But they generally won't say that the means to do that should be a link from the user account page or what the steps of the process would be. Now for something simple like a a password change, there are generally well defined industry best practices that both the developer and the end user are probably aware of and so both have a common conception of what should happen. That isn't true for functions specific to the application or domain.
There is a big gap between User Story and implementation specific documentation.
I would have intuitively said the other way around.
Since the gravity is so small I would have expected the motion of the smallest particles to be close to random, perhaps close to Brownian motion if you looked at the system over a long enough period of time.
I guess, even though there isn't much to pull the material together, once a small particle is in a crack or void it is very unlikely to ever escape and so the crack does eventually fill in, it seems to me that the process should exist but be much slower than when compared to the effect in a strong gravity field.
As you said, "Intuitively, which we all know is probably wrong"
But does the process work when the gravity field is tiny? That is what needed to be found out before saying that that is definitely the process at work.
I'm not sure you understood the GP's point. In fact you seem to have interpreted it completely backwards.
Allowing the companies making the loans to go bust, rather than trying to protect them by not allowing Student Loans to be cleared by bankruptcy is the attenuation that you are looking for. It's sends a clear message to other companies loaning money that there are risks and that they should be filtering potential customers.
If economists had known in advance of one of the great depressions that it was going to happen, and releasing the results would of only sped-up the collapse, should they release the information?
The earlier the bubble is burst, the small the correction needs to be and the quicker the recovery afterwards can be. Knowing a burst will happen, it is ethical to make the information public as quickly as possible.
The tricky bit comes when you are 55% sure of a crash, but knowing that making those fears known publicly will definitely cause a crash. How sure do you need to be before it is worth causing a small crash to offset the chance of a bigger crash later on? 60%, 70%, 80%?
I would have thought that lack of crime was the goal of any law enforcement, not number of arrests. Although number of arrests is certainly an easier number to work out.
Authorities can only do that if they don't mind revealing the investigation against someone. There are still alot of reasons why authorities would want to be able to read something encrypted without it being obvious that they are doing so.
Do you stand to gain, directly or indirectly, any benefit either personally, professionally, or politically, by whatever is being whistle blown on?
That is an extremely wide difinition.
Anyone whistle blowing is doing it because they want something changed, whether that is an improved working environment or a social/political change. That means they are indirectly benefitting and therefore by your definition no whistleblower is a whistleblower.
There will still be plenty of tickets to write for a long time, as until we are at 100% adoption, people will still break trafic laws
I'd imagine there is a network effect which would dramatically reduce traffic violations even with a realtively small proportion of fully automous vehicles on the road.
You can't speed if the car in front is doing 3 mph below the speed limit, you can't run the red light if the car in front is already slowing down for the amber. As the proportion of automous vehicles increases, people will get used a more conservative driving style and their driving style will change to compensate.
I don't know the proportion of traffic which would have to be automous to have an affect, but it will be far less than 100%
Because it has a lot of implications about how life gets started on a planet which is an important line of investigation for science, isn't that obvious?
Long charging times for electric vehicles stop any journey where the trip is greater than the battery range. Who wants to have to stop for hours to get a full battery when you are trying to get somewhere.
Liquid fuels can refuel most vehicles in 10 minutes, and half of that time is queuing and paying. Electric vehicles will have match that capability at some point or they are going to be forever stuck in the niche of toys and glorified shopping carts.
Or the ad network requires "limited session information" as part of it's own terms and conditions. Then cuteandfluffy has to accept the terms or find another ad network which pays as well.
So this is not a solution against ads per se, but at least it will keep advertisers from snooping browsing behavior.
Either
the website host (www.cuteandfluffy.com) will host the ad injection software themselves but the ad injection software will phone home to www.uglyandspikey.com with all the information that cuteandfluffy have collected
- or -
The cuteandfluffy will provide a URL inside the cuteandfluffy.com domain which forwards requests to a script hosted by uglyandspikey.com
In both cases, the ad resource appears to be from the domain you are visiting and in both cases, the ad network is still gaining access to everything that cuteandfluffy knows about the brower.
The only difference is that there is now some work for the ad network to tie the unique ids from cuteandfluffy.com and mymotorsbigger.com as being the same user, but most people use the same email address as login details so that doesn't seem like a huge problem for them.
A sociopath would not damage their own company to the point of having to declare bankruptcy.
You are making an assumption that a sociopath while willing to steal from clients, would not choose to go so far as to damage the company as a whole. That assumption in turn depends on 2 other assumptions
He feels that there is future value to the company to be worth preserving
He has enough knowledge and skill to avoid the accidentally damaging the company
If Assumption 1 wasn't true he might decide to cut his loses, create some story about hackers stealing stuff and close the company while keeping the stuff he already has.
If assumption 2 was't true, he might damage the company past the point where the theft could be hidden. Sociopath only states that an individual feels no social or moral responsibility for his acts, it says nothing about their technical ability in any given field.
At it's most basic, it's used as a texting app but the text messages are sent via the data channel thus avoiding the text message charges imposed by mobile operators.
Slashdot Mirror
The stories would be of the form:
As a user, I want to change my password...
But they generally won't say that the means to do that should be a link from the user account page or what the steps of the process would be. Now for something simple like a a password change, there are generally well defined industry best practices that both the developer and the end user are probably aware of and so both have a common conception of what should happen. That isn't true for functions specific to the application or domain.
There is a big gap between User Story and implementation specific documentation.
Use the web interface to download the file, then decrypt with a local copy of the encryption tool/key.
What they mean is they can't render a document on the web interface.
I would have intuitively said the other way around.
Since the gravity is so small I would have expected the motion of the smallest particles to be close to random, perhaps close to Brownian motion if you looked at the system over a long enough period of time.
I guess, even though there isn't much to pull the material together, once a small particle is in a crack or void it is very unlikely to ever escape and so the crack does eventually fill in, it seems to me that the process should exist but be much slower than when compared to the effect in a strong gravity field.
As you said, "Intuitively, which we all know is probably wrong"
But does the process work when the gravity field is tiny? That is what needed to be found out before saying that that is definitely the process at work.
bollocks
I'm not sure you understood the GP's point. In fact you seem to have interpreted it completely backwards.
Allowing the companies making the loans to go bust, rather than trying to protect them by not allowing Student Loans to be cleared by bankruptcy is the attenuation that you are looking for. It's sends a clear message to other companies loaning money that there are risks and that they should be filtering potential customers.
The earlier the bubble is burst, the small the correction needs to be and the quicker the recovery afterwards can be. Knowing a burst will happen, it is ethical to make the information public as quickly as possible.
The tricky bit comes when you are 55% sure of a crash, but knowing that making those fears known publicly will definitely cause a crash. How sure do you need to be before it is worth causing a small crash to offset the chance of a bigger crash later on? 60%, 70%, 80%?
I would have thought that lack of crime was the goal of any law enforcement, not number of arrests. Although number of arrests is certainly an easier number to work out.
Authorities can only do that if they don't mind revealing the investigation against someone. There are still alot of reasons why authorities would want to be able to read something encrypted without it being obvious that they are doing so.
except that the idea of foreign workers being prefered over domestic, regardless of the reason, is a widely held believe.
Evidence that that is not the case would be just as worthy of publication
The number of brainfucks in Washington could be turned to our advantage.
We only need to introduce a single letter typo into a funding bill and for the brainfucks to not notice.
Regardless of the outcome, publicize the heck out of it. You don't get to hide the results just because they don't confirm your pre-existing bias.
That is an extremely wide difinition.
Anyone whistle blowing is doing it because they want something changed, whether that is an improved working environment or a social/political change. That means they are indirectly benefitting and therefore by your definition no whistleblower is a whistleblower.
I'd imagine there is a network effect which would dramatically reduce traffic violations even with a realtively small proportion of fully automous vehicles on the road.
You can't speed if the car in front is doing 3 mph below the speed limit, you can't run the red light if the car in front is already slowing down for the amber. As the proportion of automous vehicles increases, people will get used a more conservative driving style and their driving style will change to compensate.
I don't know the proportion of traffic which would have to be automous to have an affect, but it will be far less than 100%
???
Because it has a lot of implications about how life gets started on a planet which is an important line of investigation for science, isn't that obvious?
If we introduce life it becomes much harder to say any life we find in the future isn't just contamination we brought with us.
go see a doctor, like really urgently.
I can't work out if you are agreeing with the GP or failing to understand his point.
His
This is not an energy source. It is a fuel source.
sentence is saying it's just a way of producing fuel, it's not a source of energy.
Long charging times for electric vehicles stop any journey where the trip is greater than the battery range. Who wants to have to stop for hours to get a full battery when you are trying to get somewhere.
Liquid fuels can refuel most vehicles in 10 minutes, and half of that time is queuing and paying. Electric vehicles will have match that capability at some point or they are going to be forever stuck in the niche of toys and glorified shopping carts.
Or the ad network requires "limited session information" as part of it's own terms and conditions. Then cuteandfluffy has to accept the terms or find another ad network which pays as well.
Either
the website host (www.cuteandfluffy.com) will host the ad injection software themselves but the ad injection software will phone home to www.uglyandspikey.com with all the information that cuteandfluffy have collected
- or -
The cuteandfluffy will provide a URL inside the cuteandfluffy.com domain which forwards requests to a script hosted by uglyandspikey.com
In both cases, the ad resource appears to be from the domain you are visiting and in both cases, the ad network is still gaining access to everything that cuteandfluffy knows about the brower.
The only difference is that there is now some work for the ad network to tie the unique ids from cuteandfluffy.com and mymotorsbigger.com as being the same user, but most people use the same email address as login details so that doesn't seem like a huge problem for them.
You are making an assumption that a sociopath while willing to steal from clients, would not choose to go so far as to damage the company as a whole. That assumption in turn depends on 2 other assumptions
If Assumption 1 wasn't true he might decide to cut his loses, create some story about hackers stealing stuff and close the company while keeping the stuff he already has.
If assumption 2 was't true, he might damage the company past the point where the theft could be hidden. Sociopath only states that an individual feels no social or moral responsibility for his acts, it says nothing about their technical ability in any given field.
With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight that warning was proved to be accurate. That means it wasn't noise, it was actually a signal lost in the noise.
Office of Research Integrity
At it's most basic, it's used as a texting app but the text messages are sent via the data channel thus avoiding the text message charges imposed by mobile operators.