When the other alternative is far worse, then that is what you do. Seriously. You cannot "fight" terrorism by throwing more violence at them. That has been amply demonstrated. That way you just make them stronger.
Sane test design takes this into account. Insane test design (as in Chernobyl) expects everything to go according to plan and does not look as the risks of running the test in the first place.
Obviously you are unable to abstract. The question here was about realistic assumptions on the limits of a given technology _and_ what happens if these assumptions are wrong. You do not test an assumption about a nuclear power plant in a way that has it blowing up if you are wrong. You do not test an assumption about the speed a train can safely go in a way that has the train derail if you are wrong.
But "A literal mind is a stupid mind", so I do not expect you to be able to even understand what I am saying.
Or rather: Is giving terrorists that just attacked you a lot of attention and a lot of threats and generally telling them that they had great success a good idea or not?
No. This was a track-test. No passengers aboard. Not a worthwhile target, just incompetent engineers. And, ironically, attacking a train track is far more difficult than the amateur-level attacks in Paris. The problem is just that a city like Paris cannot be defended against attacks by a very small group, even if that small group is terminally incompetent. Pointing a gun at people and shooting is easy and doing in in several places is so too.
The other, far more serious problem, is that those in power are incompetent at handling the situation. The only way to decrease terrorism is to give them minimal attention, thus denying them what they crave. Instead they get bombastic media attention and a lot of security theater like the "closing" of borders, increased "security" measures and generally telling them that they did well and everybody is impressed by them (in a negative way, but still). As there is no possible way to defend a city like Paris, that is about th worst and least sophisticated reaction possible.
Right on the mark. The first thing is that such attacks _cannot_ be prevented. No, really not. You can only do a lot of damage trying to, like creating a police state or worse. The US has demonstrated how to be utterly stupid that way since 9/11. The second thing is that such attacks rarely ever happen and, compared to other causes, are not a relevant risk of death or injury, because almost all people that con do this (and those are very, very many, just think what a competent chemical engineer or physicists could do..) do not care to do them.
The smart way to react is to clean up and then return to business as usual. The utterly stupid way is to promise to "fight back", to increase "security measures" and generally give the terrorists a lot of kudos for a successful attack. This just makes sure they can congratulate themselves and that they can stay funded and motivated to continue. After all, terrorists are in it for the attention. The more you give to them, the worse.
And, of course, all the budding fascists in politics and in the "security" bureaucracy jump right on this, do their best to assist the terrorists by creating even more fear and then try to reduce the individual freedoms they so hate (sharing that with the terrorists). It will be no different this time.
For example, in WoW, there have been guilds that only take older players and players with acceptable names for ages. While there are nice teenagers that can fit in well with a guild or group, unfortunately many do not.
The problem is that this completely invalidates the concept of "checks and balances". Law enforcement must never have unchecked powers, because that is the only way to avoid a police state.
In fact, they do now have and use some unchecked powers. The only way to fix this would be to dismantle these organizations, put everybody that lied under oat, ordered others to do so or participated in circumventing constitutional provisions in jail and re-build from scratch. That is obviously not going to happen, hence the police state is already partially there and will be fully established in the next few years. After that, the path inevitably leads to full fascism.
The fundamental mistake the FBI and others are making is that they think being able to identify and prosecute every crime is good. It is not. Crime needs to be limited to some acceptable level in order for society to function, but trying to eliminate it mostly or completely creates so much extreme evil that it must never be attempted. By the same measure, nothing must be made criminal, except things that really, really matter and where criminalizing them actually helps. The US legal system is going into the opposite direction and has done so for some time.
Simple: They do not care about children at all, and if they would do something effective about child abuse, their nice justification for establishing a fascist regime would go away.
There is also the problem that anybody still operating in the UK after this passes has to be regarded as not trustworthy and selling compromised products. Specifically for Apple, that could be a killer.
Ultimately, that is the only option. Conversely, any product that is still available in the UK after this law passes has to be regarded as compromised.
A "chef" is somebody that can modify existing dishes and can create new ones. A cook is somebody that can just follow instructions. And a robotic cook will do so badly, because ingredient characteristics change and a human can adjust for that.
The point here is that AMD has 8 full CPU state sets and hence task switching up to 8 execution threads costs nothing. But my guess is this level of understanding is way, way beyond the typical Intel fanboi.
Slashdot Mirror
And will usually fail.
Bullshit. There have been enough Christian psychos in history and even atheist ones. The problem is not the religion. The problem is the psychos.
Indeed. And you should ridicule them at every possible opportunity as _stupid_ criminals. Because they typically are.
When the other alternative is far worse, then that is what you do. Seriously. You cannot "fight" terrorism by throwing more violence at them. That has been amply demonstrated. That way you just make them stronger.
Sane test design takes this into account. Insane test design (as in Chernobyl) expects everything to go according to plan and does not look as the risks of running the test in the first place.
Obviously you are unable to abstract. The question here was about realistic assumptions on the limits of a given technology _and_ what happens if these assumptions are wrong. You do not test an assumption about a nuclear power plant in a way that has it blowing up if you are wrong. You do not test an assumption about the speed a train can safely go in a way that has the train derail if you are wrong.
But "A literal mind is a stupid mind", so I do not expect you to be able to even understand what I am saying.
Or rather: Is giving terrorists that just attacked you a lot of attention and a lot of threats and generally telling them that they had great success a good idea or not?
No. This was a track-test. No passengers aboard. Not a worthwhile target, just incompetent engineers. And, ironically, attacking a train track is far more difficult than the amateur-level attacks in Paris. The problem is just that a city like Paris cannot be defended against attacks by a very small group, even if that small group is terminally incompetent. Pointing a gun at people and shooting is easy and doing in in several places is so too.
The other, far more serious problem, is that those in power are incompetent at handling the situation. The only way to decrease terrorism is to give them minimal attention, thus denying them what they crave. Instead they get bombastic media attention and a lot of security theater like the "closing" of borders, increased "security" measures and generally telling them that they did well and everybody is impressed by them (in a negative way, but still). As there is no possible way to defend a city like Paris, that is about th worst and least sophisticated reaction possible.
Right on the mark. The first thing is that such attacks _cannot_ be prevented. No, really not. You can only do a lot of damage trying to, like creating a police state or worse. The US has demonstrated how to be utterly stupid that way since 9/11. The second thing is that such attacks rarely ever happen and, compared to other causes, are not a relevant risk of death or injury, because almost all people that con do this (and those are very, very many, just think what a competent chemical engineer or physicists could do..) do not care to do them.
The smart way to react is to clean up and then return to business as usual. The utterly stupid way is to promise to "fight back", to increase "security measures" and generally give the terrorists a lot of kudos for a successful attack. This just makes sure they can congratulate themselves and that they can stay funded and motivated to continue. After all, terrorists are in it for the attention. The more you give to them, the worse.
And, of course, all the budding fascists in politics and in the "security" bureaucracy jump right on this, do their best to assist the terrorists by creating even more fear and then try to reduce the individual freedoms they so hate (sharing that with the terrorists). It will be no different this time.
You are utterly stupid. Or a terrorist yourself for trying to create even more fear.
This was a non-opened track under test. No terrorists attacks that as there is nothing to gain.
Well, they got a clear test result. And in addition, they found out that their test protocols are fundamentally broken.
I.e. stupid "engineers" not really understanding the technology they are using.
In this case: "Can it go even faster?" Result: No, it cannot.
In Chernobyl: "Can it cool itself?" Result: No, it cannot.
For example, in WoW, there have been guilds that only take older players and players with acceptable names for ages. While there are nice teenagers that can fit in well with a guild or group, unfortunately many do not.
Seriously, this is at least 10 years too late.
The problem is that this completely invalidates the concept of "checks and balances". Law enforcement must never have unchecked powers, because that is the only way to avoid a police state.
In fact, they do now have and use some unchecked powers. The only way to fix this would be to dismantle these organizations, put everybody that lied under oat, ordered others to do so or participated in circumventing constitutional provisions in jail and re-build from scratch. That is obviously not going to happen, hence the police state is already partially there and will be fully established in the next few years. After that, the path inevitably leads to full fascism.
The fundamental mistake the FBI and others are making is that they think being able to identify and prosecute every crime is good. It is not. Crime needs to be limited to some acceptable level in order for society to function, but trying to eliminate it mostly or completely creates so much extreme evil that it must never be attempted. By the same measure, nothing must be made criminal, except things that really, really matter and where criminalizing them actually helps. The US legal system is going into the opposite direction and has done so for some time.
Simple: They do not care about children at all, and if they would do something effective about child abuse, their nice justification for establishing a fascist regime would go away.
That would bring some companies to a grinding halt....
Simple: You point out the obvious backdoors, and the UK is asking their friends in the US to drone-murder you, because you are clearly a terrorist.
There is also the problem that anybody still operating in the UK after this passes has to be regarded as not trustworthy and selling compromised products. Specifically for Apple, that could be a killer.
Ultimately, that is the only option. Conversely, any product that is still available in the UK after this law passes has to be regarded as compromised.
If the cannot get mobile phones, network equipment, computer OSes, etc., they may notice how utterly stupid they have become. Then, maybe not.
A "chef" is somebody that can modify existing dishes and can create new ones. A cook is somebody that can just follow instructions. And a robotic cook will do so badly, because ingredient characteristics change and a human can adjust for that.
Same here. Using flash these days is gross negligence.
The point here is that AMD has 8 full CPU state sets and hence task switching up to 8 execution threads costs nothing. But my guess is this level of understanding is way, way beyond the typical Intel fanboi.
I'm unaware...
Yes, you are.
You obviously have never heard of what a "monopoly" is and that it is universally bad for the market. Stupid.