Actually, I don't see anything the least bit unethical about selling drugs. Its the law that ruins lives and is unethical, and is the reason the drugs are supplied by organized crrime. Those international prosecutors created the problem. They put the market in the hands of organized crime, they made every situation they touched worst....and.... to top it all off, have failed to even budge the addiction rates....after trillions of dollars, millions of incarcerations, and international efforts.
And you call some people trying to help individuals sell products to eachother that they actually want and seek out....unethical. ROTFL are your priorities fucked or what?
A far better plan is to generate several thousand encryption keys based on simple dictionary words and well known phrases. Encrypt the real data with one of them, and a load of bestiality pix, articles about idiots who work for the government, gay porn, and asian cooking recipes, encrypted each file with a different key, and sent the correct key to the destination.
Since you can't refuse to give them the key in the UK, you hand them a randomized list of all the keys with no indication as to which maps to which. Let them enjoy the sorting.
Not only that but a quick look over at autofocus shows that there are several ways that cameras do it, and many cheap ones like are on phones, are fixed focus anyway. Overall, I think this is a lost cause, regardless of whether its a good idea or not.
I agree with the guy who said pat downs and scans for electronic devices. No serious other way.
Got a couple of problems. As you found IR is ineffective, I think you will find anything that allows normal human sight to work will be ineffective or inconsistently effective. Have to assume that total darkness is not acceptable as well (though would be somewhat effective)
I have heard that its possible to detect cameras by IR lasers that they use for autofocus. So that leaves some ideas: 1. Detection rather than nullification. Maybe you can't prevent but you can at least know when, 2. Maybe you can use IR to fool the autofocus to one extreme or another?
Nothing is perfect of course, but if those could be done for the majority of smart phones, then it may still be worth doing for some purposes.
While I agree in general, I am not sure this applies here, for 2 reasons:
1. This is not society in general, this is on hosts which are running games, which are protected by VAC. The user signed up, the user installed the game, the user invoked the game, the user was warned that the game uses VAC and cheaters would be banned.
2. Even after the user has invoked the VAC protected game, these checks for "proscribed hosts" are not done as a primary check, but, as a followup to confirm an association for which there was already evidence.
#2 is important. Just going to a cheat site doesn't make you a cheater. However, if you are suspected to be a cheater for other reasons, and it turns out you go to the site for the cheat you are suspected of, that is confirmation. That is good investigation. If you look for whoever went to a site and then use that to bias your cheat detection, that is a good old fashioned witch hunt.
I know nothing really about their operations but, little bit of thinking on it. They can't be very big, for a whole host of reasons aside from not needing to be. Their "Employees" are likely all part owners, with a stake in making it work. This would not be unusual in a company comprised of only a handful of people. It is a mistake to assume they have employees like a larger company would. They might, but, I think it is unlikely.
Of course but, if you really need financial stability, I don't recommend being in on the ground floor of a startup. It is unlikely anyone involved, at this point, is putting all their eggs in one basket, and they would be crazy to do so. High risk atmospheres are not for people who need steady and dependable.
> This comes as Merkel's government faces criminal complaints for assisting aspects of the NSA's programs." > twitter facebook linkedin Share on Google+
My favorite part of the whole thing is that they are facing criminal complaints for assisting the NSA, all while having also been spied on by the very people they assisted. Hmm a happy satisfied feeling from seeing others get what has been coming to them? I believe the Germans just might have a word for that.
This is a point I bring up occasionally in regards to the so called "war on terror". The thing is these highly rare events, on average, don't happen. Your chances of ever encountering an attack is nearly nil. However, given long enough time spans, and large enough areas, they do happen with occasional frequency.
That is the thing, you can expect anything that could happen is going to happen occasionally given a large enough population that it could happen in and a long enough time for it to happen.
So if you set goals like preventing attacks where every single one that happens is a failure, if you are resigned that the next time one happens you will support this or that....then you have already resolved to support it, because it will happen, regardless of what you do.
Every liberty you are willing to curtail in the name of stopping the unstoppable is one you already lost.
You are not the only person I have heard have trouble flying in or through Holland.
A friend of mine is Iranian and went home to visit family, with planned extended layovers in Amsterdam to have a little fun in between.
Twice he has done this, and twice subjected to invasive searches, including full cavity searches. We are not talking about some punk kid either, I mean a 60 year old, gray haired IT professional....up against a wall with his cheeks spread.
How many of these simulations get turned off when the creatures inside prove that its a simulation?
If world simulations are possible, and people create them, then it is likely people teach the creation of them, and even have studied them extensively. Perhaps it is, in fact possible to create simulations from within which it is impossible to prove is a simulation? If so, it may be that our simulation is in fact some student's project; and by proving the world is a simulation; we may actually be exposing a flaw in his design; causing him to fail his world simulation class.
Or perhaps, in trying to model the big bang and formation of the universe, someone wrote such a detailed simulation that simulated life evolved within it. Likely the simulator never even noticed us, not for a while yet until we start spreading out and moving asteroids, eventually cocking up his results in some small way until he finds us, and realized his frame rate has been so slow because the resolution was up way too high if we were able to evolve.
Please cite where in the US constitution it states that only citizens have the right to fair trials or to petition the government for redress of grievance. All people dealing with the US government or within US boarders have those rights.
These people are not just assholes, they are blatant criminals.
Fine? Excuse me but we are talking about blatent denials of civil rights. We are talking about a criminal conspiracy to cover up wrongdoing and deny her basic civil right to have her grievance heard.
Fines do not cover this sort of criminal action, each and every one of them should spend the rest of their lives with a felony conviction, and every one of them should do time for it.
Ahem....and what makes you think the set of people who would realize this and abuse it is a subset of people who would otherwise point a laser at a plane?
I don't think that follows at all. I mean there is likely some intersection of those sets, but I wouldn't expect it to be a lot.
> Looks to me like the FAA and FBI are taking the stance that magic just isn't going solve > this one, so they are trying a tactic, popular or not.\
This would be one place we disagree, because if they expect this tactic to work, they are indeed hoping for some sort of magic to solve their problem. Seems more like that since no solution is in sight, they are just going to go ahead making busy work for themselves to justify their paychecks.
I guess it depends how hard we are talking. "A handful of people with too much time on their hands" is how many? I mean, even 10,000 or 20,000 people is a drop in the bucket of a population our size. Hell, I wonder how many are people going "hey look at that shooting star over there" "dude that is a plane" "shit".
No I think he was suggesting that some number of those 11 each day is likely someone pissed off about plane noise in his neigborhood. 11 is a pretty small number compared to both people and flights, it doesn't take much. One pissed off guy could be the cause of those kind of numbers. (though I suspect it would be much easier to solve if that were the case).
11 times a day is easily within the realm of possibility if you have even a moderate/small population of people pissed off an acting out individually. That could easily account for half or more. If one guy went outside once a day, that would be nearly 10% of the whole issue. If everyone who did this did it once a week, you are looking at a population of ~700 people.... in a country of about 300 million.
If it really takes so few, the problem is likely intractable from this end, because there will always be some number of people pissed off about anything.
Totally solves the problem until someone realizes how he can not only defeat that but turn it against others with....a mirror or camera and remote control. As an added bonus, the blast should scatter the evidence nicely too.
And what, pray-tell are you basing your assumption that this will work on? Generally this making a harsh example of people theory seems to do little more than justify enforcement budgets and act as an excuse to not solve underlying problems than it does to actually curb the issues it is aimed at.
I guess if you insist on not trying to find a creative solution that deals with the actual problem, foisting the issue off on law enforcement and blaming them for not being harsh or effective enough does effectively solve the issue for anyone who isn't all that interested in solving it.
This is exactly what I was thinking. However, there is one reason: So you can make it a restricted login shell that can only issue git commands or git plus some small subset.
Other than that, beats me, I can't imagine any other scenarios where aliases wouldn't be good enough.
> Lets not kid around. Bitcoin was created with the intention of getting around existing laws and > regulations regarding currency. The philosophy behind this idea suggests that these things are > unnecessary and represent others stealing your money.
Actually I believe it suggests far more distrust in a central authority and the Fed. You don't have to go too far into the anti-Fed conspiracy nutjob side of things to question whether it is too much power or too corrupting. I mean, even if you accept that inflation is a good thing (I do actually) and that you may want to create more money out of thin air....its not too hard to see that the distribution of that new money is surrounded by questionable practices in the extreme.
Fed money creation is generally done by creating new money and then doling it out as low interest, no recourse loans. Rolling Stone did a great article "The Wives of Wall Street" exposing how many connected people set their wives up with shell companies just to apply for these sweet loans. It is wealth redistribution.... from everyone else, right to the top! The deals they talked about were sweet too, if you make a profit, you pay back the loan, if you don't, you don't have to pay it back. I want that loan too! Where do I sign up? Oh right, I don't qualify, I didn't marry a top level banker.
In the end, this problem in the bitcoin market is a problem with an exchange. No different from bugs that caused real banks to lose money in real situations; some which became very public, some which didn't. Regulation wouldn't have fixed this; it was a procedural error in how they determined if a transaction failed.
I have had this daydream before, many times actually. In theory it wouldn't really even need to be driven by the driver but could be nearly completely autonomous, or sync up to navigation systems already being used to provide more relevant data....etc. Sure.
However, I doubt it would be that useful in many situations. Sure it may be able to bring back some nice shots, or something but, if you are stuck in traffic, you are stuck. If its about to clear up, it may clear up before your drone can return.
Mostly it wouldn't be that useful since its only useful after you are already stuck. The situations where it might actually provide useful data, seem likely to be outnumbered by the ones where it is useless or, at best, frivilous.
There may be uses of course, but, likely not for traffic scouting.
> But confidential informants, undercover work, legal wiretaps, etc. are all things which should be protected, and > for which parallel evidence is a means of doing. In many cases, it is the civilians who are being shielded, not the > police.
If they can't prove a case with real evidence, then they can not bring the case. We are talking about bringing charges against a person who is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to collect evidence, not to produce a fantasy scene. This is not hollywood.
It doesn't matter what the intent here, the result is that people are going to jail without the possibility of having a fair trial based upon an entirely fake construction. Not just people and their attourneys but even the prosecution and courts are being presented these fantasies.
Oh there just happened to be an officer sitting there who claims he saw the car swerve and they "found" all these drugs. How convinenet. Except, its bullshit. The officer never would have been there and never would have picked up another car....his entire report is a fabrication. Perjury.
We are talking about nothing short of a criminal conspiracy to systematically deny people of their right to a fair trial. Nothing justifies that.
Ahhh so instead of writing a custom solver, they transform the problem into one solved by the particular problem that it solves? Interesting. So either it doesn't have enough qubits to demonstrate its abilities on a hard enough problem; or its a bogus classically based solver? Interesting.
Of course, it is little more than a paperweight either way. Maybe if there were visibility to its internals, it might be a learning tool but, without even that, its hard to see what good it is if you can't even distinguish it from a classical system.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I don't see anything the least bit unethical about selling drugs. Its the law that ruins lives and is unethical, and is the reason the drugs are supplied by organized crrime. Those international prosecutors created the problem. They put the market in the hands of organized crime, they made every situation they touched worst....and.... to top it all off, have failed to even budge the addiction rates....after trillions of dollars, millions of incarcerations, and international efforts.
And you call some people trying to help individuals sell products to eachother that they actually want and seek out....unethical. ROTFL are your priorities fucked or what?
A far better plan is to generate several thousand encryption keys based on simple dictionary words and well known phrases. Encrypt the real data with one of them, and a load of bestiality pix, articles about idiots who work for the government, gay porn, and asian cooking recipes, encrypted each file with a different key, and sent the correct key to the destination.
Since you can't refuse to give them the key in the UK, you hand them a randomized list of all the keys with no indication as to which maps to which. Let them enjoy the sorting.
Not only that but a quick look over at autofocus shows that there are several ways that cameras do it, and many cheap ones like are on phones, are fixed focus anyway. Overall, I think this is a lost cause, regardless of whether its a good idea or not.
I agree with the guy who said pat downs and scans for electronic devices. No serious other way.
Got a couple of problems. As you found IR is ineffective, I think you will find anything that allows normal human sight to work will be ineffective or inconsistently effective. Have to assume that total darkness is not acceptable as well (though would be somewhat effective)
I have heard that its possible to detect cameras by IR lasers that they use for autofocus. So that leaves some ideas:
1. Detection rather than nullification. Maybe you can't prevent but you can at least know when,
2. Maybe you can use IR to fool the autofocus to one extreme or another?
Nothing is perfect of course, but if those could be done for the majority of smart phones, then it may still be worth doing for some purposes.
While I agree in general, I am not sure this applies here, for 2 reasons:
1. This is not society in general, this is on hosts which are running games, which are protected by VAC. The user signed up, the user installed the game, the user invoked the game, the user was warned that the game uses VAC and cheaters would be banned.
2. Even after the user has invoked the VAC protected game, these checks for "proscribed hosts" are not done as a primary check, but, as a followup to confirm an association for which there was already evidence.
#2 is important. Just going to a cheat site doesn't make you a cheater. However, if you are suspected to be a cheater for other reasons, and it turns out you go to the site for the cheat you are suspected of, that is confirmation. That is good investigation. If you look for whoever went to a site and then use that to bias your cheat detection, that is a good old fashioned witch hunt.
I know nothing really about their operations but, little bit of thinking on it. They can't be very big, for a whole host of reasons aside from not needing to be. Their "Employees" are likely all part owners, with a stake in making it work. This would not be unusual in a company comprised of only a handful of people. It is a mistake to assume they have employees like a larger company would. They might, but, I think it is unlikely.
Of course but, if you really need financial stability, I don't recommend being in on the ground floor of a startup. It is unlikely anyone involved, at this point, is putting all their eggs in one basket, and they would be crazy to do so. High risk atmospheres are not for people who need steady and dependable.
> This comes as Merkel's government faces criminal complaints for assisting aspects of the NSA's programs."
> twitter facebook linkedin Share on Google+
My favorite part of the whole thing is that they are facing criminal complaints for assisting the NSA, all while having also been spied on by the very people they assisted. Hmm a happy satisfied feeling from seeing others get what has been coming to them? I believe the Germans just might have a word for that.
This is a point I bring up occasionally in regards to the so called "war on terror". The thing is these highly rare events, on average, don't happen. Your chances of ever encountering an attack is nearly nil. However, given long enough time spans, and large enough areas, they do happen with occasional frequency.
That is the thing, you can expect anything that could happen is going to happen occasionally given a large enough population that it could happen in and a long enough time for it to happen.
So if you set goals like preventing attacks where every single one that happens is a failure, if you are resigned that the next time one happens you will support this or that....then you have already resolved to support it, because it will happen, regardless of what you do.
Every liberty you are willing to curtail in the name of stopping the unstoppable is one you already lost.
Maybe their airport security people moonlight at nurses?
I will ask him about it again next time I see him, perhaps I was exaggerating and it was only a strip search. Either way, pretty invasive.
You are not the only person I have heard have trouble flying in or through Holland.
A friend of mine is Iranian and went home to visit family, with planned extended layovers in Amsterdam to have a little fun in between.
Twice he has done this, and twice subjected to invasive searches, including full cavity searches. We are not talking about some punk kid either, I mean a 60 year old, gray haired IT professional....up against a wall with his cheeks spread.
How many of these simulations get turned off when the creatures inside prove that its a simulation?
If world simulations are possible, and people create them, then it is likely people teach the creation of them, and even have studied them extensively. Perhaps it is, in fact possible to create simulations from within which it is impossible to prove is a simulation? If so, it may be that our simulation is in fact some student's project; and by proving the world is a simulation; we may actually be exposing a flaw in his design; causing him to fail his world simulation class.
Or perhaps, in trying to model the big bang and formation of the universe, someone wrote such a detailed simulation that simulated life evolved within it. Likely the simulator never even noticed us, not for a while yet until we start spreading out and moving asteroids, eventually cocking up his results in some small way until he finds us, and realized his frame rate has been so slow because the resolution was up way too high if we were able to evolve.
Please cite where in the US constitution it states that only citizens have the right to fair trials or to petition the government for redress of grievance. All people dealing with the US government or within US boarders have those rights.
These people are not just assholes, they are blatant criminals.
Fine? Excuse me but we are talking about blatent denials of civil rights. We are talking about a criminal conspiracy to cover up wrongdoing and deny her basic civil right to have her grievance heard.
Fines do not cover this sort of criminal action, each and every one of them should spend the rest of their lives with a felony conviction, and every one of them should do time for it.
Ahem....and what makes you think the set of people who would realize this and abuse it is a subset of people who would otherwise point a laser at a plane?
I don't think that follows at all. I mean there is likely some intersection of those sets, but I wouldn't expect it to be a lot.
> Looks to me like the FAA and FBI are taking the stance that magic just isn't going solve
> this one, so they are trying a tactic, popular or not.\
This would be one place we disagree, because if they expect this tactic to work, they are indeed hoping for some sort of magic to solve their problem. Seems more like that since no solution is in sight, they are just going to go ahead making busy work for themselves to justify their paychecks.
I guess it depends how hard we are talking. "A handful of people with too much time on their hands" is how many? I mean, even 10,000 or 20,000 people is a drop in the bucket of a population our size. Hell, I wonder how many are people going "hey look at that shooting star over there" "dude that is a plane" "shit".
No I think he was suggesting that some number of those 11 each day is likely someone pissed off about plane noise in his neigborhood. 11 is a pretty small number compared to both people and flights, it doesn't take much. One pissed off guy could be the cause of those kind of numbers. (though I suspect it would be much easier to solve if that were the case).
11 times a day is easily within the realm of possibility if you have even a moderate/small population of people pissed off an acting out individually. That could easily account for half or more. If one guy went outside once a day, that would be nearly 10% of the whole issue. If everyone who did this did it once a week, you are looking at a population of ~700 people.... in a country of about 300 million.
If it really takes so few, the problem is likely intractable from this end, because there will always be some number of people pissed off about anything.
Totally solves the problem until someone realizes how he can not only defeat that but turn it against others with....a mirror or camera and remote control. As an added bonus, the blast should scatter the evidence nicely too.
Care to try again?
And what, pray-tell are you basing your assumption that this will work on? Generally this making a harsh example of people theory seems to do little more than justify enforcement budgets and act as an excuse to not solve underlying problems than it does to actually curb the issues it is aimed at.
I guess if you insist on not trying to find a creative solution that deals with the actual problem, foisting the issue off on law enforcement and blaming them for not being harsh or effective enough does effectively solve the issue for anyone who isn't all that interested in solving it.
This is exactly what I was thinking. However, there is one reason: So you can make it a restricted login shell that can only issue git commands or git plus some small subset.
Other than that, beats me, I can't imagine any other scenarios where aliases wouldn't be good enough.
> Lets not kid around. Bitcoin was created with the intention of getting around existing laws and
> regulations regarding currency. The philosophy behind this idea suggests that these things are
> unnecessary and represent others stealing your money.
Actually I believe it suggests far more distrust in a central authority and the Fed. You don't have to go too far into the anti-Fed conspiracy nutjob side of things to question whether it is too much power or too corrupting. I mean, even if you accept that inflation is a good thing (I do actually) and that you may want to create more money out of thin air....its not too hard to see that the distribution of that new money is surrounded by questionable practices in the extreme.
Fed money creation is generally done by creating new money and then doling it out as low interest, no recourse loans. Rolling Stone did a great article "The Wives of Wall Street" exposing how many connected people set their wives up with shell companies just to apply for these sweet loans. It is wealth redistribution.... from everyone else, right to the top! The deals they talked about were sweet too, if you make a profit, you pay back the loan, if you don't, you don't have to pay it back. I want that loan too! Where do I sign up? Oh right, I don't qualify, I didn't marry a top level banker.
In the end, this problem in the bitcoin market is a problem with an exchange. No different from bugs that caused real banks to lose money in real situations; some which became very public, some which didn't. Regulation wouldn't have fixed this; it was a procedural error in how they determined if a transaction failed.
I have had this daydream before, many times actually. In theory it wouldn't really even need to be driven by the driver but could be nearly completely autonomous, or sync up to navigation systems already being used to provide more relevant data....etc. Sure.
However, I doubt it would be that useful in many situations. Sure it may be able to bring back some nice shots, or something but, if you are stuck in traffic, you are stuck. If its about to clear up, it may clear up before your drone can return.
Mostly it wouldn't be that useful since its only useful after you are already stuck. The situations where it might actually provide useful data, seem likely to be outnumbered by the ones where it is useless or, at best, frivilous.
There may be uses of course, but, likely not for traffic scouting.
> But confidential informants, undercover work, legal wiretaps, etc. are all things which should be protected, and
> for which parallel evidence is a means of doing. In many cases, it is the civilians who are being shielded, not the
> police.
If they can't prove a case with real evidence, then they can not bring the case. We are talking about bringing charges against a person who is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to collect evidence, not to produce a fantasy scene. This is not hollywood.
It doesn't matter what the intent here, the result is that people are going to jail without the possibility of having a fair trial based upon an entirely fake construction. Not just people and their attourneys but even the prosecution and courts are being presented these fantasies.
Oh there just happened to be an officer sitting there who claims he saw the car swerve and they "found" all these drugs. How convinenet. Except, its bullshit. The officer never would have been there and never would have picked up another car....his entire report is a fabrication. Perjury.
We are talking about nothing short of a criminal conspiracy to systematically deny people of their right to a fair trial. Nothing justifies that.
Ahhh so instead of writing a custom solver, they transform the problem into one solved by the particular problem that it solves? Interesting. So either it doesn't have enough qubits to demonstrate its abilities on a hard enough problem; or its a bogus classically based solver? Interesting.
Of course, it is little more than a paperweight either way. Maybe if there were visibility to its internals, it might be a learning tool but, without even that, its hard to see what good it is if you can't even distinguish it from a classical system.