It'll be awesome, Text messages reminding you to wipe more.

Just saying...

They start even sooner than that. Those sonograms expectant mothers get are actually hypnotoc coded instructions to the fetus that will turn them into jack booted thugs when they hear the keyword "Limbaugh" pronounced backwards. Then the Illuminati and Beyonce will implement the final portions of the new world order.

The clue is in the rainbows we can now see because of the essential fluid weakening chemicals and flourine they have been putting in our water.

Here is the incontrovertble proof. Stop those damn liberals NOW!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Wake UP America!!

Assuming life favors a single-star system when in reality it favors a twin-star system.

I'm assuming you are a native of a twin-star system who happens to be doing anthropology work among the savages in this system.

Because otherwise, I can't figure out how you'd know that life favors a twin-star system, given that we know of zero twin-star systems that support life.

For every buyer who thinks the stock is undervalued, there is an equal and opposite seller who thinks it is overvalued. The current stock value is the market clearing price where supply equals demand.

What is striking to me is that SETI is mostly looking for spikes in the background noise, but our communication standards have rapidly moved away from such signals ourselves. AM, FM, and VSB+C (old analog TV) were all relatively inefficient ways to transmit information, and often had a large center carrier that sticks out like a sore thumb, which makes for a nice way to detect a transmission.

Most digital transmissions now use various methods that do not need a center carrier, and look very much like amplified noise to outside observers. Our period of transmitting the types of signals that SETI is most looking for only lasted 100 years or so, and most new standards would be very hard or impossible to detect at interplanetary distances. Once can only assume that other cultures smart enough to make radio transmitters would also have similarly short periods during which inefficient methods would be used. Basically it might limit the window of detectability to the brief period between inventing radio, and when Moore's Law makes powerful signal processing very cheap.

Joe Biden knows less about coding than my daughter.

Hell, he probably knows less about coding than he knows about guns...

Hint, Joe: firing a shotgun THROUGH your front door violates pretty much every rule about target identification that there is.

Oh, how I wish I hadn't used my modpoints up earlier today!

What do you suggest then? A Ouija board? The stock price is the consensus opinion of people investing real money. If you are so much smarter than the market, you should have made billions by now taking highly leveraged contrary positions. Please post a picture of your yacht.

Sure. That is why companies that invested for the long term, like Amazon, Google, and even Microsoft in their early days, were unable to raise capital, and have all gone out of business.

Yes they do. The Wikipedia page lists several. What they find is that polygraphs work better than chance, but below perfection. They certainly don't provide the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" required in a criminal court, and they can be fooled by a someone trained to deceive them. But for most people, they work most of the time. That is good enough for their use as a first level screening device. You would be an idiot to blindly accept their results, but you would also be an idiot to ignore the results completely.

Wrong. It takes more than just being "informed". To trick a polygraph takes training. So how many moles hoping to infiltrate the FBI are going to respond to a Craigslist ad for "Polygraph Deception Training"? Guess who places those ads.

Of course, if you try to solve the problem of "damaged personalities" you end up with a situation out of a bad sci-fi movie (e.g. the one with 'gun kata').

Says the boy named "Sue."

Of course the NSA illegally acquires data from most all email providers, ISPs, etc. Even the services that are explicitly based in privacy get NSLs, so to avoid that I could avoid using the internet at all. I'm going to use the internet, so the NSA will be able to snoop until that problem is handled using the three boxes - soap box, ballot box, and if absolutely necessary ammo box.

There are four boxes: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.

If you were careful, you MIGHT be able to get away from everything using cyanogenmod and opting to NOT install ANY google services but then you'd have a mostly useless overpowered dumb phone...

Maybe you could get one of these Firefox phones.

I don't think it matters whether we take Exodus or the US Government. I'm not really sure why being a mercenary is so bad? What is the difference if the US Government pays Exodus or hires the people working for Exodus to write exploits directly?

The difference is motivation. If you're partisan -- if you're motivated because you think the cause is just -- then maybe it's ethical to fight. If you're motivated by money and otherwise don't care, it's clearly unethical.

(I say "maybe" because it's not ethical to fight if you're mistaken in your belief that the cause is just -- it has to genuinely be so. But if you don't care, fighting is unethical even before considering the justness of the cause because it's not your fight.)

And yes, people are using Tor to fight against the US; certainly hackers and terrorists use Tor. (I don't believe more than a small fraction of Tor users are malicious, but malicious users undoubtedly exist.

If the American Revolution were happening today, the Founding Fathers would be labeled "hackers and terrorists" from the perspective of the British Crown. In other words, unless you're purposefully targeting innocents, those sorts of labels are a matter of perspective. I'm not at all convinced that using TOR to fight against the US government is actually a bad thing.

If you have responsibly disclosed every exploit you know about, you are not going to be able to hack into the computer which triggers the bomb. I'm not sure why this isn't obvious. Unless somehow your "responsible disclosure" allows for holding on to exploits until you need them for dire situations, you have no way to stop such a computerized device.

Let's be more concrete here: someone has hooked up a Raspberry Pi to detonate a bomb, which is triggered, say, over Tor. Whoever made this wasn't stupid: it has a heartbeat which will detonate the bomb if it fails, so you can't just jam it or cut off internet access. It has normal motion sensors, etc. You have 1 hour to disable it. I propose that given the possibility of such a scenario (or scenarios like this; obviously this is an extreme and contrived example to try to prove a point), it is ethical to withhold disclosure of vulnerabilities. In your proposed scenario, the government has "emptied its cyber arsenal". It has nothing it can do to prevent such an attack. I believe it is superior to have the capability to prevent such an attack.

First of all, I understood your previous scenario to be that you're discovering a new exploit in the process of defusing the bomb, and deciding whether to responsibly disclose it afterwards or to keep it in your pocket for later use. That's different from what you wrote this time, which is that you're using a previously-discovered but undisclosed exploit to defuse a bomb at the present time.

The problem with your scenario is that you're presupposing it "will" happen, and judging your actions after the fact. That's not a valid mode of reasoning, since there's no way to know that the scenario will actually occur (or even that it's more than infinitesimally likely to occur) at the time you're making the decision to disclose or not.

In other words, you're saying that it's perfectly ethical to do actual harm now because you guess that it might lessen the possibility of doing potential harm later. If you don't understand the problem with this, there's nothing more I can do to explain it to you more clearly.

It's like saying we shouldn't have fought in Wold War II against Hitler, because war is bad. The Allied forces were the "lesser of two evils"--evil, of course, because war is unethical just like hacking is. Why choose to actively help the lesser of two evils? We should have remained neutral.

That's exactly what we did do until the Japanese attacked us directly at Pearl Harbor. I think we acted pretty appropriately in that case!