Comment Re:There can be no defense of this. (Score 1) 184
Justice is more important than security. Freedom is more important than security.
It's as if justice, freedom (and privacy) are prerequisites for security.
Justice is more important than security. Freedom is more important than security.
It's as if justice, freedom (and privacy) are prerequisites for security.
According to these stats for Canada in 2009, car drivers suffered about 1173 deaths and 5393 serious injuries while among motorcyclists there were 194 deaths and 1271 serious injuries. If you add these up and look at the percentage chance of death if involved in a collision severe enough for serious injuries than you'll see an 18% chance of death for the car drivers and 13% for the motorcyclists.
Care to share your source for "guaranteed death"?
> You get what you vote for
No we didn't. Over 60% of us voted against the conservatives and yet here they are. Running amok. I'd be much happier if really did get what we voted for.
$7.2 million of intangible assets and $6.3 million of goodwill related to Slashdot Media
and have only started to realize some improvement on related sites. With ad revenue declining and not expected to pick up (read: everyone who uses Slashdot uses adblocking softwarwe), it appears that the Slashdot stewardship experiment by Dice Holdings has been a financial failure.
Since the site has been redesigned in a user-hostile fashion with a very generic styling, this reader surmises Dice Holdings is looking to transform or transfer the brand into a generic Web 3.0 technology property. The name may be more valuable than the user community (since we drive no revenue nor particularly use Dice.com's services).
When you control 51% of the computing power, you can start faking transactions.
Not fake transactions, but control which transaction get in and rollback the recent past. So you can spend some coin to the recipient's satisfaction, then undo that transaction and spend your coin somewhere else.
I assume by "faking transactions" you mean forging other people's signatures to spend their coins. You can't do that, but you can prevent them from spending their coin.
You'll meet assistant professors who've published more journal papers in two years (and brought in more research money) than a full professor has done in his entire career, while being told it isn't good enough by the P&T committee.
You're probably right that the younger faculty are publishing more papers, bringing in more funds and are better teachers, but what is the chance that any of them will ever do anything really profound. I think that's the point Peter Higgs is trying to make.
Likewise, the automation is not designed to handle extreme failures of the aircraft. For example, the situation many years ago in Iowa where the hydraulics failed and the pilot had to steer the plane using only the engine throttles is an example of something that no computer system is designed to do. Yet a veteran pilot managed to pull it off.
This scenario has happen several times and the pilots have not always been successful at control via engine throttle only. But an autopilot program has been developed now that can do a much better job than the human pilots. See Propulsion Controlled Aircraft.
No, the argument is that it can happen if someone decides that it's worth doing. Just making the code open doesn't mean that anyone will read it. It does, however, mean that:
And, if someone else does an audit, there's a better chance that they are not bound by NDA and can therefore speak freely about what they find.
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.
