Yes I deliberately used a term that was just as charged as the common "anti-choice" term that you've heard so much on news media and in pop political-culture, you're immune to the fact that it's an equally charged term.
The phrase "Pro Choice" is not descriptive. (Pro choice about what? iPod vs Android, Republican vs Democrat?, Beans vs Carrots?) Nor does the phrase "Pro Choice" accurately describe the plight of women in places where abortion is not only permissible, it is mandatory. It also ignores the fact that there are pro-abortion individuals (abusive boyfriends/husbands/parents) who are decidedly against giving a woman the choice to let her unborn child live.
So if we describe God as "Anti Life" because he made sure EVERYTHING dies, that is just being descriptive?
If you have an axe to grind just be up front about it.
You are right! That has been proven time and time again by animals in the wild that just stand there going, "Save me. I obviously can't be bothered!". I mean really, what would the world look like if you had all these organisms actively doing something for their own benefit? You would see things like zebras and gazelles running away from lions because of some silly evolutionary pressure for "self responsibility" would include running away from large things with teeth.
Yeah. It would look like a TV show on the Nature channel. That's only TV so that doesn't ever happen for real...
It is this sort of stupidity that I think the creationists could use as an effective argument against evolution.
- The fact that SO MANY people have no ability to take any responsibility for their actions and the fact that people don't overwhelmingly blast them for their insane helplessness seems to be some level of proof that humans have no evolved traits for any self responsibility. I would expect that self responsibility would have to be part of any sort of evolved survival traits.
(or maybe we need to release more tigers in our cities to get the old awareness going again...)
And they did this outside the US because apparently copyright monopolies have become the 4th branch of government...
What I really want to see is the first virus (or NSA stuxnet variant) that is dropbox api aware so it infects or copies your "secure cloud data". Pretty easy to do because unless it asks for your credentials every time you open or save a file, it means all of the data is open to anything running on your computer.
bzzzzztthankyouforplaying...
Current legal precedent says that if an email message has been on the server for over 6 months they can consider it abandoned property and therefor has no privacy protection. This does not mean that you haven't accessed your account for 6 months. It means only that you left the email in question on the server. Back in POP3 days there might have been an argument for "It's abandoned" but in this day of IMAP and hosted Exchange it is pretty stupid.
This points out the stupidity of many of our laws in this day of rapid technological change.
So once again I have to point out the obvious bit where if the train is coasting to a stop it CAN NOT hit a train that wasn't there before it started coasting.
And once again you are showing that an accident when a train is coasting will be less then an accident from the exact same situation when the train was nicely powered and failed to slow down before the big crunch.
(There actually is a possibility of an "accident" from depowering a really long train at the wrong time. The forces can derail a train where it is going around a switchback type corner. It isn't going to be the catastrophic loss of life like from flipping the off switch of an airliner at 30,000 feet but technically it is an accident.)
Until it slams into another train while coasting to a stop...
. ..
Because when coasting it is magically going to hit another train that it would miss if it was still going full speed? ... but maybe if it was going 88 miles per hour!!!
Generally, the equipment on the end is the shoelace and the cable is the shoe. How much do you think it costs to lay a mile of fibre?
From the RTFA dept...
The most imminent use of the cables, the authors say, might be to install them to span the short distances between servers on giant 'server farms', used by large Web companies such as Facebook.
Not germane to the subject seeing that I haven't seen a server farm that is more then a mile across...
So how far does that train fall before it hits the ground if something fails? Just turning it off isn't a catastrophic failure.
- - - - -
You take the human systems out of the plane and you aren't just dealing with the failures you observed with the previous system. You have changed the system so you are changing the possible failure points.
One simple example: "Portable EMP generator."
Using the lack of something happening in the past as a proof that it won't happen in the future is an insane 5-year-old's argument.
It is commonly used as the guiding idea behind engineering disasters, mucked up bureaucratic decisions, and trolls on the internet.
It is kind of silly to focus on the need to switch cables since you would have swap the equipment that the cables plug into to get something capable of coding/decoding the information on each end.
Kind of like complaining, "But I'll have to get new shoe laces!" when you are buying shoes.
Wow! This level of paranoia usually requires medication.
There is no shadowy conspiracy where "they" are trying to get you by insuring that there is enough crime. Government is about control combined with the incompetence of the random action that comes from thousands of legs trying to haul the beast in every direction.
Why would someone EVER say that governments have rights? The government is just a hierarchy, an organization chart. It is a service organization (supposedly) that is to fulfill the needs of the people. The idea and assumption that the government has rights that supersede the rights of the people that it was intended to serve is ludicrous!
It is the pervasion of this insane idea is why we have a government that allowed to charge off into a future defined by a very false "safety" that was purchased with the destruction of liberty that these boneheads keep paying lip service to (not to even mention the insolvency this runaway train is charging towards...).
The video references the issue with fast charging: Fast discharging.
People tend to forget that high quantities of stored energy have an inherent danger. Laptops catching fire because of lithium-ion battery failures are usually the only hazard that people tend to remember. To truly have a consumer safe device you want something that can be charged quickly but the maximum discharge rate is closer to a conventional battery.
The point is that when you exceed a certain speed of energy release the device starts resembling a bomb more then a battery. A wrench dropped across both posts of a car battery is spectacular enough in a very scary way (even before the battery actually explodes.) (And don't try this! An explosion can spray acid a LONG way.) A device that can discharge almost instantly is even more destructive. We obviously need to be able to store energy for so many different reasons but the method needs to remain safe even when handled in a completely negligent manner... like a consumer device.
Uhhh...
So exactly what part of bleeping out a word or phrase isn't "preventing others from speaking" that word or phrase?
I fail to see any argument where failing to censor all speech in anyway changes small selective censorship from being anything except for preventing the speech of that which was censored.
Or to put it in a more simplistic fashion...
In your given example the censorship begins exactly at the beginning of the beep. The censorship ends at the end of the beep. Anything that is outside of the duration of the beep has nothing to do with censorship.
By your argument if you had someone who was censored, you could argue that failing to stop them from speaking to the guy behind the counter at the 7-Eleven would mean that they hadn't been censored because you didn't stop all of their speech. It is a stupid argument.
The real cash cow here is the 30% of every Apple Store sale that Apple rakes in for just sitting there.
That is what has been the driving force behind Microsoft and the development of Windows 8. They have been watching that 30% of every app sold, and they are salivating. Windows RT is the clue. The quantity of software sold for Windows computers is jaw dropping. If Microsoft can wrangle 30% of that whole market by forcing themselves in as the middleman it will be a HUGE tsunami of dollars.
As an observer to this my question is: Will enough people fall into the trap that they can convert the whole market? You have an OS that is only optimized as a handheld interface and it is being rammed down the throats of every person trying to buy the "updated version" of the most entrenched desktop OS in the world.
Maybe the revolt against the useless desktop interface will change the direction things appear to be heading but the direction of the majority of people makes no sense to me anyway.
And maybe the unbelievably lame and irritating commercial of stupid dancing kids pretending to do business will go away. They aren't selling a single unit to business with a commercial like that. They are just making them change the channel.
The ruling is also quite hilarious, peppered with ridicule, Star Trek references, and such. Not what one would expect from the typical judge.
The best one is from Page 2, Line 16: "As evidence materialized, it turned out that Gibbs was just a redshirt."
Someone needs to buy the judge a beer or bake him a cake. Outstanding!
So before the United States came into being there weren't any marriages!!! Hooray for the USA! ("Helping people 'hook-up' for over 200 years!!!) ... Or you are just plain wrong.
Here is a very important detail that just doesn't get noticed:
The US Constitution and Bill Of Rights DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS to the people. The people already had those rights. Those documents recognize those rights and protect those rights from intrusion by the government.
You might remember another document that said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Yup, it is "self-evident" that these rights do not come from any gooberment proclamation. That fact that people seem to think that the government has rights over PEOPLE is one of the major problems that we have nowadays.
Laws to a large part are reactionary rules created by an organization that has very fixed focus on propagating itself above any other concern. A major number of our laws come from a time when enforcement was a process where a person thought, "Should I apply this law?" and it has become a case of, "Can I apply this law?". This sickness is combined with a few other bad things. A general guiding opinion of people running government is that the citizenry is "their source of revenue". Another factor is that the punishment for smaller crimes is based on the idea that only a small number of actual infractions will be witnessed so that any penalty could be applied, so the penalty is quite a bit higher so it has a deterrent force. 100% perfect enforcement with the same level of penalty would create a level of penalty that is completely out of step with reality. (but within the dreams of bureaucrats...)
A government is a hierarchy, an organization chart. People who exist in a hierarchy naturally wish to move upward in that organization chart. A key part of this attitude that is necessary for someone live in a hierarchy is they need to constantly be aware of influence: both their own and the people around them.
In other words: Power
(Everyone really needs to get a copy of the book, "The Peter Principle" and read the whole book. It is funny because it is undeniably true.)
So you have an organization that is completely populated at all levels (except some at the bottom rung) by people with a focus on power. They tend to hold a belief that people outside the organization are their source of income, and they believe that they NEED and are justified in applying their influence/power on those that are outside the organization. (Starting to see any issues?)
Now lets add cheap affordable automated technology that will effortlessly allow micromanagement of the poor fools outside the organization... At A Profit!!!
You have camera's at a major percentage of intersections in modern urban areas now. It is small potatoes to add software that would allow biometric identification of people and automated identification of every single possible infraction possible. (The UK has gone a lot farther down this road then the US has...) Impossible? Uhhh... Half of the stupid fear based changes since 9/11 were "Impossible" to any adult in the 1970s.
So you say, "But I don't break any laws!" You are deluded.
- So you step out of a store fumbling with your wallet and drop a dollar. Camera sees you drop a piece of paper and issues your fine for littering.
- You are crossing the street in a crosswalk and step outside the white lines to pick up a dollar. Camera sees your infraction and sends you your fine for jaywalking.
- One thousand other little things happen in EVERYONE'S daily life...
The quantity of people that persist in a Pollyanna belief that the government will take care of them and that the government should remove all risk from their lives are a danger to responsible adults everywhere. They help governments take greater and greater control of their daily lives. They say silly things like, "The government has a right to...". Whoa! Stop right there: PEOPLE have rights. A government is an organization chart. You want to make an organization chart have rights that supersedes your own? Really?
If you had a teenage daughter that danced around and played with the truth like a government, and spent money with the same reckless disregard as a government you would ground them for life! Governments are amazingly irresponsible and reckless.
Do not give them the opportunity to digitally micromanage every ones life. That "Liberty" thing that you might have heard of demands you keep government power in check.
There is a major difference in the two situations...
The UK scenario is people accessing a machine designed to give them their own money from their own bank accounts. Doubling the money as you remove it in no way resembles any intended purpose for the machine.
The video poker machine is a situation where the machine is intended to supply an opportunity for the users to extract as much money from the machine as possible. While they are doing this they are supposed to try to accomplish this by spending the least quantity of cash possible. The coding of the machine is supposed to try to counter the user's intent to acquire as much money as possible.
I find it hard for them to cry foul when someone is overly successful at accomplishing the intended purpose unless the user was directly altering or interfering with the operation of the machine. That doesn't appear to be the case here. The machine was simply following its program as supplied by the manufacturer.
So Windows 8 continues a trend started by Win 7? Huh??? There is 0, zero, zilch performance improvement in Win 8. Win 7 didn't need a performance improvement on any new hardware so it is a non issue anyway.
The point were Windows targets a path to oblivion is when they take the world's most predominant desktop OS and optimize it ONLY for hand held use. They have directly spit in the eye of their intrenched desktop users by supplying an unusable desktop OS for simple greed.
What has happened is MS has been watching Apple rake in 30% of every sale in the Apple Store and they are salivating to get a piece of every sale of PC software. Win 8 RT is their intended destination. So what if they piss off half their customers? Taking half of their "buy it once" customers and turning them into "tithe 30% like a good automaton" will pay much better.
Of course it ignores that basic rule of business that making it so a customer wants to do business with you guarantees success, and in five years it won't be paying "much better"...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I deliberately used a term that was just as charged as the common "anti-choice" term that you've heard so much on news media and in pop political-culture, you're immune to the fact that it's an equally charged term.
The phrase "Pro Choice" is not descriptive. (Pro choice about what? iPod vs Android, Republican vs Democrat?, Beans vs Carrots?) Nor does the phrase "Pro Choice" accurately describe the plight of women in places where abortion is not only permissible, it is mandatory. It also ignores the fact that there are pro-abortion individuals (abusive boyfriends/husbands/parents) who are decidedly against giving a woman the choice to let her unborn child live.
So if we describe God as "Anti Life" because he made sure EVERYTHING dies, that is just being descriptive?
If you have an axe to grind just be up front about it.
You are right! That has been proven time and time again by animals in the wild that just stand there going, "Save me. I obviously can't be bothered!". I mean really, what would the world look like if you had all these organisms actively doing something for their own benefit? You would see things like zebras and gazelles running away from lions because of some silly evolutionary pressure for "self responsibility" would include running away from large things with teeth.
Yeah. It would look like a TV show on the Nature channel. That's only TV so that doesn't ever happen for real...
It is this sort of stupidity that I think the creationists could use as an effective argument against evolution.
- The fact that SO MANY people have no ability to take any responsibility for their actions and the fact that people don't overwhelmingly blast them for their insane helplessness seems to be some level of proof that humans have no evolved traits for any self responsibility. I would expect that self responsibility would have to be part of any sort of evolved survival traits.
(or maybe we need to release more tigers in our cities to get the old awareness going again...)
Because they made the rules, so of course they made them to their own advantage.
Secure destruction happens onsite. If you don't have a verifiable chain of custody then you don't have secure disposal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd_O7-rqcHc
And they did this outside the US because apparently copyright monopolies have become the 4th branch of government...
What I really want to see is the first virus (or NSA stuxnet variant) that is dropbox api aware so it infects or copies your "secure cloud data". Pretty easy to do because unless it asks for your credentials every time you open or save a file, it means all of the data is open to anything running on your computer.
bzzzzztthankyouforplaying...
Current legal precedent says that if an email message has been on the server for over 6 months they can consider it abandoned property and therefor has no privacy protection. This does not mean that you haven't accessed your account for 6 months. It means only that you left the email in question on the server. Back in POP3 days there might have been an argument for "It's abandoned" but in this day of IMAP and hosted Exchange it is pretty stupid.
This points out the stupidity of many of our laws in this day of rapid technological change.
So once again I have to point out the obvious bit where if the train is coasting to a stop it CAN NOT hit a train that wasn't there before it started coasting.
And once again you are showing that an accident when a train is coasting will be less then an accident from the exact same situation when the train was nicely powered and failed to slow down before the big crunch.
(There actually is a possibility of an "accident" from depowering a really long train at the wrong time. The forces can derail a train where it is going around a switchback type corner. It isn't going to be the catastrophic loss of life like from flipping the off switch of an airliner at 30,000 feet but technically it is an accident.)
Until it slams into another train while coasting to a stop... .
. .
Because when coasting it is magically going to hit another train that it would miss if it was still going full speed?
... but maybe if it was going 88 miles per hour!!!
Generally, the equipment on the end is the shoelace and the cable is the shoe. How much do you think it costs to lay a mile of fibre?
From the RTFA dept...
The most imminent use of the cables, the authors say, might be to install them to span the short distances between servers on giant 'server farms', used by large Web companies such as Facebook.
Not germane to the subject seeing that I haven't seen a server farm that is more then a mile across...
So how far does that train fall before it hits the ground if something fails? Just turning it off isn't a catastrophic failure.
- - - - -
You take the human systems out of the plane and you aren't just dealing with the failures you observed with the previous system. You have changed the system so you are changing the possible failure points.
One simple example: "Portable EMP generator."
More to the point...
Using the lack of something happening in the past as a proof that it won't happen in the future is an insane 5-year-old's argument.
It is commonly used as the guiding idea behind engineering disasters, mucked up bureaucratic decisions, and trolls on the internet.
It is kind of silly to focus on the need to switch cables since you would have swap the equipment that the cables plug into to get something capable of coding/decoding the information on each end.
Kind of like complaining, "But I'll have to get new shoe laces!" when you are buying shoes.
Wow! This level of paranoia usually requires medication.
There is no shadowy conspiracy where "they" are trying to get you by insuring that there is enough crime. Government is about control combined with the incompetence of the random action that comes from thousands of legs trying to haul the beast in every direction.
Why would someone EVER say that governments have rights? The government is just a hierarchy, an organization chart. It is a service organization (supposedly) that is to fulfill the needs of the people. The idea and assumption that the government has rights that supersede the rights of the people that it was intended to serve is ludicrous!
It is the pervasion of this insane idea is why we have a government that allowed to charge off into a future defined by a very false "safety" that was purchased with the destruction of liberty that these boneheads keep paying lip service to (not to even mention the insolvency this runaway train is charging towards...).
Kepler works by detecting the dimming of the star as the planet transits across it. Size, not radiation, is the key.
The video references the issue with fast charging: Fast discharging.
People tend to forget that high quantities of stored energy have an inherent danger. Laptops catching fire because of lithium-ion battery failures are usually the only hazard that people tend to remember. To truly have a consumer safe device you want something that can be charged quickly but the maximum discharge rate is closer to a conventional battery.
The point is that when you exceed a certain speed of energy release the device starts resembling a bomb more then a battery. A wrench dropped across both posts of a car battery is spectacular enough in a very scary way (even before the battery actually explodes.) (And don't try this! An explosion can spray acid a LONG way.) A device that can discharge almost instantly is even more destructive. We obviously need to be able to store energy for so many different reasons but the method needs to remain safe even when handled in a completely negligent manner... like a consumer device.
No. What you are describing is discrimination.
Uhhh...
So exactly what part of bleeping out a word or phrase isn't "preventing others from speaking" that word or phrase?
I fail to see any argument where failing to censor all speech in anyway changes small selective censorship from being anything except for preventing the speech of that which was censored.
Or to put it in a more simplistic fashion...
In your given example the censorship begins exactly at the beginning of the beep. The censorship ends at the end of the beep. Anything that is outside of the duration of the beep has nothing to do with censorship.
By your argument if you had someone who was censored, you could argue that failing to stop them from speaking to the guy behind the counter at the 7-Eleven would mean that they hadn't been censored because you didn't stop all of their speech. It is a stupid argument.
The real cash cow here is the 30% of every Apple Store sale that Apple rakes in for just sitting there.
That is what has been the driving force behind Microsoft and the development of Windows 8. They have been watching that 30% of every app sold, and they are salivating. Windows RT is the clue. The quantity of software sold for Windows computers is jaw dropping. If Microsoft can wrangle 30% of that whole market by forcing themselves in as the middleman it will be a HUGE tsunami of dollars.
As an observer to this my question is: Will enough people fall into the trap that they can convert the whole market? You have an OS that is only optimized as a handheld interface and it is being rammed down the throats of every person trying to buy the "updated version" of the most entrenched desktop OS in the world.
Maybe the revolt against the useless desktop interface will change the direction things appear to be heading but the direction of the majority of people makes no sense to me anyway.
And maybe the unbelievably lame and irritating commercial of stupid dancing kids pretending to do business will go away. They aren't selling a single unit to business with a commercial like that. They are just making them change the channel.
The ruling is also quite hilarious, peppered with ridicule, Star Trek references, and such. Not what one would expect from the typical judge.
The best one is from Page 2, Line 16: "As evidence materialized, it turned out that Gibbs was just a redshirt."
Someone needs to buy the judge a beer or bake him a cake. Outstanding!
So before the United States came into being there weren't any marriages!!! Hooray for the USA! ("Helping people 'hook-up' for over 200 years!!!)
... Or you are just plain wrong.
Here is a very important detail that just doesn't get noticed:
The US Constitution and Bill Of Rights DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS to the people. The people already had those rights. Those documents recognize those rights and protect those rights from intrusion by the government.
You might remember another document that said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. "
Yup, it is "self-evident" that these rights do not come from any gooberment proclamation. That fact that people seem to think that the government has rights over PEOPLE is one of the major problems that we have nowadays.
Laws to a large part are reactionary rules created by an organization that has very fixed focus on propagating itself above any other concern. A major number of our laws come from a time when enforcement was a process where a person thought, "Should I apply this law?" and it has become a case of, "Can I apply this law?". This sickness is combined with a few other bad things. A general guiding opinion of people running government is that the citizenry is "their source of revenue". Another factor is that the punishment for smaller crimes is based on the idea that only a small number of actual infractions will be witnessed so that any penalty could be applied, so the penalty is quite a bit higher so it has a deterrent force. 100% perfect enforcement with the same level of penalty would create a level of penalty that is completely out of step with reality. (but within the dreams of bureaucrats...)
...". Whoa! Stop right there: PEOPLE have rights. A government is an organization chart. You want to make an organization chart have rights that supersedes your own? Really?
A government is a hierarchy, an organization chart. People who exist in a hierarchy naturally wish to move upward in that organization chart. A key part of this attitude that is necessary for someone live in a hierarchy is they need to constantly be aware of influence: both their own and the people around them.
In other words: Power
(Everyone really needs to get a copy of the book, "The Peter Principle" and read the whole book. It is funny because it is undeniably true.)
So you have an organization that is completely populated at all levels (except some at the bottom rung) by people with a focus on power. They tend to hold a belief that people outside the organization are their source of income, and they believe that they NEED and are justified in applying their influence/power on those that are outside the organization. (Starting to see any issues?)
Now lets add cheap affordable automated technology that will effortlessly allow micromanagement of the poor fools outside the organization... At A Profit!!!
You have camera's at a major percentage of intersections in modern urban areas now. It is small potatoes to add software that would allow biometric identification of people and automated identification of every single possible infraction possible. (The UK has gone a lot farther down this road then the US has...) Impossible? Uhhh... Half of the stupid fear based changes since 9/11 were "Impossible" to any adult in the 1970s.
So you say, "But I don't break any laws!" You are deluded.
- So you step out of a store fumbling with your wallet and drop a dollar. Camera sees you drop a piece of paper and issues your fine for littering.
- You are crossing the street in a crosswalk and step outside the white lines to pick up a dollar. Camera sees your infraction and sends you your fine for jaywalking.
- One thousand other little things happen in EVERYONE'S daily life...
The quantity of people that persist in a Pollyanna belief that the government will take care of them and that the government should remove all risk from their lives are a danger to responsible adults everywhere. They help governments take greater and greater control of their daily lives. They say silly things like, "The government has a right to
If you had a teenage daughter that danced around and played with the truth like a government, and spent money with the same reckless disregard as a government you would ground them for life! Governments are amazingly irresponsible and reckless.
Do not give them the opportunity to digitally micromanage every ones life. That "Liberty" thing that you might have heard of demands you keep government power in check.
There is a major difference in the two situations...
The UK scenario is people accessing a machine designed to give them their own money from their own bank accounts. Doubling the money as you remove it in no way resembles any intended purpose for the machine.
The video poker machine is a situation where the machine is intended to supply an opportunity for the users to extract as much money from the machine as possible. While they are doing this they are supposed to try to accomplish this by spending the least quantity of cash possible. The coding of the machine is supposed to try to counter the user's intent to acquire as much money as possible.
I find it hard for them to cry foul when someone is overly successful at accomplishing the intended purpose unless the user was directly altering or interfering with the operation of the machine. That doesn't appear to be the case here. The machine was simply following its program as supplied by the manufacturer.
So Windows 8 continues a trend started by Win 7? Huh??? There is 0, zero, zilch performance improvement in Win 8. Win 7 didn't need a performance improvement on any new hardware so it is a non issue anyway.
The point were Windows targets a path to oblivion is when they take the world's most predominant desktop OS and optimize it ONLY for hand held use. They have directly spit in the eye of their intrenched desktop users by supplying an unusable desktop OS for simple greed.
What has happened is MS has been watching Apple rake in 30% of every sale in the Apple Store and they are salivating to get a piece of every sale of PC software. Win 8 RT is their intended destination. So what if they piss off half their customers? Taking half of their "buy it once" customers and turning them into "tithe 30% like a good automaton" will pay much better.
Of course it ignores that basic rule of business that making it so a customer wants to do business with you guarantees success, and in five years it won't be paying "much better"...