It's not really american when the Atlas V, the rocket which this capsule ist built for, still uses russian RD-180 rocket motors.
The Boeing Starliner "is to be compatible with multiple launch vehicles, including the Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9, as well as the planned Vulcan.[9] " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Government intrusion via a "market-like" mechanism is not the free market.
Absolutely. And a totally "free" market includes transactions of the following sort: "I point a gun at you and give you the choice, either I take your money, or I shoot you and then take your money." That's a free market transaction with no government interference. But this transaction is beneficial to the robber only because the consequences to you are not included in the robber's profit calculation. The government's role is as a mechanism to say "if your actions create a consequence to other people (such as, say killing them), your actions need to be regulated." We have already established that this is what the government does. We're just arguing in which circumstances government intervention is needed.
I'm not sure why you accuse this of being thoughtless. This is the classical "efficient market" approach to a problem of consequences: the people who cause the consequences should pay the cost of those consequences. Classical economics argues that markets are inefficient when a person (or corporation) can gain benefits from an action, but somebody else pays the cost. So, if carbon dioxide emission has a cost, in terms of effects of global warming, the efficient market solution would be that the people emitting carbon dioxide should pay that cost, and hence allowing them to adjust their usage in such a way as to incorporate the consequences.
The "massive" subsidies for solar/wind turn out to be small compared to the subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry subsidies are simply invisible because they've been in place so long. http://www.ibtimes.com/us-foss...
Almost every contract I've ever seen has a severability clause in it: "if one clause of this contract is found to be invalid or unenforcable, the remaining terms of the contract still apply." Severability clauses exist in German contracts, so I won't believe your statement that they don't unless you give me a citation.
I like it! It is an interesting thing that successes get more memory than failure, and hence you get an inaccurate impression of successful people just moving from one success to another. Remarking on the failures would give a somewhat more balanced view.
A very bad summary. That's what they get for using the Daily Mirror as if anything they published were actually science journalism.
The proposed evolution is from gills, not from fins. And even here, it's the gill arch: not the gills, but the cartilage supporting the gills
Sharks have nothing to do with it-- the fish in question are skates, not sharks, and even here, they aren't proposing that limbs evolved from skate gill arches, but from the gill arches of proto-fishes who were ancestral to both.
We even had a successful phishing attack at work recently. The email said it came from the IT department, and that you needed to click on the link to validate your domain credentials. It didn't look like any of our official communications, and the "click here" link was a shortened URL. It was pretty obvious to me that it was a phishing attempt, but several users clicked on the link anyway, and keyed in their domain credentials into the web form. Thankfully, it didn't install a cryptovirus, or spread to the network.
Well, on an average day most users will probably be suspicious of a link like that. The phishers count on the fact that, on any given day, some percentage of the recipients will have just finished leaving a message with tech support saying "I can't access the server, could you reset my account?"
Since they're expecting an email with exactly that text, their defenses will be down.
(The phrase used in the actual article is "liberal democracies." This does not mean "democracies that elect governments from the Liberal party."):
This might run counter to some people's intuition; wouldn’t liberal democracies have little need for Tor? “But because it's dual-use, you start to see a different pattern,” Jardine said, meaning that Tor is not just used to circumvent censorship in oppressive regimes, for example. Instead, the technology could be to protect privacy, or for criminal purposes. (It's worth remembering that the study looked at data largely before the fallout of Edward Snowden's June 2013 revelations).
A trade off is a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, the benefit is not very large.
No. The big benefit is unlikely. But the "big" part is what outweighs the "unlikely" part.
Benefit = amount of benefit TIMES probability of occurrence.
(Otherwise the cost benefit trade-off of buying a lottery ticket would always be "buy buy buy!")
The benefit is not very large, because the probability that there's anything useful on the phone is small. It would be prudent: if the costs of doing so were small
Of course it's prudent. They are not likely to find anything, but it's worth looking.
But it's not "OMG if we don't crack this phone disaster! People will die! The terrorists win! It's either crack this phone or America is destroyed!"
It's a cover the bases thing. But like all things, it's a trade off, Do you understand that there are some good arguments that forcing Apple to write new software to drill a hole in their own security system may not be entirely a good thing? A trade off is a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, the benefit is not very large.
Don't be stupid. They went to great lengths to destroy their phones and computers. Thinking oh, but they left information on the phone they didn't think was worth taking the trouble to erase is rather wishful thinking. Sure, it can't hurt to look, but there's not going to be anything here. They do have permission to search the phone. That's not the issue. The issue is, does the court have the power to force Apple to write software to the FBI's specifications, and sign it with their digital signature?
We've already made the choice to limit privacy rights of suspected criminals.
Yes, we have. We made a particular choice of limits, where some searches are allowed and some searches aren't.
In the hypothetical case of unbreakable locks you propose, this forces us to yet make another choice. There are not, as you state, only two choices. There are three choices. One of these is to tell law enforcement agencies that they must find evidence elsewhere.
You seem to be making arguments that this choice doesn't exist. That's incorrect.
Now, a harder question is whether this choice should be taken. That's a much harder question, but there are good arguments that it should be (which have been made in great detail elsewhere.) This is a trade-off. That means it has benefits, and costs. To quote Scalia, sometimes it is desirable to "insulate the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”
It's not a false choice. When key evidence is behind locked doors you need a way to access it. This is precisely why we have search warrants.
Nope. That's a choice made by society, a trade-off between privacy and authority. Law enforcement may say that they "need" a way to access it, but the extent to which we allow law enforcement to access locked vaults is a decision that is made by society, and one of the possible decisions is "no, find a different way to gather evidence."
As if the phone in the San Bernadino case wasn't one that was used by an actual, real, murdering person who embarked on a terrorist attack?
Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.
To remind you of the facts, this was the work phone of (one of) the persons who embarked on the terrorist attack... which they planned using burner phones that they took some pains to destroy (along with the hard disk from their computer) and succeeded in doing so in a way that the FBI could not recover information. https://www.inverse.com/articl... http://www.washingtontimes.com...
So, the question is, would they make an effort to to destroy two phones, and not bother destroying the third phone, if the third phone actually had any information on it?
So, basically, Tesla just introduced an electric model that is the same price as a non-electric car.
Yes, if you don't look too closely at the cars themselves. The Model 3 is not equal to your average $35K car, it is closer to a $22K car.
Since you've never looked at a Model 3-- unless you were at the unveiling in California?-- you don't actually know that. I'm not sure anybody knows that. Tech Insider claims that the Bolt, the other similar electric car, doesn't come close to Tesla, but they're mostly arguing on speculation. http://www.techinsider.io/how-...
In any case, the point is still that the introduction puts electric cars into the same price class as gasoline cars. (Leaf, of course, has the jump on both of them (in price as well)-- so it's really about electric cars with 200+ mile range. Leaf seems to get left behind in the discussions, although they will be on their third generation of consumer vehicles before Tesla delivers the 3.)
Yeah-- I though about whether to not include them, but figured there was a benefit in the parallax of sources, even if the Daily Mail is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.
Slashdot Mirror
well, a post-apocalyptic dystopia.
I'm surprised about Fury Road; I would have gone for The Martian.
Dystopias are still in fashion, I guess.
It's not really american when the Atlas V, the rocket which this capsule ist built for, still uses russian RD-180 rocket motors.
The Boeing Starliner "is to be compatible with multiple launch vehicles, including the Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9, as well as the planned Vulcan.[9] "
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Government intrusion via a "market-like" mechanism is not the free market.
Absolutely. And a totally "free" market includes transactions of the following sort: "I point a gun at you and give you the choice, either I take your money, or I shoot you and then take your money." That's a free market transaction with no government interference. But this transaction is beneficial to the robber only because the consequences to you are not included in the robber's profit calculation.
The government's role is as a mechanism to say "if your actions create a consequence to other people (such as, say killing them), your actions need to be regulated."
We have already established that this is what the government does. We're just arguing in which circumstances government intervention is needed.
I'm not sure why you accuse this of being thoughtless.
This is the classical "efficient market" approach to a problem of consequences: the people who cause the consequences should pay the cost of those consequences. Classical economics argues that markets are inefficient when a person (or corporation) can gain benefits from an action, but somebody else pays the cost.
So, if carbon dioxide emission has a cost, in terms of effects of global warming, the efficient market solution would be that the people emitting carbon dioxide should pay that cost, and hence allowing them to adjust their usage in such a way as to incorporate the consequences.
The "massive" subsidies for solar/wind turn out to be small compared to the subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry subsidies are simply invisible because they've been in place so long.
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-foss...
That is not a citation.
Almost every contract I've ever seen has a severability clause in it: "if one clause of this contract is found to be invalid or unenforcable, the remaining terms of the contract still apply."
Severability clauses exist in German contracts, so I won't believe your statement that they don't unless you give me a citation.
user should learn to configure his stuff before setting a torch to his local content
No, Apple should learn to not set a torch to content on user's machine
I like it!
It is an interesting thing that successes get more memory than failure, and hence you get an inaccurate impression of successful people just moving from one success to another. Remarking on the failures would give a somewhat more balanced view.
A very bad summary. That's what they get for using the Daily Mirror as if anything they published were actually science journalism.
The proposed evolution is from gills, not from fins. And even here, it's the gill arch: not the gills, but the cartilage supporting the gills
Sharks have nothing to do with it-- the fish in question are skates, not sharks, and even here, they aren't proposing that limbs evolved from skate gill arches, but from the gill arches of proto-fishes who were ancestral to both.
We even had a successful phishing attack at work recently. The email said it came from the IT department, and that you needed to click on the link to validate your domain credentials. It didn't look like any of our official communications, and the "click here" link was a shortened URL. It was pretty obvious to me that it was a phishing attempt, but several users clicked on the link anyway, and keyed in their domain credentials into the web form. Thankfully, it didn't install a cryptovirus, or spread to the network.
Well, on an average day most users will probably be suspicious of a link like that. The phishers count on the fact that, on any given day, some percentage of the recipients will have just finished leaving a message with tech support saying "I can't access the server, could you reset my account?"
Since they're expecting an email with exactly that text, their defenses will be down.
"Liberal" is indeed a word that has several meanings.
In this case, the use of the word in the headline is clarified in the text: it is used as the opposite of "repressive", in its meaning of "most free."
(Definition 3: "of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.")
(The phrase used in the actual article is "liberal democracies." This does not mean "democracies that elect governments from the Liberal party."):
This might run counter to some people's intuition; wouldn’t liberal democracies have little need for Tor? “But because it's dual-use, you start to see a different pattern,” Jardine said, meaning that Tor is not just used to circumvent censorship in oppressive regimes, for example. Instead, the technology could be to protect privacy, or for criminal purposes. (It's worth remembering that the study looked at data largely before the fallout of Edward Snowden's June 2013 revelations).
A trade off is a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, the benefit is not very large.
No. The big benefit is unlikely. But the "big" part is what outweighs the "unlikely" part.
Benefit = amount of benefit TIMES probability of occurrence.
(Otherwise the cost benefit trade-off of buying a lottery ticket would always be "buy buy buy!")
The benefit is not very large, because the probability that there's anything useful on the phone is small. It would be prudent: if the costs of doing so were small
Of course it's prudent. They are not likely to find anything, but it's worth looking.
But it's not "OMG if we don't crack this phone disaster! People will die! The terrorists win! It's either crack this phone or America is destroyed!"
It's a cover the bases thing. But like all things, it's a trade off, Do you understand that there are some good arguments that forcing Apple to write new software to drill a hole in their own security system may not be entirely a good thing? A trade off is a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, the benefit is not very large.
Don't be stupid. They went to great lengths to destroy their phones and computers. Thinking oh, but they left information on the phone they didn't think was worth taking the trouble to erase is rather wishful thinking. Sure, it can't hurt to look, but there's not going to be anything here.
They do have permission to search the phone. That's not the issue. The issue is, does the court have the power to force Apple to write software to the FBI's specifications, and sign it with their digital signature?
We've already made the choice to limit privacy rights of suspected criminals.
Yes, we have. We made a particular choice of limits, where some searches are allowed and some searches aren't.
In the hypothetical case of unbreakable locks you propose, this forces us to yet make another choice. There are not, as you state, only two choices. There are three choices. One of these is to tell law enforcement agencies that they must find evidence elsewhere.
You seem to be making arguments that this choice doesn't exist. That's incorrect.
Now, a harder question is whether this choice should be taken. That's a much harder question, but there are good arguments that it should be (which have been made in great detail elsewhere.) This is a trade-off. That means it has benefits, and costs. To quote Scalia, sometimes it is desirable to "insulate the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”
It's not a false choice. When key evidence is behind locked doors you need a way to access it. This is precisely why we have search warrants.
Nope. That's a choice made by society, a trade-off between privacy and authority. Law enforcement may say that they "need" a way to access it, but the extent to which we allow law enforcement to access locked vaults is a decision that is made by society, and one of the possible decisions is "no, find a different way to gather evidence."
As if the phone in the San Bernadino case wasn't one that was used by an actual, real, murdering person who embarked on a terrorist attack?
Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.
To remind you of the facts, this was the work phone of (one of) the persons who embarked on the terrorist attack... which they planned using burner phones that they took some pains to destroy (along with the hard disk from their computer) and succeeded in doing so in a way that the FBI could not recover information.
https://www.inverse.com/articl...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
So, the question is, would they make an effort to to destroy two phones, and not bother destroying the third phone, if the third phone actually had any information on it?
One of the two will happen because one of the two need to happen to continue to function in a lawful society.
No. False choice. The other option is that police departments must use other methods to prove crimes.
So, basically, Tesla just introduced an electric model that is the same price as a non-electric car.
Yes, if you don't look too closely at the cars themselves. The Model 3 is not equal to your average $35K car, it is closer to a $22K car.
Since you've never looked at a Model 3-- unless you were at the unveiling in California?-- you don't actually know that. I'm not sure anybody knows that. Tech Insider claims that the Bolt, the other similar electric car, doesn't come close to Tesla, but they're mostly arguing on speculation. http://www.techinsider.io/how-...
In any case, the point is still that the introduction puts electric cars into the same price class as gasoline cars.
(Leaf, of course, has the jump on both of them (in price as well)-- so it's really about electric cars with 200+ mile range. Leaf seems to get left behind in the discussions, although they will be on their third generation of consumer vehicles before Tesla delivers the 3.)
Let me know when you find the median price of a new car.
Indeed, an important distinction.
But I have to admit that in over thirty seconds of diligent searching-- maybe more!-- I didn't run across a link with that number.
They are truly idiotic for releasing this on April first, if they want people to take them seriously.
Last year the average price of a new car was $33,560:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
So, basically, Tesla just introduced an electric model that is the same price as a non-electric car.
Yeah-- I though about whether to not include them, but figured there was a benefit in the parallax of sources, even if the Daily Mail is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.