the opposite would be to get on to the bus. But all this pales compared to the ambiguity surrounding whether this means to board the bus or to climb onto its roof.
It would be interesting to hear what people would want from a next generation religion. I don't want to be a pet or livestock, so the discussion so far seems to have taken a wrong turn in my eyes, but it would be interesting to see a grass-roots religion form rather than something promulgated by a religious elite.
This reads like one of those lousy patent applications for something that has always been done with the words "using the internet" added on to make it patentable. Wasn't there always voice of america, BBC world service, RT etc. not to mention all the state run TV stations in tinpot nations. This isn't suddenly much worse just because it's on facebook. If that were true Kim Jong Unhinged would let his people have internet.
Maybe use the tech to train the teachers and at least put a "library" in every school. I can't imagine there is a shortage of labor to wield a stick of chalk.
Maybe they reassure the "public" but they don't reassure the "travelling public". They simply throw the travelling public under the bus so that the wider public can feel a little more secure. Also what's with all the various privilege levels for security today ?
non-travellers don't put up with this
private fliers don't put up with this
1st class passengers
clear members
tsa pre members
All of them avoid the pain on ordinary taxpaying passengers for this federal imposition
And it looks IBM-ish to me, though I couldn't say why, maybe it looks like something that OS2 would have scrolled up in that creepy smooth way that it did. I think they should have used the typeface from the 3270 terminal though - that is what I most associate with IBM.
but it's hard to imagine after months or years using a system that is this flawed that there had not been previous occasions somewhere in the fleet where a misunderstanding of this nature occurred and everyone had a good laugh about it because they didn't hit anything.
My point is that after these issues occurred in the past the crew should have been aware of this pitfall and done something to mitigate it, even if it meant putting a line of masking tape over the screen of the console that had no control - I don't know, but some kind of low tech solution that everyone on the bridge understood and verified.
If however, after millions of ship-hours of use this is really is the first time this issue arose then maybe it's harder to mess up operating the UI than the Navy are letting on
It occurred to me after I posted that these images may be frames from a video and that perhaps the frame just shows a point where it transitions from one hairstyle to another.
Many of them seem to have some weirdness at the top of the head. Pointedness, baldness that kind of thing, I wonder what that says about the algorithm.
People have a right to privacy and encryption is important to allow them to retain that right. I don't agree though that any law against it would be ineffective. For a start encryption would disappear from most consumer products and the encryption that remained would eventually be easier to detect. I think that, were it outlawed, the total amount of crypto would reduce.
Anyone caught using crypto illegally (whether is can be unencrypted or not) would stand to be be arrested and stopped from committing crime on that basis, at least it gives them one more charge to face, after all prison is prison no matter what got you there (ask Al Capone).
The rich being above the law might be a more difficult issue, it would depend on the penalties for getting caught, 1% of net worth would be quite a sting, as would adding 50% to the jail sentence of any other crime being committed.
So no, crypto should not be outlawed, but yes, if it were banned the ban could be effective, what's with all you people saying laws don't work ?
I'm not sure that I buy that he's batshit crazy. I don't know how smart he is but his family have groomed him for this position so I'm sure he is at least well trained / indoctrinated and I'm sure corrupt and cruel, but not crazy as in does random things with no end in mind.
The focus should be on improving things for the N. Korean people (who no-one really has any beef with) not on making things worse for him directly. If there's any way to achieve democracy and freedom in a united Korea (even if it means us feigning humiliation) then we should move toward it, if that can be achieved then the Koreans themselves will ouster him or at least relegate him to being just another mega-rich asshole.
They must want something, find it and dangle it in front of them, I thought DT was meant to be the arch deal-maker...
I'm sure it is mostly to give the average joe customer a warm and fuzzy feeling that something is being done to validate who he is, its value in calming nerves far outweighs its value in preventing fraud
I don't see why it is so important to win while young at the cost of losing while older, it's the lifetime win you're looking for
I have not seen the figures, but maybe it's the middle aged high earners that are paying most for healthcare compared to the benefits. After all, the young paid nothing at all until they started getting an income and assuming their income ramps up over time then maybe the biggest payment to sickness ratio doesn't come in until later in life. So if you take life in, say 25 year chunks, then 0-25 probably get as good a deal out of it as 50-75 year olds. Or at least I'll bet the numbers can be messed around with to make a similar case.
Of course it's the 75 to 100 year olds who would do best, but the young hope to be a member of that group one day and they'll get what's due to them then.
Actually I'm not that fussed about banning rifles, it's handguns around town I find difficult to justify, but in response to a couple of points people have made...
1) The really popular rifles for adults, based on what I see around me and what I read on top 10 lists are the semi-automatics from various manufacturers, all looking strikingly similar. They are cheap and fun to fire (guess how I know). The ones I see around the range are usually chambered in.223/5.56 which is also inexpensive and the top selling rifle cartridge size. My point was that while no doubt one could be used to obliterate a moose they are not primarily medium/large game hunting focused weapons in that chamber and some states outlaw them for deer hunting, so I grow tired of hearing them defended disingenuously on that basis (and yes I'm aware they can be chambered for other cartridges, but that's just not so popular).
2) So gun crime stats go up a bit or down a bit as time goes by, big whoop. Call me on it when they get to be as low as they are in Germany or some other comparable country (yes, yes, Sudan, I know, heard it before). Tell me when the police are not as on edge as they are, when any cell phone can be a pistol so they fire, to be on the safe side (or for that matter when they can even tell us how many people they have killed this year). We don't properly recon the cost of gun ownership to ordinary Americans and the accommodations ordinary people must make for them, while an outspoken chorus is quick to talk up the "freedom" and "traditional values" angles.
It's not that these weapons don't have their place, it's just that they are too easy to inject into every crime, into everyday life where they just don't belong except in the eyes of the most virulent industry shill.
It appears to me that every time there's talk about banning something the image of the noble hunter is trotted out, or the scared home-owner at the end of a long country road, anything to distract from the real problem of guns in the hands of urban criminals. I'm just pointing out the mismatch between the rationales presented and the weapons being purchased (you never hear much talk of plinking for example)
If I'm wrong, and a significant justification is to be able to one-up the neighbors come the zombie apocalypse or to overthrow the US government, or to intimidate protesters or public servants then let's include that in the conversation, because they don't sound like such great rationale to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine chickens were bred for egg laying first and you only got to eat the older hens or older roosters. I suppose their meat was tougher to chew.
the opposite would be to get on to the bus. But all this pales compared to the ambiguity surrounding whether this means to board the bus or to climb onto its roof.
It would be interesting to hear what people would want from a next generation religion. I don't want to be a pet or livestock, so the discussion so far seems to have taken a wrong turn in my eyes, but it would be interesting to see a grass-roots religion form rather than something promulgated by a religious elite.
This reads like one of those lousy patent applications for something that has always been done with the words "using the internet" added on to make it patentable. Wasn't there always voice of america, BBC world service, RT etc. not to mention all the state run TV stations in tinpot nations. This isn't suddenly much worse just because it's on facebook. If that were true Kim Jong Unhinged would let his people have internet.
Maybe use the tech to train the teachers and at least put a "library" in every school. I can't imagine there is a shortage of labor to wield a stick of chalk.
Payphones must stay because insurance rates go up if there are fewer places for superheros to dress in high crime areas.
All of them avoid the pain on ordinary taxpaying passengers for this federal imposition
And it looks IBM-ish to me, though I couldn't say why, maybe it looks like something that OS2 would have scrolled up in that creepy smooth way that it did. I think they should have used the typeface from the 3270 terminal though - that is what I most associate with IBM.
Facebook is combating the Russian shit-stirring posts, what is /. doing ?
Maybe that's the grand plan, build a great big beautiful wall up and over the USA
but it's hard to imagine after months or years using a system that is this flawed that there had not been previous occasions somewhere in the fleet where a misunderstanding of this nature occurred and everyone had a good laugh about it because they didn't hit anything.
My point is that after these issues occurred in the past the crew should have been aware of this pitfall and done something to mitigate it, even if it meant putting a line of masking tape over the screen of the console that had no control - I don't know, but some kind of low tech solution that everyone on the bridge understood and verified.
If however, after millions of ship-hours of use this is really is the first time this issue arose then maybe it's harder to mess up operating the UI than the Navy are letting on
There's no air in Denver, the thing should be able to run without the tube.
It occurred to me after I posted that these images may be frames from a video and that perhaps the frame just shows a point where it transitions from one hairstyle to another.
Many of them seem to have some weirdness at the top of the head. Pointedness, baldness that kind of thing, I wonder what that says about the algorithm.
its available to rent or buy on amazon prime video
Ask the producers of Amityville the awakening
Is Operation Overmatch a Kapersky product ?
People have a right to privacy and encryption is important to allow them to retain that right. I don't agree though that any law against it would be ineffective. For a start encryption would disappear from most consumer products and the encryption that remained would eventually be easier to detect. I think that, were it outlawed, the total amount of crypto would reduce.
Anyone caught using crypto illegally (whether is can be unencrypted or not) would stand to be be arrested and stopped from committing crime on that basis, at least it gives them one more charge to face, after all prison is prison no matter what got you there (ask Al Capone).
The rich being above the law might be a more difficult issue, it would depend on the penalties for getting caught, 1% of net worth would be quite a sting, as would adding 50% to the jail sentence of any other crime being committed.
So no, crypto should not be outlawed, but yes, if it were banned the ban could be effective, what's with all you people saying laws don't work ?
Can these planes also carry MOABs, I would have thought that those would be more frightening to NK as we are more likely to actually drop them.
I'm not sure that I buy that he's batshit crazy. I don't know how smart he is but his family have groomed him for this position so I'm sure he is at least well trained / indoctrinated and I'm sure corrupt and cruel, but not crazy as in does random things with no end in mind.
The focus should be on improving things for the N. Korean people (who no-one really has any beef with) not on making things worse for him directly. If there's any way to achieve democracy and freedom in a united Korea (even if it means us feigning humiliation) then we should move toward it, if that can be achieved then the Koreans themselves will ouster him or at least relegate him to being just another mega-rich asshole.
They must want something, find it and dangle it in front of them, I thought DT was meant to be the arch deal-maker...
I'm sure it is mostly to give the average joe customer a warm and fuzzy feeling that something is being done to validate who he is, its value in calming nerves far outweighs its value in preventing fraud
I don't see why it is so important to win while young at the cost of losing while older, it's the lifetime win you're looking for
I have not seen the figures, but maybe it's the middle aged high earners that are paying most for healthcare compared to the benefits. After all, the young paid nothing at all until they started getting an income and assuming their income ramps up over time then maybe the biggest payment to sickness ratio doesn't come in until later in life. So if you take life in, say 25 year chunks, then 0-25 probably get as good a deal out of it as 50-75 year olds. Or at least I'll bet the numbers can be messed around with to make a similar case.
Of course it's the 75 to 100 year olds who would do best, but the young hope to be a member of that group one day and they'll get what's due to them then.
Make it so a supplier like Equifax can't shield their customers from liability, that would bring some pressure to bear.
Actually their helpful Engineers even called me before I knew I had a problem.
Actually I'm not that fussed about banning rifles, it's handguns around town I find difficult to justify, but in response to a couple of points people have made...
1) The really popular rifles for adults, based on what I see around me and what I read on top 10 lists are the semi-automatics from various manufacturers, all looking strikingly similar. They are cheap and fun to fire (guess how I know). The ones I see around the range are usually chambered in .223/5.56 which is also inexpensive and the top selling rifle cartridge size. My point was that while no doubt one could be used to obliterate a moose they are not primarily medium/large game hunting focused weapons in that chamber and some states outlaw them for deer hunting, so I grow tired of hearing them defended disingenuously on that basis (and yes I'm aware they can be chambered for other cartridges, but that's just not so popular).
2) So gun crime stats go up a bit or down a bit as time goes by, big whoop. Call me on it when they get to be as low as they are in Germany or some other comparable country (yes, yes, Sudan, I know, heard it before). Tell me when the police are not as on edge as they are, when any cell phone can be a pistol so they fire, to be on the safe side (or for that matter when they can even tell us how many people they have killed this year). We don't properly recon the cost of gun ownership to ordinary Americans and the accommodations ordinary people must make for them, while an outspoken chorus is quick to talk up the "freedom" and "traditional values" angles.
It's not that these weapons don't have their place, it's just that they are too easy to inject into every crime, into everyday life where they just don't belong except in the eyes of the most virulent industry shill.
It appears to me that every time there's talk about banning something the image of the noble hunter is trotted out, or the scared home-owner at the end of a long country road, anything to distract from the real problem of guns in the hands of urban criminals. I'm just pointing out the mismatch between the rationales presented and the weapons being purchased (you never hear much talk of plinking for example)
If I'm wrong, and a significant justification is to be able to one-up the neighbors come the zombie apocalypse or to overthrow the US government, or to intimidate protesters or public servants then let's include that in the conversation, because they don't sound like such great rationale to me.