Wait. Triple the average number of threats per infected site doesn't mean that you're more likely to get a virus by visiting one of those sites; it means that you're more likely to get multiple infections from a site that is infected, but that is not the same thing at all. You might get a similar result if 99% of all religious sites were safe, but each of the other 1% had every virus and worm in the wild, for example - infections per bad site are extreme, but you'd still be 99% safe visiting those kinds of sites.
Combine that with the fact that this isn't even a category in the top 10, and this whole story feels made up to me.
I wondered this too, especially given that the disorientation upon waking is clearly something the airline is aware of and concerned about. He was awake long enough to have a brief conversation with the Captain, though; maybe he activated them himself.
They don't mention this. I assume that he's either supposed to set an alarm, or the Captain was supposed to wake him. The report does mention that the First Officer wasn't feeling well when he went to sleep, so maybe the Captain let him sleep in?
SpaceX is a for-profit enterprise and in no way represents the United States of America. That would make them a space program, but the US space program. A business isn't doing things on behalf of anyone other than their shareholders; the US space program would be working on behalf (and at the behest of) all taxpaying Americans. I do not see how you can claim those are equivalent.
Haven't flown since around 2002. I know others who have also stopped flying. I don't think the industry has noticed at all; I'm sure they blame any decline in profits or failure to meet projected profits on government regulation and taxes.
No simple answer is always right, and here yours is wrong. There are lawful orders, and unlawful orders. The TSA is receiving orders that, so far, have been determined to be lawful. Therefore, following them is in fact a legal justification. Eichmann's orders were plainly unlawful. The two scenarios are not equivalent.
Sure, but the post you are replying to is still correct. Notice how those trials and judgments are after the fact? During the events "following orders" was reality. You can try to hide from it, you can wish it weren't true, but that's how the world works. Look at your own post; rather than reason it out, you appealed to the authority of the court, via the authority of Wikipedia. The TSA agent is appealing to the authority of his trainers and supervisors. You're actually using the same processes to justify your stances. Who's right and who's wrong is not the question; the question is who has the power to make their rationalized position dominant? While you're in the situation, keeping this in mind will keep you from losing arguments. In an academic setting like a courtroom, yes you can reach sensible conclusions. But in an airport? Their way is the right way, because they have all the power there; if you don't like it then you have to change their source of authority.
What questions were asked to reach this conclusion? Does Gartner administer essay question-style surveys? Because I don't see how the data we have fits that interpretation, necessarily.
CEOs say their companies will grow, and that the CIO won't get more important. Couldn't that be because the CIO's role, as King of IT, is already as important as it can be? I also don't see where CEOs were asked anything about their CIO's business savvy.
Large planes have more than one pilot. In this case, the pilot was fully awake and never slept. The first officer is the one who was sleeping, woke up, and thought the other plane was coming at him (he wasn't dodging Venus.) You should read the report; it's in plain English, explains the situation a lot better than the sensationalized summary attempts to do, and it is interesting to see the relevant regulations (for example, his sleeping was not against the rules, but he did sleep for too long.)
Saying that the US has no space program may be premature, but it's not ridiculous. Problem is this: the space shuttle was a very public symbol of the space program, and it was one of the few that NASA had available. By retiring it and not replacing it with something that is less of a "white elephant and a money pit," you leave the impression that progress is not being made; quite the opposite, in fact! Those people whose opinions you are ignoring have a lot of influence over the space budget. NASA may be doing more, but they're doing it with less and this is exactly why.
If the space program doesn't see itself as endangered, then it is in a perilous form of denial.
Isn't this asking the wrong question, though? Casualties are how you lose a war. The correct question, unanswered in your graph, is who caused all those casualties for the Axis. My guess at the leader would be Russia, actually, but the Americans killed a fair few too, especially in the Pacific.
I reiterate that we already had Hussein doing absolutely nothing except what we chose to allow. We didn't drag him out of his spider hole; we shot him in his cage. It proved nothing, except perhaps that living under the close supervision of the US military makes you an easier target. This is not a deterrent, because the people opposing us are not doing so because it is easy. Many of them aren't even particularly interested in living through the encounter; the idea that you can deter those people with violence requires a special kind of naivete.
I don't even know what you're talking about regarding the removal of a need for a standing army. Iraq barely had one to begin with, but still needs whatever they can muster. We have not removed the need for troops in the area ourselves, and there is/was no reason to think that an invasion would have that result. Neighboring nations kept theirs intact. The whole reason we're still there is because there is no standing army, the need would seem to be as great as ever.
I find it specious (and a bit insulting) to give credit for the Arab Spring to the invasion of Iraq, and do not see your basis for assuming that it had any effect in Iraq where, you may note, it did not actually occur.
Wait, what? I was with you right until the end. Iraq was already incapable of resisting our political will. We had occupied most of its airspace for a decade; its military was still in ruins from the previous invasion. We gained nothing.
Isn't your line arbitrary? Those police officers were paid and trained by the citizenry, who knew this was going on and did nothing to stop it, so how are they not also culpable? The mayor, who in most places has a great deal of authority over the police department, is directly elected; how is the mayor not culpable, and therefore the voters? We're all in this together.
I don't know anything about city budgets, but I suspect that the taxpayers are not being punished because the fine comes out of the police department's budget, which in a large city probably has a line item for just this sort of thing. The taxpayers were paying that money no matter what... the difference is that it didn't stay within the police department. Isn't that exactly what you are asking for?
Running a sovereign nation-state is very expensive. I am not so sure it has ever been very easy to distinguish between government and business, except at the most superficial level.
How would we achieve disintermediation? Someone, somewhere will have to maintain the master record of how much money you have to transfer in the first place; Americans aren't going to trust the government to do it, so the banks seem the obvious answer.
Auditing works exactly the same either way. Actually it is much easier to audit digital funds.
My point is that far more money exists in U.S. dollars right now than the value of all the printed bills and minted coins combined, which means the dollar is already partially digital, no more real than bitcoins. It is tied to nothing physical, so its value is already somewhat arbitrary. I do not see how taking it digital would change very much for the banks.
Banks already live in a world of digital money. All that trading in stocks and bonds and even currencies? No physical money changes hands in those transactions; it's just numbers in databases. If banks are against this, then I have to believe they haven't been presented with a very good system; clearly they aren't against the very idea.
This defense falls down when the staff of a journalistic organization asks you whether it's the literal truth, and you say, "yes." When you follow that up by telling them that you lost the talking duck's number, it shows that you know exactly what you're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely you do not expect that a CEO will be held to account?
Wait. Triple the average number of threats per infected site doesn't mean that you're more likely to get a virus by visiting one of those sites; it means that you're more likely to get multiple infections from a site that is infected, but that is not the same thing at all. You might get a similar result if 99% of all religious sites were safe, but each of the other 1% had every virus and worm in the wild, for example - infections per bad site are extreme, but you'd still be 99% safe visiting those kinds of sites.
Combine that with the fact that this isn't even a category in the top 10, and this whole story feels made up to me.
Actually that is not true for non-modded Oblivion. The main quest has level requirements.
To be fair, he didn't say it would be remotely accurate; only quicker.
Maybe he works for a news organization.
I wondered this too, especially given that the disorientation upon waking is clearly something the airline is aware of and concerned about. He was awake long enough to have a brief conversation with the Captain, though; maybe he activated them himself.
They don't mention this. I assume that he's either supposed to set an alarm, or the Captain was supposed to wake him. The report does mention that the First Officer wasn't feeling well when he went to sleep, so maybe the Captain let him sleep in?
SpaceX is a for-profit enterprise and in no way represents the United States of America. That would make them a space program, but the US space program. A business isn't doing things on behalf of anyone other than their shareholders; the US space program would be working on behalf (and at the behest of) all taxpaying Americans. I do not see how you can claim those are equivalent.
Haven't flown since around 2002. I know others who have also stopped flying. I don't think the industry has noticed at all; I'm sure they blame any decline in profits or failure to meet projected profits on government regulation and taxes.
No simple answer is always right, and here yours is wrong. There are lawful orders, and unlawful orders. The TSA is receiving orders that, so far, have been determined to be lawful. Therefore, following them is in fact a legal justification. Eichmann's orders were plainly unlawful. The two scenarios are not equivalent.
Sure, but the post you are replying to is still correct. Notice how those trials and judgments are after the fact? During the events "following orders" was reality. You can try to hide from it, you can wish it weren't true, but that's how the world works. Look at your own post; rather than reason it out, you appealed to the authority of the court, via the authority of Wikipedia. The TSA agent is appealing to the authority of his trainers and supervisors. You're actually using the same processes to justify your stances. Who's right and who's wrong is not the question; the question is who has the power to make their rationalized position dominant? While you're in the situation, keeping this in mind will keep you from losing arguments. In an academic setting like a courtroom, yes you can reach sensible conclusions. But in an airport? Their way is the right way, because they have all the power there; if you don't like it then you have to change their source of authority.
What questions were asked to reach this conclusion? Does Gartner administer essay question-style surveys? Because I don't see how the data we have fits that interpretation, necessarily.
CEOs say their companies will grow, and that the CIO won't get more important. Couldn't that be because the CIO's role, as King of IT, is already as important as it can be? I also don't see where CEOs were asked anything about their CIO's business savvy.
It seems completely made up. What am I missing?
Large planes have more than one pilot. In this case, the pilot was fully awake and never slept. The first officer is the one who was sleeping, woke up, and thought the other plane was coming at him (he wasn't dodging Venus.) You should read the report; it's in plain English, explains the situation a lot better than the sensationalized summary attempts to do, and it is interesting to see the relevant regulations (for example, his sleeping was not against the rules, but he did sleep for too long.)
Saying that the US has no space program may be premature, but it's not ridiculous. Problem is this: the space shuttle was a very public symbol of the space program, and it was one of the few that NASA had available. By retiring it and not replacing it with something that is less of a "white elephant and a money pit," you leave the impression that progress is not being made; quite the opposite, in fact! Those people whose opinions you are ignoring have a lot of influence over the space budget. NASA may be doing more, but they're doing it with less and this is exactly why.
If the space program doesn't see itself as endangered, then it is in a perilous form of denial.
Facebook is part of the Internet.
Isn't this asking the wrong question, though? Casualties are how you lose a war. The correct question, unanswered in your graph, is who caused all those casualties for the Axis. My guess at the leader would be Russia, actually, but the Americans killed a fair few too, especially in the Pacific.
Then what's the problem with joining FaceBook? They would gather nothing useful and you would gain access to whatever is there.
Just seems like you went to all the trouble to invent an invisibility cloak, then refuse to go outside with it.
None of that makes any sense.
I reiterate that we already had Hussein doing absolutely nothing except what we chose to allow. We didn't drag him out of his spider hole; we shot him in his cage. It proved nothing, except perhaps that living under the close supervision of the US military makes you an easier target. This is not a deterrent, because the people opposing us are not doing so because it is easy. Many of them aren't even particularly interested in living through the encounter; the idea that you can deter those people with violence requires a special kind of naivete.
I don't even know what you're talking about regarding the removal of a need for a standing army. Iraq barely had one to begin with, but still needs whatever they can muster. We have not removed the need for troops in the area ourselves, and there is/was no reason to think that an invasion would have that result. Neighboring nations kept theirs intact. The whole reason we're still there is because there is no standing army, the need would seem to be as great as ever.
I find it specious (and a bit insulting) to give credit for the Arab Spring to the invasion of Iraq, and do not see your basis for assuming that it had any effect in Iraq where, you may note, it did not actually occur.
Can you clarify?
Wait, what? I was with you right until the end. Iraq was already incapable of resisting our political will. We had occupied most of its airspace for a decade; its military was still in ruins from the previous invasion. We gained nothing.
If the world were that simple we wouldn't even have crime.
Isn't your line arbitrary? Those police officers were paid and trained by the citizenry, who knew this was going on and did nothing to stop it, so how are they not also culpable? The mayor, who in most places has a great deal of authority over the police department, is directly elected; how is the mayor not culpable, and therefore the voters? We're all in this together.
I don't know anything about city budgets, but I suspect that the taxpayers are not being punished because the fine comes out of the police department's budget, which in a large city probably has a line item for just this sort of thing. The taxpayers were paying that money no matter what... the difference is that it didn't stay within the police department. Isn't that exactly what you are asking for?
Running a sovereign nation-state is very expensive. I am not so sure it has ever been very easy to distinguish between government and business, except at the most superficial level.
How would we achieve disintermediation? Someone, somewhere will have to maintain the master record of how much money you have to transfer in the first place; Americans aren't going to trust the government to do it, so the banks seem the obvious answer.
Auditing works exactly the same either way. Actually it is much easier to audit digital funds.
My point is that far more money exists in U.S. dollars right now than the value of all the printed bills and minted coins combined, which means the dollar is already partially digital, no more real than bitcoins. It is tied to nothing physical, so its value is already somewhat arbitrary. I do not see how taking it digital would change very much for the banks.
Banks already live in a world of digital money. All that trading in stocks and bonds and even currencies? No physical money changes hands in those transactions; it's just numbers in databases. If banks are against this, then I have to believe they haven't been presented with a very good system; clearly they aren't against the very idea.
This defense falls down when the staff of a journalistic organization asks you whether it's the literal truth, and you say, "yes." When you follow that up by telling them that you lost the talking duck's number, it shows that you know exactly what you're doing.
I wonder how much money he made from this lie.