...Tyree Threatt, 21 years old, facing charges of mugging a woman on June 27. They didn’t arrest him that day, of course, but she gave a description of the mugger. A few weeks later, officers saw Threatt and determined he matched the description.
Did she say she'd been mugged by a man in striped pajamas, carrying an improvised pickaxe?
Joking aside, here's a line we ought to remember:
Then they put his photo in a lineup and she picked him out.
Remember this when on a jury: the victim can pick a photo from a set of photos, and be wrong.
Before I trust the Noke, I'd like to know the exact challenge-and-response protocol. When a company doesn't reveal such details, it usually means that the protocol is full of holes. It's not hard to imagine a "straightforward" design that would allow a device pretending to be a Noke to quietly collect the keys of all Noke-users who walk past it.
The results of the experiment seem to indicate that people don't like sites with a low signal/noise ratio.
If there are no comments, all you see is the news, the "content". If there are comments, you read them, hoping for something interesting, and find nothing. You've wasted your time. And it appears that this is a site frequented by people with nothing much to say. Monotonous praise and monotonous scorn are bad enough, but at least they indicate something. If they are mixed, then they indicate nothing; these sites get the lowest score.
Why not try a more brave experiment? The Washington Post allows pseudonymous comments by registered readers. Suppose it allowed anonymous comments, but provided a filter for readers, to hide or reveal anonymous comments along with the threads that follow from them? Then Wallston and Tarski could see pretty clearly whether their own readers preferred pages that allow anonymity.
Scientific theories posit that certain things are impossible -- otherwise they'd be useless. But the scientific method requires that all theories be subject to challenge, that no theory can ever attain the rank of "absolutely certain", that we always remain open to the possibility that our most trusted theories might turn out to be wrong. In that sense, nothing in science is absolutely impossible.
The "Cannae Drive" is not absolutely impossible -- nothing in science is -- but I'd offer long odds against it. for one thing:
"...If it really works, it could be a major breakthrough for deep-space exploration."
If it really worked, we'd have to tear down our theories of Physics and rebuild them. Ms. Nelson doesn't seem to understand just how staggering this discovery would be if it turned out to be real, so I have to doubt that she asked the right questions about this experiment. (And NASA has never had much of a reputation for experimental physics, even before they started losing spacecraft by e.g. getting miles and kilometers mixed up.)
The difference is that in this case the guilty parties make things worse by not apologizing for not knowing what a word meant, and in the prior case the innocent party made things worse by apologizing for knowing what a word meant and using it correctly.
I read the article on Syndrome X. It's interesting, but the headline is misleading. The Syndrome involves a disruption of development, with different systems evolving at different rates (e.g. rapid deterioration of the telomeres, but retarded mental development). These girls don't remain bouncy little children for 90 years, they grow in a disordered way and die young.
This syndrome may tell us a lot about development and gene regulation, but the people who refer to it as "the key to halting the aging process" seem to be indulging in pure wishful thinking.
"The issue here is not the right to anonymous speech. Nobody disputes that right. The issue is whether there is a right to anonymous speech... if the speaker is a public figure."
So Bob Lord isn't disputing the right, he's just saying it doesn't apply to those who hold pubic office.
...And all the rest of his argument boils down to "he's a creep, so he should be exposed", which just shows that we should remind ourselves again that we should not undercut the rights of others just because we dislike them. How many times must we learn that lesson?
"Don't you see? You have the heart, but you don't have the soul. No, no, wait... you have the soul, but you don't have the heart. No, no, scratch that... you have the heart and the soul, but you don't have the talent."
Where was this journalistic outrage when the ruling was still in the works?
On the 16th of May, the day of the ruling, the Guardian printed an article by this same James Ball about it that can be summed up as "ooh, this will be tricky for Google". And now that juicy Guardian articles are getting blanked, now he's up in arms.
There is so much wrong with your question I'm not sure where to start. According to Zip's description, first there is no need to reset the connection, it's just a good practice. Second, interruption can occur in any download, even if it isn't a large file. Third, it has nothing to do with how many files (large or small) there are. Fourth, Zip's motives for downloading these files have nothing at all to do with the problem of interruption or the solution that involves changing the MAC address. Fifth, yes indeed, Zip has "some reason" for using MAC address spoofing (a misnomer in my opinion), as Zip has explained to you at least twice, and maybe some reason for using public WiFi (as many people do or it wouldn't exist). Sixth, if you are moving the goalposts to "nothing possibly nefarious" then no evidence will convince you and no technology, medium, practice, or hobby can ever be entirely free of sinister overtones. Seventh, simple statements of fact and clear logic don't seem to make any impression on you, even with repetition (so I doubt that this comment will make any headway).
P.S. Sorry to take so long replying-- I didn't check this thread for replies because I honestly didn't think you'd keep at it.
It might be better if you distinguished between legal language (e.g. "if she's drunk then she cannot give consent and it is rape") and ordinary language (e.g. "if she's drunk then he can get in trouble, even if she gives consent and it isn't rape").
Logical arguments won't save you from expulsion if you're a male student accused by a female student. Want to know why?
College boys know that logic won't get them anywhere with college girls, but they think they can score points by supporting feminist causes and signing petitions to waive their own civil rights -- and yours. I have seen expel-on-accusation petitions.
College administrations know that logical arguments won't save them in case of an "unsafe environment" lawsuit, but they think they'll wind up paying smaller settlements if they write ridiculously anti-male student conduct policies, and enforce them hard on any male student whom any female student complains about. I have seen policies that -- read literally -- can be construed to classify looking at a female student as sexual misconduct.
President Obama has lost a lot of popular support over the past year or two, but he seems to think he can win some back by pandering to feminists and leaning on universities, insinuating that they must pillory their male students if they want to keep getting federal funds.
Seriously, at what point do you think the accused can just say "this makes no logical sense" and get justice?
"[T]he point is that if you take *specific* steps to avoid the security in place that can be used as evidence that you A) knew there was security in place B) that you took steps to avoid it, which can be used as evidence that C) you knew what you were doing was prohibited."
1. You've taken a big step back, from "criminal" to "prohibited". 2. Step B seems superfluous; whether I know that something is prohibited or not does not depend on whether I'm doing it. 3. It's extremely weak evidence in any case.