Let's see. Everyone is run through those "programs", and only some come out as high achievers and well-paid professionals. If the program were the cause, then everyone would come out the same. Maybe there is something to the concept that some people are different than others and they can excel because of who they are and not the socialist programs they were subjected to?
SERIOUSLY? Even within my small home town of 10,000, the quality of public school that you went to was pretty directly related to how wealthy your parents were. The school that all the doctors' and lawyers' kids went to? Renovated every 10 years, 20 or less kids per class, teachers' aides in every room, a number of gifted programs, and a lab full of modern PCs, along with PCs in every room, laptop carts, smart white boards, etc. But if you lived in one of the apartment complexes behind the mall you were going to the school where the bricks were falling off and the classes were packed and with few additional programs and your tech classes were taught on shared Apple IIes. In the same school district in the same town.
By highschool all of those schools filtered together...and you know what? I went to the elementary school with all the rich kids, and in highschool guess who I saw in all my AP classes, all my advanced math and science and such? The vast majority were the same kids I'd gone to elementary with -- even though there were six elementary schools in the district.
The problem isn't that these "socialist" programs don't work. The problem is that they aren't actually socialist.
Just having a scientific leadership is enough to lift the group as a whole above average. Ayn Rand readers giving marching orders to truck drivers. Sounds about right.
Exactly. The Tea Party is full of well-financed astroturf organizations fooling the less informed into supporting the best interests of their billionaire backers. No shit quite a few of them are very well educated -- you think Koch's kids (do they have kids?) would be high school dropouts?
I suspect the results may depend heavily on where you find the respondents. Run the survey in a wealthier area and you'll get Tea Party backers, who will of course be quite well educated. Run it in a poorer area and you'll get Tea Party followers, who probably aren't.
Well, there's really two different Tea Party movements.
One is your typical American-style libertarians -- essentially anarcho-capitalists, or at least somewhere in that corner.
But one of their key issues is slashing taxes. And wealthy people and corporations love that, so they pump a ton of money into "tea party" astroturf groups (like the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity) that use fear and hatred to boost membership. Which is the side of the group that hits the media hard of course, because that's where all the money is.
I haven't used Freenet in several years (since the 0.5/0.7 split) but I was pretty heavily involved back then...and I keep checking out 0.7 occasionally so I do have *some* idea of the changes.
The problem isn't so much responsiveness...it's that there is *no such thing as a server*. There's no dynamic content. You upload a file and it gets shredded and distributed among a few dozen/hundred peers and there's no way to reach the original publisher. You could set up a spider that would publish a listing of torrent links, once per day or something (that's how index sites were done back then -- no way to do a search engine) but everyone would need to download the entire list and then perform searches locally. No clue how large TPB's database is, but I bet it's large enough to make this pretty difficult. Maybe publish the list and then a digest of changes every day but you still gotta publish the full list periodically for newcomers and it could take a couple days between downloading the search tool and being able to use it. And most torrent users won't see the benefits because TPB is working perfectly well for them, so you won't get significant adoption which will make it perform even worse.
No seriously, that's not rhetorical. I forget what all it does and I can't check because the site is blocked from work...so I dunno if it would work against iMessage or not...
"Also batteries can be dangerous as they contain a LOT of energy. " true, but it isn't chemical energy, so no fires.
The Tesla uses chemical batteries. These are not chemical batteries.
4) see 3)
Again, this is a *completely* different technology than what is used in the Tesla. That's like saying a hand crank flashlight is going to spontaneously combust just because some laptop batteries do.
Need a screenshot stored fast? Print Screen, Windows Key, "p a i n t", enter, CTRL V, CTRL S, done. All without ever touching the mouse.
And on Windows XP you can do Print Screen, WIN, R, mspaint, enter, ctrl v, ctrl s.
Is pressing 'R' really so difficult that not having to do so is worth trumpeting as a fantastic new feature of Windows 8? Heck, you could even press WIN+R in the same step if you like...
Nobody *loves* the start menu...the problem is that they replaced it with something *worse*.
KDE has a "start menu" that works fantastically. OpenBox perhaps even better.
I don't want to create my own folders -- I want a launcher smart enough to figure them out for me. I would rather have one line of text saying what the program is than some giant Duplo block with a vague icon. And I want to be able to see more than a half dozen or so programs at one time. Christ, Windows 8 looks like it was designed for a preschool.
"Just click on the happy pastel pictures..." "'e' is for Enternet!"
Not that I don't believe you, but I have yet to find someone who likes Linux "better" that isn't a hardcore nerd/geek person who actually knows what parts are in their PC.
My mother (who has trouble connecting her iPad to a wifi network without my help) was using Linux for several years on a netbook and she loved it. Granted, I had to set up Thunderbird and such for her -- but I had to do the exact same thing on both her PC and her iPad, so there's no real difference there.
Actually I know quite a few people who were running Linux netbooks during that whole craze, many of whom *were not aware it wasn't Windows*.
Compatibility with Office would only be a valid argument if various versions of MS Office were compatible within themselves...
Back when I was in college I found that the Office docs the administration sent out would rarely open properly if I tried to view them in the labs on the default of Office (yes, even in Penn State University, where most systems should have been nearly identical) -- but when I tried on Libre Office they always worked fine, and I never had a complaint with forms I emailed back from LO. Also never had a single issue with Powerpoint presentations that I was making at least once a week from LO on Linux and then running in Powerpoint on Windows.
Christ, to this day I still frequently see email at work along the lines of "please send this in.xls, I cannot open.xlsx"...Thankfully for all involved it seems that PDFs are increasingly becoming the preferred format for any type of text at least rather than.doc(x/m/b)
Any customer who stops doing business with someone because their emailed files aren't pixel-perfect is going to pretty swiftly remove themselves from the marketplace...which is why we need to be pushing LO, because that's not how it should be, and maybe switching to more open software and formats will let us finally be able to exchange freakin' *text documents* with some degree of confidence....
There are certain interests that every corporation shares. Like keeping corporate taxes low; protecting the wealthy owners; etc. So to balance that you need a large number of corporate-free sources. Not just non-profits, as you can get $5m/yr from Monsanto and still be non-profit. So you need either government funded or crowdsouced (and good luck doing that for a large org).
Government sources, by comparison, rarely focus on supporting the concept of government as a whole. For example, the US and Russia use many similar violent tactics to suppress protests. But their state news agencies don't try to downplay it because both are doing it -- when it happens in the US, Russia's state-sponsored news makes a scandal of it to embarrass the US. When it happens in Russia, the US's news makes a scandal of it.
So, if you combine two state-sponsored sources from competing governments, you can end up with a reasonable unbiased result. But you could combine a hundred corporate sources and the result would still lean to the right at least on economic issues.
Web 2.0 is no worse than web 1.0. It's as crappy or as worthwhile as you make it. Do you really think the average Geocities site was any better than the average Facebook feed?
Latest posts on my Facebook feed: "Florida man sets self on fire while setting up burning cross display" "NSA Director admits he lied about phone surveillance" "Rooftop Revolutionaries Fighting the Escapism Generation" A picture of my friend's dog A petition asking Obama to pardon Manning "US Eases Regulations on Exporting Weapons" A link to the Mythbusters Instagram
Also worth noting, I think, that only one of those news articles I received because I follow the network that published it. The rest were shared by friends, because most of my Facebook friends actually give a damn.
Perhaps the problems you ascribe to Facebook are in fact problems of who you choose to associate with...;)
BBC, RT, NPR, and AJE. Major networks of competing governments (Well, AJE isn't government, but still ideologically competitive). RT for example is funded by the Russian government. And the Russian government frequently wants to make the American government look bad, so they'll report the scandals that our media won't touch.
Of course you need to remember their angle too. NPR and sometimes the BBC will downplay any US scandal while RT and possibly AJE will jump to exaggerate it. Pick some sane middle ground between a couple of those and you should be pretty good.
You'll never find an unbiased news source; but you can easily synthesize something close from a few with competing interests.
The problem is that the HDD is designed, given the head, recording signal, and surface material, to only support the original capacity under the signal theory that covers the current method of recording. It does NOT matter that in theory, the disk material MAY be able to save far more data with a different head, and signal method. Only the current method matters.
Then you don't understand what people are saying when they say deleted and overwritten data can be recovered. The ENTIRE POINT is that you are NOT using the same head. You use an electron microscope. A hard drive read head's resolution is hundreds of nanometers. A electron microscope's resolution is a few picometers. Even if the tolerances on those hard drives are only 1%, you'd expect to be able to recover some data with an electron microscope. Older hard drives would be easier as they have lower resolution read/write heads; newer ones would be harder.
Now, whether or not anyone would ever use that, and could get sufficient data to reproduce files at will is another matter -- they almost certainly could not. But the fundamental concept is not only possible; it's frankly rather obvious.
The point he was making was to analyze the Truecrypt program binary, not the encrypted file it creates. Which would probably be more difficult than it sounds...disassembler output is pretty crappy to read, though you should be able to compare it to the published source (since that apparently may differ from the binary) without *too* much trouble to find the differences.
Well sure there's plenty of middle ground between the two. All of which are worse security policy, from the end-user's perspective, than just keeping the keys with the user. How do I know the keys are with three separate people? How do I know Frank didn't email his key unsecured to John that one time they got a request while he was on vacation? How do I know there isn't a building security camera pointing at the keyboard as they type the passwords in so the entire security staff now has all three components? How do I know someone hasn't bribed all three people? How do I know they won't be tricked by a social engineering trick masquerading as a government request?
As long as the crypto is done on their end, their internal policies don't matter because I still have to blindly trust that they're actually doing what they say they're doing. The only way *I* can have any certainty that it's at all secure is if I can verify that the information is encrypted with keys that I alone control before it leaves my machine.
Yes, and if they need the data from someone's email, they can order that person to turn it over.
This is not about the court being able to order people to turn over data; it's about the court being about to order companies to produce crappy locks. It's not an order that we all leave our doors unlocked so police can have access -- it's an order that no company can produce doors that lock in the first place, so that the police can walk right into your home whenever they want without a warrant.
And before you say that they did have a warrant in this case -- they had a warrant for one account, and they were trying to use that to force Lavabit to provide access to ALL accounts. It's like if they have a warrant to search John Smith's apartment downstairs, so they contact your landlord and demand that they take all property from every apartment in the complex and hand it all over so they don't have to worry about which unit Mr. Smith actually lives in.
Yes, infer it, that's exactly what I'm saying. The question we should be asking is not 'is this prohibited?', but 'which authorized role is this fulfilling?'.
The likely candidate is of course the clauses authorizing the military and such. But those are defense from *external* threats. Domestic law enforcement is supposed to be up to the states. So how did dragnet domestic surveillance get in there?
If that person is to be employed in a task which is enumerated, then can be hired. If not, they can't (and the guy trying to hire them is probably illegal too). It's not that difficult of a concept.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see. Everyone is run through those "programs", and only some come out as high achievers and well-paid professionals. If the program were the cause, then everyone would come out the same. Maybe there is something to the concept that some people are different than others and they can excel because of who they are and not the socialist programs they were subjected to?
SERIOUSLY? Even within my small home town of 10,000, the quality of public school that you went to was pretty directly related to how wealthy your parents were. The school that all the doctors' and lawyers' kids went to? Renovated every 10 years, 20 or less kids per class, teachers' aides in every room, a number of gifted programs, and a lab full of modern PCs, along with PCs in every room, laptop carts, smart white boards, etc. But if you lived in one of the apartment complexes behind the mall you were going to the school where the bricks were falling off and the classes were packed and with few additional programs and your tech classes were taught on shared Apple IIes. In the same school district in the same town.
By highschool all of those schools filtered together...and you know what? I went to the elementary school with all the rich kids, and in highschool guess who I saw in all my AP classes, all my advanced math and science and such? The vast majority were the same kids I'd gone to elementary with -- even though there were six elementary schools in the district.
The problem isn't that these "socialist" programs don't work. The problem is that they aren't actually socialist.
Just having a scientific leadership is enough to lift the group as a whole above average. Ayn Rand readers giving marching orders to truck drivers. Sounds about right.
Exactly. The Tea Party is full of well-financed astroturf organizations fooling the less informed into supporting the best interests of their billionaire backers. No shit quite a few of them are very well educated -- you think Koch's kids (do they have kids?) would be high school dropouts?
I suspect the results may depend heavily on where you find the respondents. Run the survey in a wealthier area and you'll get Tea Party backers, who will of course be quite well educated. Run it in a poorer area and you'll get Tea Party followers, who probably aren't.
Well, there's really two different Tea Party movements.
One is your typical American-style libertarians -- essentially anarcho-capitalists, or at least somewhere in that corner.
But one of their key issues is slashing taxes. And wealthy people and corporations love that, so they pump a ton of money into "tea party" astroturf groups (like the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity) that use fear and hatred to boost membership. Which is the side of the group that hits the media hard of course, because that's where all the money is.
I haven't used Freenet in several years (since the 0.5/0.7 split) but I was pretty heavily involved back then...and I keep checking out 0.7 occasionally so I do have *some* idea of the changes.
The problem isn't so much responsiveness...it's that there is *no such thing as a server*. There's no dynamic content. You upload a file and it gets shredded and distributed among a few dozen/hundred peers and there's no way to reach the original publisher. You could set up a spider that would publish a listing of torrent links, once per day or something (that's how index sites were done back then -- no way to do a search engine) but everyone would need to download the entire list and then perform searches locally. No clue how large TPB's database is, but I bet it's large enough to make this pretty difficult. Maybe publish the list and then a digest of changes every day but you still gotta publish the full list periodically for newcomers and it could take a couple days between downloading the search tool and being able to use it. And most torrent users won't see the benefits because TPB is working perfectly well for them, so you won't get significant adoption which will make it perform even worse.
sslstrip perhaps?
No seriously, that's not rhetorical. I forget what all it does and I can't check because the site is blocked from work...so I dunno if it would work against iMessage or not...
Not the OP, but...
1) your sig isn't even visible in your post.
And the fact that you've chosen to hide it is his fault because...? Anyway it's just a link to Dunning-Kruger Effect on Wikipedia.
2) It doesnt matter what you can make of it, if the weight is higher than it was, the handling WILL be affetcted.
These panels weigh *less* than existing panels. RTFA
3) see http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/10/07/tesla-ceo-says-fire-caused-by-impaled-battery/
Let me first quote the point you're replying to:
"Also batteries can be dangerous as they contain a LOT of energy. "
true, but it isn't chemical energy, so no fires.
The Tesla uses chemical batteries. These are not chemical batteries.
4) see 3)
Again, this is a *completely* different technology than what is used in the Tesla. That's like saying a hand crank flashlight is going to spontaneously combust just because some laptop batteries do.
Need a screenshot stored fast? Print Screen, Windows Key, "p a i n t", enter, CTRL V, CTRL S, done. All without ever touching the mouse.
And on Windows XP you can do Print Screen, WIN, R, mspaint, enter, ctrl v, ctrl s.
Is pressing 'R' really so difficult that not having to do so is worth trumpeting as a fantastic new feature of Windows 8? Heck, you could even press WIN+R in the same step if you like...
Nobody *loves* the start menu...the problem is that they replaced it with something *worse*.
KDE has a "start menu" that works fantastically. OpenBox perhaps even better.
I don't want to create my own folders -- I want a launcher smart enough to figure them out for me. I would rather have one line of text saying what the program is than some giant Duplo block with a vague icon. And I want to be able to see more than a half dozen or so programs at one time. Christ, Windows 8 looks like it was designed for a preschool.
"Just click on the happy pastel pictures..."
"'e' is for Enternet!"
Not that I don't believe you, but I have yet to find someone who likes Linux "better" that isn't a hardcore nerd/geek person who actually knows what parts are in their PC.
My mother (who has trouble connecting her iPad to a wifi network without my help) was using Linux for several years on a netbook and she loved it. Granted, I had to set up Thunderbird and such for her -- but I had to do the exact same thing on both her PC and her iPad, so there's no real difference there.
Actually I know quite a few people who were running Linux netbooks during that whole craze, many of whom *were not aware it wasn't Windows*.
Compatibility with Office would only be a valid argument if various versions of MS Office were compatible within themselves...
Back when I was in college I found that the Office docs the administration sent out would rarely open properly if I tried to view them in the labs on the default of Office (yes, even in Penn State University, where most systems should have been nearly identical) -- but when I tried on Libre Office they always worked fine, and I never had a complaint with forms I emailed back from LO. Also never had a single issue with Powerpoint presentations that I was making at least once a week from LO on Linux and then running in Powerpoint on Windows.
Christ, to this day I still frequently see email at work along the lines of "please send this in .xls, I cannot open .xlsx"...Thankfully for all involved it seems that PDFs are increasingly becoming the preferred format for any type of text at least rather than .doc(x/m/b)
Any customer who stops doing business with someone because their emailed files aren't pixel-perfect is going to pretty swiftly remove themselves from the marketplace...which is why we need to be pushing LO, because that's not how it should be, and maybe switching to more open software and formats will let us finally be able to exchange freakin' *text documents* with some degree of confidence....
Anywhere. Every retailer I could think of to check was still offering Windows 7. Most OEMs still offer it pre-installed too. Nobody wants Windows 8.
Oh god I remember Print Master. I'm pretty sure I've gotten it to run quite well in Wine though...
Government sucks, but it's better than corporate.
There are certain interests that every corporation shares. Like keeping corporate taxes low; protecting the wealthy owners; etc. So to balance that you need a large number of corporate-free sources. Not just non-profits, as you can get $5m/yr from Monsanto and still be non-profit. So you need either government funded or crowdsouced (and good luck doing that for a large org).
Government sources, by comparison, rarely focus on supporting the concept of government as a whole. For example, the US and Russia use many similar violent tactics to suppress protests. But their state news agencies don't try to downplay it because both are doing it -- when it happens in the US, Russia's state-sponsored news makes a scandal of it to embarrass the US. When it happens in Russia, the US's news makes a scandal of it.
So, if you combine two state-sponsored sources from competing governments, you can end up with a reasonable unbiased result. But you could combine a hundred corporate sources and the result would still lean to the right at least on economic issues.
Web 2.0 is no worse than web 1.0. It's as crappy or as worthwhile as you make it. Do you really think the average Geocities site was any better than the average Facebook feed?
Latest posts on my Facebook feed:
"Florida man sets self on fire while setting up burning cross display"
"NSA Director admits he lied about phone surveillance"
"Rooftop Revolutionaries Fighting the Escapism Generation"
A picture of my friend's dog
A petition asking Obama to pardon Manning
"US Eases Regulations on Exporting Weapons"
A link to the Mythbusters Instagram
Also worth noting, I think, that only one of those news articles I received because I follow the network that published it. The rest were shared by friends, because most of my Facebook friends actually give a damn.
Perhaps the problems you ascribe to Facebook are in fact problems of who you choose to associate with... ;)
BBC, RT, NPR, and AJE. Major networks of competing governments (Well, AJE isn't government, but still ideologically competitive). RT for example is funded by the Russian government. And the Russian government frequently wants to make the American government look bad, so they'll report the scandals that our media won't touch.
Of course you need to remember their angle too. NPR and sometimes the BBC will downplay any US scandal while RT and possibly AJE will jump to exaggerate it. Pick some sane middle ground between a couple of those and you should be pretty good.
You'll never find an unbiased news source; but you can easily synthesize something close from a few with competing interests.
Probably a 'wooosh' on my part, but just in case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker
...so you don't just wanna nuke 'em, you wanna nuke 'em from orbit.
The problem is that the HDD is designed, given the head, recording signal, and surface material, to only support the original capacity under the signal theory that covers the current method of recording. It does NOT matter that in theory, the disk material MAY be able to save far more data with a different head, and signal method. Only the current method matters.
Then you don't understand what people are saying when they say deleted and overwritten data can be recovered. The ENTIRE POINT is that you are NOT using the same head. You use an electron microscope. A hard drive read head's resolution is hundreds of nanometers. A electron microscope's resolution is a few picometers. Even if the tolerances on those hard drives are only 1%, you'd expect to be able to recover some data with an electron microscope. Older hard drives would be easier as they have lower resolution read/write heads; newer ones would be harder.
Now, whether or not anyone would ever use that, and could get sufficient data to reproduce files at will is another matter -- they almost certainly could not. But the fundamental concept is not only possible; it's frankly rather obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Disassembler
The point he was making was to analyze the Truecrypt program binary, not the encrypted file it creates. Which would probably be more difficult than it sounds...disassembler output is pretty crappy to read, though you should be able to compare it to the published source (since that apparently may differ from the binary) without *too* much trouble to find the differences.
Well sure there's plenty of middle ground between the two. All of which are worse security policy, from the end-user's perspective, than just keeping the keys with the user. How do I know the keys are with three separate people? How do I know Frank didn't email his key unsecured to John that one time they got a request while he was on vacation? How do I know there isn't a building security camera pointing at the keyboard as they type the passwords in so the entire security staff now has all three components? How do I know someone hasn't bribed all three people? How do I know they won't be tricked by a social engineering trick masquerading as a government request?
As long as the crypto is done on their end, their internal policies don't matter because I still have to blindly trust that they're actually doing what they say they're doing. The only way *I* can have any certainty that it's at all secure is if I can verify that the information is encrypted with keys that I alone control before it leaves my machine.
Yes, and if they need the data from someone's email, they can order that person to turn it over.
This is not about the court being able to order people to turn over data; it's about the court being about to order companies to produce crappy locks. It's not an order that we all leave our doors unlocked so police can have access -- it's an order that no company can produce doors that lock in the first place, so that the police can walk right into your home whenever they want without a warrant.
And before you say that they did have a warrant in this case -- they had a warrant for one account, and they were trying to use that to force Lavabit to provide access to ALL accounts. It's like if they have a warrant to search John Smith's apartment downstairs, so they contact your landlord and demand that they take all property from every apartment in the complex and hand it all over so they don't have to worry about which unit Mr. Smith actually lives in.
Our entire system is designed to allow the guilty to go free to protect the innocent. THAT'S not a bug, it's a feature.
"Better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be punished unjustly" or however that quote goes...
Yeah, like how they were held accountable for these takedowns which were done *in violation of US law, by the US government*? Oh, right, they weren't.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/00082213144/homeland-security-wont-even-admit-whether-not-it-seized-mooocom-taking-down-84000-innocent-sites.shtml
Yes, infer it, that's exactly what I'm saying. The question we should be asking is not 'is this prohibited?', but 'which authorized role is this fulfilling?'.
The likely candidate is of course the clauses authorizing the military and such. But those are defense from *external* threats. Domestic law enforcement is supposed to be up to the states. So how did dragnet domestic surveillance get in there?
If that person is to be employed in a task which is enumerated, then can be hired. If not, they can't (and the guy trying to hire them is probably illegal too). It's not that difficult of a concept.