Thank you.... this is the video I was thinking of when I posted a previous comment about how, through no wrongdoing on anyone's part, the honest truth can look like a lie in court. It was a brilliant way to show the scenario too, because nobody, not the police, not the suspect, not the mistaken witness actually lied, or even tried to hide anything.... they all said exactly what they believed to be true.... it just so happens that, they were contradictory.
Frankly, I think you could make a better case for banning any and all eye witness testimony from court (people's memories are demonstrably terrible) than for getting rid of the 5th.
> The Fifth Amendment also protects an innocent person from being accused of unrelated crimes. If > you were forced to reveal the contents of your hard drive because you were being wrongly accused > of a crime, an unjust investigator may use such power to find you don't have a valid license for > some software, or you have unlicensed music, etc. The Fifth Amendment is of utmost importance > to the falsely accused as well as the accused. The Fifth Amendment is one more barrier to big > brother.
Exactly. Or how about this.... Alice (I am really feeling these Alice/Bob/Carol scenarios right now) is a journalist who works on stories of international corruption. She keeps an encrypted volume to protect the very lives of her sources, and she recently got a doozy of a leak.
Bob comes knocking at her door, arrests her, and charges her with a number of unrelated crimes, child porn for example. Claims its all in her encrypted partition. Since there is no 5th ammendment she now either goes to jail for refusing to "testify" or she decrypts the volume, "proves her innocence", and moves on.
Meanwhile, Carol, the whistle-blower? Shes now being indicted on charges stemming from what was found on Alice's encrypted volume. Thanks Alice. Guess making people prove their innocence worked out right?
I got this example from a law professor, I forget where.
Lets say Alice takes a trip to visit her mother. She drives up alone, forgetting her cell phone at home, and has a full tank so she never stops for gas. The next day, she drives home, also leaving no record.
During the night, Bob is murdered. The police question Alice, she tells the truth. However, they also question Carol, who doesn't know Alice well, but knows her, and was in the area of Bobs murder. She claims she saw Alice there that night. She is mistaken of course, but its an honest mistake.
Now Alice comes to be charged and in court, the police report that Alice was seen in the area, they have witnesses, but, when questioned she claimed to be out of town, but had no proof of this... now her statement, even thought true, is in fact, being used against her.
In fact, this brings up a huge fail. "Anything you say can and will be used against you". Anything you say in court in your own defense is either a logical argument or its hearsay. "She said that" "I was here"...all hearsay. Can't help you, its not evidence. However, anything that can be yoused against you, is basically a confession, and can.
So in reality, even an innocent person is in a very precarious position if they speak, even if they speak the truth. This is why lawyers tell you to remain silent, not lie, not tell the truth, not try to explain... just invoke that right to remain silent then do it.
> Yes, it's harder for the state to get a conviction if you're allowed to remain silent and no inferences > can be made from that, and yes, that will benefit some innocent people who refuse to speak to the > government as a matter of deeply held principle, but it's going to benefit guilty people at least as > often who just don't want to be caught in a lie
FAIL!
Perhaps you are not familiar with the idea that it is better to let many guilty men go free than to convict an innocent man. The guilty not being caught is really not that big a deal, if they are that bad they will offend again and you will get another shot....or they wont and, it wont matter anyway.
However, convicting an innocent man destroys that mans life without question, there is no "it wont matter anyway", because it takes away his liberty and destroys the credibility of the entire system. Allowing a guilty man to go free because you didn't have the evidence increases the credibility of the system because it shows that the system plays by its own rules.
It also leaves the field open for the law to be wrong. Nearly every advancement of civil rights came from people breaking laws. To make the law too powerful is to stifle progress and endangers us all as governments change over time, we have no garauntee of our freedom in the future, the best we have are a set of hurdles and hoops that they must jump over and through, and part of what tells us it is working is how well they respect jumping those hoops and hurdles.
This issue is about a lot more than the very narrow, and secondary issue, of convicting the guilty. The Failure is in assuming that is the only goal.
Actually its a temporal loophole. See, they can collect the data now, under the auspices of national security and with paper thin protections that restrict their usage. The problem is.... the system exists now. So if they change that rule, oops... the system already exists.
This means we have to not only trust that they are not now, secretly, misusing the data beyond their claims (whether the claims are bull or not is another question, and whether the claims being true justify it, also another matter), but we have to trust that every future group will do the same, through the future administrations, future panels of judges, future NSA administrators.
So this is a temporal loophole.... we setup a system that makes it look ok to many people now.... but then we have it so all we have to do is change policy and its already too late.
I can think of many things to call one who attempts to cross through a 6 lanes of road through 100 foot gap moving at 75 MPH... and chicken isn't one of them.
Insane, suicidal, reckless, but certainly not chicken.
So, they are speeding up some photons, and slowing others, to create a "gap", passing something through that gap, and then, readjusting speeds. So, imagine the beam is..... Route 1 in Saugus MA. One of my favorite roads. Its not just 6 lanes of bumper to bumper traffic, that traffic is bumper to bumper at full speed.
Like most beams of light, you have fuck all chance of passing through it without casting a shadow (this is the detected event being "hidden"). But imagine if all the cars were in communication by computer. A mile down the road about haldf the cars speed up, and bunch together, and the other half all slow down, then all resume normal speed, creating a traveling gap.
Now, if you knew this gap was coming, you could scurry through it without traffic detecting you across the pavement.... after which, they perform the opposite operation, sealing the gap, as if nothing happened.
Sounds like a really cool system doesn't it? Now lets imagine it has a limitation of a 100 foot gap, moving at 75 MPH, giving you less than a second to pass the 60 feet of tar before you get....detected
I think part of the reason this sounds so weird is the terminology. It makes sense, there is no point in space where an object can be continuously and not be detected by the beam, however there are points which the beam intersects in space where the object can be, between the beam, and not interfere with the final beam...
It was that story, I left out the second part because its really not relevant to her experience. He may, or may not, have been some manner of criminal, and may or may not have committed a crime after the fact.... but with DNA evidence showing that he didn't commit the crime he was convicted of is the only part that actually speaks to eyewitness testimony.
I heard another NPR story of a convicted man, and the expert who investigated. There were several eyewitnesses who all claimed to have gotten a good look at him, and that the area was well lit...even though the time of year and time of the event meant that it was night time, and there was very little illumination, an investigation of the scene at the appropriate time found light levels so low that there was no way anyone as far away as the witnesses were got a good look at the person who did it....yet... they all claimed they saw him and the area was well lit.
There is ample evidence of how faulty human memory and vision are.
> Finally witness statements, which are proven to be unreliable, can be backed up by actual evidence.
"Backed up" makes the rather unwarranted assumption that they are right in the first place, which doesn't seem to be the case at all. In fact, I was just listening to the rather harrowing story of a woman who was raped, which is bad enough, but then who identified the wrong man, and he went to jail for more than a decade before it was found that someone else was her actual attacker.
Time and again we have seen that eye-witness testimony is absolutely terrible; forget backing it up, avoid it entirely whenever possible.
> Today I am a top poster myself for email, but I still bottom post in forums.
Same here, mostly. Actually, I just use whatever convention makes the most sense at the time, but almost always top post in email now.... unless someone else is known to be a fellow inline commenter, at which point, I quickly shift. If a discussion looks like it may go long, I will sometimes ask if they are ok with inline comments.
Though, even if we have been inline commenting, I will top post occasionally if its just a very quick note that pertains to the whole email like "I don't have time to reply right now, I will get back to you in a few days" or "Sounds good, see you there".
Top posts are great if questions are simple, and conversations are short. Just sitting here now I can think of several concrete examples of entire discussion threads at work that could have been so much shorter with inline posts....just because it helps context current in the discussion.
> The only reason I can think of to have a secret email address is to try to skirt any paper trail and > FOIA requests.
There was a nail, you just hit it on the head. I find it amazing that people get away with this at all, this would have never flown, not once, not for a day, at ANY job I EVER had. I keep my own email, seperate from any job, on purpose. In fact the ONLY work related emails I have ever sent from my personal account have fallen into a couple of very specific categories.
1. Testing the email system or a process that takes in external email. 2. An emergency "I am having a personal emergency and can't access normal communication" notification. (once or twice ever) 3. Messages to myself as quick notes
Using a work email for personal messages is more understandable, though, I still don't get people who use work email as their primary email address, having no personal one that goes with them. Its not as bad, better to waste an insignificant amount of company resources to store and send email than to trust a third party with the privacy of internal emails!
I shudder to think what sort of exposure an organization faces when such a high level person uses an outside email. That anyone would think this is the least bit ok is jaw dropping. There is no way in which using an outside email makes sense as a practice except to hide activities........About the only excuse I would start to accept would be something along the lines of "They provided no access means but an account on a pop3 mailbox with a tiny quota"... or along the lines of "the only way to send official mail was to telnet to the VMS box and use vms mail".... at which point, using hotmail would start looking very acceptable:)
You are correct, if you plan to or think you will want to change up lovers, or add new ones, then you should, absolutely, positively AVOID monogamous marriage.
That said, there are still options. There was this one girl I dated, our first conversation was about how neither of us thought monogamy was even particularly desirable and how we both liked the idea of having options. We dated for a year and a half, then got married....and just celebrated our 5th anniversary together, still quite happily non-monogamously married.
Doesn't make dating easier per se, since most people are not so interested and it is the kind of thing you really do need to be somewhat upfront about to do ethically, but, it does have some advantages, like not feeling the need to date, making it a much less stressful activity. Rejection hurts a hell of a lot less when you already have acceptance waiting for you at home; making it a much less stressful activity.
Really? Where are you from? I grew up seeing it happen, and my parents tell me that it was going on since LONG before they were born. I know it seems odd, even more odd that some of them command salaries that put them strongly at major CEO levels.
Surely you have run into this phenomenon, you have heard of Michael Jordan? The guy didn't just get paid for gaming, he got endorsement deals for shoes and other merchandise.
There is likely some truth there. I remember reading about David Chaum and the original attempt at an internet currency "DigiCash".... which was based on a wonderfully anonymity protecting digital cash protocol that had some real possibilities and might have worked.
Why did it fail? Apparently there were multiple moments where they were close to having major deals worked out with early online retailers, but, each time it fell apart partially due to paranoia. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone that becomes such an expert in hiding data and security is...well... a bit paranoid. It kinda goes with the territory: http://cryptome.org/jya/digicrash.htm
> Every one of the X-Ray devices I operated had the ability to save and could even print images. And to > me it made sense. Evidence. Once I saw a human torso come through. I couldn't resist printing the > image.
And I worked in Hospital IT. You know what we have in common there.... being responsible for other people's stuff.
What SHOULD have happend when you took that picture you couldn't resist?
In a hospital, we have the same problem with medical records. Whether it was Princess Di or some Saudi Prince (I worked at a very large world-renowned hospital) hundreds of hospital workers would look up their medical records out of curiosity.
But....this is other people's personal, private records, or in your case things. Its really not right, so, we did something about it. We audit. Now the single most common reason to lose your job at the hospital is inappropriate records access.
Yes.... that picture should have caused an audit log, that should have been reviewed, and you should have been fired....but....you wouldn't have done it, because of the training you go to every year that tells you its being audited.
That's what a responsible organization does. One that deserves the trust of the people that go through it.
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand and, on some level feel bad for people who this happens to, human curiosity and novelty are strong impulses which are generally very good, but, we are talking about personal, private records and things.
Though I have said all along, if there was an airline I could walk on with my bag, go through no security checkpoint at all, sit down in a seat, and pay cash right then and there for the ride, with no id. I would fly it every time, and not worry the least bit about it.
Wouldn't it be more relevant to consider what happens to engineers who design bridges that collapse when someone blows them up? That would be a more relevant comparison. Pretty sure they get contracts to design replacement bridges.
Wonderful idea. Sure, we can't tell you if one of these secret letters is given to us, but, until we get one, we can tell you it hasn't come...with signed, date verifiable messages.
Of course, only works for relatively small companies that are not getting requests as a matter of course.
its only a pump and dump if you operate on the assumption that it doesn't provide a service that anyone needs or wants; otherwise any company where the founders leave and sell their interest is a pump and dump.
I think its pretty clear by sites like silk road and the overall volume of bitcoin and the fact that it hasn't collapsed but after each incident seems to even back out to the same general slow upwards trend tells me that its actually providing real value and real service to real people. (these may not all be 'legal' uses but, that was part of the point of bitcoin: to reduce the power of the very people who make laws)
I just don't see these repeated "expansions and collapses". There is steady trend, with occasional aberrations, that then settles back out. It is quite volatile of course, but, wouldn't you expect it to be at this point? Its been around for all of what 3 years now, and only worth talking about for 2?
Frankly, I just don't think its been around long enough to take a serious view of bitcoin in the long term.
Depends what you mean by a deal. Lots of things pass uncontroversially. Just this year, BEFORE the sequester debate came back, the pentagon's orders were reviewed, and where congress saw the Pentagon wanted 7 new C-130s, congress approved 14 of them. This was bipartisan....this is what they do all the time...in fact, over the life of the program, congress has approved 5000% more C-130s than the military ever ordered: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/10-6
Then there is the whole issue of their fake fights. Someone first pointed it out to me a few years back. Chart the minimum wage over time against inflation. You will find that it follows inflation on a long term average. Everyone who watches the issue knows this. However, congress wont just bake it in because, every few years it gives them an excuse to drag it out and beat the drums.
The Republicans beat the "too expensive to do business" drum, and the money flows into their coffers from all manner of group against raising the minimum wage. Employers all over the country are falling all over themselves to throw money at the GOP.
The Democrats beat the "workers are hit hard" drum, and labor unions, and all of their associated groups fall all over themselves to throw money a the Democrats.
Then in the end....they all "grudgingly agree" to do what they all knew was going to happen from the start....and put the issue away for the next few years until they can dust it off and do it all over again.
Thing is, you see it everywhere. Abotion? ever noticed how often anti-abortion laws blatantly violate Roe V Wade? Ever wonder, why professional lawmakers, people who have had time to study the system and work with it, would propose something that they know can't survive? Fact is, the public's opinion of abortion is a near 50/50 split, and hasn't changed in while. Perfect issue for them.
Propose a law, knowing it will never have to be implemented seriously for more than a few weeks. Money starts rolling in to both sides. Law gets passed, law gets struck down, pro-life and pro-choice groups both see a huge windfall.
Then, they take the budget, come up with an agreement, but call it a sequester, really tiny fractional cuts in the increase in discretionary spending, coupled with a small tax hike, thats all it was. They agreed to it, but structured it so they could pretend to disagree and "try to avoid it" for months, then blame each other when it "hit".
But that isn't really how they deal, thats just how they suck up all the air.
For the deals, look at how the PATRIOT act got passed or renewed. Look at how FISA courts got gutted and how the torture program went unprosecuted. They make deals all the time, they just don't talk about those deals.
Except that, doing so gets the ire of the entire world, and potentially brings in retaliation strikes if you don't vaporize them before they see it coming. The reality is these are political bargaining chips. So they are actually not missles at all, they are just bullshit. A potentially very dangerous and caustic form of bullshit, but, bullshit none the less.
Indias new ICBM will sit in the ground and carry nothing, because its not going anywhere. So its incorrect to say it will cary multiple nuclear warheads. It will, at most, carry multiple dummy test warheads.
> does the self driving car hit the child or swerve possibly hitting some other car?
Thats an interesting question but, fundamentally is a question of how a robot handles an extraordinary situation where it detects a potential harm to life and reacts. I don't see how this is even related to a question of using lethal force or not. Even if the decision is made (regardless of whether its the car or driver) that hitting the child is the least bad choice, it is not really the same as a decision to use lethal force or not, because the "not" is gone from the equation already.
The question here is robots whose actual purpose is killing, picking targets and deciding whether or not to use force. Totally different use case.
One is a question of damage mitigation, the other is a question of deciding to cause damage. If cars were being specifically programmed to seek out kids to hit, then it would be more like the issue at hand. Restrictions on this would have to be particularly hamfisted to have any bearing on collision detection and danger response.
Ok maybe if the danger that a car detected was a person aiming a gun at the driver, and the car responded by running over the person with the gun, then it would be straying into this territory.... but, nobody is proposing actually configuring cars to do this.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you.... this is the video I was thinking of when I posted a previous comment about how, through no wrongdoing on anyone's part, the honest truth can look like a lie in court. It was a brilliant way to show the scenario too, because nobody, not the police, not the suspect, not the mistaken witness actually lied, or even tried to hide anything.... they all said exactly what they believed to be true.... it just so happens that, they were contradictory.
Frankly, I think you could make a better case for banning any and all eye witness testimony from court (people's memories are demonstrably terrible) than for getting rid of the 5th.
> The Fifth Amendment also protects an innocent person from being accused of unrelated crimes. If
> you were forced to reveal the contents of your hard drive because you were being wrongly accused
> of a crime, an unjust investigator may use such power to find you don't have a valid license for
> some software, or you have unlicensed music, etc. The Fifth Amendment is of utmost importance
> to the falsely accused as well as the accused. The Fifth Amendment is one more barrier to big
> brother.
Exactly. Or how about this.... Alice (I am really feeling these Alice/Bob/Carol scenarios right now) is a journalist who works on stories of international corruption. She keeps an encrypted volume to protect the very lives of her sources, and she recently got a doozy of a leak.
Bob comes knocking at her door, arrests her, and charges her with a number of unrelated crimes, child porn for example. Claims its all in her encrypted partition. Since there is no 5th ammendment she now either goes to jail for refusing to "testify" or she decrypts the volume, "proves her innocence", and moves on.
Meanwhile, Carol, the whistle-blower? Shes now being indicted on charges stemming from what was found on Alice's encrypted volume. Thanks Alice. Guess making people prove their innocence worked out right?
I got this example from a law professor, I forget where.
Lets say Alice takes a trip to visit her mother. She drives up alone, forgetting her cell phone at home, and has a full tank so she never stops for gas. The next day, she drives home, also leaving no record.
During the night, Bob is murdered. The police question Alice, she tells the truth. However, they also question Carol, who doesn't know Alice well, but knows her, and was in the area of Bobs murder. She claims she saw Alice there that night. She is mistaken of course, but its an honest mistake.
Now Alice comes to be charged and in court, the police report that Alice was seen in the area, they have witnesses, but, when questioned she claimed to be out of town, but had no proof of this... now her statement, even thought true, is in fact, being used against her.
In fact, this brings up a huge fail. "Anything you say can and will be used against you". Anything you say in court in your own defense is either a logical argument or its hearsay. "She said that" "I was here"...all hearsay. Can't help you, its not evidence. However, anything that can be yoused against you, is basically a confession, and can.
So in reality, even an innocent person is in a very precarious position if they speak, even if they speak the truth. This is why lawyers tell you to remain silent, not lie, not tell the truth, not try to explain... just invoke that right to remain silent then do it.
> Yes, it's harder for the state to get a conviction if you're allowed to remain silent and no inferences
> can be made from that, and yes, that will benefit some innocent people who refuse to speak to the
> government as a matter of deeply held principle, but it's going to benefit guilty people at least as
> often who just don't want to be caught in a lie
FAIL!
Perhaps you are not familiar with the idea that it is better to let many guilty men go free than to convict an innocent man. The guilty not being caught is really not that big a deal, if they are that bad they will offend again and you will get another shot....or they wont and, it wont matter anyway.
However, convicting an innocent man destroys that mans life without question, there is no "it wont matter anyway", because it takes away his liberty and destroys the credibility of the entire system. Allowing a guilty man to go free because you didn't have the evidence increases the credibility of the system because it shows that the system plays by its own rules.
It also leaves the field open for the law to be wrong. Nearly every advancement of civil rights came from people breaking laws. To make the law too powerful is to stifle progress and endangers us all as governments change over time, we have no garauntee of our freedom in the future, the best we have are a set of hurdles and hoops that they must jump over and through, and part of what tells us it is working is how well they respect jumping those hoops and hurdles.
This issue is about a lot more than the very narrow, and secondary issue, of convicting the guilty. The Failure is in assuming that is the only goal.
Actually its a temporal loophole. See, they can collect the data now, under the auspices of national security and with paper thin protections that restrict their usage. The problem is.... the system exists now. So if they change that rule, oops... the system already exists.
This means we have to not only trust that they are not now, secretly, misusing the data beyond their claims (whether the claims are bull or not is another question, and whether the claims being true justify it, also another matter), but we have to trust that every future group will do the same, through the future administrations, future panels of judges, future NSA administrators.
So this is a temporal loophole.... we setup a system that makes it look ok to many people now.... but then we have it so all we have to do is change policy and its already too late.
I can think of many things to call one who attempts to cross through a 6 lanes of road through 100 foot gap moving at 75 MPH... and chicken isn't one of them.
Insane, suicidal, reckless, but certainly not chicken.
I never did much time in college either but, that's besides the point. I found a couple of better articles and exploitations, by people who seem to actually understand it:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424682/first-demonstration-of-time-cloaking/
So, they are speeding up some photons, and slowing others, to create a "gap", passing something through that gap, and then, readjusting speeds. So, imagine the beam is..... Route 1 in Saugus MA. One of my favorite roads. Its not just 6 lanes of bumper to bumper traffic, that traffic is bumper to bumper at full speed.
Like most beams of light, you have fuck all chance of passing through it without casting a shadow (this is the detected event being "hidden"). But imagine if all the cars were in communication by computer. A mile down the road about haldf the cars speed up, and bunch together, and the other half all slow down, then all resume normal speed, creating a traveling gap.
Now, if you knew this gap was coming, you could scurry through it without traffic detecting you across the pavement.... after which, they perform the opposite operation, sealing the gap, as if nothing happened.
Sounds like a really cool system doesn't it? Now lets imagine it has a limitation of a 100 foot gap, moving at 75 MPH, giving you less than a second to pass the 60 feet of tar before you get....detected
I think part of the reason this sounds so weird is the terminology. It makes sense, there is no point in space where an object can be continuously and not be detected by the beam, however there are points which the beam intersects in space where the object can be, between the beam, and not interfere with the final beam...
Or at least, that's what I get from it.
It was that story, I left out the second part because its really not relevant to her experience. He may, or may not, have been some manner of criminal, and may or may not have committed a crime after the fact.... but with DNA evidence showing that he didn't commit the crime he was convicted of is the only part that actually speaks to eyewitness testimony.
I heard another NPR story of a convicted man, and the expert who investigated. There were several eyewitnesses who all claimed to have gotten a good look at him, and that the area was well lit...even though the time of year and time of the event meant that it was night time, and there was very little illumination, an investigation of the scene at the appropriate time found light levels so low that there was no way anyone as far away as the witnesses were got a good look at the person who did it....yet... they all claimed they saw him and the area was well lit.
There is ample evidence of how faulty human memory and vision are.
> Finally witness statements, which are proven to be unreliable, can be backed up by actual evidence.
"Backed up" makes the rather unwarranted assumption that they are right in the first place, which doesn't seem to be the case at all. In fact, I was just listening to the rather harrowing story of a woman who was raped, which is bad enough, but then who identified the wrong man, and he went to jail for more than a decade before it was found that someone else was her actual attacker.
Time and again we have seen that eye-witness testimony is absolutely terrible; forget backing it up, avoid it entirely whenever possible.
Pix or it didn't happen!
> Today I am a top poster myself for email, but I still bottom post in forums.
Same here, mostly. Actually, I just use whatever convention makes the most sense at the time, but almost always top post in email now.... unless someone else is known to be a fellow inline commenter, at which point, I quickly shift. If a discussion looks like it may go long, I will sometimes ask if they are ok with inline comments.
Though, even if we have been inline commenting, I will top post occasionally if its just a very quick note that pertains to the whole email like "I don't have time to reply right now, I will get back to you in a few days" or "Sounds good, see you there".
Top posts are great if questions are simple, and conversations are short. Just sitting here now I can think of several concrete examples of entire discussion threads at work that could have been so much shorter with inline posts....just because it helps context current in the discussion.
> The only reason I can think of to have a secret email address is to try to skirt any paper trail and
> FOIA requests.
There was a nail, you just hit it on the head. I find it amazing that people get away with this at all, this would have never flown, not once, not for a day, at ANY job I EVER had. I keep my own email, seperate from any job, on purpose. In fact the ONLY work related emails I have ever sent from my personal account have fallen into a couple of very specific categories.
1. Testing the email system or a process that takes in external email.
2. An emergency "I am having a personal emergency and can't access normal communication" notification. (once or twice ever)
3. Messages to myself as quick notes
Using a work email for personal messages is more understandable, though, I still don't get people who use work email as their primary email address, having no personal one that goes with them. Its not as bad, better to waste an insignificant amount of company resources to store and send email than to trust a third party with the privacy of internal emails!
I shudder to think what sort of exposure an organization faces when such a high level person uses an outside email. That anyone would think this is the least bit ok is jaw dropping. There is no way in which using an outside email makes sense as a practice except to hide activities.... ....About the only excuse I would start to accept would be something along the lines of "They provided no access means but an account on a pop3 mailbox with a tiny quota"... or along the lines of "the only way to send official mail was to telnet to the VMS box and use vms mail".... at which point, using hotmail would start looking very acceptable :)
I really should use preview and read what I write, before i copy myself, read what I write.
You are correct, if you plan to or think you will want to change up lovers, or add new ones, then you should, absolutely, positively AVOID monogamous marriage.
That said, there are still options. There was this one girl I dated, our first conversation was about how neither of us thought monogamy was even particularly desirable and how we both liked the idea of having options. We dated for a year and a half, then got married....and just celebrated our 5th anniversary together, still quite happily non-monogamously married.
Doesn't make dating easier per se, since most people are not so interested and it is the kind of thing you really do need to be somewhat upfront about to do ethically, but, it does have some advantages, like not feeling the need to date, making it a much less stressful activity. Rejection hurts a hell of a lot less when you already have acceptance waiting for you at home; making it a much less stressful activity.
Really? Where are you from? I grew up seeing it happen, and my parents tell me that it was going on since LONG before they were born. I know it seems odd, even more odd that some of them command salaries that put them strongly at major CEO levels.
Surely you have run into this phenomenon, you have heard of Michael Jordan? The guy didn't just get paid for gaming, he got endorsement deals for shoes and other merchandise.
There is likely some truth there. I remember reading about David Chaum and the original attempt at an internet currency "DigiCash".... which was based on a wonderfully anonymity protecting digital cash protocol that had some real possibilities and might have worked.
Why did it fail? Apparently there were multiple moments where they were close to having major deals worked out with early online retailers, but, each time it fell apart partially due to paranoia. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone that becomes such an expert in hiding data and security is...well... a bit paranoid. It kinda goes with the territory: http://cryptome.org/jya/digicrash.htm
> Every one of the X-Ray devices I operated had the ability to save and could even print images. And to
> me it made sense. Evidence. Once I saw a human torso come through. I couldn't resist printing the
> image.
And I worked in Hospital IT. You know what we have in common there.... being responsible for other people's stuff.
What SHOULD have happend when you took that picture you couldn't resist?
In a hospital, we have the same problem with medical records. Whether it was Princess Di or some Saudi Prince (I worked at a very large world-renowned hospital) hundreds of hospital workers would look up their medical records out of curiosity.
But....this is other people's personal, private records, or in your case things. Its really not right, so, we did something about it. We audit. Now the single most common reason to lose your job at the hospital is inappropriate records access.
Yes.... that picture should have caused an audit log, that should have been reviewed, and you should have been fired....but....you wouldn't have done it, because of the training you go to every year that tells you its being audited.
That's what a responsible organization does. One that deserves the trust of the people that go through it.
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand and, on some level feel bad for people who this happens to, human curiosity and novelty are strong impulses which are generally very good, but, we are talking about personal, private records and things.
Though I have said all along, if there was an airline I could walk on with my bag, go through no security checkpoint at all, sit down in a seat, and pay cash right then and there for the ride, with no id. I would fly it every time, and not worry the least bit about it.
> a government adviser on child internet safety
A what? Sounds like that's their problem right there.
Wouldn't it be more relevant to consider what happens to engineers who design bridges that collapse when someone blows them up? That would be a more relevant comparison. Pretty sure they get contracts to design replacement bridges.
I love the rsync.net "solution" to this problem, the Warrant Canary:
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
Wonderful idea. Sure, we can't tell you if one of these secret letters is given to us, but, until we get one, we can tell you it hasn't come...with signed, date verifiable messages.
Of course, only works for relatively small companies that are not getting requests as a matter of course.
its only a pump and dump if you operate on the assumption that it doesn't provide a service that anyone needs or wants; otherwise any company where the founders leave and sell their interest is a pump and dump.
I think its pretty clear by sites like silk road and the overall volume of bitcoin and the fact that it hasn't collapsed but after each incident seems to even back out to the same general slow upwards trend tells me that its actually providing real value and real service to real people. (these may not all be 'legal' uses but, that was part of the point of bitcoin: to reduce the power of the very people who make laws)
I just don't see these repeated "expansions and collapses". There is steady trend, with occasional aberrations, that then settles back out. It is quite volatile of course, but, wouldn't you expect it to be at this point? Its been around for all of what 3 years now, and only worth talking about for 2?
Frankly, I just don't think its been around long enough to take a serious view of bitcoin in the long term.
Nope, now they have to route around in your stomach and intestines. Big win there, that will really show them!
Depends what you mean by a deal. Lots of things pass uncontroversially. Just this year, BEFORE the sequester debate came back, the pentagon's orders were reviewed, and where congress saw the Pentagon wanted 7 new C-130s, congress approved 14 of them. This was bipartisan....this is what they do all the time...in fact, over the life of the program, congress has approved 5000% more C-130s than the military ever ordered: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/10-6
Then there is the whole issue of their fake fights. Someone first pointed it out to me a few years back. Chart the minimum wage over time against inflation. You will find that it follows inflation on a long term average. Everyone who watches the issue knows this. However, congress wont just bake it in because, every few years it gives them an excuse to drag it out and beat the drums.
The Republicans beat the "too expensive to do business" drum, and the money flows into their coffers from all manner of group against raising the minimum wage. Employers all over the country are falling all over themselves to throw money at the GOP.
The Democrats beat the "workers are hit hard" drum, and labor unions, and all of their associated groups fall all over themselves to throw money a the Democrats.
Then in the end....they all "grudgingly agree" to do what they all knew was going to happen from the start....and put the issue away for the next few years until they can dust it off and do it all over again.
Thing is, you see it everywhere. Abotion? ever noticed how often anti-abortion laws blatantly violate Roe V Wade? Ever wonder, why professional lawmakers, people who have had time to study the system and work with it, would propose something that they know can't survive? Fact is, the public's opinion of abortion is a near 50/50 split, and hasn't changed in while. Perfect issue for them.
Propose a law, knowing it will never have to be implemented seriously for more than a few weeks. Money starts rolling in to both sides. Law gets passed, law gets struck down, pro-life and pro-choice groups both see a huge windfall.
Then, they take the budget, come up with an agreement, but call it a sequester, really tiny fractional cuts in the increase in discretionary spending, coupled with a small tax hike, thats all it was. They agreed to it, but structured it so they could pretend to disagree and "try to avoid it" for months, then blame each other when it "hit".
But that isn't really how they deal, thats just how they suck up all the air.
For the deals, look at how the PATRIOT act got passed or renewed. Look at how FISA courts got gutted and how the torture program went unprosecuted. They make deals all the time, they just don't talk about those deals.
Except that, doing so gets the ire of the entire world, and potentially brings in retaliation strikes if you don't vaporize them before they see it coming. The reality is these are political bargaining chips. So they are actually not missles at all, they are just bullshit. A potentially very dangerous and caustic form of bullshit, but, bullshit none the less.
Indias new ICBM will sit in the ground and carry nothing, because its not going anywhere. So its incorrect to say it will cary multiple nuclear warheads. It will, at most, carry multiple dummy test warheads.
> does the self driving car hit the child or swerve possibly hitting some other car?
Thats an interesting question but, fundamentally is a question of how a robot handles an extraordinary situation where it detects a potential harm to life and reacts. I don't see how this is even related to a question of using lethal force or not. Even if the decision is made (regardless of whether its the car or driver) that hitting the child is the least bad choice, it is not really the same as a decision to use lethal force or not, because the "not" is gone from the equation already.
The question here is robots whose actual purpose is killing, picking targets and deciding whether or not to use force. Totally different use case.
One is a question of damage mitigation, the other is a question of deciding to cause damage. If cars were being specifically programmed to seek out kids to hit, then it would be more like the issue at hand. Restrictions on this would have to be particularly hamfisted to have any bearing on collision detection and danger response.
Ok maybe if the danger that a car detected was a person aiming a gun at the driver, and the car responded by running over the person with the gun, then it would be straying into this territory.... but, nobody is proposing actually configuring cars to do this.