Simplicity is fine, but only if you can figure it out. An alarm clock is not supposed to be complicated. If a user can't figure out how to set the clock, then it's a UI fail.
Except the only one who thought terrorists were after our freedom was Bush.
The terrorists would just like us to go away, preferably by being dead, but short of that, the self-destruction of our country through paranoia, ignorance, and financial insolvency is also acceptable.
So, yeah, the terrorists won. Congratulations, America, they couldn't have done it without you.
According to the documentary "Inside Job", hot-shot financiers are virtually all promiscuous johns, but the only one that ever paid for it was Elliot Spitzer, the Attorney General who was so famously prosecuting their financial misconduct.
I believe only one grand conspiracy theory: those who have the gold make the rules.
>Then make it illegal Yeah. We could even add a constitutional amendment! Something like:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Then all we'll need is to figure out who will enforce this fine law.
> this isn't an interstate transaction Well, I guess I'll agree with you as long as the item was warehoused at, purchased within, and shipped to the same state, and at no time during the transaction did any of the http packets or funds cross state lines.
> Violence is the only basis for property and civilization Not really. Civilization is based on enterprise and commerce. The word "civilized" is virtually opposite to "violent."
> [native americans] took it from the... previous owners You'll see from my original post that I exempted some Dutch and Venetians, but no Native Americans.
Although it should be pointed out that Native Americans didn't claim to "own" the land, so at least they weren't hypocrites like us.
> That's just how it works That's just how it has worked in other times and places. Nowadays in America we generally exchange property without killing the previous occupants.
Every landowner alive today is in possession of stolen property. Except perhaps some Dutch and Venetians, who sort of made their own land.
"Let it go" sounds very wise and very... convenient. I don't think we should disregard our violent history, nor the injustices it caused, many of which persist today.
> Most self-identified libertarians are much > wackier than Ron Paul.
And most self-identified democrats are much wackier than Howard Dean, and most self-identified republicans are much wackier than Newt Gingrich.. What's your point?
> the US government has effectively announced that > killing someone without any sort of trial is "justice" >... > It would have been better... if... at least a pretense > of a legal process had been made.
First off, a pretense at justice is not better than no pretense. Making no pretense is at least honest. False pretenses are cynical and corrupt, and they inspire no trust.
The point of a trial is two-fold. It obliges the government to prove the guilt of the defendant, and it allows the defendant to confront his accusers and defend himself.
In this case the guilt of the defendant was not in question. Besides the findings of every intelligence service on the planet, he personally claimed responsibility.
The only thing a "fair" trial could have done was give him a forum to spew his vitriol and maybe give him an off chance of being acquitted.
Due process is critical, and it was served. He was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. We did not adhere to the standard checklist, but blind adherence to checklists is bureaucracy, not fairness.
UBL really was a unique case and it doesn't bother me that we skipped the formalities and put a bullet in his head. He knew it was coming, and he knew he brought it on himself, which you can't say about his victims.
Hydrogen doesn't come from fossil fuels, fossil fuels come from Hydrogen. And carbon.
I'm not sure it matters where we get Hydrogen from so much as whether it's 1) A sustainable process 2) The energy cycle pays for itself (the energy harvested is greater than that used to extract it and clean up any mess) 3) Any carbon by-products stay out of the air.
> they'd likely want to get their revenge. And what better way than to have our military-industrial complex spend us to deat? All they'd have to do is feed the CIA false intelligence about terrorists having sharks with frickin' lasers.
It's a code. Using Google Translator, I took it from Portuguese to Afrikaans to Azerbaijani, Vietnamese, Chinese, Latin and back to English, and suddenly it all becam clear:
"To abuse it and I shall manage the more slowly than the degree of progress is the lack of the imagination, not technical it is attached. "
Slashdot Mirror
Simplicity is fine, but only if you can figure it out. An alarm clock is not supposed to be complicated. If a user can't figure out how to set the clock, then it's a UI fail.
Even if it's shiny and cool.
Well said.
Except the only one who thought terrorists were after our freedom was Bush.
The terrorists would just like us to go away, preferably by being dead, but short of that, the self-destruction of our country through paranoia, ignorance, and financial insolvency is also acceptable.
So, yeah, the terrorists won. Congratulations, America, they couldn't have done it without you.
Oooh, cool. I've got another one.
According to the documentary "Inside Job", hot-shot financiers are virtually all promiscuous johns, but the only one that ever paid for it was Elliot Spitzer, the Attorney General who was so famously prosecuting their financial misconduct.
I believe only one grand conspiracy theory: those who have the gold make the rules.
If "we" includes you, you're slacking off. Go arrest the surveillance state. And hurry.
>Then make it illegal
Yeah. We could even add a constitutional amendment! Something like:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Then all we'll need is to figure out who will enforce this fine law.
> I'm a man, not an animal.
Thanks for clarifying that, my brother primate.
> this isn't an interstate transaction
Well, I guess I'll agree with you as long as the item was warehoused at, purchased within, and shipped to the same state, and at no time during the transaction did any of the http packets or funds cross state lines.
Otherwise, it's interstate commerce.
> Violence is the only basis for property and civilization
Not really. Civilization is based on enterprise and commerce. The word "civilized" is virtually opposite to "violent."
> [native americans] took it from the ... previous owners
You'll see from my original post that I exempted some Dutch and Venetians, but no Native Americans.
Although it should be pointed out that Native Americans didn't claim to "own" the land, so at least they weren't hypocrites like us.
> That's just how it works
That's just how it has worked in other times and places. Nowadays in America we generally exchange property without killing the previous occupants.
Every landowner alive today is in possession of stolen property. Except perhaps some Dutch and Venetians, who sort of made their own land.
"Let it go" sounds very wise and very... convenient. I don't think we should disregard our violent history, nor the injustices it caused, many of which persist today.
It's only baffling if your mind is still a prisoner to the Matrix. For GP, you just edit reality.xml and reload.
> Most self-identified libertarians are much
> wackier than Ron Paul.
And most self-identified democrats are much wackier than Howard Dean, and most self-identified republicans are much wackier than Newt Gingrich.. What's your point?
> the US government has effectively announced that ... ... at least a pretense
> killing someone without any sort of trial is "justice"
>
> It would have been better... if
> of a legal process had been made.
First off, a pretense at justice is not better than no pretense. Making no pretense is at least honest. False pretenses are cynical and corrupt, and they inspire no trust.
The point of a trial is two-fold. It obliges the government to prove the guilt of the defendant, and it allows the defendant to confront his accusers and defend himself.
In this case the guilt of the defendant was not in question. Besides the findings of every intelligence service on the planet, he personally claimed responsibility.
The only thing a "fair" trial could have done was give him a forum to spew his vitriol and maybe give him an off chance of being acquitted.
Due process is critical, and it was served. He was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. We did not adhere to the standard checklist, but blind adherence to checklists is bureaucracy, not fairness.
UBL really was a unique case and it doesn't bother me that we skipped the formalities and put a bullet in his head. He knew it was coming, and he knew he brought it on himself, which you can't say about his victims.
It's not a "non-compete" - the FCC is not a competitor of NBC, it's a regulator.
The rule GP proposed was intended to prevent shepherding gigs from being a stepping stone to joining a wolf clan.
Cool. We can inhale the NOx and have a happier commute.
In case my post was unclear, innocent children die when a war rages in their neighborhood. I like surgical assassinations more than full-scale war.
I agree.
Shooting him like a rabid dog would make the Pres look even better to me.
I'd rather assassinate every tin-horn dictator and violent religious zealot on the planet than blow the leg off one innocent child.
I don't get it.
Do you mean some future inventor will save us all with a brilliant new technogadget?
Or do you mean that when we have a population density of 136.7 people per square meter it will be cheap to desalinate the ocean?
Or do you mean we should wait until wars and natural disasters wipe out all the poor people, and the survivors will then have enough to go around?
Ok that's just funny.
Hydrogen doesn't come from fossil fuels, fossil fuels come from Hydrogen. And carbon.
I'm not sure it matters where we get Hydrogen from so much as whether it's
1) A sustainable process
2) The energy cycle pays for itself (the energy harvested is greater than that used to extract it and clean up any mess)
3) Any carbon by-products stay out of the air.
What's wrong with burning hydrogen in a controlled manner and a confined space?
> they'd likely want to get their revenge.
And what better way than to have our military-industrial complex spend us to deat? All they'd have to do is feed the CIA false intelligence about terrorists having sharks with frickin' lasers.
It's a code. Using Google Translator, I took it from Portuguese to Afrikaans to Azerbaijani, Vietnamese, Chinese, Latin and back to English, and suddenly it all becam clear:
"To abuse it and I shall manage the more slowly than the degree of progress is the lack of the imagination, not technical it is attached. "
Hope that helps.
While I agree it's only anecdotal, it appears that prior to the fracking they were not able to light their water on fire.
The video doesn't specify, but since they use pounds for weight, I'd say it's probably SAE football.
> his skills could be very useful in designing multi-purpose
> rooms in the (extremely) cramped spaces of spacecraft
Great point. Or submarines.
Wouldn't it be great if you could fold up, say, the sleeping quarters when not in use, and turn the recovered space into a temporary game room or gym?