I've been to those areas, and they're not uninhabited, they're occupied primarily by farms. So, yes people could move there, but then we'd have to find someplace to grow that food. Food production is vital to national security and our well being in general.
That would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Those plants are built like bunkers, and the security clearance needed to get to work in one is extensive. I don't know about the checks they do in Belgium, but the ones they do in the US go on for a long time before they're granted.
And you would need more than just one individual to do it too, so, you'd have to sneak through several personnel into the same nuclear power plant without being detected. I'm sure it's hypothetically possible, but at that point, you'd probably be better of building you're own bomb and figuring out how to set it off in a major city.
Money isn't an issue, just guarantee the loans and it should happen. Nuclear reactors are really cheap to operate virtually all of the expense involved comes from constructing the plant. After that, even with proper safety procedures the cost isn't that much.
I'm actually surprised that places like Montana and Nebraska aren't all over this, give that they can be built in the middle of nowhere and still be quite useful.
Because we've been trying to promote a peace with the various Arab countries and now we're pulling out of this because UNESCO is going to fund restoration projects in the Palestinian Authority? Just makes us look like bigoted hypocrites.
We might save a few bucks here, but $80 million isn't even worth worrying about. In terms of the budget it would be like you refusing to hand a homeless guy a dime because you don't like how he dresses. $80m to the budget isn't even worth worrying about.
And we're not doing it because of the culture, we're doing it because we don't have the cajones to tell the Israelis to fuck off and stop violating international law. At this point, the best thing we could do is refuse to sell arms to Israel and just allow the two groups to go at it until things are resolved. Continuing to fund Israeli genocide of the Palestinians is embarrassing.
The key is ultimately to think about it and plan ahead.
The examples you're using are hardly ones that can't be planned for. The trick is the subpoena, there are few limitations to that power, and if somebody gets a subpoena for your computer they're going to have access to anything which isn't encrypted. They could subpoena any keys that have been recorded on paper without violating ones rights, unless those happen to fall under a relatively small number of categories.
Ultimately, if you haven't checked in with your attorney in 20 years to make sure that the individual is still alive and practicing law, you don't have a will. In practice they aren't going to have the only copy typically, but if you entrusted the only copy to them, you can't assume that it's still available at that point. As for the office burning down or blowing up, legal firms have offside backups, unless the will is destroyed within the first day or two, it's going to be backed up offsite and there'll probably be at least 2 back ups.
Exactly. Once I'm dead, I don't care about that, I would prefer to know that nothing that gets released would harm somebody that I care about, but once I'm dead it won't affect anything other than the memory of me.
You're wrong, because of the claims and the track record, finding a vulnerability in the base install is a great way to make a name for oneself as a security researcher. In the last decade only one has been found. Which is pretty damn impressive by any standard.
Probably the only better way of ensuring that level of security would be paying out a million dollars for such an exploit.
I remember in the late 90s that it would be more efficient and cost effective to buy the discs and have them shipped, but that was more a matter of the cost of dial up service and the time it would take to deal with that.
I don't recall one ever having to pay for it as the BSD license does allow people to sell copies of it if they wish.
Portions of it are already available over there. The Great Firewall thing is a pretty big joke. Sure it does cut down a great deal on that, but it's hardly rocket science to circumvent, and ultimately, us dropping all those packets at our border would make it nigh impossible for them to get through. Assuming that it's even possible in the first place, which is questionable at best.
Yes, but there's plenty of files that I personally want protected against prying eyes while I'm alive, which I wouldn't mind relatives seeing after I've passed. It is private information, but once I'm dead, I do kind of like the idea of people getting to see the areas of my life which were too private for me to be comfortable sharing in life.
The challenge is finding a way of disclosing those passwords without the possibility of a subpoena getting at them. I think pretty much the only way is to involve an attorney so that you can have attorney client privileges and then have the attorney disclose those after you're dead.
I don't believe that wills are protected in that way typically, you probably could send it to yourself via the post office, but I'm unsure as to whether subpoenas could force you to open them. Sending them internationally certainly would allow for them to be opened by ICE.
Sure you can securely share it. It's not ideal, but you can ensure that the password is only available to those people. If they then share it with other people, that's a completely separate issue.
Because, we're not going to win this cold war if we're not providing easy access to our culture. Soft power has done far more for the US' standing in the world than our willingness to spend every last cent on pointless military endeavors.
There's momentum now. Had this been dealt with in the wake of 9/11, I doubt very much that the train would still be rolling. Unfortunately, the failure to charge any of the Bush Administration officials with crimes against humanity, even the ones that admitted on tape to ordering war crimes, isn't likely to make it any easier for future Presidents to go back to respecting the constitution.
I take it your a libertarian, because the effect of doing that would be to almost completely shut down the government. I'd rather have career civil servants making most of those decisions as they're typically there through multiple administrations and are more likely to have some idea as to how to write the regulations. Plus, since they aren't directly beholden to one party or another, it's somewhat less likely for corruption.
That being said, it's not perfect, and I know there are times when public interests are set aside for corporate ones, but that's going to happen, I'd like to see some evidence that allowing civil servants handling the details is going to be any worse than allowing politicians to do it.
Hanging no, but it wouldn't surprise me if the judge started holding officials in the DHS in contempt of court. What's great about that is that there isn't any appeal process for that, so they'd have to straighten up and fly right, or spend time in jail until such time as the judge either lost interest or they decided to comply with the order. I suppose they could get fined, which is more likely, but judges only have finite patience for this sort of disrespect.
To be honest, this sounds like MS is inventing something that Apple already invented. Apple has had forked files for how many years now? With one fork for the data and a resource fork for the icon and a few related pieces of information.
Personally, I don't like it, it's non-standard and requires special steps to work with at times, and I'm don't really understand why it's needed in the first place. If it's really that big of a problem you can always zip up the meta data file and the data file and call it a day, but for most purposes I'd rather than the data not get corrupted when the meta data does.
It's actually illegal to drive above the speed limit or below the speed limit in the US. The only exceptions for civilians are when conditions dictate that one must drive more slowly or when the flow of traffic is over the speed limit.
The case of a car speeding or running a red light is almost certainly going to be less common than with drivers. The car would know ahead of time if it has time to stop for a yellow light and would push through if it didn't. Providing the cars aren't being hacked by the end user, running red lights should be rare.
Same goes for speeding, a car would know where the other cars are, otherwise it shouldn't be on the road without a driver. With a few sensors and you could probably have it slow down if conditions dictate that, although with radar, fog would be less of a hazard than it currently is.
Those are cars though, they're relatively small and benefit from the car's motion at times. I doubt very much that a home or office air conditioner can do that.
No, if that's the case, you take a larger slice from society at large in the form of taxes and cover the difference. Ultimately, we all benefit from high quality schools and colleges even if we ourselves never go there.
The U of K isn't exactly a replacement for a qualified educational experience. There's little to no guarantee that somebody has learned anything at all, or even done any sort of assessment. The college system isn't perfect, but you can usually tell the dangerously inept with an interview if you need to.
Right, so your solution is to legalize all three of them? Do you have any evidence at all that cigarettes and alcohol are "infinitely worse than smoking pot is for you."
Personally, considering how poorly regulating booze and cigarettes is going, I don't think that opening up an additional drug is really the right call. Even according to a pro-marijuana website I found, alcohol related deaths number in the tens of thousands. They did give marijuana a goose egg, but I'd question the validity of that considering that it's not something that can typically be medically determined at this stage.
Right, and like most of the pro-legalization supporters are any less stubborn and ignorant.
The difference is that the burden of proof is on the pro-legalization side as substances of this nature are dangerous until proven otherwise. What's more, there's no requirement that the necessary studies be done in the US, there's plenty of places in which one can legally light up a joint without having to worry about being arrested.
I keep hearing folks say that, but ultimately it's not true.
Nice propaganda you're spreading there. That's the way that taxes work and ultimately any taxes that people pay get factored into the cost of doing business. Whether you tack it on to the top of the bill or subtract it from the income that results you end up with the same basic situation. Switching to a system of ultrahigh sales tax isn't going to do anything about that particular problem.
And yes, there are provisions for basics going untaxed, but that's more about preventing rioting than any sort of benevolence. The rich spend less of their money as a percentage on those things that the rest do, but the rich are also more easily capable of circumventing a sales tax. So, the rest of us having seen our buying power drastically reduced will still be able to eat, but good luck going on vacation, buying a TV or anything to make oneself comfortable with.
At the end of the day, I'm sure you won't believe me, but sales taxes suck, they just do. Compliance is lousy and they ultimately slow economic growth even when everything else works well.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been to those areas, and they're not uninhabited, they're occupied primarily by farms. So, yes people could move there, but then we'd have to find someplace to grow that food. Food production is vital to national security and our well being in general.
That would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Those plants are built like bunkers, and the security clearance needed to get to work in one is extensive. I don't know about the checks they do in Belgium, but the ones they do in the US go on for a long time before they're granted.
And you would need more than just one individual to do it too, so, you'd have to sneak through several personnel into the same nuclear power plant without being detected. I'm sure it's hypothetically possible, but at that point, you'd probably be better of building you're own bomb and figuring out how to set it off in a major city.
Money isn't an issue, just guarantee the loans and it should happen. Nuclear reactors are really cheap to operate virtually all of the expense involved comes from constructing the plant. After that, even with proper safety procedures the cost isn't that much.
I'm actually surprised that places like Montana and Nebraska aren't all over this, give that they can be built in the middle of nowhere and still be quite useful.
Because we've been trying to promote a peace with the various Arab countries and now we're pulling out of this because UNESCO is going to fund restoration projects in the Palestinian Authority? Just makes us look like bigoted hypocrites.
We might save a few bucks here, but $80 million isn't even worth worrying about. In terms of the budget it would be like you refusing to hand a homeless guy a dime because you don't like how he dresses. $80m to the budget isn't even worth worrying about.
And we're not doing it because of the culture, we're doing it because we don't have the cajones to tell the Israelis to fuck off and stop violating international law. At this point, the best thing we could do is refuse to sell arms to Israel and just allow the two groups to go at it until things are resolved. Continuing to fund Israeli genocide of the Palestinians is embarrassing.
The key is ultimately to think about it and plan ahead.
The examples you're using are hardly ones that can't be planned for. The trick is the subpoena, there are few limitations to that power, and if somebody gets a subpoena for your computer they're going to have access to anything which isn't encrypted. They could subpoena any keys that have been recorded on paper without violating ones rights, unless those happen to fall under a relatively small number of categories.
Ultimately, if you haven't checked in with your attorney in 20 years to make sure that the individual is still alive and practicing law, you don't have a will. In practice they aren't going to have the only copy typically, but if you entrusted the only copy to them, you can't assume that it's still available at that point. As for the office burning down or blowing up, legal firms have offside backups, unless the will is destroyed within the first day or two, it's going to be backed up offsite and there'll probably be at least 2 back ups.
Exactly. Once I'm dead, I don't care about that, I would prefer to know that nothing that gets released would harm somebody that I care about, but once I'm dead it won't affect anything other than the memory of me.
You're wrong, because of the claims and the track record, finding a vulnerability in the base install is a great way to make a name for oneself as a security researcher. In the last decade only one has been found. Which is pretty damn impressive by any standard.
Probably the only better way of ensuring that level of security would be paying out a million dollars for such an exploit.
Larry hasn't yet gotten around to buying them out.
I remember in the late 90s that it would be more efficient and cost effective to buy the discs and have them shipped, but that was more a matter of the cost of dial up service and the time it would take to deal with that.
I don't recall one ever having to pay for it as the BSD license does allow people to sell copies of it if they wish.
Portions of it are already available over there. The Great Firewall thing is a pretty big joke. Sure it does cut down a great deal on that, but it's hardly rocket science to circumvent, and ultimately, us dropping all those packets at our border would make it nigh impossible for them to get through. Assuming that it's even possible in the first place, which is questionable at best.
Yes, but there's plenty of files that I personally want protected against prying eyes while I'm alive, which I wouldn't mind relatives seeing after I've passed. It is private information, but once I'm dead, I do kind of like the idea of people getting to see the areas of my life which were too private for me to be comfortable sharing in life.
The challenge is finding a way of disclosing those passwords without the possibility of a subpoena getting at them. I think pretty much the only way is to involve an attorney so that you can have attorney client privileges and then have the attorney disclose those after you're dead.
I don't believe that wills are protected in that way typically, you probably could send it to yourself via the post office, but I'm unsure as to whether subpoenas could force you to open them. Sending them internationally certainly would allow for them to be opened by ICE.
Sure you can securely share it. It's not ideal, but you can ensure that the password is only available to those people. If they then share it with other people, that's a completely separate issue.
Because, we're not going to win this cold war if we're not providing easy access to our culture. Soft power has done far more for the US' standing in the world than our willingness to spend every last cent on pointless military endeavors.
There's momentum now. Had this been dealt with in the wake of 9/11, I doubt very much that the train would still be rolling. Unfortunately, the failure to charge any of the Bush Administration officials with crimes against humanity, even the ones that admitted on tape to ordering war crimes, isn't likely to make it any easier for future Presidents to go back to respecting the constitution.
I take it your a libertarian, because the effect of doing that would be to almost completely shut down the government. I'd rather have career civil servants making most of those decisions as they're typically there through multiple administrations and are more likely to have some idea as to how to write the regulations. Plus, since they aren't directly beholden to one party or another, it's somewhat less likely for corruption.
That being said, it's not perfect, and I know there are times when public interests are set aside for corporate ones, but that's going to happen, I'd like to see some evidence that allowing civil servants handling the details is going to be any worse than allowing politicians to do it.
Hanging no, but it wouldn't surprise me if the judge started holding officials in the DHS in contempt of court. What's great about that is that there isn't any appeal process for that, so they'd have to straighten up and fly right, or spend time in jail until such time as the judge either lost interest or they decided to comply with the order. I suppose they could get fined, which is more likely, but judges only have finite patience for this sort of disrespect.
To be honest, this sounds like MS is inventing something that Apple already invented. Apple has had forked files for how many years now? With one fork for the data and a resource fork for the icon and a few related pieces of information.
Personally, I don't like it, it's non-standard and requires special steps to work with at times, and I'm don't really understand why it's needed in the first place. If it's really that big of a problem you can always zip up the meta data file and the data file and call it a day, but for most purposes I'd rather than the data not get corrupted when the meta data does.
It's actually illegal to drive above the speed limit or below the speed limit in the US. The only exceptions for civilians are when conditions dictate that one must drive more slowly or when the flow of traffic is over the speed limit.
The case of a car speeding or running a red light is almost certainly going to be less common than with drivers. The car would know ahead of time if it has time to stop for a yellow light and would push through if it didn't. Providing the cars aren't being hacked by the end user, running red lights should be rare.
Same goes for speeding, a car would know where the other cars are, otherwise it shouldn't be on the road without a driver. With a few sensors and you could probably have it slow down if conditions dictate that, although with radar, fog would be less of a hazard than it currently is.
Because there's nothing worse than disorganized ducks.
Those are cars though, they're relatively small and benefit from the car's motion at times. I doubt very much that a home or office air conditioner can do that.
No, if that's the case, you take a larger slice from society at large in the form of taxes and cover the difference. Ultimately, we all benefit from high quality schools and colleges even if we ourselves never go there.
The U of K isn't exactly a replacement for a qualified educational experience. There's little to no guarantee that somebody has learned anything at all, or even done any sort of assessment. The college system isn't perfect, but you can usually tell the dangerously inept with an interview if you need to.
Right, so your solution is to legalize all three of them? Do you have any evidence at all that cigarettes and alcohol are "infinitely worse than smoking pot is for you."
Personally, considering how poorly regulating booze and cigarettes is going, I don't think that opening up an additional drug is really the right call. Even according to a pro-marijuana website I found, alcohol related deaths number in the tens of thousands. They did give marijuana a goose egg, but I'd question the validity of that considering that it's not something that can typically be medically determined at this stage.
Right, and like most of the pro-legalization supporters are any less stubborn and ignorant.
The difference is that the burden of proof is on the pro-legalization side as substances of this nature are dangerous until proven otherwise. What's more, there's no requirement that the necessary studies be done in the US, there's plenty of places in which one can legally light up a joint without having to worry about being arrested.
I keep hearing folks say that, but ultimately it's not true.
Nice propaganda you're spreading there. That's the way that taxes work and ultimately any taxes that people pay get factored into the cost of doing business. Whether you tack it on to the top of the bill or subtract it from the income that results you end up with the same basic situation. Switching to a system of ultrahigh sales tax isn't going to do anything about that particular problem.
And yes, there are provisions for basics going untaxed, but that's more about preventing rioting than any sort of benevolence. The rich spend less of their money as a percentage on those things that the rest do, but the rich are also more easily capable of circumventing a sales tax. So, the rest of us having seen our buying power drastically reduced will still be able to eat, but good luck going on vacation, buying a TV or anything to make oneself comfortable with.
At the end of the day, I'm sure you won't believe me, but sales taxes suck, they just do. Compliance is lousy and they ultimately slow economic growth even when everything else works well.
No, because there's the statute of limitations and unless it was fairly significant use, he'd probably still be eligible to become a police officer.
Just because you neglect the middle, doesn't mean that it exists.