programming or app programming in general).
1 example proves infinite? Now which logic fallacy is that...
Dynamic linking usually fails. New versions of code rarely adequately support backwards compatibility. Java is probably the worst offender. Any long term stable system is going to have 20+ versions of java or other libraries to maintain stability of its programs.
Union Pros: Long term training, retention of skill, knowledge, and quality. Union Cons: Mandating inefficiencies, protecting bad workers. This most definitely seems a case showing the negative side of unions. They are mandating more expense, more employees, higher paid employees, all for next to zero gain. Actually, negative gain because armed guards will add to the intimidation they already enjoy. This is why so many people have an extremely negative view of unions. They are shooting themselves in the foot for the long term when they make emotional (irrational) demands like this.
90% of drug cost in the USA is unproductive sales, marketing, profit, etc. Unbalanced capitalism.
Distributed processing requires cache duplication and parallel problems. ERP systems don't follow that. It's the main reason RAC failed.
We already have more than 45% job loss. Guess what people do now? Sales. Totally non-productive but since there is so much product and competition they seem the only way to get people to buy stuff (shove it down their throat). Heck, take a look at medications. Only 10% of the cost to bring a new med to market is research that creates it. Sure, there's a bit of production cost, but as an example generic benedryl is less than 1 cent per pill... well, that's a pretty low production cost.
"The right tool for the job" is always worth striving for. However, rhetoric such as "tyranny of slow, expensive relational databases" merely shows incompetence when it comes to understanding what a database is. If you have structured data then there is nothing more efficient, effective, or faster than a relational database. For unstructured data, go Google indexing or Perl heaps.