Vance said. "It's changed my world. It's letting criminals conduct their business with the knowledge we can't listen to them."
They can do that in an empty theater, a subway car, a taxi, a sewer... or in simple, pre-arranged, spoken code-phrases you'll have EVEN LESS CHANCE OF CRACKING. So it's "changed your world." Ala, forced you to think about hiring cops capable of doing actual investigative police work? You mean, like, when people used codes the police couldn't crack just 15 years ago, except they were written on paper, or ciphered into the actual text? You mean like when they spoke languages few if any other people spoke? You mean like back in the day when cops were expected to solve crimes with actual police-work, instead of relying on broad, warrantless searches of people's private property and communications with no restraint on the part of the police, who would instead prefer to violate the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold with the use of Stingray devices and the like just to nab an easy collar?
Frankly, if your only avenue for solving crime is bottomed on your ability to read the contents of people's private messages and cellphones, you should quit because you're an awful police officer with no ability or skill to solve crimes the way our nation of laws intended them to be solved: without violating people's equal rights, all because "but... crime!!1 Terrorism!1! 9/11!!!one" Even if I believed that giving you what you wanted wasn't a civil rights violation and was in the best interests of the public, the fact of the matter is that it would change nothing: the criminals would simply find other means and avenues, and frankly I seriously doubt such access is a relevant factor in even 1 out of 100,000 cases anyway, especially since your record of solving crimes has not improved in the least bit during the periods when you had this access, or since you've started illegally using stingray devices, even though overall crime rates have been on a downward tick for the last couple of decades.
Years ago, I noticed one thing about economics, and that is that economists didn't get anything right.
-Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Economists tend to think they are much, much smarter than historians, than everybody. And this is a bit too much because at the end of the day, we don't know very much in economics.
I don't care for a lot of this person's theories, but the following, at least, I can definitely agree with:
Contrary to what professional economists will typically tell you, economics is not a science. All economic theories have underlying political and ethical assumptions, which make it impossible to prove them right or wrong in the way we can with theories in physics or chemistry.
Lastly, I think this lady has the right of it:
I may be only a fish and chip shop lady, but some of these economists need to get their heads out of the textbooks and get a job in the real world. I would not even let one of them handle my grocery shopping.
All of which is to say the economists can't even claim to really know what they're on about, so how can the people teaching it? And if the people teaching it don't know what they're talking about (which is easily believed), why should anyone believe that the opinions of their students have any grounding in reality or bearing on anything?
A lot of Russians once thought communism was a good idea, because that was what they were propagandized to believe, the same as our students, what with them having spent most of their time in school learning to regurgitate "facts" (which are all too often no such thing) instead of how to think critically for themselves. Regardless of how many Russians thought communism was a good idea, they turned out to be provably wrong, and it will be no different with these millennials who think capitalism is bad.
Capitalism, regardless of the abuses that may arise under it, at least in principle promotes individual rights and liberties, specifically the right to self-determination, the right to the fruits of ones own labor, and the right to free association.
Communism, on the contrary, has, at the least, the same capacity for abuse, and actually a much greater one. Why on earth would anyone think that if the individual is too greedy, ignorant, selfish and biased to govern themselves and their own behavior, that a GROUP of the same human beings would be any different? Why would a bureaucrat with the unlimited power of government behind them be any less susceptible to greed and tyranny than a CEO or corporation? At least the corporations aren't symbiotically intertwined with law enforcement and the courts, which have the power to dictate life and death under color of official law, unlike the rest of the government, which the people in it can use to suit their whim, and just change the law when the law says they can't. Personally, I've known quite a lot of people who lived in or under Soviet Russia, and not one of them has ever said they missed it, or wished for a return to it.
If the millennials want socialism or communism, by all means, it's a free country, go some place that has that already, experience for yourself, and if you like it, then stay. But don't use the threat of government violence to force your social and economic policies on me in one of the few countries left that even pays lip service to the notion of an open and free market when there are already so many places that offer what you seek, albeit at the inherent and inextricable cost of liberty and freedom.
...where nobody seems to know how they continue to get elected.
One word: California
âoeWe have improved graphics 30 times what they were five years ago,â Bryant said [...]
for all their assertions that,
"Iris and Iris Pro, can outperform 80 percent of discrete graphics chips,"
their GPU's still aren't achieving even half the GFLOPS of my nearly 5 year old GTX 670. These chips might be fine for the 80% of total "PC game players" which, depending on how you choose to define that class, includes people playing Facebook games or other similar low-end titles. These things are not, however, remotely sufficient for any true PC gamer, as even my above-mentioned 670 with 2GB of dedicated memory, is starting to get a bit long in the tooth, and I'm finally having to start turning some settings down to medium on newly released games. There's simply no way you're getting acceptable performance from modern, AA or AAA class games on these Iris chips, and Intel is just blowing hot air to claim that they are a substitute for a discrete GPU PC gaming.
"Russia announced the ban on Bitcoin or other 'money surrogates' in February of 2014, asserting that cryptocurrencies facilitates public competition to the government's own money-laundering and other criminal activity while making it more difficult for the government to interfere with legitimate private economic activity."
Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)