I care enough to hope they can stop me from hitting the ground. Possibly, possibly, I'd be able to steer them away from a building, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
You can't gain altitude with a wingsuit, you can't fly safely with a jetpack, so let's takeoff with a jetpack, straight up, and then cut the engine and use the wingsuit to glide where we want to go.
Despite what others say, you appear to be right...this is designed to help if your plane falls apart, and, you know what?
A gas leak that causes you to run out of gas in midair? Somewhat acceptable.
Your flaps stick? Your landing gear sticks? Somewhat acceptable.
Your left wing falls off? Um, no. Not acceptable.
You screwed up pretty seriously somewhere. Your plane shouldn't be falling apart unless it gets hit by a meteorite.
Same thing with getting into an uncontrollable dive. What, exactly, was going on leading up to that? Was the pilot joining the mile high club? Was there a bet involving how long the pilot could hold the stick all the way to the right?
It's like with cars, having roll bars built in. If you're tumbling down the road...well, possibly you should have planned your trip better.
With roll bars you have the excuse that someone else might have screwed up and hit you, so I can see that, but, as there are almost no airplane collisions (And no small airplane holds together during them anyway.), that logic doesn't really work for parachutes designed to get people out of uncontrollable dives. You either got in an uncontrollable dive because you were goofing around, or you got in one because you didn't check the weather report and flew into a tornado.
I mean, I'm not against parachutes on planes, they could help the few times something really weird happens. But, mostly, they do seem to be some sort of way out of not getting killed by shitty flying, and I have to suggest the solution to that is less shitty flying.
We just need to get rid of it, as it's in the same orbit as the earth, and it's eventually going to hit us no matter what. (Unless it hits the moon, or comes close enough to the moon or earth to get slung out of orbit.)
We need to wait till it's moving away from us, and just nuke it.
We'd absorb that much energy regardless. The energy doesn't just magically vanish because the rock is bigger.
If it's a bunch of smaller rocks, some of that energy will vanish in the atmosphere, which no one cares about. If it's a big rock, we get that much energy at ground level.
Now, a tiny bit of that might go into creating the earthquake, but, really, it's better to bleed it off, unless you know exactly where the big rock is going to hit and don't care about that location.
All this 'If you break it up, it doesn't help' is just nonsense. Especially with a rock this size, which is about enough to flatten a fairly large city, if I'm understanding this correctly. If it's going to hit, we probably won't learn where exactly until the last approach, at which point it's too late to evacuate Calcutta or wherever.
We need to blow it up, soon. If we break it up, especially if we do it in the next decade, large portions of it will miss the earth, and that cannot but help.
Large portions of it will then burn up in the atmosphere, which we would need to worry about if we planned to do this regularly and had any other choice, but we don't and we haven't.
It's much, much better to blow it up and have abnormal amounts of meteors every year for the next 25 years, possibly killing a dozen people, than to try to do something about this in 2028.
I think you've got some sort of incorrect assumption about the results the government is trying for.
Here's the process:
1. Terrorists attack.
2. The government does a bunch of stuff to remove liberties, and make everyone think they are more secure, while not actually doing anything useful.
3. The government also does a bunch of stuff to piss of more people into becoming terrorists.
4. Hopefully 1 happens again, and we can start over. If not, go up to 2 or 3 and try again.
Anything that actually made us more securite would reduce the chance of allow terrorists to attack again, and, if they failed to do that, how could we have another round of government taking away our rights?
The government sits and makes the decisions about liberty vs. security every day, and what people aren't realizing is that they want us to have neither, as long as they are marginally safe.
Are you claiming the government is implimenting a protocol that has nothing whatsoever to do with security or speed, but is merely there to allow them to read your passport whenever they want?
If stadiums make so much money for a city, then why don't they just own the stadium? (And, no, I've never heard of a stadium not owned by the city where the city got any cut of the profits.)
And any money the stadium brings in is more than offset by the money the stadium sucks up, like straining the transportation system. Saying 'sports teams makes money for the city' is completely unsupported. They make money for some people, sure, and lose money for some others.
Now, that's not a problem if, say, a very small amount of money was going to cause quite a lot of money flowing in. I have no problems with large factories getting discounts for a bit to encourage them to build in a certain town.
However, with stadiums, the decision isn't made for financial reasons. Almost the only winners when a stadium is built are the owners and the players. Stadiums deals happen for reasons of prestige, in backroom deals, they don't happen because they'll cost N dollars but bring in N+X.
The difference between a religion and a superstition is that a religion claims to explain everything, or at least defines what's important and explains that, and a superstition does not.
See, the part that I'm baffled about your litle rant is: Where should the money go, instead?
I mean, the movie made millions, right? So...who should get it, if not the actors?
I mean, I can see the argument that the profits should be spread out more...but I suspect that you, much like I, have no idea how much the crew actually makes on a Hollywood movie. I suspect it's not minimum ware unless you're 'third set painter', and even then, they have a pretty good union, so it's probably $10 an hour instead.
I've never heard of crews complaining, though. I mean, no one's making them work there. Of course, I've never heard about actors complaining about a 16 hour day, either. (They usually aren't acting the entire time they're on the set.) They know what it requires to be an actor. It's a lot of waiting followed by a lot of repetition. If they wanted to work 8 hours a day and do each scene once they'd be stage actors.
I suspect you've forgotten that the crew work continually. They don't work for one movie and then spend fourteen months doing nothing while their agent tries to find another movie. They pack up one day, unpack three days later on another set for more filming. They don't have the insane ups-and-downs that actors have, working 16 hour days for a few months and then nowhere at all for a year, they have a regular job, and they regularly get paid for it.
See, that's where you've got me thinking you don't know what you're talking about. Hollywood does create bums working at car washers trying to get in, and it's not crew, it's out of work actors. I have no idea how paying actors less could help them. I have no idea how using less famous actors could help, either. (Except if you combine those two things, you'll end up with currently famous actors on the street along with everyone else, because they would have been in one movie, ever, and not getten paid anything for it.)
The actor's union, BTW, went on strike a few years ago so that lower-paying acting jobs would be less lower-paying, to try to help all the mostly-out-of-work actors who do one commerical a year or something. That was a productive complaint, no your completely silly 'actors make too much money'.
Here's an idea: If you want to rant about overpaid people, try sports stars. They, at least, can often be paid that much because the local government for no explicable reason is subsidising their stadium.
While that's the common sterotype, in reality pirates still exist, do not wear cute outfits or use cannons.
They instead use modern weaponry. They still do the traditional 'kill everyone aboard when done' through.
And to the idiot claiming definitions change with time: NOT DEFINATIONS OF CRIMES, YOU FUCKTARD.
Piracy is a legal term that means 'boarding another ship at sea against their will'. It's a crime, defined quite clearly in the law. It's still illegal, it still happens.
It doesn't just magically change what it means because people use it wrong, anymore than 'theft' does, which is also a legal term that means 'depriving someone of their property by X'. (Where X is ususally 'taking', but can be, for example, 'conversion', aka, 'theft by conversion'. There's a whole set of 'theft by' in the law, none of them including copyright infringement.)
Calling copyright infringement piracy is the same thing as calling pollution 'enviromental rape' or cheering for the wrong team 'treason'. It's an analogy intended to appeal to emotion, it doesn't matter how long people have been doing it, it's still an analogy. It's not some magical new defination you can use without critism.
And, as an analogy, other people can, quite correctly, point out how it isn't right. It's up to the person using it to show that it does apply, and with 'piracy' you have a hell of an uphill battle, as piracy almost always involves killing people. (And usually some rape for good measure.)
(People who, OTOH, use 'theft', have at least a defendable analogy, even though I don't think it stands up. But 'piracy' is absurd.)
Right, he should have just stopped with: It's not theft under the law, hence it is not 'stealing'.
It's not like the law's some vague thing, it quite clearly defines what theft is. It quite clearly defines what copyright infringement is. They are nothing alike, under the law.
It's not giving it a 'new' name, it's correctly using the actual name it has instead of the wrong one.
No one's trying to say it's better or worse than theft, just, under the law, it is completely unrelated to any sort of theft, and thus is not 'stealing', which is 'theft by taking'.
Now, the reason that some people call it theft is that they think 'theft' is worse than 'copyright infringement', and they think others think that, but I submit that perception is their problem, and they don't get to fix it by calling one crime the name of another crime.
And, from the other side of the political spectrum, (Well, supposedly.) there's a reason that anti-gun control people have, for years, refused gun registration.
None of them are actually opposed to keeping track of guns, they're worried about what might happen in the future, when the government has a nice big database of everyone who has a gun...
Some MU* already support SSL connections, so monitoring the line isn't going to get anyone anywhere. Despite what some people think, the government cannot just magically throw CPUs at encryption and decrypt it. They can obviously install a keyboard tap, but...
Not only would the government not know what they were saying, they wouldn't know who they were talking to on the game, even if they can somehow recover a keyboard transcript later from a tap.
Think about it. They can learn someone connected to a certain game, and walked somewhere, and said something. They have absolutely no way of recovering who that person was talking to, or what the other half said. The server would have logs of everyone who was connected, but it doesn't keep track of where those people are.
As long as you never use their character name, it's impossible to figure out who you were talking to unless they've figured out some way to view your screen remotely, which is possible, but a hell of a lot of more resource intensive than a standard keyboard tap. So they're left to contact the MU* administrator, get a list of 50 IPs or so, and track each of those down.
For course, all this is stupid, because there's a newsgroup explicitly for posting encrypted messages. You don't need to screw around with all this.
Slashdot Mirror
I care enough to hope they can stop me from hitting the ground. Possibly, possibly, I'd be able to steer them away from a building, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
You can't gain altitude with a wingsuit, you can't fly safely with a jetpack, so let's takeoff with a jetpack, straight up, and then cut the engine and use the wingsuit to glide where we want to go.
Yes, but if he accidently ends up with a lot of forward speed, tumbling across water is better than tumbling across a random patch of land.
A gas leak that causes you to run out of gas in midair? Somewhat acceptable.
Your flaps stick? Your landing gear sticks? Somewhat acceptable.
Your left wing falls off? Um, no. Not acceptable.
You screwed up pretty seriously somewhere. Your plane shouldn't be falling apart unless it gets hit by a meteorite.
Same thing with getting into an uncontrollable dive. What, exactly, was going on leading up to that? Was the pilot joining the mile high club? Was there a bet involving how long the pilot could hold the stick all the way to the right?
It's like with cars, having roll bars built in. If you're tumbling down the road...well, possibly you should have planned your trip better.
With roll bars you have the excuse that someone else might have screwed up and hit you, so I can see that, but, as there are almost no airplane collisions (And no small airplane holds together during them anyway.), that logic doesn't really work for parachutes designed to get people out of uncontrollable dives. You either got in an uncontrollable dive because you were goofing around, or you got in one because you didn't check the weather report and flew into a tornado.
I mean, I'm not against parachutes on planes, they could help the few times something really weird happens. But, mostly, they do seem to be some sort of way out of not getting killed by shitty flying, and I have to suggest the solution to that is less shitty flying.
We need to wait till it's moving away from us, and just nuke it.
If it's a bunch of smaller rocks, some of that energy will vanish in the atmosphere, which no one cares about. If it's a big rock, we get that much energy at ground level.
Now, a tiny bit of that might go into creating the earthquake, but, really, it's better to bleed it off, unless you know exactly where the big rock is going to hit and don't care about that location.
All this 'If you break it up, it doesn't help' is just nonsense. Especially with a rock this size, which is about enough to flatten a fairly large city, if I'm understanding this correctly. If it's going to hit, we probably won't learn where exactly until the last approach, at which point it's too late to evacuate Calcutta or wherever.
We need to blow it up, soon. If we break it up, especially if we do it in the next decade, large portions of it will miss the earth, and that cannot but help.
Large portions of it will then burn up in the atmosphere, which we would need to worry about if we planned to do this regularly and had any other choice, but we don't and we haven't.
It's much, much better to blow it up and have abnormal amounts of meteors every year for the next 25 years, possibly killing a dozen people, than to try to do something about this in 2028.
I think you've got some sort of incorrect assumption about the results the government is trying for.
Here's the process:
1. Terrorists attack.
2. The government does a bunch of stuff to remove liberties, and make everyone think they are more secure, while not actually doing anything useful.
3. The government also does a bunch of stuff to piss of more people into becoming terrorists.
4. Hopefully 1 happens again, and we can start over. If not, go up to 2 or 3 and try again.
Anything that actually made us more securite would reduce the chance of allow terrorists to attack again, and, if they failed to do that, how could we have another round of government taking away our rights?
The government sits and makes the decisions about liberty vs. security every day, and what people aren't realizing is that they want us to have neither, as long as they are marginally safe.
Are you claiming the government is implimenting a protocol that has nothing whatsoever to do with security or speed, but is merely there to allow them to read your passport whenever they want?
Yeah, what kind of moron wouldn't notice someone within two feet of him at an airport. We all know no one ever stands in line at those places.
How did you write that you submitted the post? Logically, you couldn't have done that yet when you wrote it.
If stadiums make so much money for a city, then why don't they just own the stadium? (And, no, I've never heard of a stadium not owned by the city where the city got any cut of the profits.)
And any money the stadium brings in is more than offset by the money the stadium sucks up, like straining the transportation system. Saying 'sports teams makes money for the city' is completely unsupported. They make money for some people, sure, and lose money for some others.
Now, that's not a problem if, say, a very small amount of money was going to cause quite a lot of money flowing in. I have no problems with large factories getting discounts for a bit to encourage them to build in a certain town.
However, with stadiums, the decision isn't made for financial reasons. Almost the only winners when a stadium is built are the owners and the players. Stadiums deals happen for reasons of prestige, in backroom deals, they don't happen because they'll cost N dollars but bring in N+X.
So...if he can teleport...who took the pictures?
The difference between a religion and a superstition is that a religion claims to explain everything, or at least defines what's important and explains that, and a superstition does not.
Sneak in, and then buy popcorn.
I mean, the movie made millions, right? So...who should get it, if not the actors?
I mean, I can see the argument that the profits should be spread out more...but I suspect that you, much like I, have no idea how much the crew actually makes on a Hollywood movie. I suspect it's not minimum ware unless you're 'third set painter', and even then, they have a pretty good union, so it's probably $10 an hour instead.
I've never heard of crews complaining, though. I mean, no one's making them work there. Of course, I've never heard about actors complaining about a 16 hour day, either. (They usually aren't acting the entire time they're on the set.) They know what it requires to be an actor. It's a lot of waiting followed by a lot of repetition. If they wanted to work 8 hours a day and do each scene once they'd be stage actors.
I suspect you've forgotten that the crew work continually. They don't work for one movie and then spend fourteen months doing nothing while their agent tries to find another movie. They pack up one day, unpack three days later on another set for more filming. They don't have the insane ups-and-downs that actors have, working 16 hour days for a few months and then nowhere at all for a year, they have a regular job, and they regularly get paid for it.
See, that's where you've got me thinking you don't know what you're talking about. Hollywood does create bums working at car washers trying to get in, and it's not crew, it's out of work actors. I have no idea how paying actors less could help them. I have no idea how using less famous actors could help, either. (Except if you combine those two things, you'll end up with currently famous actors on the street along with everyone else, because they would have been in one movie, ever, and not getten paid anything for it.)
The actor's union, BTW, went on strike a few years ago so that lower-paying acting jobs would be less lower-paying, to try to help all the mostly-out-of-work actors who do one commerical a year or something. That was a productive complaint, no your completely silly 'actors make too much money'.
Here's an idea: If you want to rant about overpaid people, try sports stars. They, at least, can often be paid that much because the local government for no explicable reason is subsidising their stadium.
They instead use modern weaponry. They still do the traditional 'kill everyone aboard when done' through.
And to the idiot claiming definitions change with time: NOT DEFINATIONS OF CRIMES, YOU FUCKTARD.
Piracy is a legal term that means 'boarding another ship at sea against their will'. It's a crime, defined quite clearly in the law. It's still illegal, it still happens.
It doesn't just magically change what it means because people use it wrong, anymore than 'theft' does, which is also a legal term that means 'depriving someone of their property by X'. (Where X is ususally 'taking', but can be, for example, 'conversion', aka, 'theft by conversion'. There's a whole set of 'theft by' in the law, none of them including copyright infringement.)
Calling copyright infringement piracy is the same thing as calling pollution 'enviromental rape' or cheering for the wrong team 'treason'. It's an analogy intended to appeal to emotion, it doesn't matter how long people have been doing it, it's still an analogy. It's not some magical new defination you can use without critism.
And, as an analogy, other people can, quite correctly, point out how it isn't right. It's up to the person using it to show that it does apply, and with 'piracy' you have a hell of an uphill battle, as piracy almost always involves killing people. (And usually some rape for good measure.)
(People who, OTOH, use 'theft', have at least a defendable analogy, even though I don't think it stands up. But 'piracy' is absurd.)
It's not rocket science.
I had no idea what movie it was until then.
And, um, neither of those are illegal, at least not in the US.
It's not like the law's some vague thing, it quite clearly defines what theft is. It quite clearly defines what copyright infringement is. They are nothing alike, under the law.
No one's trying to say it's better or worse than theft, just, under the law, it is completely unrelated to any sort of theft, and thus is not 'stealing', which is 'theft by taking'.
Now, the reason that some people call it theft is that they think 'theft' is worse than 'copyright infringement', and they think others think that, but I submit that perception is their problem, and they don't get to fix it by calling one crime the name of another crime.
None of them are actually opposed to keeping track of guns, they're worried about what might happen in the future, when the government has a nice big database of everyone who has a gun...
It is. When was the last time you had a CD-R searched at customers?
Not only would the government not know what they were saying, they wouldn't know who they were talking to on the game, even if they can somehow recover a keyboard transcript later from a tap.
Think about it. They can learn someone connected to a certain game, and walked somewhere, and said something. They have absolutely no way of recovering who that person was talking to, or what the other half said. The server would have logs of everyone who was connected, but it doesn't keep track of where those people are.
As long as you never use their character name, it's impossible to figure out who you were talking to unless they've figured out some way to view your screen remotely, which is possible, but a hell of a lot of more resource intensive than a standard keyboard tap. So they're left to contact the MU* administrator, get a list of 50 IPs or so, and track each of those down.
For course, all this is stupid, because there's a newsgroup explicitly for posting encrypted messages. You don't need to screw around with all this.
So, everyone, please continue to use it.