In this particular case it is mostly because as soon as he took power, Morsi unilaterally rewrote the Egyptian Constitution to give himself more power and remove power from those who were supposed to hold him accountable.
Perhaps you were unaware that the Crusades were a reaction to invasion? Not a very well thought out reaction, although it turned out to be fairly effective overall (Muslim advances into Europe were halted and turned back over time, with the results of the Crusades leading to the Renaissance and to European nations becoming world dominant after being a back water for a long time).
Morsi was no less oppressive than the man the people had just rioted to throw out of office AND he was less capable of actually governing. The military that ran this coup (and it was a coup) is run by men that Morsi appointed to run it. He forced the resignation (and in some cases, prosecuted and jailed) those military leaders who he felt were insufficiently supportive of his agenda.
Please understand that I do not think a military dictatorship is a good thing. It's just that, in the case of Egypt at the present time, it appears to be better than the alternative (key word being "appears").
France and Spain both claim that they gave permission for the plane carrying Evo Morales to cross their air space. At this point I have not seen any evidence corroborating the Bolivian claims. The government of Evo Morales has made somewhat dubious claims in the past so that I am not willing to condemn other governments purely on their say-so. However, I am also not willing to reject their claims outright. I merely believe that we should withhold judgment on this case until more information is forthcoming.
While I do not share the opinions of the poster you replied to, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are completely different cases. Bradley Manning was a member of the U.S. Armed Forces and thus falls under a different due process system than Edward Snowden, who is a civilian (and thus subject to the civilian court system, not the military court system).
This does not mean that he would be better treated, but it does mean that Bradley Manning's experience is different from what Edward Snowden would experience.
I can think of lots of reasons for the car computer to talk to the satnav or audio systems. However, why does the satnav or audio system need to be able to talk to the car computer?
I did look over your list of reasons for the car computer to talk to the satnav or audio systems and NONE of them are safety related. The closest approximation was that the stereo system used its bluetooth connection to your phone to call 911 when the airbags deployed. However, as I noted before, the phone is not an integral part of the car computer system, why does the stereo have to be (which is what we are discussing).
The topic of discussion is why car companies are attempting to create GPS/audio/other information/other entertainment systems that are integral parts of the car rather than components using a standard interface which can be swapped out with third party components when the car owner so chooses. None of your explanations give an answer that supports the direction the car companies are moving.
Sorry, I understand your explanation of how those systems tie together to improve safety. However, my phone is not part of the car system, why should my GPS and music player be part of that system?
Really, using a different computer for GPS and playing music from the one that controls braking will not make the car safer? You really think that it is a good idea to have the computer that controls the braking accessible to be updated over wireless? Because there is certainly demand that the computer that runs GPS be update-able using wireless. I am really opposed to the idea that the computer that that controls braking and acceleration be accessible via wireless.
Who told you that you should give up Airplay? All of the comments I have seen defending either this story or the new standard have used the argument that Airplay is proprietary to explain why some people think an alternative is necessary. So far none of them have been claiming that YOU should go out and switch to this new standard right now.
I am not sure how the information in that article changes anything, but then I have been following this case since he testified (even then it appeared to me that he was lying, although I did not at that time have any information which proved that to be the case). Clapper's "defense" for making the statement will eventually work its way around to claiming that if he had answered that question truthfully it would have eventually led to him being asked questions which no matter how he answered he would be revealing information he was oath bound to keep secret. If the question he answered with a lie had been an unexpected question, I could see how some people might accept that defense. However, Clapper was aware that he was going to be asked that question, which means that he had time to come up with a truthful answer which would have ended the line of questioning before it revealed classified information (something along the lines of, "Yes, but I cannot answer further questions about this in a public hearing as some of the details are classified and even truthful non-answers to some questions would reveal classified information.")
It appears to me that the suggestion in the article is more or less what you are saying. The submitter, at least, is suggesting that the in-car system used for info-tainment (I understand why people do not like that term, but it does some up what these systems do--they provide entertainment by playing music AND they provide information such as GPS) be something like the radio, something which has a standard interface which would allow people to swap it out for third party devices.
That was exactly what I came here to post. I would have modded you up if you were not already at +5.
I am going to state your point in another way. Basically, the head of W3C has decided that it is better for the standards body, and the world, to establish a standard which says that it is OK for companies to restrict content they place on the web to only certain people. His claim that if they do not adopt standards allowing companies to wall of parts of the web, the companies will use non-standard methods of doing so flies in the face of history. There were plenty of walled-garden networks when the Internet started to become a big thing. They all gradually went away as people realized that what was outside of the walled-gardens was of more value to them than what was inside (and cheaper).
I support the idea behind this petition, but do not believe this is, nor that it should be, a federal issue. Those who oppose such laws should be contacting their state legislator, not the White House.
There is nothing wrong with the points you make. They are all good points. However, none of them is an argument that supports laws requiring a company to use middlemen.
Actually, when it comes to Proposition 8 it is worse than what you state. The Supreme Court ruled that the citizens of California (and by extension every other state) do not have standing to defend a law which was passed by popular referendum over the objections of the political establishment, which then refused to defend that law in court. This ruling pulls the teeth out of popular referendum provisions in state constitutions.
So, they taught you that the majority of the population should listen to the advice given by the "intellectuals" (the people who teach Humanities classes tend to view themselves as the heirs of Socrates).
That is an interesting translation since the U.S. government was not involved in any of the actions described in the article. This was the state of California. I know many people, even people born and raised in the U.S., have trouble understanding that actions taken by state governments do not necessarily reflect policy decisions and/or opinions of the federal government, but nevertheless it is true.
There was not any evidence that was considered reliable (or is even now considered reliable) that an earthquake was imminent. However, there was no evidence at all that an earthquake was not imminent and the jailed scientists said that a major earthquake was categorically not imminent. The latter is why they were jailed. One can argue that it was inappropriate to jail them for that, but it was certainly inappropriate for them to make the claim which they made (that there was nothing to worry about).
What they should have said is that a major earthquake was no more likely to occur than at any time over the last "x" number of years, rather than that a major earthquake was not about to happen.
Posting this as a response to some of those who pick up on a point of factual disagreement (and posted anonymously) to dismiss your primary point, which was that these scientists were guilty of making claims which actual science did not support.
4) No great social stigma was attached to smoking pot in the late 1700s and early 1800s — pot use wasn't considered a problem until the early 1900s.
You forgot to mention that the main reason that pot became an object of opprobrium in the western U.S. was because it was the intoxicant of choice among Mexican immigrants. In the Eastern U.S., it was its association with jazz musicians (a group which was primarily black and Latin American at the time). The fact of the matter is that smoking pot came to be viewed as a problem because it was attributed as the cause of certain minorities forgetting their place.
You are correct about the OS dates. However, the key factor in the failure of OS/2 was IBM's decision to attempt to limit it to the 80286 chip and keep PC development from adopting 80386 chips and later. From the time of that decision, MS began to subvert development of OS/2 and plan to release its own OS based on the same ideas.
Microsoft never had any intention of migrating people to OS/2 because IBM controlled the IP rights to OS/2 in a way that they did not with DOS. From the beginning Windows was intended to compete with OS/2. There were two sides to the story of what led to the break up between MS and IBM. On one hand, IBM insisted that the first version of OS/2 be written so as to limit its ability to be ported beyond the 80286 (I believe there were a few other strategic decisions made by IBM in the development of OS/2 that MS disagreed with, but I do not remember the specifics). On the other hand, MS deliberately executed IBM's strategy decisions so as to maximize the failure of OS/2 so as to leave the market open for the successor OS they were developing (which at the time was Win95).
Slashdot Mirror
In this particular case it is mostly because as soon as he took power, Morsi unilaterally rewrote the Egyptian Constitution to give himself more power and remove power from those who were supposed to hold him accountable.
Perhaps you were unaware that the Crusades were a reaction to invasion? Not a very well thought out reaction, although it turned out to be fairly effective overall (Muslim advances into Europe were halted and turned back over time, with the results of the Crusades leading to the Renaissance and to European nations becoming world dominant after being a back water for a long time).
Morsi was no less oppressive than the man the people had just rioted to throw out of office AND he was less capable of actually governing. The military that ran this coup (and it was a coup) is run by men that Morsi appointed to run it. He forced the resignation (and in some cases, prosecuted and jailed) those military leaders who he felt were insufficiently supportive of his agenda.
Please understand that I do not think a military dictatorship is a good thing. It's just that, in the case of Egypt at the present time, it appears to be better than the alternative (key word being "appears").
France and Spain both claim that they gave permission for the plane carrying Evo Morales to cross their air space. At this point I have not seen any evidence corroborating the Bolivian claims. The government of Evo Morales has made somewhat dubious claims in the past so that I am not willing to condemn other governments purely on their say-so. However, I am also not willing to reject their claims outright. I merely believe that we should withhold judgment on this case until more information is forthcoming.
While I do not share the opinions of the poster you replied to, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are completely different cases. Bradley Manning was a member of the U.S. Armed Forces and thus falls under a different due process system than Edward Snowden, who is a civilian (and thus subject to the civilian court system, not the military court system).
This does not mean that he would be better treated, but it does mean that Bradley Manning's experience is different from what Edward Snowden would experience.
I can think of lots of reasons for the car computer to talk to the satnav or audio systems. However, why does the satnav or audio system need to be able to talk to the car computer?
I did look over your list of reasons for the car computer to talk to the satnav or audio systems and NONE of them are safety related. The closest approximation was that the stereo system used its bluetooth connection to your phone to call 911 when the airbags deployed. However, as I noted before, the phone is not an integral part of the car computer system, why does the stereo have to be (which is what we are discussing).
The topic of discussion is why car companies are attempting to create GPS/audio/other information/other entertainment systems that are integral parts of the car rather than components using a standard interface which can be swapped out with third party components when the car owner so chooses. None of your explanations give an answer that supports the direction the car companies are moving.
Sorry, I understand your explanation of how those systems tie together to improve safety. However, my phone is not part of the car system, why should my GPS and music player be part of that system?
Really, using a different computer for GPS and playing music from the one that controls braking will not make the car safer? You really think that it is a good idea to have the computer that controls the braking accessible to be updated over wireless? Because there is certainly demand that the computer that runs GPS be update-able using wireless. I am really opposed to the idea that the computer that that controls braking and acceleration be accessible via wireless.
Who told you that you should give up Airplay? All of the comments I have seen defending either this story or the new standard have used the argument that Airplay is proprietary to explain why some people think an alternative is necessary. So far none of them have been claiming that YOU should go out and switch to this new standard right now.
So are cars without airbags or seatbelts but we don't let car companies sell those.
I am not sure how the information in that article changes anything, but then I have been following this case since he testified (even then it appeared to me that he was lying, although I did not at that time have any information which proved that to be the case). Clapper's "defense" for making the statement will eventually work its way around to claiming that if he had answered that question truthfully it would have eventually led to him being asked questions which no matter how he answered he would be revealing information he was oath bound to keep secret. If the question he answered with a lie had been an unexpected question, I could see how some people might accept that defense. However, Clapper was aware that he was going to be asked that question, which means that he had time to come up with a truthful answer which would have ended the line of questioning before it revealed classified information (something along the lines of, "Yes, but I cannot answer further questions about this in a public hearing as some of the details are classified and even truthful non-answers to some questions would reveal classified information.")
Why is the computer that controls my braking system connected to the device that plays my music and gives me directions via GPS in the first place?
It appears to me that the suggestion in the article is more or less what you are saying. The submitter, at least, is suggesting that the in-car system used for info-tainment (I understand why people do not like that term, but it does some up what these systems do--they provide entertainment by playing music AND they provide information such as GPS) be something like the radio, something which has a standard interface which would allow people to swap it out for third party devices.
That was exactly what I came here to post. I would have modded you up if you were not already at +5.
I am going to state your point in another way. Basically, the head of W3C has decided that it is better for the standards body, and the world, to establish a standard which says that it is OK for companies to restrict content they place on the web to only certain people. His claim that if they do not adopt standards allowing companies to wall of parts of the web, the companies will use non-standard methods of doing so flies in the face of history. There were plenty of walled-garden networks when the Internet started to become a big thing. They all gradually went away as people realized that what was outside of the walled-gardens was of more value to them than what was inside (and cheaper).
I support the idea behind this petition, but do not believe this is, nor that it should be, a federal issue. Those who oppose such laws should be contacting their state legislator, not the White House.
There is nothing wrong with the points you make. They are all good points. However, none of them is an argument that supports laws requiring a company to use middlemen.
Actually, when it comes to Proposition 8 it is worse than what you state. The Supreme Court ruled that the citizens of California (and by extension every other state) do not have standing to defend a law which was passed by popular referendum over the objections of the political establishment, which then refused to defend that law in court. This ruling pulls the teeth out of popular referendum provisions in state constitutions.
So, they taught you that the majority of the population should listen to the advice given by the "intellectuals" (the people who teach Humanities classes tend to view themselves as the heirs of Socrates).
You need to get your sarcasm meter checked.
Well, I used to know a few people who ate Twinkies, but they lived in a benighted part of the world where Tastykakes were unavailable.
That is an interesting translation since the U.S. government was not involved in any of the actions described in the article. This was the state of California. I know many people, even people born and raised in the U.S., have trouble understanding that actions taken by state governments do not necessarily reflect policy decisions and/or opinions of the federal government, but nevertheless it is true.
There was not any evidence that was considered reliable (or is even now considered reliable) that an earthquake was imminent. However, there was no evidence at all that an earthquake was not imminent and the jailed scientists said that a major earthquake was categorically not imminent. The latter is why they were jailed. One can argue that it was inappropriate to jail them for that, but it was certainly inappropriate for them to make the claim which they made (that there was nothing to worry about). What they should have said is that a major earthquake was no more likely to occur than at any time over the last "x" number of years, rather than that a major earthquake was not about to happen.
Posting this as a response to some of those who pick up on a point of factual disagreement (and posted anonymously) to dismiss your primary point, which was that these scientists were guilty of making claims which actual science did not support.
4) No great social stigma was attached to smoking pot in the late 1700s and early 1800s — pot use wasn't considered a problem until the early 1900s.
You forgot to mention that the main reason that pot became an object of opprobrium in the western U.S. was because it was the intoxicant of choice among Mexican immigrants. In the Eastern U.S., it was its association with jazz musicians (a group which was primarily black and Latin American at the time). The fact of the matter is that smoking pot came to be viewed as a problem because it was attributed as the cause of certain minorities forgetting their place.
You are correct about the OS dates. However, the key factor in the failure of OS/2 was IBM's decision to attempt to limit it to the 80286 chip and keep PC development from adopting 80386 chips and later. From the time of that decision, MS began to subvert development of OS/2 and plan to release its own OS based on the same ideas.
Microsoft never had any intention of migrating people to OS/2 because IBM controlled the IP rights to OS/2 in a way that they did not with DOS. From the beginning Windows was intended to compete with OS/2. There were two sides to the story of what led to the break up between MS and IBM. On one hand, IBM insisted that the first version of OS/2 be written so as to limit its ability to be ported beyond the 80286 (I believe there were a few other strategic decisions made by IBM in the development of OS/2 that MS disagreed with, but I do not remember the specifics). On the other hand, MS deliberately executed IBM's strategy decisions so as to maximize the failure of OS/2 so as to leave the market open for the successor OS they were developing (which at the time was Win95).