Pssst, you don't need to explain where London is. Even us Americans know.
If you do explain, feel free to put London, England, or London, UK. You don't need to put 'London UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND'.
That is the most content-free comment I have ever seen. To summarize:
I don't like what your post says, but I not only have no way to dispute it, but I'm not even going to talk about it, instead repeating vague platitudes like they actually means anything at all in the context. Also I'll make an ad hominem attack on you by claiming saying that if someone's angry we should automatically disregard the arguments they are making. (Because, obviously, no one who sees abuse could legitimately be angry.)
To repeat my point: It is neither ethical nor wanted for the government to price education out of the reach of normal people, and then 'solve' that problem with scholarships that attempt to control every facet of the student's life, including areas they would be Constitutionally barred from regulating if they did it any other way.
Those students died defending our country, their campus, from the wanton authority abuse we're talking about in this thread.
The sad thing is, they didn't.
At least two of them, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder, weren't even in the protest but were just walking from one class to another. So anyone who goes 'Yeah, but they were throwing rocks earlier' is a fucking asshole, because those two were in class at the time. William was in the damn ROTC, which is what the student were targeting their anger at!
And, to make things ever worse, the students shot weren't the ones right there at the guard. The nearest person injured was 71 feet away. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anyway to injure someone 71 feet away with a rock or a board ot whatever...you'd pretty much need a rifle. The nearest person killed was 265 feet away. That's out of yelling distance. That's at 'Doesn't even know what's going on over there' distance.
There were points during the protests where opening fire might have been justifable, like earlier that week when the protesters threw rocks at people driving a jeep, or when they attacked firefighters attempting to save the (closed and soon to be demolished) ROTC building, or even earlier that day, where the crowd go out of control with the aformention rock throwing and (hilariously) throwing tear gas canisters back at the guard. (The wind was dispersing the gas.) A National Guard member was actually injured there.
But shooting those people, people at least 70 feet away, at that time, when the students were merely refusing to be contained on an athletic field, or, rather, uncontaining themselves after the Guard herded them there and tried to leave, with the students simply walking out behind the guard instead of staying where they were told to stay, and no one even asserts they were in anyway violent at that time or doing anything except trying to walk off the field, is just completely inexcusable, and it's even more inexcusable the Guard just decided to, apparently, fire randomly and kill people who hadn't even been on the field and didn't even know what the fuck was going on, just walking between classes like normal college students.
Anyone who attempts to justify any of that is an ass.
I can't believe there are people who know what's going on, but fucking defend it.
No, it is not the place of the government to offer people free education, except the people they don't like, expecially when they 'don't like' them for doing things that not only are legal, but couldn't be made illegal, like posting on a website.(1)
No, it is not the place of the university to 'guide' me anywhere and punish me if I step out of where they think I'm going. It is the place of the university to teach me what I'm paying them to teach me, and judge, at the end, whether or not I've learned it, and nothing else.
1) No, I'm not defending athletic scholarships, which are insanely stupid to start with. This issue is bigger than that.
Okay, let's go over this again:
Fifteenth amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Every since that time, all the restrictions on the Federal government's behavior towards citizens have also applied to states. The states can't pass a law banning free speech.
The Ohio Department of Education was created by a law passed by the Ohio Congress. The Ohio Department of Education is acting as a member of the Ohio government, and all the rules and regulations it passes must not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, in addition to being within the authority delegated to it by the Ohio government.
Kent State was created by Ohio Department of Education, and is still part of the Ohio government. Any rules and regulations it passes must not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, in addition to following the rules dictated by the Ohio Department of Education.
And, the sad thing is, TheRaven64 probably has a college education.
Since these are students recieving athletic scholarships, my guess is that it's legal to say "if you want this free money, you can't use facebook".
Except these are students receiving athletic scholarships from the government.
There's a reason the Federal government and various state ones want to give poor people a free ride to college, but only via things with a lot of rules attached. It's so they can take it away when students do things that aren't even illegal, or wouldn't be subject to anywhere near that sort of punishment, like taking away financial aid because you got caught with a joint when you were 15 (And were, I might add, duly punished for under the law.) or posted something on facebook that made ths school look bad.
Looking at each 'rule' seperately is a good way to avoid the big picture here. The idea is to make college unreachable unless you a) are rich, or b) are socially acceptable to them. Tutitions keep going up, and government scholarships and grants keep appearing more and more, when a more logical solution would just be to lower the damn tutitions.
It's not some sort of accident. They learned their lessions in the sixties about colleges. Nowadays, they find you protesting,the surpreme court still might not let them kick you out, but, hey, look, you're on two scholarships, and, um, something you did violated one of them, so they're not giving them to you next year. You have no appeal, because scholarship revocations don't have to follow any sort of due process, whereas you could sue if they just kicked you out for excersizing your first amendment rights. The fact that they have raised tutition so high that 90% of the students are on scholarships and grants is ignored.
Incidentally, the exact same thing is going on in government subsidied housing. Instead of the Habitat for Humanity approach, where they could just build houses really cheap (Hey, how does the Army Corp of Engineers train, anyway? Why don't they do that?) and sell them, at cost, with low mortgages, there's a whole system of rules and requirements and people get kicked out for the stupidest things, like having unrelated people spend the night. (Yes, an actual rule in at least one place.)
Not that I'm that worried about this example, because athletic scholarships are fucking stupid in the first place. I'm just pointing out the general trend of: Government overpricing something, or it's just overpriced by itself, and instead of doing anything about it, the government gives out money to 'good people' so they can afford it, where 'good people' is decided in a way that would be illegal if they just barred others from the thing. But, apparently, 'giving out' something isn't subject to due process or the equal protection clause or the Constitution or anything.
The Federal Government started this in the 80s with the 'lower the speed limit or we take away our free highway money', but at least that was to states. Now it's hitting citizens. What's next, a gas tax of 1000 dollars a gallon, but we get a rebate of 999 dollars back if we promise not to blog? That isn't a joke, according to court decisions, they can do that.
You dumbass. If you take an existing song and replace the music or lyrics, you have to pay for the other half. It doesn't matter if the part you replace is parody, the other half isn't.
Where I live, Northeast Georgia, two-thirds of that, 660 dollars or so a month, will get you half a duplex, with two beds and full baths, a carport, and a yard.
The lawsuits are because society is crumbling as the 'haves' take more and more pie for less and less of them, so everyone else is reduces to grabbing whatever they can.
It isn't immaturity, it's desperation to stop being fucked over, even if the people themselves don't realize it.
It is testable, and it does make a few definative predictions that we know are correct. In the places where string theory says "This is true', it matches just fine.
Sadly, these predictions are made by other theories just fine, and, what's more, these other theories are a good deal less confusing, and in other places they return a single accurate result instead of dozens of results of which only one is accurate.
That depends on the kind. There are three sizes of leptons and three sets of the two sizes of quarks to make up the six 'flavors'. It's suspected there are more sizes of both, and that in fact each size is just bumping up the energy in each and they're actually the 'same' thing, just like you can put more energy into an electron and it will jump up an orbit in an atom, but it's still the same electron.
Anyway, the leptons at a certain size are lighter than either of the quarks, if 'lighter' makes any sense when quarks don't actually have measurable mass...you have to put them together for them weigh. But if you do that, and then divide them out, they are much much much heavier.
However, saying leptons are smeared out more and thus are 'bigger' is not sane. Merely existing in a larger probability wave is not meaningful. For example, photons from stars are often smeared out over feet when they hit the earth, but if a photon was really that big we could never see it. All fundamental particles are points, period, and thus all the same size.
That's not what he said. That would imply that people proposing it are 'cheating', which they aren't.
He said string theory can, indeed, exactly match reality. It can also match quite a lot of things that aren't reality, and by 'quite a lot of things' we're talking trillions. The theory doesn't have to be 'bent', it's that you have to turn all this stuff into something that fits into observations in our four dimensional universe, and you can basically do it almost anyway you want.
As we have no way of knowing which of these things it matches 'is' reality, perhaps it's time to actually locate a theory that can actually tell us something.
Compare it, if you will, to a literary theory that states all literature is composed of the letters a-z. That's brilliant! We had stuff about plots and characters and archtypes and language and grammar, and, suddenly, it can all be simplified to merely being a string of letters.
Of course, 'string of letters' also matches a hell of a lot of things that do not qualify as 'literature', and we still have to use our old theories to do anything, so perhaps it's time to head back to all that other stuff and start out again in a new direction.
You can change MAC addresses, and MAC addressing is a 'lie'...it merely means hardware in the network card filters out all packets without that MAC. (Unless the card is promiscious.) That's it, that's all a MAC address does, it's a hardware filter. What's more, it's a filter every single device on the local network needs to know if they're sending you packets.
It makes as much sense for setting the IPV6 to change the MAC address as anything. That lets the logical network on the wire line up with the logical network in IPv6, and keeps everyone from having to keep dumb lookup tables and RARP requests. (Or, alternately, everyone having to manually inspect every packet.)
Or are you saying that in such a case, the computers should have routeable IPs, and the router should be set up with the proper ACLs?
Um, duh, yes. That's exactly what everyone's been saying, for years. Using a NAT as a cheap-ass firewall hasn't helped anything.
Although it wouldn't hurt for computers to start having security measures built in, where we didn't need any damn firewalls. I just wish it was possible to code a protocol that wouldn't present a security vulerablity to expose that port directly to the Internet.
Wait. I forgot two words there: I just wish it was possible for Microsoft to code a protocol that wouldn't present a security vulerablity to expose that port directly to the Internet.
It wasn't frozen. It was dead. Farnsworth was going to clone it, and copy some memories across so it would be like the dog Fry knew.
Fry was right. Well, he was wrong, but he was right in the sense that, had the facts been what he assumed, his dog had lived out a full and happy life, and wouldn't even remember him. There's no reason to put him in a new body, except for Fry wanting to have his dog back, and he decided he wasn't that selfish if it was going to result in a dog that had died happy and contented surrounded by its family having to figure out what the hell was going on and who these people were.
Fry repeatedly decides that getting what he wants isn't worth it if it hurts other people or he 'cheats' to get it. Witness his apology in 'Time Keeps on Slippin' to Leela for anything he might have done that they didn't remember.
And because he's an idiot, he's often wrong about these things, like he was here.
Evolution wasn't a stinker. I like to think of it as about 75% of Ghostbusters, which still makes it a damn funny movie.
Re:Restrike while the iron is still warm?
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Nibbler's shadow was, however, added in the flashback scene in an entirely unrelated episode earlier that season. You can see his eyestalk if you look for it. (But you can't see Fry's shadow, because presumably that didn't happen 'yet'. Actually, that didn't happen at all.)
I.e., they did plan it out. Just not that far in the past.
The story of The Why of Fry is hilarious. One of the writers came in and pitched it, and they all just stared at each other in shock, because it completely explained two completely unrelated episodes they'd already done, the flying brain episode, aka Fry's-brain-thing, and the Fry's-his-own-grandfather episode, and linked in stuff from the first episode, like what Fry was doing at the cryogenic place in the first place and the 'almost fall into the tube right before he actually did it' gag.
You're incorrect. The police are there to keep the peace, and part of that job is stop crime.
However, it's usually not to stop crime by physically stopping the commission of it, except things like seperating people who are about to come to blows.
It's to deter it by being visible where crimes are likely to be committed, and by making criminals nervous.
The problem, of course, is that we have so many laws almost everyone is a criminal, so they just make everyone nervous.
Except that people not wearing seatbelts endanger others. Not merely because of the obvious 'Flying around hitting other people', but because people without seatbelts are more likely to lose control of their car when sideswiped, falling sideways or downward in their seat. In addition, they are more likely to get killed, or at least knocked unconcious, by banging their head, while still operating the vehicle, which makes things really awkward for others in vehicles around them.
It's not just the 'right to get yourself killed'. You have no right to die or be flung around while operating a ton of metal near other people. You have a human responsiblity to negotiate that metal to a stop with as little injuries on other people as possible, it's not even a legal responsiblity, it's moral one for being human. You still want to die, you can go shoot yourself in the head later. And I'm sure that you can find some sort of industrial dryer to climb inside if you want bang yourself against metal repeatedly, or you can jump down the inside of the Statue of Liberty.
I don't see how anyone who complains about seatbelts can get away without complaining about requiring windshield wipers or rearview mirrors, both of which 'only' help the driver, and thus logically the driver should be able to operate the car without them. That's not how it works. Cars are dangerous things, and we have invented things to make them less dangerous, and you have to use them to operate the car near other people. This isn't to say all the rules make sense...I don't use running lights, and yet I can get a ticket if they're out. And not all the rules can be enforced...we can't make people check their mirrors. Neither does it make sense to make people stop a stop sign when they can see a mile in all directions and nothing's there. But it's much better to have well-defined laws than then to just enforce whatever rule someone feels like enforcing at the time.
However, a big problem with the seatbelt laws is they're being used for pretext stops. I don't agree with pretext stops under any circumstances, and I understand when people get upset at seatbelt laws because of that, but if there were no seatbelt laws, they'd just say you looked like you were weaving or something. The solution is to get rid of pretext stops, not seatbelt laws. I think a good start would be to required police offices to justify all stops in court. Not to the level of reasonable doubt, and the person pulled over won't even be there if they didn't give a citation, but produce some sort of evidence that says 'And this video clearly shows X, which is why I pulled him over.'.
And I'm all for letting people not wear motorcycle helmets, because that doesn't cause any sort of endangering of other people at all...by the time a helmet matters, you're sliding around on the pavement and can't do anything anyway. But only if they're required to wear a pin on their shirt that says 'I don't wear a motorcycle helmet, so don't assume I'll live out the week' so we can refrain from conducting any sort of contractual business with them. I only want to do business with people who don't regularly endanger their life, because dealing with someone's estate is just really annoying. And if they end up a vegatable in the hospital, man, that's a huge hassle.
Actually, it's the job of the police to keep the peace. This not only includes what you said, it would include keeping people from breaking the law in the first place, and calming down situtations that look like they can explode into violence.
You know, like how during protests, if someone throws a rock, they immediately remove that person. And provide safe areas for the protestor to operate in...okay, I can't actually keep a straight face here, sorry. The joke almost worked.
What people talking about "competent tribunal" don't get is that this isn't some random group of people the detaining country gets to set up. This is a well-define process that the Red Cross helps set up, with input from both sides. It follows the basic rules of court via evidence and testimony and whatnot.
You can't just throw them in from of some guys in uniform and have a judge stamp 'Don't release' on a piece of paper. "competent tribunal" has a meaning. It's a somewhat vague meaning, because it tends to slightly change shape from conflict to conflict, just like 'a trial by jury' varies from state to state and country to country, but it's not that. It's never been something set up by the detaining country with no input or observation from the outside, and, more to the point, none of them can ever happen without Red Cross observation.
And until a "competent tribunal" has decided anything, they are to be treated with the highest level of protection.
Unlike the current situtation, where not only are there no "competent tribunals" (Hey, why start being competent now?), the Red Cross asserts that the US is holding prisoners at places beside Gitmo so the RC can't get to them, which, yes, is a war crime. It is illegal to detain people captured on a battlefield without allowing the Red Cross access to them.
You want to know what's wrong with the way this war's being fought? Ask the International Red Cross. They don't openly yell or anything, they present it in the driest, opinion-free way possible because they don't want to antagonize anyone, but they are issuing a lot of rebukes of our behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
Pssst, you don't need to explain where London is. Even us Americans know.
If you do explain, feel free to put London, England, or London, UK. You don't need to put 'London UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND'.
That is the most content-free comment I have ever seen. To summarize:
I don't like what your post says, but I not only have no way to dispute it, but I'm not even going to talk about it, instead repeating vague platitudes like they actually means anything at all in the context. Also I'll make an ad hominem attack on you by claiming saying that if someone's angry we should automatically disregard the arguments they are making. (Because, obviously, no one who sees abuse could legitimately be angry.)
To repeat my point: It is neither ethical nor wanted for the government to price education out of the reach of normal people, and then 'solve' that problem with scholarships that attempt to control every facet of the student's life, including areas they would be Constitutionally barred from regulating if they did it any other way.
Do you have any response to that?
Those students died defending our country, their campus, from the wanton authority abuse we're talking about in this thread.
The sad thing is, they didn't.
At least two of them, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder, weren't even in the protest but were just walking from one class to another. So anyone who goes 'Yeah, but they were throwing rocks earlier' is a fucking asshole, because those two were in class at the time. William was in the damn ROTC, which is what the student were targeting their anger at!
And, to make things ever worse, the students shot weren't the ones right there at the guard. The nearest person injured was 71 feet away. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anyway to injure someone 71 feet away with a rock or a board ot whatever...you'd pretty much need a rifle. The nearest person killed was 265 feet away. That's out of yelling distance. That's at 'Doesn't even know what's going on over there' distance.
There were points during the protests where opening fire might have been justifable, like earlier that week when the protesters threw rocks at people driving a jeep, or when they attacked firefighters attempting to save the (closed and soon to be demolished) ROTC building, or even earlier that day, where the crowd go out of control with the aformention rock throwing and (hilariously) throwing tear gas canisters back at the guard. (The wind was dispersing the gas.) A National Guard member was actually injured there.
But shooting those people, people at least 70 feet away, at that time, when the students were merely refusing to be contained on an athletic field, or, rather, uncontaining themselves after the Guard herded them there and tried to leave, with the students simply walking out behind the guard instead of staying where they were told to stay, and no one even asserts they were in anyway violent at that time or doing anything except trying to walk off the field, is just completely inexcusable, and it's even more inexcusable the Guard just decided to, apparently, fire randomly and kill people who hadn't even been on the field and didn't even know what the fuck was going on, just walking between classes like normal college students.
Anyone who attempts to justify any of that is an ass.
I can't believe there are people who know what's going on, but fucking defend it.
No, it is not the place of the government to offer people free education, except the people they don't like, expecially when they 'don't like' them for doing things that not only are legal, but couldn't be made illegal, like posting on a website.(1)
No, it is not the place of the university to 'guide' me anywhere and punish me if I step out of where they think I'm going. It is the place of the university to teach me what I'm paying them to teach me, and judge, at the end, whether or not I've learned it, and nothing else.
1) No, I'm not defending athletic scholarships, which are insanely stupid to start with. This issue is bigger than that.
My phone takes and transmits pictures, so ha!
Okay, let's go over this again:
Fifteenth amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Every since that time, all the restrictions on the Federal government's behavior towards citizens have also applied to states. The states can't pass a law banning free speech.
The Ohio Department of Education was created by a law passed by the Ohio Congress. The Ohio Department of Education is acting as a member of the Ohio government, and all the rules and regulations it passes must not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, in addition to being within the authority delegated to it by the Ohio government.
Kent State was created by Ohio Department of Education, and is still part of the Ohio government. Any rules and regulations it passes must not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, in addition to following the rules dictated by the Ohio Department of Education.
And, the sad thing is, TheRaven64 probably has a college education.
Since these are students recieving athletic scholarships, my guess is that it's legal to say "if you want this free money, you can't use facebook".
Except these are students receiving athletic scholarships from the government.
There's a reason the Federal government and various state ones want to give poor people a free ride to college, but only via things with a lot of rules attached. It's so they can take it away when students do things that aren't even illegal, or wouldn't be subject to anywhere near that sort of punishment, like taking away financial aid because you got caught with a joint when you were 15 (And were, I might add, duly punished for under the law.) or posted something on facebook that made ths school look bad.
Looking at each 'rule' seperately is a good way to avoid the big picture here. The idea is to make college unreachable unless you a) are rich, or b) are socially acceptable to them. Tutitions keep going up, and government scholarships and grants keep appearing more and more, when a more logical solution would just be to lower the damn tutitions.
It's not some sort of accident. They learned their lessions in the sixties about colleges. Nowadays, they find you protesting,the surpreme court still might not let them kick you out, but, hey, look, you're on two scholarships, and, um, something you did violated one of them, so they're not giving them to you next year. You have no appeal, because scholarship revocations don't have to follow any sort of due process, whereas you could sue if they just kicked you out for excersizing your first amendment rights. The fact that they have raised tutition so high that 90% of the students are on scholarships and grants is ignored.
Incidentally, the exact same thing is going on in government subsidied housing. Instead of the Habitat for Humanity approach, where they could just build houses really cheap (Hey, how does the Army Corp of Engineers train, anyway? Why don't they do that?) and sell them, at cost, with low mortgages, there's a whole system of rules and requirements and people get kicked out for the stupidest things, like having unrelated people spend the night. (Yes, an actual rule in at least one place.)
Not that I'm that worried about this example, because athletic scholarships are fucking stupid in the first place. I'm just pointing out the general trend of: Government overpricing something, or it's just overpriced by itself, and instead of doing anything about it, the government gives out money to 'good people' so they can afford it, where 'good people' is decided in a way that would be illegal if they just barred others from the thing. But, apparently, 'giving out' something isn't subject to due process or the equal protection clause or the Constitution or anything.
The Federal Government started this in the 80s with the 'lower the speed limit or we take away our free highway money', but at least that was to states. Now it's hitting citizens. What's next, a gas tax of 1000 dollars a gallon, but we get a rebate of 999 dollars back if we promise not to blog? That isn't a joke, according to court decisions, they can do that.
Where I'm talking about is essentially an hour and a half away from Atlanta, road-wise, and about three hours traffic-wise.
And there is, indeed, nothing to do, unless you stay in Atlanta.
OTOH, the few things there to do are pretty cheap. Movies for 7 dollars and whatnot.
You dumbass. If you take an existing song and replace the music or lyrics, you have to pay for the other half. It doesn't matter if the part you replace is parody, the other half isn't.
Where I live, Northeast Georgia, two-thirds of that, 660 dollars or so a month, will get you half a duplex, with two beds and full baths, a carport, and a yard.
The lawsuits aren't because people are immature.
The lawsuits are because society is crumbling as the 'haves' take more and more pie for less and less of them, so everyone else is reduces to grabbing whatever they can.
It isn't immaturity, it's desperation to stop being fucked over, even if the people themselves don't realize it.
Sadly, these predictions are made by other theories just fine, and, what's more, these other theories are a good deal less confusing, and in other places they return a single accurate result instead of dozens of results of which only one is accurate.
That depends on the kind. There are three sizes of leptons and three sets of the two sizes of quarks to make up the six 'flavors'. It's suspected there are more sizes of both, and that in fact each size is just bumping up the energy in each and they're actually the 'same' thing, just like you can put more energy into an electron and it will jump up an orbit in an atom, but it's still the same electron.
Anyway, the leptons at a certain size are lighter than either of the quarks, if 'lighter' makes any sense when quarks don't actually have measurable mass...you have to put them together for them weigh. But if you do that, and then divide them out, they are much much much heavier.
However, saying leptons are smeared out more and thus are 'bigger' is not sane. Merely existing in a larger probability wave is not meaningful. For example, photons from stars are often smeared out over feet when they hit the earth, but if a photon was really that big we could never see it. All fundamental particles are points, period, and thus all the same size.
That's not what he said. That would imply that people proposing it are 'cheating', which they aren't.
He said string theory can, indeed, exactly match reality. It can also match quite a lot of things that aren't reality, and by 'quite a lot of things' we're talking trillions. The theory doesn't have to be 'bent', it's that you have to turn all this stuff into something that fits into observations in our four dimensional universe, and you can basically do it almost anyway you want.
As we have no way of knowing which of these things it matches 'is' reality, perhaps it's time to actually locate a theory that can actually tell us something.
Compare it, if you will, to a literary theory that states all literature is composed of the letters a-z. That's brilliant! We had stuff about plots and characters and archtypes and language and grammar, and, suddenly, it can all be simplified to merely being a string of letters.
Of course, 'string of letters' also matches a hell of a lot of things that do not qualify as 'literature', and we still have to use our old theories to do anything, so perhaps it's time to head back to all that other stuff and start out again in a new direction.
It makes as much sense for setting the IPV6 to change the MAC address as anything. That lets the logical network on the wire line up with the logical network in IPv6, and keeps everyone from having to keep dumb lookup tables and RARP requests. (Or, alternately, everyone having to manually inspect every packet.)
Or are you saying that in such a case, the computers should have routeable IPs, and the router should be set up with the proper ACLs?
Um, duh, yes. That's exactly what everyone's been saying, for years. Using a NAT as a cheap-ass firewall hasn't helped anything.
Although it wouldn't hurt for computers to start having security measures built in, where we didn't need any damn firewalls. I just wish it was possible to code a protocol that wouldn't present a security vulerablity to expose that port directly to the Internet.
Wait. I forgot two words there: I just wish it was possible for Microsoft to code a protocol that wouldn't present a security vulerablity to expose that port directly to the Internet.
It wasn't frozen. It was dead. Farnsworth was going to clone it, and copy some memories across so it would be like the dog Fry knew.
Fry was right. Well, he was wrong, but he was right in the sense that, had the facts been what he assumed, his dog had lived out a full and happy life, and wouldn't even remember him. There's no reason to put him in a new body, except for Fry wanting to have his dog back, and he decided he wasn't that selfish if it was going to result in a dog that had died happy and contented surrounded by its family having to figure out what the hell was going on and who these people were.
Fry repeatedly decides that getting what he wants isn't worth it if it hurts other people or he 'cheats' to get it. Witness his apology in 'Time Keeps on Slippin' to Leela for anything he might have done that they didn't remember.
And because he's an idiot, he's often wrong about these things, like he was here.
I hope not, because they left Fry and Leela's relationship in kinda an odd place. Skipping years would suck.
Evolution wasn't a stinker. I like to think of it as about 75% of Ghostbusters, which still makes it a damn funny movie.
I.e., they did plan it out. Just not that far in the past.
The story of The Why of Fry is hilarious. One of the writers came in and pitched it, and they all just stared at each other in shock, because it completely explained two completely unrelated episodes they'd already done, the flying brain episode, aka Fry's-brain-thing, and the Fry's-his-own-grandfather episode, and linked in stuff from the first episode, like what Fry was doing at the cryogenic place in the first place and the 'almost fall into the tube right before he actually did it' gag.
Luck of the Fryish is one of the top 10 episodes of any TV show ever.
You're incorrect. The police are there to keep the peace, and part of that job is stop crime.
However, it's usually not to stop crime by physically stopping the commission of it, except things like seperating people who are about to come to blows.
It's to deter it by being visible where crimes are likely to be committed, and by making criminals nervous.
The problem, of course, is that we have so many laws almost everyone is a criminal, so they just make everyone nervous.
Except that people not wearing seatbelts endanger others. Not merely because of the obvious 'Flying around hitting other people', but because people without seatbelts are more likely to lose control of their car when sideswiped, falling sideways or downward in their seat. In addition, they are more likely to get killed, or at least knocked unconcious, by banging their head, while still operating the vehicle, which makes things really awkward for others in vehicles around them.
It's not just the 'right to get yourself killed'. You have no right to die or be flung around while operating a ton of metal near other people. You have a human responsiblity to negotiate that metal to a stop with as little injuries on other people as possible, it's not even a legal responsiblity, it's moral one for being human. You still want to die, you can go shoot yourself in the head later. And I'm sure that you can find some sort of industrial dryer to climb inside if you want bang yourself against metal repeatedly, or you can jump down the inside of the Statue of Liberty.
I don't see how anyone who complains about seatbelts can get away without complaining about requiring windshield wipers or rearview mirrors, both of which 'only' help the driver, and thus logically the driver should be able to operate the car without them. That's not how it works. Cars are dangerous things, and we have invented things to make them less dangerous, and you have to use them to operate the car near other people. This isn't to say all the rules make sense...I don't use running lights, and yet I can get a ticket if they're out. And not all the rules can be enforced...we can't make people check their mirrors. Neither does it make sense to make people stop a stop sign when they can see a mile in all directions and nothing's there. But it's much better to have well-defined laws than then to just enforce whatever rule someone feels like enforcing at the time.
However, a big problem with the seatbelt laws is they're being used for pretext stops. I don't agree with pretext stops under any circumstances, and I understand when people get upset at seatbelt laws because of that, but if there were no seatbelt laws, they'd just say you looked like you were weaving or something. The solution is to get rid of pretext stops, not seatbelt laws. I think a good start would be to required police offices to justify all stops in court. Not to the level of reasonable doubt, and the person pulled over won't even be there if they didn't give a citation, but produce some sort of evidence that says 'And this video clearly shows X, which is why I pulled him over.'.
And I'm all for letting people not wear motorcycle helmets, because that doesn't cause any sort of endangering of other people at all...by the time a helmet matters, you're sliding around on the pavement and can't do anything anyway. But only if they're required to wear a pin on their shirt that says 'I don't wear a motorcycle helmet, so don't assume I'll live out the week' so we can refrain from conducting any sort of contractual business with them. I only want to do business with people who don't regularly endanger their life, because dealing with someone's estate is just really annoying. And if they end up a vegatable in the hospital, man, that's a huge hassle.
Actually, it's the job of the police to keep the peace. This not only includes what you said, it would include keeping people from breaking the law in the first place, and calming down situtations that look like they can explode into violence.
You know, like how during protests, if someone throws a rock, they immediately remove that person. And provide safe areas for the protestor to operate in...okay, I can't actually keep a straight face here, sorry. The joke almost worked.
What people talking about "competent tribunal" don't get is that this isn't some random group of people the detaining country gets to set up. This is a well-define process that the Red Cross helps set up, with input from both sides. It follows the basic rules of court via evidence and testimony and whatnot.
You can't just throw them in from of some guys in uniform and have a judge stamp 'Don't release' on a piece of paper. "competent tribunal" has a meaning. It's a somewhat vague meaning, because it tends to slightly change shape from conflict to conflict, just like 'a trial by jury' varies from state to state and country to country, but it's not that. It's never been something set up by the detaining country with no input or observation from the outside, and, more to the point, none of them can ever happen without Red Cross observation.
And until a "competent tribunal" has decided anything, they are to be treated with the highest level of protection.
Unlike the current situtation, where not only are there no "competent tribunals" (Hey, why start being competent now?), the Red Cross asserts that the US is holding prisoners at places beside Gitmo so the RC can't get to them, which, yes, is a war crime. It is illegal to detain people captured on a battlefield without allowing the Red Cross access to them.
You want to know what's wrong with the way this war's being fought? Ask the International Red Cross. They don't openly yell or anything, they present it in the driest, opinion-free way possible because they don't want to antagonize anyone, but they are issuing a lot of rebukes of our behavior.