What good is protecting your brain only? You need to wear it everywhere. They make Faraday suits that look like hazmat suits. The bonus of wearing that everywhere is that you're completely anonymous since no one can tell who you are underneath (the only downside being that you're now the guy wearing the Faraday suit everywhere).
Also line your walls with tin foil. Or at least turn your exterior walls into a Faraday cage and put up steel grates over your windows. You won't be able to steal your neighbor's wifi signal, but at least your neighbors won't be able to throw a brick through your window and steal your stuff either.
But they'll also have access to heaps of electronic records kept by others as well. Ever use a credit card to make purchases? Is your money tucked away in a bank? It's all traceable.
Unless you're exclusively paying cash, and asking for hand-written receipts, how your records are stored is not going to hinder them in the slightest.
Problem exists between keyboard and chair. Every security professional knows this. The math is an upper bound of security. What sits between keyboard and chair is the lower bound.
The real question is how to solve this problem. My traditional answer is education, but that's been actively attacked for the past 100 years. Fear does the same in 6 months what education does in 50 years. How do you make people fear for their loss of privacy enough that they will lash out against it? That's the million-(billion-?)dollar question freedom advocates have to answer.
Sorry, but no. Car companies don't just do recalls. Like all other companies, they first calculate the cost of potential lawsuits vs. the cost of a recall. Then if the cost of the potential lawsuits outweigh the cost of a recall, they'll do the recall.
The only way to calculate potential cost of a lawsuit is to firstly experience the event out in the field. Then, the only the lawsuit is more expensive than the recall is if the event is linked to a characteristic of the product's design or construction. Then it becomes recall-able. If a fire happens one or a few times due to the car meeting a very specific, user-created condition, then it's not worth a recall. If it has a chance of happening under normal operating circumstances (fender benders and other common accidents are considered normal), it's more likely worth a recall.
There is no "proactive" recall. Proactive means the action is taken prior to any event, as a preventative measure. Recalls only happen after an event has occurred, prior to it becoming widespread (for full disclosure, I could have worded that last bit differently to de-emphasize the event having happened sporadically already and emphasize the prior-ness, but I wanted to make a point).
Funny, because there's another study recently published that said technology is killing everyone's sex lives. It's probably old news here, as it's just a downward extrapolation of the extreme case found here.
Medication belongs to the field of psychiatry. And for the most part, they do have an effect. But it's only temporary, and the human body gets used to it after a while. So in the long term, medicine is largely useless, and in fact is counterproductive, as they tend to cause other, worse effects ("side" effects). But in the short term, it helps.
All systems have a state of equilibrium, a state of stability. The same holds for the body and the mind, two different but related and dependent systems. They'll always tend towards the state of equilibrium because that's the path of least resistance.
Psychological ills are not the equilibrium being tipped, but the point of equilibrium itself changing. To truly "cure" someone of depression or OCD or bipolar, you have to change the point of equilibrium itself. That's much, much harder than you can imagine, and a far greater challenge than any pill will ever resolve. Those whose equilibrium were changed by an event in their life are easier to change back than those who are born with a certain equilibrium. Some people call the former nature vs. nurture. I call it, again, the past of least resistance.
Psychology is not attempting to medicate everyone. It's attempting to explain in terms familiar to the scientific-minded humanity.
Psychology is a soft science because of the numerous variables that in studies are often simplified into a constant often for simplicity's sake and nothing else. Economics and politics are the same, mostly because they're based on psychology.
It's an inexact science because the human condition is imperfect. As opposed to the hard sciences, which are exact, because the universe around us is "perfect". And then, there's computer science, which is a mathematical, computational science that's absolute. It's not even "perfect" anymore; it's exactly what the maths say it is, and any failure sits between keyboard and chair.
Anyway, psychology is important, because the only way to truly understand the imperfect conditions of humans is via an inexact science. And it's something only fully understood by humans (computers can simulate the hard sciences to a calculable degree of accuracy, but they'll never be able to simulate the soft sciences in the same way), and innately at that.
The way to think about psychology is using fractals. X% | X is > statistical significance, of the population behaves in manner a. X * (100-X)% of the population behaves in manner b. X * (100 - X * (100-X))% of the population behaves in manner c. Etc. a, b, c, etc. are up to you to figure out. And when you change the test, the individual that falls into one category is not guaranteed to fall into the same category again.
Note that the human mind can comprehend infinity (poorly for most, but very possible for a few), both countable and uncountable variants, but a computer will never be able to calculate it. So the fractal analogy works really, really well.
Who could imagine that increased exposure to different thought patterns (art is/was materialized thought) would increase their ability to think?
Who could imagine that Europeans, with vastly greater exposure to varying cultures than Americans, would be comparatively more tolerant and creative? Who would have guessed that Americans, with more exposure to other cultures than Asians (East and South, who are all fairly secluded for the most part), would exhibit the same trend? Who could imagine that being able to experience more ideas means being able to incorporate those ideas into everyday problems?
Studying art through a textbook is meaningless though. Who'd'a thunk?
The CIA would more than likely be working to protect Snowden. Not that they could tell you that. All those guys helping him in Russia, they're probably CIA agents or somehow linked to the CIA.
Remember that the CIA and KGB worked together when they deemed it in both their best interests. I would not be surprised if the Russians were not so keen on a truly free USA. After all, a free country where all the citizens are involved in government is hard to handle. The fewer people other countries have to deal with (dictatorship is the most extreme, that number being exactly 1), the easier it is to deal with that country.
FYI, Pearl Harbor was not a failure of American intelligence, especially signals intelligence. OTOH, 9/11 was (thus far believed to be anyway), though not specifically signals intelligence.
It doesn't matter. Signals intelligence is useless except against the little people. No self-respecting intelligence agency would be so stupid as to have their top secret computers connected to the internet. And little people can be foreign, or they can be domestic.
There's a lot of evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was not JFK's killer. He shot JFK, but the bullet that actually killed the president did not belong to him. Remember that there's plenty of evidence that there were three shots. Forensic analysis, including audio analysis of the audio of the film of the scene, says that there were three shots. The news at the time said three shots. The doctors who operated on JFK said there were three entry wounds. Even the official report says the same bullet entered JFK three times.
It was the third shot that killed JFK. And it was not the one Lee Harvey Oswald fired. Lee Harvey Oswald is a straw man, set up for the public and for normal LEO to focus their attention upon. The real killer was one of the other shooters, and a specific one at that.
At the end of the day, there's only one person who had enough power to orchestrate this by selecting JFK's route and compromising the Secret Service, as well as its cover up using Lee Harvey Oswald and the mob. There's a building in DC named for that person. And there's someone following in his footsteps right now even as we speak (but without the cross-dressing, maybe).
What I'd love to see them do is start a patent defense fund (non-profit, preferably). I don't have anything to buy from them right now. But I'd love to give them some money to fight this and other patent-related cases.
It's not confusing. You just have to take some context into account. People who say such things are judgmental, insecure, petty, and hypocritical. They are judgmental, quick to pass judgment on others. They are insecure, so they want everyone else to judge things they way they do. They are petty in taking advantage of resources and situations to further their own selfish goals while claiming they represent everyone else. And they are hypocritical, because the louder they cry against something, the more they themselves actually are that thing.
In this context, there is nothing confusing about this statement. In fact, I would say that it embodies her being. And I wish upon her and her ilk that they get exactly what they're asking for: a loved-one's long, protracted, artificially lengthened death on a hospital or hospice bed. Unfortunately, they won't ever see it that way because they are blinded by their own ideology to such heretical events.
Wait what? Doesn't that make Yahoo the cat that laid the turd? Cats aren't particularly known for licking their own or others balls, especially not for the hell of it. They certainly do lick each other though.
I don't have the time to edit this Wikipedia thingy. Can't I pay someone to do it for me?
Why? What article are you editing, that you'd be willing to pay someone to do it instead of yourself?
companies pay people in their communications departments to edit wikis related to their business?
You're not allowed to put in original content. You're not allowed to edit articles about yourself or articles with content that involve you or your affiliations in any way. Paying someone else to do it on your behalf is equally unacceptable. So excluding these, what type of edits could you possibly want to pay to be done?
Not knowing exactly what their update does, I suspect they made it so that the suspension raises only during an accident. So instead of the car sitting back down onto a sharp object after rolling over it and thus resulting in a puncture to the bottom, it stays raised and floating over the sharp object.
Slashdot Mirror
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
--Andrew Jackson?
Yeah, the authenticity is in question, but the idea was still used in Andrew Jackson's time.
I heard his grandson's book on how to make war is real popular these days.
What good is protecting your brain only? You need to wear it everywhere. They make Faraday suits that look like hazmat suits. The bonus of wearing that everywhere is that you're completely anonymous since no one can tell who you are underneath (the only downside being that you're now the guy wearing the Faraday suit everywhere).
Also line your walls with tin foil. Or at least turn your exterior walls into a Faraday cage and put up steel grates over your windows. You won't be able to steal your neighbor's wifi signal, but at least your neighbors won't be able to throw a brick through your window and steal your stuff either.
Which they will.
But they'll also have access to heaps of electronic records kept by others as well. Ever use a credit card to make purchases? Is your money tucked away in a bank? It's all traceable.
Unless you're exclusively paying cash, and asking for hand-written receipts, how your records are stored is not going to hinder them in the slightest.
What else could be expected from names like Zuckerberg and Gates?
I'll bet they'll veto anyone who tries to use Linux or teach kids about privacy.
Problem exists between keyboard and chair. Every security professional knows this. The math is an upper bound of security. What sits between keyboard and chair is the lower bound.
The real question is how to solve this problem. My traditional answer is education, but that's been actively attacked for the past 100 years. Fear does the same in 6 months what education does in 50 years. How do you make people fear for their loss of privacy enough that they will lash out against it? That's the million-(billion-?)dollar question freedom advocates have to answer.
these ones catch the driver on fire.
That's a feature. It makes for a more personal driving experience.
Yeah, because we were so good predicting the iPod's success.
Sorry, but no. Car companies don't just do recalls. Like all other companies, they first calculate the cost of potential lawsuits vs. the cost of a recall. Then if the cost of the potential lawsuits outweigh the cost of a recall, they'll do the recall.
The only way to calculate potential cost of a lawsuit is to firstly experience the event out in the field. Then, the only the lawsuit is more expensive than the recall is if the event is linked to a characteristic of the product's design or construction. Then it becomes recall-able. If a fire happens one or a few times due to the car meeting a very specific, user-created condition, then it's not worth a recall. If it has a chance of happening under normal operating circumstances (fender benders and other common accidents are considered normal), it's more likely worth a recall.
There is no "proactive" recall. Proactive means the action is taken prior to any event, as a preventative measure. Recalls only happen after an event has occurred, prior to it becoming widespread (for full disclosure, I could have worded that last bit differently to de-emphasize the event having happened sporadically already and emphasize the prior-ness, but I wanted to make a point).
You can also look at Saddam Hussein. Except he ended up losing his head because he was brown instead of French.
Funny, because there's another study recently published that said technology is killing everyone's sex lives. It's probably old news here, as it's just a downward extrapolation of the extreme case found here.
Medication belongs to the field of psychiatry. And for the most part, they do have an effect. But it's only temporary, and the human body gets used to it after a while. So in the long term, medicine is largely useless, and in fact is counterproductive, as they tend to cause other, worse effects ("side" effects). But in the short term, it helps.
All systems have a state of equilibrium, a state of stability. The same holds for the body and the mind, two different but related and dependent systems. They'll always tend towards the state of equilibrium because that's the path of least resistance.
Psychological ills are not the equilibrium being tipped, but the point of equilibrium itself changing. To truly "cure" someone of depression or OCD or bipolar, you have to change the point of equilibrium itself. That's much, much harder than you can imagine, and a far greater challenge than any pill will ever resolve. Those whose equilibrium were changed by an event in their life are easier to change back than those who are born with a certain equilibrium. Some people call the former nature vs. nurture. I call it, again, the past of least resistance.
Psychology is not attempting to medicate everyone. It's attempting to explain in terms familiar to the scientific-minded humanity.
Psychology is a soft science because of the numerous variables that in studies are often simplified into a constant often for simplicity's sake and nothing else. Economics and politics are the same, mostly because they're based on psychology.
It's an inexact science because the human condition is imperfect. As opposed to the hard sciences, which are exact, because the universe around us is "perfect". And then, there's computer science, which is a mathematical, computational science that's absolute. It's not even "perfect" anymore; it's exactly what the maths say it is, and any failure sits between keyboard and chair.
Anyway, psychology is important, because the only way to truly understand the imperfect conditions of humans is via an inexact science. And it's something only fully understood by humans (computers can simulate the hard sciences to a calculable degree of accuracy, but they'll never be able to simulate the soft sciences in the same way), and innately at that.
The way to think about psychology is using fractals. X% | X is > statistical significance, of the population behaves in manner a. X * (100-X)% of the population behaves in manner b. X * (100 - X * (100-X))% of the population behaves in manner c. Etc. a, b, c, etc. are up to you to figure out. And when you change the test, the individual that falls into one category is not guaranteed to fall into the same category again.
Note that the human mind can comprehend infinity (poorly for most, but very possible for a few), both countable and uncountable variants, but a computer will never be able to calculate it. So the fractal analogy works really, really well.
Who could imagine that increased exposure to different thought patterns (art is/was materialized thought) would increase their ability to think?
Who could imagine that Europeans, with vastly greater exposure to varying cultures than Americans, would be comparatively more tolerant and creative? Who would have guessed that Americans, with more exposure to other cultures than Asians (East and South, who are all fairly secluded for the most part), would exhibit the same trend? Who could imagine that being able to experience more ideas means being able to incorporate those ideas into everyday problems?
Studying art through a textbook is meaningless though. Who'd'a thunk?
The CIA would more than likely be working to protect Snowden. Not that they could tell you that. All those guys helping him in Russia, they're probably CIA agents or somehow linked to the CIA.
Remember that the CIA and KGB worked together when they deemed it in both their best interests. I would not be surprised if the Russians were not so keen on a truly free USA. After all, a free country where all the citizens are involved in government is hard to handle. The fewer people other countries have to deal with (dictatorship is the most extreme, that number being exactly 1), the easier it is to deal with that country.
FYI, Pearl Harbor was not a failure of American intelligence, especially signals intelligence. OTOH, 9/11 was (thus far believed to be anyway), though not specifically signals intelligence.
It doesn't matter. Signals intelligence is useless except against the little people. No self-respecting intelligence agency would be so stupid as to have their top secret computers connected to the internet. And little people can be foreign, or they can be domestic.
There's a lot of evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was not JFK's killer. He shot JFK, but the bullet that actually killed the president did not belong to him. Remember that there's plenty of evidence that there were three shots. Forensic analysis, including audio analysis of the audio of the film of the scene, says that there were three shots. The news at the time said three shots. The doctors who operated on JFK said there were three entry wounds. Even the official report says the same bullet entered JFK three times.
It was the third shot that killed JFK. And it was not the one Lee Harvey Oswald fired. Lee Harvey Oswald is a straw man, set up for the public and for normal LEO to focus their attention upon. The real killer was one of the other shooters, and a specific one at that.
At the end of the day, there's only one person who had enough power to orchestrate this by selecting JFK's route and compromising the Secret Service, as well as its cover up using Lee Harvey Oswald and the mob. There's a building in DC named for that person. And there's someone following in his footsteps right now even as we speak (but without the cross-dressing, maybe).
What I'd love to see them do is start a patent defense fund (non-profit, preferably). I don't have anything to buy from them right now. But I'd love to give them some money to fight this and other patent-related cases.
When your jury doesn't give two shits between Diffe and some other random Joe Schmoe off the streets, you will lose.
If you want to change that, you can go be a juror. But then again, you probably wouldn't be picked for such a case.
We all know Arial is a wannabe Helvetica.
Nobody likes a wannabe. Not even cops.
It's not confusing. You just have to take some context into account. People who say such things are judgmental, insecure, petty, and hypocritical. They are judgmental, quick to pass judgment on others. They are insecure, so they want everyone else to judge things they way they do. They are petty in taking advantage of resources and situations to further their own selfish goals while claiming they represent everyone else. And they are hypocritical, because the louder they cry against something, the more they themselves actually are that thing.
In this context, there is nothing confusing about this statement. In fact, I would say that it embodies her being. And I wish upon her and her ilk that they get exactly what they're asking for: a loved-one's long, protracted, artificially lengthened death on a hospital or hospice bed. Unfortunately, they won't ever see it that way because they are blinded by their own ideology to such heretical events.
Wait what? Doesn't that make Yahoo the cat that laid the turd? Cats aren't particularly known for licking their own or others balls, especially not for the hell of it. They certainly do lick each other though.
Not managers. Worse. Politicians and executives.
I don't have the time to edit this Wikipedia thingy. Can't I pay someone to do it for me?
Why? What article are you editing, that you'd be willing to pay someone to do it instead of yourself?
companies pay people in their communications departments to edit wikis related to their business?
You're not allowed to put in original content. You're not allowed to edit articles about yourself or articles with content that involve you or your affiliations in any way. Paying someone else to do it on your behalf is equally unacceptable. So excluding these, what type of edits could you possibly want to pay to be done?
Not knowing exactly what their update does, I suspect they made it so that the suspension raises only during an accident. So instead of the car sitting back down onto a sharp object after rolling over it and thus resulting in a puncture to the bottom, it stays raised and floating over the sharp object.