Universities should band together to distribute all data from published material on P2P networks so it's redundantly stored at mulitple locations. This has the side-benefit of making a legitimate use of P2P obvious.
Or bad compared to a gang member, a warlord's soldier, or even security consultant?
Covering for each other is exactly what gang members and other organized criminals do. We really should have a higher standard of conduct for law enforcement. Just saying.
Data mining was just used to capture a large Food Stamp fraud ring in Florida. There really are public benefits to allowing snooping in depth. [...] Income tax cheaters really could be destroyed by data mining. You can bet we have a couple of million people who are tax cheats.
These types of fraud are not caught by data mining their phone and e-mail records, they're caught by analyzing the usage data they already have access to and look for unexpected patterns, just like we check for rigged elections. There are fe wpublic benefits to snopping in depth, and the number of false positives drown out any true positives they may return.
ID-based encryption is a terrible idea. There is no such thing as a public, unique, non-cryptographic name. See Zooko's triangle.
I'm no alarmist, but you got to know that Chernobyl caused 31 immediate deaths with three months of the event and will be a contributing factor in the deaths of many more people through cancer both in the emergency crews working the event and the general public in a number of countries. So your characterization of the event as minor is a bit much.
Air pollution causes over 10,000 deaths every year in America alone due to respiratory distress. Nuclear's disasters pale in comparison.
They were tried and abandon in the 1970s. They cost a lot and there were a lot of nasty byproducts that made decommissioning a site a nightmare.
They were abandoned because they didn't produce weapons-grade output, which was a priority at the time, not due to any real technical failures.
calling someone "delusional" is insulting
I never said it wasn't. It's also factually correct. But your original statement that I responded is still incorrect, ie. he doesn't insult everyone who believes in any possible supernatural entity.
also, adding a layer of abstraction..."he's not insulting all believers, just any believer that claims to be sane and not delusional" is bullshit....everyone sees throught it
That's not the argument I made. Stop attacking a strawman.
Any and every person on the planet holds one or more beliefs or opinions you will disagree with. Singling out religion as one harmful dark and sinister belief is absolutely baseless.
Other beliefs and opinions often have at least some rational basis and are subject to debate, religion does not. Furthermore, religion is directly responsible for much death and suffering throughout history, even into the present day. Other beliefs and opinions have nowhere near that death toll. So no, focusing on religion is not absolutely baseless. At all.
It's particularly hard to understand this view today, when religious views are hardly ever deciding factors in legislation.
Whether it's the deciding factor in your country is irrelevant. Religion drives a great many political ideologies which still cause harm to this day, including abortion and LGBT oppression. Regardless of whether votes ultimately fall along religious lines, we wouldn't even be wasting time on these issues if it weren't for religion.
Where is the great harm that all these damn religious politicians are causing?
Wow, seriously, open your eyes. Even if you're British or Canadian where the religious right isn't nearly as rabid as they are in the U.S., they still influence legislation to the nation's detriment.
He insults everyone who believes in any possible supernatural entity
That's incorrect. Dawkins has acknowledged many times that deities could exist, but we have no reason to believe in them (empirical or a priori). Any such insults are directed at the arguments of people who profess to have such a legitimate reason to believe in a particular deity. And he's right to. Such arguments are invariably foolish at best.
You may not support criticizing others for unjustifiable beliefs, but consider that the religious people who represent you in government essentially believe in unicorns and faeries. It's more than a little troubling that the people with so much power have such flawed reasoning.
I don't know I am right, so how can I tell someone else with certainty they are wrong?
You can't. But you can say with certainty that their beliefs are completely unjustifiable, and they have no legitimate, rational reason to believe them. And that's what atheism is. You have quite a distorted view of what atheist proponents like Dawkins actually do and say.
They never say that "the Christian god certainly does not exist", they only say, "the Christian god ALMOST certainly does not exist". In other words, the probability that such a deity exists is negligable for many, many reasons.
[...] even though [the NSA] been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,' says Joel Brenner, NSA inspector general
Are the intelligence missions the public approved of the ones they had no knowledge of? Irrefutable logic, that. Clearly if no one vocally objects, they must tacitly approve.
Your neighbor earns a hundred times more than you. This creates a gap between him and you, therefore bad for society.
Except your neighbour now can afford to move to a neighbourhood with people of comparable income, and now your neighbourhood is affordable to people of your income or lower. Perhaps you haven't heard of this ghetto problem?
It's funny that the government shouldn't pick winners and losers in energy markets, and yet Conservatives are so willing to spend trillions invading and defending foreign countries under the guise of "protecting national interests". Shouldn't that be protecting fossil fuel interests? If fossil fuels are so volatile, why are Conservatives willing to use military force to stabilize those sources instead of letting them compete fairly against less volatile energy sources?
If renewables had gotten as much direct and indirect funding as fossil fuels got way back when this military interventionist agendas started decades ago, renewables would already be cost competitive, and fossil fuels prices would have stabilized due to economic competition instead of necessitating military intervention. We'd probably be much better off in terms of emissions too. Nothing good comes from proactive military intervention in the long-term.
There are plenty of these around. F# has one. Check out their papers on dimension checking.
What you can scalably do on a weekend depends entirely on the framework on which you build. If your framework only exposes primitives that can scale across clusters, then you'll get a lot more done more quickly than if you're starting with a PHP page.