When the US downgradeds, it will send a shudder through markets that day. That will followed, as usual, by the more sober realisation that what S&P, Moody’s think about the nation’s creditworthiness is almost irrelevant. The more ratings become removed from reality, the more I am horrified to their semi-government approved status. The more we can rely on them less, the better. I'm pretty sure that the problems will be large institutions that have to scrammmbe to put up more risk reserves,
Governments care about the health of their citizens when they pay for healthcare.
When the ban on smoking in public places was being debated in the UK, one arguments put forth was that it will reduce the National Health Service's (NHS) costs (from the BBC ).
Paternalistic perhaps, but they didn't ban smoking altogether.
Has a Mcaffee sponsored "comprehensive survey" ever yelded non-fear mongering results?
Have they ever come out and said: "This problem we're investigating... turns out not to be so bad after all, nothing to be alarmed about".
They have a serious conflict of interest. They are worse than investment banks publishing research on companies they own shares in. An apt comparison may be to pharmaceuticals publishing forecasts for the spread of diseases for which they hold the patents for the cure.
Until I'll see independent research on this, I won't be swayed.
In communist Romania, when we got our first fax machine at the office for foreign trade, only 3 (of about 500) employees had clearance to use it for transmitting faxes. Other high ranking employees used it as a copy machine, but then, same as parent post, each document had to be signed off and there was constant supervision.
Seriously though, what are you on about? Too many tabloids? Crime is at an all time low in the UK. Granted, some places have gotten worse, but the overall averages for both non-violent and violent crime are much lower than before "Tony Blair's England" (See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/)
"Didn't you read the EULA where you gave all your rights away?"
Actually... the EULA I read at my work place is even more sinister: It's a License Agreement that stipulates I should "End" myself if I break it (they call it an "End User License Agreement"). It's oh so awfull!
I should blow a whistle or something... but I doubt that'll help, not after the Apple ruling.
Much kudos to nfox2000 for handling the matter as he did and for sharing (criticism of the EFF doesn't always go down well).
I enjoy finding out about apple innovation as much as the next mac fanboy and I've enthusiastically read Jason's stuff in the past, but why didn't he register the domain under his own name to begin with? Then apple wouldn't have to subpoena the ISP.
Perhaps it was convenience, but surely any reputable journalist/publication should be readily contactable. Was he anticipating this kind of trouble? Or did he simply not bother getting a PO box until he found out he really did need one?
The parent is perhaps the most relevant post so far. Not only is apple merely requesting the documents leaked (which may or may not lead to identifying the insider), but they have sought no damages from Jason O'Grady himself. Nor did they "set their legal sights on the low hanging fruit", they aimed at obtaining information from any source possible.
As a mathematician, I may be too entrenched in the system, but I have many objections to your post. First some background:
Plato was the first real mathematician. He came up with the notion of ideal forms (The Forms) in formulating his solution to the problem of universals. Namely abstract representations of the many forms we see around us. The whole of mathematics is based on this.
If you choose to reject the notion of forms, mathematics is meaningless, (e.g.: even basic Euclidian geometry, as no two representations of a triangle are quite the same, in order to reproduce a proof you've come up with, you'd have to have the exact same triangle to reproduce it on). What you are suggesting in your post is essentially rejecting these basic building blocks of logic (there's a brilliant Borges story detailing the downfall of a man who does just that, called "Funes the Memorious")
As for finding "anything" with numbers such as we know them, this is just plain wrong (Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, as quoted in wikipedia, states that: "For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete.").
"Thinking beyond know numbers takes a mind that are capable of thinking beyond our existing collective knowledge." A mind that IS capable of thinking beyond the accumulated human knowledge, at this point of time is not human. (No computer we've built so far can do this either as it has been built on Plato's principles), so what you are likely to end up with are countless disordered systems, one for every "mind", namely chaos.
Slashdot Mirror
When the US downgradeds, it will send a shudder through markets that day. That will followed, as usual, by the more sober realisation that what S&P, Moody’s think about the nation’s creditworthiness is almost irrelevant. The more ratings become removed from reality, the more I am horrified to their semi-government approved status. The more we can rely on them less, the better. I'm pretty sure that the problems will be large institutions that have to scrammmbe to put up more risk reserves,
Ah, thanks for the kind reply, I see the stretch you were going for there.
The story you quote is from 1996. Not 32 years ago.
Governments care about the health of their citizens when they pay for healthcare.
When the ban on smoking in public places was being debated in the UK, one arguments put forth was that it will reduce the National Health Service's (NHS) costs (from the BBC ).
Paternalistic perhaps, but they didn't ban smoking altogether.
I agree completely (also, I missmoderated)
"The big question is why would, say romanian cybercriminals waste their botnets for something like that."
Fyi, Romanians are very anti-Russian nowadays, especially since joining the EU and NATO.
NATO is helping repel the attacks, Romanian experts (maybe even reformed "cybercriminals") may actually be on the Estonian side.
Given the press/forum rhetoric in Romania, even "cybercriminals" may be donating their own time just to frustrate the Russians.
BERLUSCONI (not Burlesconi), I'd correct the rest of your non-spelling related errors, but I shan't feed the trolls.
Has a Mcaffee sponsored "comprehensive survey" ever yelded non-fear mongering results?
Have they ever come out and said: "This problem we're investigating... turns out not to be so bad after all, nothing to be alarmed about".
They have a serious conflict of interest. They are worse than investment banks publishing research on companies they own shares in.
An apt comparison may be to pharmaceuticals publishing forecasts for the spread of diseases for which they hold the patents for the cure.
Until I'll see independent research on this, I won't be swayed.
In communist Romania, when we got our first fax machine at the office for foreign trade, only 3 (of about 500) employees had clearance to use it for transmitting faxes. Other high ranking employees used it as a copy machine, but then, same as parent post, each document had to be signed off and there was constant supervision.
This is why Bonds will never outdo Ruth... wrong muscle enhancer.
"Lowtax versus Jobs.
Sounds like Econ 101 class."
Blantant, the word you're looking for is "blatant". Neat site! It's really simple and useful.
Seriously though, what are you on about? Too many tabloids? Crime is at an all time low in the UK. Granted, some places have gotten worse, but the overall averages for both non-violent and violent crime are much lower than before "Tony Blair's England" (See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/)
"Didn't you read the EULA where you gave all your rights away?"
Actually... the EULA I read at my work place is even more sinister: It's a License Agreement that stipulates I should "End" myself if I break it (they call it an "End User License Agreement"). It's oh so awfull!
I should blow a whistle or something... but I doubt that'll help, not after the Apple ruling.
Much kudos to nfox2000 for handling the matter as he did and for sharing (criticism of the EFF doesn't always go down well).
I enjoy finding out about apple innovation as much as the next mac fanboy and I've enthusiastically read Jason's stuff in the past, but why didn't he register the domain under his own name to begin with? Then apple wouldn't have to subpoena the ISP.
Perhaps it was convenience, but surely any reputable journalist/publication should be readily contactable. Was he anticipating this kind of trouble? Or did he simply not bother getting a PO box until he found out he really did need one?
The parent is perhaps the most relevant post so far. Not only is apple merely requesting the documents leaked (which may or may not lead to identifying the insider), but they have sought no damages from Jason O'Grady himself. Nor did they "set their legal sights on the low hanging fruit", they aimed at obtaining information from any source possible.
As a mathematician, I may be too entrenched in the system, but I have many objections to your post. First some background:
Plato was the first real mathematician. He came up with the notion of ideal forms (The Forms) in formulating his solution to the problem of universals. Namely abstract representations of the many forms we see around us. The whole of mathematics is based on this.
If you choose to reject the notion of forms, mathematics is meaningless, (e.g.: even basic Euclidian geometry, as no two representations of a triangle are quite the same, in order to reproduce a proof you've come up with, you'd have to have the exact same triangle to reproduce it on).
What you are suggesting in your post is essentially rejecting these basic building blocks of logic (there's a brilliant Borges story detailing the downfall of a man who does just that, called "Funes the Memorious")
As for finding "anything" with numbers such as we know them, this is just plain wrong (Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, as quoted in wikipedia, states that: "For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete.").
"Thinking beyond know numbers takes a mind that are capable of thinking beyond our existing collective knowledge."
A mind that IS capable of thinking beyond the accumulated human knowledge, at this point of time is not human. (No computer we've built so far can do this either as it has been built on Plato's principles), so what you are likely to end up with are countless disordered systems, one for every "mind", namely chaos.