Not every "science student" needs surgical skills.
And for those who will be surgeons, who knows but that they will soon be operating remotely using a 3-d graphical user interface based on these very models?
Not every "automobile student" wants to make a living as a greasemonkey. I took automotive classes just because I wanted to understand how they worked.
My favorite part turned out to be physics and chemistry, and today I'm an engineer with little need for coveralls or gojo.
Theoretically they are unique, so they make a good uid/account name.
But they make lousy replacements for passwords - passwords' primary quality are their secrecy, and neither fingerprints nor retinas nor vocalisms are secret.
IBM is dead wrong on this one. At least for the sake of our security I hope they are.
Exactly. Whoever wrote the summary and said "there's no law that says it shouldn't" kind of has the constitution backwards - the federal government can't do it unless the constitution says they should.
At the local level I'd think the 4th amendment ought to count as a law.
I was negotiating a mortgage a few years ago, and the bank happily was transitioning from faxes to email. So I sent them all the somewhat sensitive docs they requested, encrypted by hushmail/web. I sent them decryption instructions out of band.
The pretty simple decryption procedure baffled the hell out of them, at first. Then they figured out it was a great excuse to delay the loan. After a few weeks they came back saying they couldn't follow the hushmail retrieval procedure because they had no internet access.
If religion interests you at all, give 'em a break, open your mind, and sit and talk with some. They have their issues, but they come at Christianity from some atypical angles you might find interesting. Perhaps even intellectually sound, to the extent anything based on the invisible and unprovable can be.
> We still want to kill the bad guys Define "bad guys." I really doubt that even 1% of the people we've killed in the last 50 years posed any threat at all to the territorial United States.
I think you're suggesting the only way we could have these things is if DARPA comes up with them. There's some history behind you, but, seriously, peaceful civilian tech doesn't have to originate with the military.
Cars, aircraft, and wireless communications all originated outside the military. Wars are the worst possible reason for government funding of tech improvements.
What both of those studies say is that the methane release is not caused by global warming.
That is not the same as saying the methane release has no effect on global warming. Because it does have an effect. In the words of your review, instead of hitting stopped traffic at 60 mph, we'll hit it at 90 mph.
And if he was wrong, who knows but that God is actually less petty than our Bibles would have us believe, and actually appreciates people going out on a limb to make the world a better place.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an agency of the Federal Government, whose activities are supposed to be constrained to the enumerated powers delegated to it by the states.
My copy of the constitution does not mention any authority to track the comings and goings of the general citizenry, nor to engage in wholesale snooping on their communications, nor to blow smoke up the public's arse about the user guides to civilian software being a secret and critical component of some unspecified criminal investigation.
It doesn't really matter if the carriers eagerly drop off all this info on the FBI's doorstep. The FBI is not entitled to look through this information. They are constitutionally limited to investigating a specific instance of a crime for which they have a specific warrant naming a specific person, time, place, and the nature of information they're allowed to seek.
The idea that our allowing carriers to monitor our phone (which is technologically unavoidable) is equivalent to our voluntarily handing this information to the FBI, and therefore the FBI got it legally, is a silly playground attempt to rationalize the constitution into irrelevance.
> it spells out clearly that you are being monitored and > have 0 expectation of privacy Website privacy policy != TOS, and provide a URL or it didn't happen.
No contract with a carrier voids the constitution.
Where in the TOS does it say we voluntarily hand the FBI all our records? Allowing the carrier to monitor us is not the same as allowing the federal government to monitor us.
3 percent of the Martian volume could sustain Earth-like microbial life. As a comparison, only one percent of the volume of Earth contains life.
That's no comparison. Compare % volumes that could sustain life. Or compare volumes that actually do contain life. But comparing one to the other reveals nothing.
libertarians love to blast [the interstate commerce] part of the Constitution
Or perhaps statists love to use that clause to water down the small whitelist of delegated powers into a federal-government-can-do-whatever-it-wants-except-violate-the-bill-of-rights-for-any-reason-besides-child-porn-or-drugs-or-poverty-or-terrorism-or-protecting-sanctified-tradition-or-other-really-compelling-interests wild card.
If you think the federal government needs more powers, that's fine. Amend the constitution and give it authorization to protect the environment, authorization to coordinate airwaves and airspace, authorization to run entitlement programs. But doing it without authorization is constitutionally illegal, and a law enforced selectively (or never) is no law at all.
> Where exactly are you aiming that thing FTA, at a target of huge water containers placed in front of a brick wall which was in front of an earthen hill.
> how much does it weigh, FTA, about the same as a six inch [iron?] cantaloupe.
> how much powder are you putting behind it? African, or European?
> It wasn't "god" that made the ball go through the wall. How do you know? Don't let Him off so easy.
doesn't seem to distinguish between those members of the class that are honest and work hard for the money, and those members that have robbed and defrauded
When I think of the 99% wealthiest, I think about it not by income but by holdings. Among the 1% sitting on the most wealth are lots of heirs who did nothing to earn their wealth. And the rest of them didn't come by their wealth without some dishonesty along the way. You just don't get that rich by behaving like a saint.
my biggest problem with the... "beat up on the 1%" class warfare meme
You've got the meme backwards - the problem, as OWS sees it, is the 1% fleecing the rest of us. If you think about it, 1% owning 40% is an unlikely outcome of a free and fair marketplace.
So a declaration is irrelevant if we were attacked, and "more relevant" when we start the fight? What exactly does "more relevant" mean?
If Congress disagreed they could enact a law saying that spending money on those operations was illegal. At that point the military would refuse the presidential order as it would now be an illegal order. That is the check and balance, not the formal declaration of war
What congress would tell the military not to spend money on combat when they're already in the middle of a fight? Where in the chain of command are the officers who will decide their commander's formerly legal orders have become illegal? On what grounds would Congress impeach the Pres - for starting a war he was allowed to start but congress decided ex post facto that it didn't want?
It seems to me you're filtering and spinning the constitution to make it match what presidents have actually been doing, rather than looking at the text and the federalist papers to see what the framers actually said.
Every military commander is obliged to follow orders, including the commander-in-chief, whose orders are supposed to come from congress. On this point the framers were crystal clear.
The Legislature makes the policy, Executive implements it. This separation of powers is nothing like our current reality, but it is the fundamental point of the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Not every "science student" needs surgical skills.
And for those who will be surgeons, who knows but that they will soon be operating remotely using a 3-d graphical user interface based on these very models?
Not every "automobile student" wants to make a living as a greasemonkey. I took automotive classes just because I wanted to understand how they worked.
My favorite part turned out to be physics and chemistry, and today I'm an engineer with little need for coveralls or gojo.
What good are biometrics
Theoretically they are unique, so they make a good uid/account name.
But they make lousy replacements for passwords - passwords' primary quality are their secrecy, and neither fingerprints nor retinas nor vocalisms are secret.
IBM is dead wrong on this one. At least for the sake of our security I hope they are.
Exactly. Whoever wrote the summary and said "there's no law that says it shouldn't" kind of has the constitution backwards - the federal government can't do it unless the constitution says they should.
At the local level I'd think the 4th amendment ought to count as a law.
Philosophers have been working on it for quite some time now.
Then perhaps it is a difficult subject.
I was negotiating a mortgage a few years ago, and the bank happily was transitioning from faxes to email. So I sent them all the somewhat sensitive docs they requested, encrypted by hushmail/web. I sent them decryption instructions out of band.
The pretty simple decryption procedure baffled the hell out of them, at first. Then they figured out it was a great excuse to delay the loan. After a few weeks they came back saying they couldn't follow the hushmail retrieval procedure because they had no internet access.
Finally I just faxed everything.
> Who is Emil Protalinski?
Second cousin to Hiro Protagoniski?
You can't assign "stagnated" to a noun - mismatched data types.
I think what you're looking for is something like:
slashdot.iconlibrarysize=moderate;
I was raised by a pack of Mormons.
If religion interests you at all, give 'em a break, open your mind, and sit and talk with some. They have their issues, but they come at Christianity from some atypical angles you might find interesting. Perhaps even intellectually sound, to the extent anything based on the invisible and unprovable can be.
> We still want to kill the bad guys
Define "bad guys." I really doubt that even 1% of the people we've killed in the last 50 years posed any threat at all to the territorial United States.
What about those of us who already have it on our existing phones? Any way to remove it, Sprint?
I think you're suggesting the only way we could have these things is if DARPA comes up with them. There's some history behind you, but, seriously, peaceful civilian tech doesn't have to originate with the military.
Cars, aircraft, and wireless communications all originated outside the military. Wars are the worst possible reason for government funding of tech improvements.
What both of those studies say is that the methane release is not caused by global warming.
That is not the same as saying the methane release has no effect on global warming. Because it does have an effect. In the words of your review, instead of hitting stopped traffic at 60 mph, we'll hit it at 90 mph.
And if he was wrong, who knows but that God is actually less petty than our Bibles would have us believe, and actually appreciates people going out on a limb to make the world a better place.
Ease up on the vitriol, friend.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an agency of the Federal Government, whose activities are supposed to be constrained to the enumerated powers delegated to it by the states.
My copy of the constitution does not mention any authority to track the comings and goings of the general citizenry, nor to engage in wholesale snooping on their communications, nor to blow smoke up the public's arse about the user guides to civilian software being a secret and critical component of some unspecified criminal investigation.
It doesn't really matter if the carriers eagerly drop off all this info on the FBI's doorstep. The FBI is not entitled to look through this information. They are constitutionally limited to investigating a specific instance of a crime for which they have a specific warrant naming a specific person, time, place, and the nature of information they're allowed to seek.
The idea that our allowing carriers to monitor our phone (which is technologically unavoidable) is equivalent to our voluntarily handing this information to the FBI, and therefore the FBI got it legally, is a silly playground attempt to rationalize the constitution into irrelevance.
> it spells out clearly that you are being monitored and
> have 0 expectation of privacy
Website privacy policy != TOS, and provide a URL or it didn't happen.
No contract with a carrier voids the constitution.
Where in the TOS does it say we voluntarily hand the FBI all our records? Allowing the carrier to monitor us is not the same as allowing the federal government to monitor us.
3 percent of the Martian volume could sustain Earth-like microbial life. As a comparison, only one percent of the volume of Earth contains life.
That's no comparison. Compare % volumes that could sustain life. Or compare volumes that actually do contain life. But comparing one to the other reveals nothing.
If it was government's money "to begin with", why do they have to take it from my paycheck?
libertarians love to blast [the interstate commerce] part of the Constitution
Or perhaps statists love to use that clause to water down the small whitelist of delegated powers into a federal-government-can-do-whatever-it-wants-except-violate-the-bill-of-rights-for-any-reason-besides-child-porn-or-drugs-or-poverty-or-terrorism-or-protecting-sanctified-tradition-or-other-really-compelling-interests wild card.
If you think the federal government needs more powers, that's fine. Amend the constitution and give it authorization to protect the environment, authorization to coordinate airwaves and airspace, authorization to run entitlement programs. But doing it without authorization is constitutionally illegal, and a law enforced selectively (or never) is no law at all.
Why the space suit?
If that's the water source, I'd hate to meet the bladder's owner.
> Where exactly are you aiming that thing
FTA, at a target of huge water containers placed in front of a brick wall which was in front of an earthen hill.
> how much does it weigh,
FTA, about the same as a six inch [iron?] cantaloupe.
> how much powder are you putting behind it?
African, or European?
> It wasn't "god" that made the ball go through the wall.
How do you know? Don't let Him off so easy.
doesn't seem to distinguish between those members of the class that are honest and work hard for the money, and those members that have robbed and defrauded
When I think of the 99% wealthiest, I think about it not by income but by holdings. Among the 1% sitting on the most wealth are lots of heirs who did nothing to earn their wealth. And the rest of them didn't come by their wealth without some dishonesty along the way. You just don't get that rich by behaving like a saint.
my biggest problem with the ... "beat up on the 1%" class warfare meme
You've got the meme backwards - the problem, as OWS sees it, is the 1% fleecing the rest of us. If you think about it, 1% owning 40% is an unlikely outcome of a free and fair marketplace.
So a declaration is irrelevant if we were attacked, and "more relevant" when we start the fight? What exactly does "more relevant" mean?
If Congress disagreed they could enact a law saying that spending money on those operations was illegal. At that point the military would refuse the presidential order as it would now be an illegal order. That is the check and balance, not the formal declaration of war
What congress would tell the military not to spend money on combat when they're already in the middle of a fight? Where in the chain of command are the officers who will decide their commander's formerly legal orders have become illegal? On what grounds would Congress impeach the Pres - for starting a war he was allowed to start but congress decided ex post facto that it didn't want?
It seems to me you're filtering and spinning the constitution to make it match what presidents have actually been doing, rather than looking at the text and the federalist papers to see what the framers actually said.
Every military commander is obliged to follow orders, including the commander-in-chief, whose orders are supposed to come from congress. On this point the framers were crystal clear.
The Legislature makes the policy, Executive implements it. This separation of powers is nothing like our current reality, but it is the fundamental point of the constitution.