I blame the lack of User Friendly cartoons and insufficient Beowulf Cluster memes.
I blame the lack of User Friendly cartoons and insufficient Beowulf Cluster memes.
Claim: The Internet is used to radicalized
Observation: The place people get radicalized changes with the wind.
Claim: Terrorists use encryption
Evidence: Unless burner phones and open Skype sessions qualify... no.
Observation: Encryption is rarely even used by the military, because it's potentially vulnerable and draws attention. (I worked at SPAWAR.) Terrorists and the military far prefer staying out of sight.
Claim: Banning encryption everywhere will prevent radicalization
Evidence: People download the Anarchist's Cookbook off unencrypted sources, so.... no.
Observation: It'll also ban eCommerce, credit cards and banking. Unless the plan is to fund the psychos to death.
Claim: Tech communities aid fundamentalism
Evidence: The complete lack of technology in fundamentalist areas and the near-complete lack of fundamentalism in technological areas, so.... no.
Observation: Fundamentalists from Cyrus (bishop of Alexandria) to the heads of ISIS abhor science and technology. It's used as last-ditch. Reducing it won't affect the 95% of the problem.
Damn, you have a lower UID than me. Hey, on Slashdot, that's a pretty good test of credibility!
Seriously, I get bothered a lot by mixed model software, as it's very hard to keep straight what the programmer intends (and worse for the compiler, the nonsense that compilers magically work it all out is just that, stacks don't manage themselves and optimization - which has always been one of the black arts - isn't simplified by ad-hoc paradigm mixes).
When it comes to using a single paradigm, always choose the one that makes robust code the easiest to write. Forth is still used because there's a lot of hardware programming that is far, far easier with stack operations than procedures or objects. No matter what the current generation of whippersnappers think.
So, the question reduces to this. Is there a class of problem that is better done with aspects? If so, you need it the same way you need Forth. And even Ada.
I want him to roll in the additions from Cilk++, Aspect-Oriented C++ and FeatureC++, the mobility and personalisation capabilities of Occam Pi, the networking extensions provided by rtnet and GridRPC, full encryption and error correction code facilities, everything in Boost, and a pointless subset of features from PL/1.
If you're going to do it all, might as well do it in style.
Seriously, though, Aspects would be nice.
Ok, I missed that option and probably others off my list. Gets complicated fast and only a full time research assistant has a hope of mapping it all out.
Yes there is. It's not a right-left test, but there's a near-perfect match between gender and specific neurological features. In a higher than expected number by chance, people who think they are mentally female are female in structural and functional studies. Likewise, people who believe themselves male have a male brain.
I try not to get too annoyed at dogmatic statements, but unless I specifically defer, I have a comprehensive archive of published literature from high-standing sources. Don't rip on me unless you know either my interpretation is wrong (it happens) or you plan on publishing a peer-reviewed rebuttal on each particular of relevance.
The first of those has happened a few times. Let's see if you can bring it up into double digits. Feel free, but remember that you're dealing solely with article facts and my interpretation. Where I used other sources, pick any peer-reviewed paper that covers the same basic aspect of brain development concerned (i.e. neuron type is indicated by chemical transmitter, it is not hardwired into the genome. Doesn't matter if it is the one I used or not. Falsify it. Better yet, falsify it and get the scientist or magazine to retract it for further work.
Ok, you should now be at the point where you accept the data sets I used. That just leaves two options. If the seat of the mind is in the brain, then a female brain must have a female mind, regardless of Y chromosomes, appendages and birty certificate.
The only other option is to falsify that, to argue that the mind is independent of brain. If you choose this, please choose to announce it at a medical school outside the brain surgery department after a very taxing practical, shortly before exams. Contrary views are nothing to worry about.
Finally,You can just let the basis be, the chain of reasoning be, but then you have to accept the conclusion.
Let me know your preference.
Manning should get a full pardon and a medal of honour. S/he has done more for this country than Biden ever did, and that was after getting a forcible deployment against regimental doctor's orders.
The worst Manning is truly guilty of is exploiting severe violations of DoD regulations by the unit s/he was in. Those violations, and not her actions,compromised national security, as did Manning's superior officer. Those people were under strict orders on not deploying the severely mentally ill into Iraq and to withdraw clearance from such folk, but violated those orders in order to look pretty. That is a serious crime. A crime they, not Chelsea, are guilty of.
Under DoD regulations, computers holding top secret information may NOT be secured by just a password and may NOT support USB devices. I was working for the military when they did the cutover from passwords to passwords plus Class III digital certificate on a smartcard. The USB restriction has been there more-or-less from the introduction of USB, as it violates Rainbow Book standards requiring enforceable multi-level security.
I should not have to point this out on Slashdot, half the three digit IDers were probably involved in writing the standards! And the rest know all this because we had to look the bloody stuff up to get the NSA's SELinux working!
She was also under orders, remember, to ensure that no war crime was concealed by the military. Concealing a war crime, even if that's your sole involvement, is a firing squad offence under international law. Has been since the Nuremberg Trials. Nor is it acceptable to be ordered to carry out such a cover-up. You are forbidden from obeying such orders on pain of death.
Those are the rules. The U.S. military's sole defence is that nobody is big enough to enforce them. If someone did, the U.S. population would be noticeably smaller afterwards. We know that because of Manning.
But Manning's service doesn't end there. Military philosophers, tacticians and strategists will be poring over those notes for decades, running simulations to see when, where and how the U.S. was eventually defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq. They will compare actions carried out with the military philosophies the U.S. officially abandoned in favour of modern theories. They will search for ways in which the new approaches worked and where they should have stuck with the traditional.
Because modern computers can run millions, even billions, of tactical simulations in just a few hours, it is certain that, inside of a decade, someone will have done this and published a book on where the military went wrong and where the Taliban and Iraqi army went wrong as well. This core material allows for that.
These wars may turn out to be our Sun Tzu Moment, when through cataclysmic defeats at the hands of, essentially, barbarians (and make no mistake, they're defeats), a systematic analysis of all that went wrong will be conducted in order to produce a guide on how to have things guaranteed to go right.
Without Manning's data, this couldn't happen. Direct footage, real-time tactical information, logistics, international political interactions, there's enough there to actually do that.
I'd prefer it to be us, because nothing stops the next terror group to form from performing the same study. Historically, it has been shown that a smart army can defeat a confident opponent with superior technology and ten times the numbers, or with inferior technology and a hundred times the numbers. No reason to assume these are hard limits.
If it is us that figures it out, the Pentagon (still fixated on Admiral Poyndexter and his psychic warriors) won't be involved, it'll be people on the outside with more nous and fewer yes-men. And for that, Manning deserves the highest reward.
Besides, it'll annoy the neoconservatives and that's worth their weight in gold-plated latium.
No evidence any lives were in danger from Manning. Can you point to any deaths or injuries that have resulted?
Plenty of evidence of US troops in full uniform visiting informants in hostile territory - not exactly discrete!
Define "male". Not in terms of social norms - those vary between societies. And, since you didn't accept the suggestion of a genetics test, you don't get to use that either. Historical records are of no interest, you weren't there when they were made so you can't vouch for them. Besides, plenty of species have individuals change gender. History proves nothing.
You could try a neurological test, but I'll wager you that it shows Manning to be female. The feelings come from the brain, there's no such thing as a spirit outside of hard liquor.
So what have you got to offer?
There isn't, and indeed can't be as every stage in creating art is art, but storage space stopped being an issue a long time ago. Film archives could keep copies of every movie ever released. That would be perfectly reasonable. This would ideally be both uncut and cut versions, maybe the rush copy as well. This frees up small studios from having to have complex archives, frees up directors to produce new cuts from a choice of every possible angle of every take, even from deleted scenes, and unmerge/remerge the audio layers as more complex audio systems appear.
However, if you don't do that, I think "world heritage" needs to click in a lot sooner. Star Wars (the real movie) could easily have been considered world heritage status within a couple of years.
Where undo/redo facilities exist, they should exist to the extent that it's possible to revert to an earlier checkpoint and then play back a different development line.
Does anyone really think that the ancient Babylonians would have cared about one of their cities being blasted into rubble thousands of years later?
But it does matter to those there now, the past always shapes the present, and it will matter in the future as there was a vast store of knowledge that scholars can now never see and that makes a big difference in understanding how conclusions were reached, what some of their more obscure documents meant, and where the hell they came from to begin with. It's important for other reasons, but it's hard to explain in ways that would make sense to people focussed on the future. Just accept that forgetting is a very bad thing.
So, anyway, it matters. And it will still matter when the destruction is as close to the construction as the destruction of the original Star Wars tapes was to their construction. The interval doesn't matter.
Was George Lucas the original artist? Most of the cells in his body would have been replaced, his bones would have regenerated, the DNA in his brain cells would have new genomes. The person exists only as a virtual construct, but that means there's a new George Lucas every time he experiences anything, since the machine running the simulcra - and therefore the simulcra itself - changes with experience.
There is no soul, there is only a construct that can be activated and deactivated by medical science at will.
"like most non-partisans"...like most rational people actually...thanks for the hackery.
Very well put: "Basically the only reason you like the electoral college is because it makes your vote count more than the vote of someone who you don't consider as fully human enough to have equal say in a democracy." I'm not even saying the electoral college is "wrong," (I would have stopped short of fully human as overbroad—no part of our federal democracy is majoritarian and that's not necessarily bad
You say "caring", I say "having integrity". But hey, you've got the only correct value system, right?
Uh. You don't know how to spell "weird". I don't think we should take you very seriously.
Because I haven't seen this posted yet: https://xkcd.com/1319/
The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.