Why would anyone want to buy a stock that doesn't pay dividends? I know, you'll sell it when the price of that stock goes up. But the price of the stock is a result of people wanting to buy it. Which brings me back to my first question: why would anyone "invest" in a company that is not going to pay you back for your investment? Where is the money coming from? Poor souls who are buying it hoping that future poor souls will buy it from them for more?
Because a "right" has to mean more than "I think we should do things this way" when those who have the exclusive power to do things that way don't agree with you.
You see, that's exactly what a right is. When the gp said "Privacy is an inherent human right" he meant that it was important for all people (govt included) to respect that. The govt doesn't respect that though, and if you accept privacy as a right, the govt becomes an aggressor and in the wrong. The same thing for life and liberty. The govt can and has taken those things away, but that makes the govt wrong and illegitimate. You said "They're just ideas. Perhaps good, perhaps not, but still, no more than thoughts." Again, true. But while those in power take and take and take, the fact that those rights still exist and can be shown to arise naturally makes those in power wrong. Your response is mainly "who the fuck cares what you say your rights are? Those in power take what they want." This, unfortunately, is true, too. But one day we might be able to rid ourselves of those in power who control us. We might have the opportunity to create a new or smaller society and we'll need rules. Our current govt was conceived with those rights in mind, for the most part. They just missed with the checks and balances.
Rights are not something that will protect you. They won't keep you out of jail; it is up to us to defend our rights. They are a philosophical point that defines the boundaries between people. They're more than a nice thought, though - they are what we use to describe a moral society. But they won't keep you out of jail.
There are no "inherent human rights...they are simply grants supported by power.
Well, not really true. The inherent rights to your own life and liberty arise from the assumption that people own themselves. Of course, this is an assumption that we've made that has allowed democracy and freedom to flourish. You might not accept that assumption. You might start with the assumption that society has ownership of the people, in which case you'll likely end up with a communistic government. But we started with the assumption that we own ourselves, which makes sense because outside the context of a society, people are free to do as they please.
Now if we own ourselves we own our lives. No one can take that away unless we give it to them. Likewise, if we own ourselves we own our actions, and by extension, our labor. Suddenly the "inherent" rights of life, liberty, and property are starting to show up. Your assertion that "they are simply grants supported by power" is wrong. Sure, the govt can force us to do things. They can stick us in jail, they can beat us. But they don't own our life liberty and property. They are stealing it from us. This is not a legitimate power. It is not a power that an outside observer can support. It is a power that derives its strength from the mere fact that it is stronger than us. As soon as a stronger power comes along, the old govt will topple and will prove to be transient. A govt based on the assumption of individual sovereignty, however, will stand the test of time - even when temporarily taken over by a stronger power - because it is based on a simple assumption that people inherently want to believe.
So if your stocks go down in price, are you going to get a tax refund? You can't just tax someone because their assets have become more valuable. If diamonds suddenly skyrocketed in price you can't go hunting down everyone who owns diamonds and ask for money. Are you going to tell them to sell their diamonds so they can pay your tax?
Well I know Apple will sell it to you, but I'm more curious about what plans a carrier will offer you; I've heard it's cheaper than if you go the phone through them but I haven't found anyone who will even mention unlocked phone plans. (Except for small indie carriers, of course. But I'm more curious about the big ones.)
but instead they used words like "tracking" and "surveillance. I think it's a really cool problem: creating software that uniquely identifies a person in your store and sees how they interact with your floorplan. It'd be even cooler if the software could generate a better floorplan using that information and made it easier for people to move about and naturally tend toward the places you'd like them to go. I know you hate being manipulated, but there's something exciting about seeing an iterative algorithm result in a subconsciousness change in human behavior.
No. They didn't. GPS is but one of many redundant navigation systems the drone had. If the GPS is disagreeing with the INS and airspeed sensors, it would drop the GPS signal in a heartbeat. And those are only the unclassified navigation systems that all military aircraft have. If Iran was capable of tricking the drone into landing, they wouldn't need to send the drone to China to be exploited.
All in due time, Moheeheeko. Right now drones are very susceptible to jamming and satellite failures. Helicopter pilots navigate primarily using ground reference, which robots aren't good at yet. We need a backup to GPS and TACAN. Delivering beans to the wrong location isn't really a problem - just an inconvenience, really. Delivering live weapons (as in, shooting) to the wrong area would result in enough of a public outcry to push the entire unmanned program back a decade.
On my Galaxy S, the instant search has yet to register all my keystrokes at a normal typing speed. I have to press the first letter, wait 3-5 seconds for the search to load up, and then continue typing.
I know you were addressing transitions specifically, but the instant search feature is something that's supposed to add to the fluidity, not detract from it. And 1 GHz should be plenty to capture my keystrokes (on a hardware keypad.)
Discuss different approaches to shuffling and re-ordering a deck of cards. If they can't get excited about that then they don't deserve to be programmers.
What laptop thief doesn't put tape over the webcam until wiping the drive? It seems like every week I see a new thief caught by having his picture taken; blocking that would be the first thing I'd do.
Who cares who owns the exit node as long as the same entity doesn't own every other node in the circuit? And as long as you don't transmit any traceable information in plaintext?
I thought the same thing - I expect to see Google shopping results third in product searches just like I expect to see Google image results about 3rd in concrete-noun searches. It's another very specific Google search that's integrated into Google web search. What boggles me is that Scmidt denies it like it's illegal or something. Like you said - it's not "cooking" results. It's integrating services. (Of course, and it's true, "integrating services" has been illegal since the 90s, apparently. Ask Gates about that one.)
Actually, when it comes to disposable radio pop, the labels do almost all the work including writing the music and lyrics and generating the buzz. The "artists" are little more than frontmen. So actually, in many cases, it does make sense to let them keep the rights.
(On the flipside, indie artists truly are artists most of the time and pay their dues, and in turn a lot of the new indie labels let the artists keep the rights to their songs.)
Slashdot Mirror
Even though it was an unauthorized repair, I wonder if the FAA will be reconsidering its iPad approval.
If a law's "allowable," you can bet 100 to 1 odds that Virginia's going to adopt it.
Why would anyone want to buy a stock that doesn't pay dividends? I know, you'll sell it when the price of that stock goes up. But the price of the stock is a result of people wanting to buy it. Which brings me back to my first question: why would anyone "invest" in a company that is not going to pay you back for your investment? Where is the money coming from? Poor souls who are buying it hoping that future poor souls will buy it from them for more?
Because a "right" has to mean more than "I think we should do things this way" when those who have the exclusive power to do things that way don't agree with you.
You see, that's exactly what a right is. When the gp said "Privacy is an inherent human right" he meant that it was important for all people (govt included) to respect that. The govt doesn't respect that though, and if you accept privacy as a right, the govt becomes an aggressor and in the wrong. The same thing for life and liberty. The govt can and has taken those things away, but that makes the govt wrong and illegitimate. You said "They're just ideas. Perhaps good, perhaps not, but still, no more than thoughts." Again, true. But while those in power take and take and take, the fact that those rights still exist and can be shown to arise naturally makes those in power wrong. Your response is mainly "who the fuck cares what you say your rights are? Those in power take what they want." This, unfortunately, is true, too. But one day we might be able to rid ourselves of those in power who control us. We might have the opportunity to create a new or smaller society and we'll need rules. Our current govt was conceived with those rights in mind, for the most part. They just missed with the checks and balances.
Rights are not something that will protect you. They won't keep you out of jail; it is up to us to defend our rights. They are a philosophical point that defines the boundaries between people. They're more than a nice thought, though - they are what we use to describe a moral society. But they won't keep you out of jail.
There are no "inherent human rights...they are simply grants supported by power.
Well, not really true. The inherent rights to your own life and liberty arise from the assumption that people own themselves. Of course, this is an assumption that we've made that has allowed democracy and freedom to flourish. You might not accept that assumption. You might start with the assumption that society has ownership of the people, in which case you'll likely end up with a communistic government. But we started with the assumption that we own ourselves, which makes sense because outside the context of a society, people are free to do as they please.
Now if we own ourselves we own our lives. No one can take that away unless we give it to them. Likewise, if we own ourselves we own our actions, and by extension, our labor. Suddenly the "inherent" rights of life, liberty, and property are starting to show up. Your assertion that "they are simply grants supported by power" is wrong. Sure, the govt can force us to do things. They can stick us in jail, they can beat us. But they don't own our life liberty and property. They are stealing it from us. This is not a legitimate power. It is not a power that an outside observer can support. It is a power that derives its strength from the mere fact that it is stronger than us. As soon as a stronger power comes along, the old govt will topple and will prove to be transient. A govt based on the assumption of individual sovereignty, however, will stand the test of time - even when temporarily taken over by a stronger power - because it is based on a simple assumption that people inherently want to believe.
So if your stocks go down in price, are you going to get a tax refund? You can't just tax someone because their assets have become more valuable. If diamonds suddenly skyrocketed in price you can't go hunting down everyone who owns diamonds and ask for money. Are you going to tell them to sell their diamonds so they can pay your tax?
Well I know Apple will sell it to you, but I'm more curious about what plans a carrier will offer you; I've heard it's cheaper than if you go the phone through them but I haven't found anyone who will even mention unlocked phone plans. (Except for small indie carriers, of course. But I'm more curious about the big ones.)
Can you provide a link to a carrier's site that confirms this?
That doesn't always apply anymore.
Well maybe if they titled it
Using Video Cameras to Optimize Store Layouts
but instead they used words like "tracking" and "surveillance. I think it's a really cool problem: creating software that uniquely identifies a person in your store and sees how they interact with your floorplan. It'd be even cooler if the software could generate a better floorplan using that information and made it easier for people to move about and naturally tend toward the places you'd like them to go. I know you hate being manipulated, but there's something exciting about seeing an iterative algorithm result in a subconsciousness change in human behavior.
I'd take you more seriously if you ditched your cable for dialup on principle.
Yeah, that was the Roller Coaster Tycoon of whale simulations.
No. They didn't. GPS is but one of many redundant navigation systems the drone had. If the GPS is disagreeing with the INS and airspeed sensors, it would drop the GPS signal in a heartbeat. And those are only the unclassified navigation systems that all military aircraft have. If Iran was capable of tricking the drone into landing, they wouldn't need to send the drone to China to be exploited.
All in due time, Moheeheeko. Right now drones are very susceptible to jamming and satellite failures. Helicopter pilots navigate primarily using ground reference, which robots aren't good at yet. We need a backup to GPS and TACAN. Delivering beans to the wrong location isn't really a problem - just an inconvenience, really. Delivering live weapons (as in, shooting) to the wrong area would result in enough of a public outcry to push the entire unmanned program back a decade.
The first reported use of laser dazzlers in combat was possibly by the British, during the Falklands War of 1982, when they were reputedly fitted to various Royal Navy warships to hinder low-level Argentinian air attacks.
I think the real news here is that they're planning on using them against their own people.
they are really smooth on my Galaxy S
On my Galaxy S, the instant search has yet to register all my keystrokes at a normal typing speed. I have to press the first letter, wait 3-5 seconds for the search to load up, and then continue typing.
I know you were addressing transitions specifically, but the instant search feature is something that's supposed to add to the fluidity, not detract from it. And 1 GHz should be plenty to capture my keystrokes (on a hardware keypad.)
While mosquitoes are an important part of the diet of many predators, there are over 40 genera comprising thousands of species of mosquitoes
And while pork is an important part of my diet, I can do just fine without it, thank you.
Ah, pretty much the same conclusion NPR came up with. And, coincidentally, they came up with an answer to your question
Discuss different approaches to shuffling and re-ordering a deck of cards. If they can't get excited about that then they don't deserve to be programmers.
in the case of teens, it is going to be a rate between 33% and 75% in my estimation depending on how difficult the solution is to implement.
Actually, they'll probably just do it the old fashioned way - pull her boyfriend into the bathroom and show him in person.
What laptop thief doesn't put tape over the webcam until wiping the drive? It seems like every week I see a new thief caught by having his picture taken; blocking that would be the first thing I'd do.
Who cares who owns the exit node as long as the same entity doesn't own every other node in the circuit? And as long as you don't transmit any traceable information in plaintext?
What number is that?
I thought the same thing - I expect to see Google shopping results third in product searches just like I expect to see Google image results about 3rd in concrete-noun searches. It's another very specific Google search that's integrated into Google web search. What boggles me is that Scmidt denies it like it's illegal or something. Like you said - it's not "cooking" results. It's integrating services. (Of course, and it's true, "integrating services" has been illegal since the 90s, apparently. Ask Gates about that one.)
Actually, when it comes to disposable radio pop, the labels do almost all the work including writing the music and lyrics and generating the buzz. The "artists" are little more than frontmen. So actually, in many cases, it does make sense to let them keep the rights.
(On the flipside, indie artists truly are artists most of the time and pay their dues, and in turn a lot of the new indie labels let the artists keep the rights to their songs.)