Well, there's a lot of Chinese computers infected with spyware, etc, and general status of cybersecurity is very poor - just look at the numbers using IE6. Even using high end estimates, we're looking at 1 'internet policeman' per 10,000 Chinese users. Despite the fame of the great firewall system, it's mostly run on automatic - it would be implausible for the Chinese to monitor and log and datamine individual activity.
Proportionately to internet user population, the NSA alone employ a much larger number of employees than the Chinese do, and have greater experience and sophistication with surveillance. No one assumes the US sanctions every attack.
Enh.
Many regions have relaxed the law to two children per couple, and the official penalty for violating the law is a fine and withdrawal of state support for education and medical care. Forced abortions are against the law in China, though it sometimes still goes on in the more rural parts.
This argument seems a lot like saying 'your house is just as flammable as it ever was', right after an arsonist torched the place. Ultimately everything has to be a trade off between usability and convenience, and security. Similarly with stuff like wikileaks, we expect that there should be mechanisms by which specific crimes might be exposed to the public over and beyond conventional security policy. But when these holes are publically exploited, then they have a number of spill-off effects.
Firstly, for the users, it creates more burdensome security procedures that are often senseless and wasteful. For criminals, it provides inspiration and encouragement, as well as availability of resources when attempts to close security holes are inconsistently applied. For future whistleblowers, it shuts down avenues for them to smuggle out future information that might be more important and more specific than the 'oh here's a huge bunch of documents dumps'. And for politicians, it embarrasses those working for greater transparency, and provides political leverage for those clamping down.
I find it difficult to say that the world has really benefitted at all from all these hacking cases. If Anonymous, Lulsec, Wikileaks et al had really wanted to affect positive changes, instead of score infamy points, there are very difficult ways they could have gone about things.
Maybe we can get the Chinese to put this thing up? We can probably sell what's been done so far to them to take over. Be less wasteful than tossing it to the scrap pile.
I think, and my thoughts cross the barrier into the synapses of the machine - just as the good doctor intended. But what I cannot shake, and what hints at things to come, is that thoughts cross back. In my dreams the sensibility of the machine invades the periphery of my consciousness. Dark. Rigid. Cold. Alien. Evolution is at work here, but just what is evolving remains to be seen.
Things like that are damaging and bad, and are generally fought against (to varying degrees of success) by various central authorities. The thing with bitcoins is that behaviour like that is accepted and normal and in fact regarded as the whole point of the system.
Wrong. At the end of the day, there's a cashflow. Some people make a profit, and because there is no room within the system for actual value to be created, this means that for every person that profits from mining bitcoins, there must necessarily be people that lose money to fund them. This is actually independent of the inefficiencies in the system like wasted electricity.
Personally, I detest this idea. Tablets are good for some things, sure, but you can't beat the leaf-ability and easy replaceability of books. My experiences with ebooks for academic work have really not worked out well.
So I guess when you play Starcraft, you always research the high level anti-air tech, because who knows, the other side might build air units eventually, even though all your scouts are showing that they are sending hordes of zerglings your way?
There is absolutely no advantage in being first to whatever technology, if that technology isn't being used. The faster the US Navy develops this technology, the longer the time any future enemy will have to develop countermeasures to it, the cheaper it is for them to copy it, and the costlier it's going to be maintaining this capability over the decades and decades it will be entirely useless. Given that history suggests that technologies can be developed pretty quickly in time of military need, keeping superiority in certain set fields and hoping that foes blunder into your entirely obvious traps is a fool's game.
History is full of examples of nations pioneering certain military technology in peacetime, only to see it used against them with much greater effectiveness when the war eventually comes. (Aircraft carriers is the prime example) Unless there's gonna be a war tomorrow, maintaining technological parity, instead of superiority, is the smart choice.
What if the other side uses a mix of two types of retroreflectors? Then this laser will be frying itself half the time, which is pretty good because retroreflectors are a crapload less expensive than this laser.
You don't need to fight them until the end of time. Just up to the inevitable obsolescence of this tech, or the appearance of countermeasures is enough.
Thinking about this... Aren't there inherent disadvantages to laser tech? However advanced your weapon, you will never be able to fire over the horizon, and though you can detonate explosive shells, a hot piece of metal heading your way is going to do just as much damage as a cold one. Also, does the navy have any defences planned against torpedos?
The google-facebook-twitter etc defense was always that they are not responsible, because they are unaware and impossible to be aware of everything going on via the service. If however they become aware of something, they are obligated by law to do what they can to stop it immediately. Also, in this specific case, twitter isn't liable, because publicising LulzSec via a twitter account isn't itself an offence, or at least a serious one, and closing their twitter account is unlikely to hinder LulzSec.
Slashdot Mirror
I've patented this sort of joke. You all owe me a laugh.
Well, there's a lot of Chinese computers infected with spyware, etc, and general status of cybersecurity is very poor - just look at the numbers using IE6. Even using high end estimates, we're looking at 1 'internet policeman' per 10,000 Chinese users. Despite the fame of the great firewall system, it's mostly run on automatic - it would be implausible for the Chinese to monitor and log and datamine individual activity. Proportionately to internet user population, the NSA alone employ a much larger number of employees than the Chinese do, and have greater experience and sophistication with surveillance. No one assumes the US sanctions every attack.
Man, the Time to Racism on these China related articles...
Enh. Many regions have relaxed the law to two children per couple, and the official penalty for violating the law is a fine and withdrawal of state support for education and medical care. Forced abortions are against the law in China, though it sometimes still goes on in the more rural parts.
What if exactly one of those dozens of explosive bolts fails to fire or fires early?
Captain America would like a word with you. http://workbench.cadenhead.org/media/cap-hates-america-2.gif
You give Capt too little credit. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8ie37mgxIXA/Rpl-NEt55xI/AAAAAAAABSU/nuH5Wl-eipc/s1600/CAP%2B1.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8ie37mgxIXA/Rpl950t55wI/AAAAAAAABSM/7ccclHp_9tA/s1600-h/CAP+2.jpg
Well, we went through multiple failures before and after Apollo 11...
Firstly, for the users, it creates more burdensome security procedures that are often senseless and wasteful. For criminals, it provides inspiration and encouragement, as well as availability of resources when attempts to close security holes are inconsistently applied. For future whistleblowers, it shuts down avenues for them to smuggle out future information that might be more important and more specific than the 'oh here's a huge bunch of documents dumps'. And for politicians, it embarrasses those working for greater transparency, and provides political leverage for those clamping down.
I find it difficult to say that the world has really benefitted at all from all these hacking cases. If Anonymous, Lulsec, Wikileaks et al had really wanted to affect positive changes, instead of score infamy points, there are very difficult ways they could have gone about things.
So, uh, murder is okay now because the US government exists?
Terrible racist ones? Sure.
Maybe we can get the Chinese to put this thing up? We can probably sell what's been done so far to them to take over. Be less wasteful than tossing it to the scrap pile.
Yes, futures have legitimate uses. But speculation in futures do have well documented distorting effects on those markets.
I think, and my thoughts cross the barrier into the synapses of the machine - just as the good doctor intended. But what I cannot shake, and what hints at things to come, is that thoughts cross back. In my dreams the sensibility of the machine invades the periphery of my consciousness. Dark. Rigid. Cold. Alien. Evolution is at work here, but just what is evolving remains to be seen.
Things like that are damaging and bad, and are generally fought against (to varying degrees of success) by various central authorities. The thing with bitcoins is that behaviour like that is accepted and normal and in fact regarded as the whole point of the system.
Wrong. At the end of the day, there's a cashflow. Some people make a profit, and because there is no room within the system for actual value to be created, this means that for every person that profits from mining bitcoins, there must necessarily be people that lose money to fund them. This is actually independent of the inefficiencies in the system like wasted electricity.
It's okay, the US is clearly going for the cultura... oh. The diploma... oh. Maybe the military victory, then?
Personally, I detest this idea. Tablets are good for some things, sure, but you can't beat the leaf-ability and easy replaceability of books. My experiences with ebooks for academic work have really not worked out well.
There is absolutely no advantage in being first to whatever technology, if that technology isn't being used. The faster the US Navy develops this technology, the longer the time any future enemy will have to develop countermeasures to it, the cheaper it is for them to copy it, and the costlier it's going to be maintaining this capability over the decades and decades it will be entirely useless. Given that history suggests that technologies can be developed pretty quickly in time of military need, keeping superiority in certain set fields and hoping that foes blunder into your entirely obvious traps is a fool's game.
History is full of examples of nations pioneering certain military technology in peacetime, only to see it used against them with much greater effectiveness when the war eventually comes. (Aircraft carriers is the prime example) Unless there's gonna be a war tomorrow, maintaining technological parity, instead of superiority, is the smart choice.
What if the other side uses a mix of two types of retroreflectors? Then this laser will be frying itself half the time, which is pretty good because retroreflectors are a crapload less expensive than this laser.
You don't need to fight them until the end of time. Just up to the inevitable obsolescence of this tech, or the appearance of countermeasures is enough.
Good. Cool tech, but waste of money anyway.
Thinking about this... Aren't there inherent disadvantages to laser tech? However advanced your weapon, you will never be able to fire over the horizon, and though you can detonate explosive shells, a hot piece of metal heading your way is going to do just as much damage as a cold one. Also, does the navy have any defences planned against torpedos?
The google-facebook-twitter etc defense was always that they are not responsible, because they are unaware and impossible to be aware of everything going on via the service. If however they become aware of something, they are obligated by law to do what they can to stop it immediately. Also, in this specific case, twitter isn't liable, because publicising LulzSec via a twitter account isn't itself an offence, or at least a serious one, and closing their twitter account is unlikely to hinder LulzSec.
No, it's because the US is a democracy, and many Americans are fucking stupid.