Either that, or it saves time and energy to pay someone else to go through the first round of interviews. Employment agencies are probably even harsher than Google would be, because an agency that sends in people that aren't good enough is going to get dropped. At the very least, it'll cut down on the retarded monkeys that think that working at Google means they'll be dicking around on the internet all day. It's a decent first line of defense.
Bush keeps saying he wants everyone to work in a bipartisan fashion, but I don't think "bipartisan" means what he thinks it does. Rather bipartisan appears to mean to him "do it my way" or "because I say so" and "I'm the decider".
Bipartisan means both parties are working together. If it's under his leadership, it doesn't mean it isn't bipartisan. In this context, bipartisan means that he would like Democrats to do what he says too. He's just getting sick of being limited to having Republican thralls.
Do you have a problem with the government spying on people who aren't citizens? If not, then how do you propose they figure out who is and isn't a citizen before spying? And how are you going to make sure that people who don't have America's best interests at heart don't become citizens?
Remember, when America was founded, information exchange was still a difficult thing to accomplish at range. Today, we can pick up a phone or type an email. Then, there was a long boat trip to get to the nearest of our trading partners. Months have turned into seconds. As such, artificial restrictions on information have become more important.
More importantly, one man or group could not commit an act of war, and be out of reach by sundown. Even Guy Fawkes wasn't going to run, he was going to hide. Now, it's a plane trip to a non-extradition country, and you can even be there before the bomb goes off.
All of these things increase the danger of freedom of information. This is why things have changed.
Re:What about employee safety?
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If I'm not mistaken, regular old commercial radars these days don't look for planes. They look for transmitters. If you're flying something without a transmitter, or with it turned off, you're probably breaking the law. Now, if a military radar, which is designed to see metal, doesn't see anything, the best guess is that the aircraft is Stealthy. This could mean anything from Stealth bombers to hot air balloons to large birds. I'm all for paranoia based security, but even this is stretching it.
I love the idiotic Utopian view some people take. Now, let's stop with the false dichotomies and name-calling, and get down to logical arguments, shall we?
I am in favor of declassification of documents that will no longer directly harm our nation or its citizens. My statement was that claiming that everything the government does needs to be open to whoever wants to know it is both absurd, and harmful to America. Let's say we open source the list of our intelligence officers in other nations. Now the ones with a diplomatic cover will be sent home, and the ones without a diplomatic cover will be killed. Now the nation is blind, and men and women are dead. Let's say we provide blueprints for military bases, including things like guard rotations and security schematics. Now bombs might be finding their way into the bases where they wouldn't have before.
Is this security through obscurity? Yes. But when you're dealing with people instead of programs, the alternative is called a police state. I believe government needs it's privacy as much as citizens do, if not more, because a citizen without any privacy is still better than that same citizen dead. It's even better for citizens to have privacy, of course, but that has nothing to do with the underlying need for governments to be able to keep their secrets.
First, lynching is done to people who can't defend themselves from the mob. I have great faith that the American government could put down an uprising of the people.
Second, you seem to be saying that there are no national security issues in classified documents. They're all about Roswell or the JFK assassination or thermite bombs in the World Trade Center. Intellectual osmosis demands I move away from these kinds of statements before I get some on me.
Third, you're busy assuming that the American people know anything about governmental decisions. Here's a scenario: Government takes action that looks bad when taken out of context. Context must be kept classified because it could reveal intelligence sources. Every Special Olympian like you decides that because they aren't giving us a why, just a how, they don't have a why.
And finally, the most foul things perpetrated by governments fall closer to "Will no one rid me of this troublesome race/religion?" Something that for all your smarm, we haven't done.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the ESRB has worked out well. The government was going to censor video games. Look at that, they aren't. Wal-mart would have refused to stock any game until it had been checked by their own people, just because they might get something they didn't want to sell. The games Wal-mart carries would have been far more strictly limited than they are now. I got God of War at Wal-mart.
Illinois passed a law. That law died. Now there's precedence, and future laws will be more likely to be killed. Jack Thompson is not a valid subject for any comparison, because he is so far out of any group that he might be identified with, except the mentally impaired. The ESRB has done exactly what it was supposed to, and it has done so as well as the MPAA has done with its voluntary rating system.
Excellent post, you only missed one thing. Google currently does not charge for these services it provides, other than the advertising service. If Google wants to say 'use our bandwidth and access our servers without giving us money,' let them. Yes, I understand the underlying business model of selling advertising, it's worked for radio stations for years. It is better for more people to use your service for free, because then more people will want to pay you for a related service. But from the average citizen's viewpoint, it doesn't really matter. Personally, I prefer to grab Google's free services for many things, from searches to email. I'm glad they're telling me about the new things.
The heating will cause tissue denaturation. Basically, an internal burn.
What heating? As I understood it, this was sound waves, not the microwaves.
To increase the affected area, you either need to increase the exposure time or the power of the device. Either of the two will at some point force you to run the thing off something other than batteries.
If it works quickly enough, I'd suggest a capacitor array. Capacitors have been used for this kind of thing since the end of one-use flash bulbs in cameras.
The point of an assassination is to off the victim and prove that you can get away with it (as a warning to others). The more creative you are, the better.
I always figured the point of an assassination was to kill the guy. The fact that you did it was to be completely deniable. Only circumstantial evidence was supposed to point to you. Considering America's Executive Order against assassination (later weakened during the first Bush administration, but still there), we don't do that. Hard evidence could be used as a weapon, and the media would use it as such. Let the evidence be: "Hmm, the last four governmental leaders to openly oppose America died of a stroke. Just to be safe, I'm not going to openly oppose America."
How about for assassination? Dying of a stroke because of a blood clot in the brain is much less suspicious and more deniable than dying of a 9mm brain hemorrhage. How about the ability to increase the area affected fairly easily? How about the lack of damage to structures? There are plenty of reasons that this could be developed despite the existence of bullets.
Yeah, but just think. It wouldn't need to rotate.
And for a more serious question, do the solar panels actually provide enough power to do this, or are they just going for the gimmick?
There are occasions when I would be willing to move to a controller from a keyboard/mouse setup. Most recently, I picked up Splinter Cell: Double Agent for the computer, which has proven frustrating when trying to sneak. Instead of pushing the analog stick forward slightly, there's twitch tapping the 'W' key like a squirrel with epilepsy. If you just hold down the 'W', you run, alert everyone to your presence (even while crouching), and die.
Is it worth it? Over the complete lifetime of this windfarm, are we going to get energy out in amounts greater than what we had to put in? Manufacturing uses energy from burning coal. Is putting that energy here a waste like with solar power? People talk about green energy without checking to see just how green it really is.
I'm not talking about massive, brick house made out of bricks of cash money. I'm talking about the whole food and shelter type of money. If I switched, I'd get to be the only homeless guy with a superior knowledge of Linux.
Comparing apples to oranges? Sure. But I'm saying that both fruit rot if you don't take steps to preserve them. The user is the thing that computer security is most dependent on. Not the OS. If you want to take the standpoint of 'Our users are more secure than your users' then that's a true statement, on average. Extending that to the elitist snob position of 'That means that our OS is better than yours could ever be' is the problem I'm seeing.
I'm a computer tech. I need to know the systems my clients are using. Far and away, that's Windows XP, with a smattering of Windows 2000, and one Mac. At home, I run Windows XP. Geek that I am, I know all about firewalls and AV software, phishing and other scams. I don't have computer troubles.
How can that be, you ask? Simple. Users, not OS's, are secure or insecure. The same moron who installs everything under the sun on his computer under Windows is going to be sending checks to Nigerian royalty under Linux.
I'm in the rare position where switching to Linux would be detrimental. If I fail to keep up on how to do things on Windows systems, I will lose money. Even if there were as many Linux users out there as Windows ones, they would still not increase my customer base by as much as the Windows users do. Besides that, I do enjoy my PC gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
Either that, or it saves time and energy to pay someone else to go through the first round of interviews. Employment agencies are probably even harsher than Google would be, because an agency that sends in people that aren't good enough is going to get dropped. At the very least, it'll cut down on the retarded monkeys that think that working at Google means they'll be dicking around on the internet all day. It's a decent first line of defense.
Bipartisan means both parties are working together. If it's under his leadership, it doesn't mean it isn't bipartisan. In this context, bipartisan means that he would like Democrats to do what he says too. He's just getting sick of being limited to having Republican thralls.
1776, when they found out what happens when they try to repress armed citizens.
Do you have a problem with the government spying on people who aren't citizens? If not, then how do you propose they figure out who is and isn't a citizen before spying? And how are you going to make sure that people who don't have America's best interests at heart don't become citizens?
Remember, when America was founded, information exchange was still a difficult thing to accomplish at range. Today, we can pick up a phone or type an email. Then, there was a long boat trip to get to the nearest of our trading partners. Months have turned into seconds. As such, artificial restrictions on information have become more important.
More importantly, one man or group could not commit an act of war, and be out of reach by sundown. Even Guy Fawkes wasn't going to run, he was going to hide. Now, it's a plane trip to a non-extradition country, and you can even be there before the bomb goes off.
All of these things increase the danger of freedom of information. This is why things have changed.
Old news, I've been tired of this for well over a year.
If I'm not mistaken, regular old commercial radars these days don't look for planes. They look for transmitters. If you're flying something without a transmitter, or with it turned off, you're probably breaking the law. Now, if a military radar, which is designed to see metal, doesn't see anything, the best guess is that the aircraft is Stealthy. This could mean anything from Stealth bombers to hot air balloons to large birds. I'm all for paranoia based security, but even this is stretching it.
I love the idiotic Utopian view some people take. Now, let's stop with the false dichotomies and name-calling, and get down to logical arguments, shall we?
I am in favor of declassification of documents that will no longer directly harm our nation or its citizens. My statement was that claiming that everything the government does needs to be open to whoever wants to know it is both absurd, and harmful to America. Let's say we open source the list of our intelligence officers in other nations. Now the ones with a diplomatic cover will be sent home, and the ones without a diplomatic cover will be killed. Now the nation is blind, and men and women are dead. Let's say we provide blueprints for military bases, including things like guard rotations and security schematics. Now bombs might be finding their way into the bases where they wouldn't have before.
Is this security through obscurity? Yes. But when you're dealing with people instead of programs, the alternative is called a police state. I believe government needs it's privacy as much as citizens do, if not more, because a citizen without any privacy is still better than that same citizen dead. It's even better for citizens to have privacy, of course, but that has nothing to do with the underlying need for governments to be able to keep their secrets.
First, lynching is done to people who can't defend themselves from the mob. I have great faith that the American government could put down an uprising of the people.
Second, you seem to be saying that there are no national security issues in classified documents. They're all about Roswell or the JFK assassination or thermite bombs in the World Trade Center. Intellectual osmosis demands I move away from these kinds of statements before I get some on me.
Third, you're busy assuming that the American people know anything about governmental decisions. Here's a scenario: Government takes action that looks bad when taken out of context. Context must be kept classified because it could reveal intelligence sources. Every Special Olympian like you decides that because they aren't giving us a why, just a how, they don't have a why.
And finally, the most foul things perpetrated by governments fall closer to "Will no one rid me of this troublesome race/religion?" Something that for all your smarm, we haven't done.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the ESRB has worked out well. The government was going to censor video games. Look at that, they aren't. Wal-mart would have refused to stock any game until it had been checked by their own people, just because they might get something they didn't want to sell. The games Wal-mart carries would have been far more strictly limited than they are now. I got God of War at Wal-mart. Illinois passed a law. That law died. Now there's precedence, and future laws will be more likely to be killed. Jack Thompson is not a valid subject for any comparison, because he is so far out of any group that he might be identified with, except the mentally impaired. The ESRB has done exactly what it was supposed to, and it has done so as well as the MPAA has done with its voluntary rating system.
Excellent post, you only missed one thing. Google currently does not charge for these services it provides, other than the advertising service. If Google wants to say 'use our bandwidth and access our servers without giving us money,' let them. Yes, I understand the underlying business model of selling advertising, it's worked for radio stations for years. It is better for more people to use your service for free, because then more people will want to pay you for a related service. But from the average citizen's viewpoint, it doesn't really matter. Personally, I prefer to grab Google's free services for many things, from searches to email. I'm glad they're telling me about the new things.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
Ah, to live in a state that has some provision for carrying concealed weaponry. We don't even have the option of obtaining permits.
How about for assassination? Dying of a stroke because of a blood clot in the brain is much less suspicious and more deniable than dying of a 9mm brain hemorrhage. How about the ability to increase the area affected fairly easily? How about the lack of damage to structures? There are plenty of reasons that this could be developed despite the existence of bullets.
Yeah, but just think. It wouldn't need to rotate. And for a more serious question, do the solar panels actually provide enough power to do this, or are they just going for the gimmick?
There are occasions when I would be willing to move to a controller from a keyboard/mouse setup. Most recently, I picked up Splinter Cell: Double Agent for the computer, which has proven frustrating when trying to sneak. Instead of pushing the analog stick forward slightly, there's twitch tapping the 'W' key like a squirrel with epilepsy. If you just hold down the 'W', you run, alert everyone to your presence (even while crouching), and die.
Is it worth it? Over the complete lifetime of this windfarm, are we going to get energy out in amounts greater than what we had to put in? Manufacturing uses energy from burning coal. Is putting that energy here a waste like with solar power? People talk about green energy without checking to see just how green it really is.
I'm not talking about massive, brick house made out of bricks of cash money. I'm talking about the whole food and shelter type of money. If I switched, I'd get to be the only homeless guy with a superior knowledge of Linux. Comparing apples to oranges? Sure. But I'm saying that both fruit rot if you don't take steps to preserve them. The user is the thing that computer security is most dependent on. Not the OS. If you want to take the standpoint of 'Our users are more secure than your users' then that's a true statement, on average. Extending that to the elitist snob position of 'That means that our OS is better than yours could ever be' is the problem I'm seeing.
I'm a computer tech. I need to know the systems my clients are using. Far and away, that's Windows XP, with a smattering of Windows 2000, and one Mac. At home, I run Windows XP. Geek that I am, I know all about firewalls and AV software, phishing and other scams. I don't have computer troubles. How can that be, you ask? Simple. Users, not OS's, are secure or insecure. The same moron who installs everything under the sun on his computer under Windows is going to be sending checks to Nigerian royalty under Linux. I'm in the rare position where switching to Linux would be detrimental. If I fail to keep up on how to do things on Windows systems, I will lose money. Even if there were as many Linux users out there as Windows ones, they would still not increase my customer base by as much as the Windows users do. Besides that, I do enjoy my PC gaming.