My own family members have had different experiences with the process, but it's all anecdotal and of course entirely subject to the nature of the jurisdiction and of course the very personalities of the selectors/selectees. No point in playing the 'who's got the better anecdote' game.
Your cherry-picked examples have vanquished me! Clearly this demonstrates that no peon(s) would be singled out to be made an example of for others who might be so bold as reveal state secrets. After all, China has no history of doing things like that.
The higher courts don't have juries because they are not being asked to decide guilt or innocence. That's what a jury does. Higher courts only decide whether the application of the law as written was correct or incorrect (or if the trial itself was flawed, or if the law itself is unconstitutional, etc. but never guilt or innocence).
Considering that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands can't even decide the constitutionality of laws I wouldn't look to them as much of a model for anything.
My a priori experience with Voir Dire is that it eliminates people who have any opinions of anything at all. Consequently juries tend to consist of wishy-washy, apolitical, shallow twits.
And I am still thankful for them vs. the alternatives.
Google is trying to keep its employees and former employees out of prison. You do realize that these requests made by the Chinese government were processed in part by Chinese employees of Google, yes? Well if Google airs all the requests in violation of Chinese law, guess who ends up in pound-you-in-the-ass prison? It's not Larry and Sergey. I'm glad that Google has conscience enough not to throw its current and former Chinese employees under the bus just to make political hay or accomplish a goal, however admirable that goal may be.
Being judged by twelve random people is as close to 'objective' as possible. I can only imagine the systemic biases that would arise from 'professional' juries, or 'expert technical' juries. Would you want a FOSS defendant judged by a jury from MS or Apple? Vice versa? Or as you seem to allude to, a world of bench rulings like the dark ages? Or a world where lawyers bid for the good opinion of a jury comprised of other lawyers? Disgusting. I'm immensely glad to have the right to be judged by average people, not because I harbor any romantic notion of them (they tend to be dolts), but because the alternatives are far worse.
It's supposed to be obvious when your giant MFP has a goddamn HARD DRIVE in it, and I've seen many that do.
Not being able to go from email to file on the same image(s) is just bad interface design that assumes you want to do only one thing with the document. Whether it's still in memory or not depends of course on the design of the MFP's platform. The large memory capacity in terms of both flash and magnetic media is mostly for balancing high resolution input from multiple sources in a network environment.
Hmmm, your UID indicates you've been here for years, and you don't know 'TFS' or 'GP'? Google says that TFS occurs on/. more than 1400 times (and I know from previous Googlings of/. that its index of the site is incomplete). How can you function effectively while being so obtuse to years-old, common/. argot?
This may not be 4chan, but dude, you need to LURK MOAR.
Yes, but getting a working hexacore for the price of a quad would be a coup. However, odds are against winning that lottery. Demand is probably exceeds supply already due to production/release ramp up, so I'm sure that if AMD thinks a hexacore is bad it probably really won't be salvagable.
Yeah, too bad you're either ignorant or lying. Maize silage (which granted is not grain-only, but does contain a lot of corn) is used significantly throughout Europe and Australia/NZ to feed cattle. Articles are hard to come by, but I did find this about maize silage in the UK, this paper about maize silage in Italy, and this paper which mentions maize silage in France and Switzerland.
QED, fool. Did you really think the US was the only place on earth that ever put corn into cattle feed? Please.
If we started a concentrated effort today, how soon do you think we'd be ready to colonize anything?
We went from backyard rockets like Goddard's in 1926 to the Moon in 1969. I'd say that if the screws were put to humanity, we could have a diaspora in confines of one or two generations.
...it is in our interest to try to keep it the same.
Who is we? What are 'our' interests? There are factions out there calling for an end to the production of meat for food because of the environmental impact of that production. It's in my interest to eat steak now and then. My interests, my priorities are not theirs. I am willing to accept different scenarios than they are, or even most people. That is my prerogative. I think mankind can find happiness even in a world without pandas. I like pandas, but not enough to deny the benefits of development to poor rural Chinese.
It ignores every historical precident[sic].
So which precedents are we talking about here? Maybe the massive climatological warming since the end of the last glacial period (including the holocene climate optimum that was much hotter than current climate norms)? Yeah, that hasn't, you know, enabled all of human civilization or anything. Maybe you're referring to the countless species that have become extinct in the same period of time, including major sources of food for early humans like mammoths, which ultimately have had no discernible effect on humanity's meteoric rise? Maybe you're referring to the medieval warm period that enabled an increase of the agricultural output of Europe and the cultivation of crops at latitudes previously impossible? Aside from the desertification of the Sahara (which may have been catalytic in motivating human migration to other regions, another 'negative' event with positive results), I can think of no major changes in the environment in the last interglacial that have had a demonstrably negative impact on any sizable human population.
Naturally, it's obvious I'm ignoring what you wrote, I probably quoted you accidentally while I was flailing randomly at my keyboard. The fact that you would make such claims of my behavior in the face of evidence to the contrary indicates that you're a disingenuous twit, so yes, we can consider this interchange wholly closed.
I find it funny that you tell me that I live in denial when you would rather just deny my assertions rather than address them. Psychologists call that 'projection', Sparky. You might want to have that looked at.
People seem to keep ignore the "how long and with how much effort" part. I don't say it's impossible, my point is that it happens slowly, and the results aren't "catastrophic". H1N1 took more than a decade to cross to humans, 'avian flu' took twenty years. Neither one is doing any more damage than 'regular' influenza.
Where CJD is concerned, it's hard to say much about its history, as it was discovered nearly a century ago, and it's not really known how old the disease is in cows. It could be as much or more than 1500 years old. If that were true, it's a better example for my argument than for yours.
In case you hadn't noticed, humanity has thrived "regardless of any extinctions" whether they be "a gazillion years ago" or last week. If anything, the extinctions furthest in humanity's past should have the greatest effect, as that effect would be felt longest. That they have no appreciable effect, and recent extinctions have no appreciable effect, should lead us to see that human development has become quite insulated from the effects of extinctions. In fact, I would issue a challenge to you that I have issued to others in the past, always unanswered:
Find me any sizable human civilization known or reasonably believed to have been destroyed by the extinction of a species.
Good luck, because it hasn't happened. Humans are too adaptable for that.
The genetic value of wild populations is debatable. The selective breeding that happens in captivity results in much faster development of different traits with wider applications. Populations in the wild do interact with more things and have a greater propensity by that interaction for lateral development (viruses messing with genes), but if the size of this population is small, this development is slow, and in any case more random/less guided.
Never forget that disturbing the so-called 'balance' enabled humanity to exist in the first place. Balance is simply a way of describing a given biosphere. It often ignores competing and emerging paradigms since, after all, there are only so many resources in given niches.
There is no evidence that a bronze-producing culture ever existed in North America. Failing to reach even this technological milestone, it is quite a stretch to say that the chance success or failure of the Mound-Builder culture would have been the key to any sort of European equivalent North American civilization.
Fact is, the Aztecs and Inca were formidable engineers, building aquaducts that even the Romans would envy. They did reach at least bronze level of technology before the Columbian period, but that was too little too late, and no civilization in the Western Hemisphere seemed capable of producing something as simple as a locomotive wheel. Basically, only two, maybe three civilizations in the Americas reached an equivalent level of technology with say Greece or Rome. Too bad when they finally managed that, a bunch of guys with guns who were a thousand years more advanced than that showed up.
Ultimately, the Aztecs were conquered by luck, the Incas by intrigue (the conquistadors played local factions against each other, then erased as much of that history as possible to make it seem like they were supermen who did it all by themselves), and the North American natives were conquered by disease and the inherent technological deficiency and scattered, tribal nature of their culture. In some cases, chance could have made things harder for the Europeans than things ultimately were, but the idea that Native Americans anywhere in the hemisphere could have resisted the onslaught of a dozen civilizations all a thousand years more advanced is a ludicrous pipe dream.
Interestingly, my own family is an amalgam of these pasts. I don't deny nor devalue, as many with 'white guilt' do, those events which precipitated the capacity for a bunch of Scandinavians to settle in Washington state, any more than I begrudge Greco-Roman civilization for their crimes while enjoying the fruits of their culture and their knowledge. However, my own wife, and consequently my daughter, is descended from both Cherokee and Choktaw stock AND from African slaves (she is descended in fact from the author of Brighter Sun, Greene Buster, whose book describes his grandfather's transition from slavery to freedom). I am far more cognizant of the positive and negative patchwork of events that make my current reality possible. However, because I like my current reality, I would change none of them.
It remains undeniable that today's pleasures stand on the backs of yesterday's tortures. Tomorrow's pleasures will also. You should find some way of coming to terms with this, as throughout all human history it has never changed.
Yes, but you see people die. As soon as fertility drops below the replacement rate of 2.1, as it has in SIXTY-FOUR countries , you have declining population. If the reduction in fertility continues in most of the other countries, eventually the world population will level off and even decline. The trends all show it, but unfortunately 'everything will be fine' just isn't as sexy and exciting as 'MALTHUSIAN DISASTER WILL DESTROY US ALL! DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, NOW!' So people are frequently unwilling to be disabused of their conclusions.
Humanity has survived and can again survive despite the extinction of a primary food source. We used to eat mammoths you know. That's the cool thing about humans, they can eat just about anything, and this might shock you: we farm things, including fish. Fish farms are not impacted by the separate welfare of wild species.
What a dramatic reading, ironically you cast dispersion on the emotional context of the past while attaching an emotional context to the future. Oh what, because you think we can change it? Ho ho ho, good one.
I want to die in a time of our own choosing
This never happens, except in suicide, is that what you're advocating? You're romanticizing things that don't exist, and you lecture me for simply appreciating the cause/effect relationship of things that did exist?
Go tell your parents you're not thankful for them, that you don't care to remember them, because that's all in the past now. See how that goes over. The past is important in many dimensions, just as much as the future. There is no future without the past.
The point is that extinction events, even the most massive, are not the end of the world, just the beginnings of new paradigms. If I were killed by any kind of electrical discharge, humanity would move on without me. If humanity itself, as unlikely as that is, were to be unable to overcome a resource shortfall (which is extremely unlikely as humans can make use of virtually any resource), life would go on without us too. While some species may be dependent on others, no combination of loss of species has ever been "successful" in ending the totality of life.
Quite the opposite, regardless of the many mass extinctions over geologic time, both the rate of speciation and the total number of species has always increased on the aggregate. Extinctions actually ENABLE speciation by forcing more rapid adaptation.
Slashdot Mirror
My own family members have had different experiences with the process, but it's all anecdotal and of course entirely subject to the nature of the jurisdiction and of course the very personalities of the selectors/selectees. No point in playing the 'who's got the better anecdote' game.
Your cherry-picked examples have vanquished me! Clearly this demonstrates that no peon(s) would be singled out to be made an example of for others who might be so bold as reveal state secrets. After all, China has no history of doing things like that.
(That's all sarcasm, dawg.)
The higher courts don't have juries because they are not being asked to decide guilt or innocence. That's what a jury does. Higher courts only decide whether the application of the law as written was correct or incorrect (or if the trial itself was flawed, or if the law itself is unconstitutional, etc. but never guilt or innocence).
Considering that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands can't even decide the constitutionality of laws I wouldn't look to them as much of a model for anything.
My a priori experience with Voir Dire is that it eliminates people who have any opinions of anything at all. Consequently juries tend to consist of wishy-washy, apolitical, shallow twits.
And I am still thankful for them vs. the alternatives.
Google is trying to keep its employees and former employees out of prison. You do realize that these requests made by the Chinese government were processed in part by Chinese employees of Google, yes? Well if Google airs all the requests in violation of Chinese law, guess who ends up in pound-you-in-the-ass prison? It's not Larry and Sergey. I'm glad that Google has conscience enough not to throw its current and former Chinese employees under the bus just to make political hay or accomplish a goal, however admirable that goal may be.
It's funny that you think you're safe because of policy. As another has already said better, so did he.
Oh, but that won't happen to anybody else, right?
Being judged by twelve random people is as close to 'objective' as possible. I can only imagine the systemic biases that would arise from 'professional' juries, or 'expert technical' juries. Would you want a FOSS defendant judged by a jury from MS or Apple? Vice versa? Or as you seem to allude to, a world of bench rulings like the dark ages? Or a world where lawyers bid for the good opinion of a jury comprised of other lawyers? Disgusting. I'm immensely glad to have the right to be judged by average people, not because I harbor any romantic notion of them (they tend to be dolts), but because the alternatives are far worse.
It's supposed to be obvious when your giant MFP has a goddamn HARD DRIVE in it, and I've seen many that do.
Not being able to go from email to file on the same image(s) is just bad interface design that assumes you want to do only one thing with the document. Whether it's still in memory or not depends of course on the design of the MFP's platform. The large memory capacity in terms of both flash and magnetic media is mostly for balancing high resolution input from multiple sources in a network environment.
Hmmm, your UID indicates you've been here for years, and you don't know 'TFS' or 'GP'? Google says that TFS occurs on /. more than 1400 times (and I know from previous Googlings of /. that its index of the site is incomplete). How can you function effectively while being so obtuse to years-old, common /. argot?
This may not be 4chan, but dude, you need to LURK MOAR.
Yes, but getting a working hexacore for the price of a quad would be a coup. However, odds are against winning that lottery. Demand is probably exceeds supply already due to production/release ramp up, so I'm sure that if AMD thinks a hexacore is bad it probably really won't be salvagable.
only in the US
Yeah, too bad you're either ignorant or lying. Maize silage (which granted is not grain-only, but does contain a lot of corn) is used significantly throughout Europe and Australia/NZ to feed cattle. Articles are hard to come by, but I did find this about maize silage in the UK, this paper about maize silage in Italy, and this paper which mentions maize silage in France and Switzerland.
QED, fool. Did you really think the US was the only place on earth that ever put corn into cattle feed? Please.
Actually, I support ending all agricultural subsidies, but I don't lose any sleep over it.
Many cows are fed corn. Get over it.
American beer is like making love in a canoe.
A woman, eh? Well, why didn't you say so! In that case...
...niiiicccccce...
If we started a concentrated effort today, how soon do you think we'd be ready to colonize anything?
We went from backyard rockets like Goddard's in 1926 to the Moon in 1969. I'd say that if the screws were put to humanity, we could have a diaspora in confines of one or two generations.
...it is in our interest to try to keep it the same.
Who is we? What are 'our' interests? There are factions out there calling for an end to the production of meat for food because of the environmental impact of that production. It's in my interest to eat steak now and then. My interests, my priorities are not theirs. I am willing to accept different scenarios than they are, or even most people. That is my prerogative. I think mankind can find happiness even in a world without pandas. I like pandas, but not enough to deny the benefits of development to poor rural Chinese.
It ignores every historical precident[sic].
So which precedents are we talking about here? Maybe the massive climatological warming since the end of the last glacial period (including the holocene climate optimum that was much hotter than current climate norms)? Yeah, that hasn't, you know, enabled all of human civilization or anything. Maybe you're referring to the countless species that have become extinct in the same period of time, including major sources of food for early humans like mammoths, which ultimately have had no discernible effect on humanity's meteoric rise? Maybe you're referring to the medieval warm period that enabled an increase of the agricultural output of Europe and the cultivation of crops at latitudes previously impossible? Aside from the desertification of the Sahara (which may have been catalytic in motivating human migration to other regions, another 'negative' event with positive results), I can think of no major changes in the environment in the last interglacial that have had a demonstrably negative impact on any sizable human population.
Naturally, it's obvious I'm ignoring what you wrote, I probably quoted you accidentally while I was flailing randomly at my keyboard. The fact that you would make such claims of my behavior in the face of evidence to the contrary indicates that you're a disingenuous twit, so yes, we can consider this interchange wholly closed.
I find it funny that you tell me that I live in denial when you would rather just deny my assertions rather than address them. Psychologists call that 'projection', Sparky. You might want to have that looked at.
People seem to keep ignore the "how long and with how much effort" part. I don't say it's impossible, my point is that it happens slowly, and the results aren't "catastrophic". H1N1 took more than a decade to cross to humans, 'avian flu' took twenty years. Neither one is doing any more damage than 'regular' influenza.
Where CJD is concerned, it's hard to say much about its history, as it was discovered nearly a century ago, and it's not really known how old the disease is in cows. It could be as much or more than 1500 years old. If that were true, it's a better example for my argument than for yours.
In case you hadn't noticed, humanity has thrived "regardless of any extinctions" whether they be "a gazillion years ago" or last week. If anything, the extinctions furthest in humanity's past should have the greatest effect, as that effect would be felt longest. That they have no appreciable effect, and recent extinctions have no appreciable effect, should lead us to see that human development has become quite insulated from the effects of extinctions. In fact, I would issue a challenge to you that I have issued to others in the past, always unanswered:
Find me any sizable human civilization known or reasonably believed to have been destroyed by the extinction of a species.
Good luck, because it hasn't happened. Humans are too adaptable for that.
The genetic value of wild populations is debatable. The selective breeding that happens in captivity results in much faster development of different traits with wider applications. Populations in the wild do interact with more things and have a greater propensity by that interaction for lateral development (viruses messing with genes), but if the size of this population is small, this development is slow, and in any case more random/less guided.
Never forget that disturbing the so-called 'balance' enabled humanity to exist in the first place. Balance is simply a way of describing a given biosphere. It often ignores competing and emerging paradigms since, after all, there are only so many resources in given niches.
There is no evidence that a bronze-producing culture ever existed in North America. Failing to reach even this technological milestone, it is quite a stretch to say that the chance success or failure of the Mound-Builder culture would have been the key to any sort of European equivalent North American civilization.
Fact is, the Aztecs and Inca were formidable engineers, building aquaducts that even the Romans would envy. They did reach at least bronze level of technology before the Columbian period, but that was too little too late, and no civilization in the Western Hemisphere seemed capable of producing something as simple as a locomotive wheel. Basically, only two, maybe three civilizations in the Americas reached an equivalent level of technology with say Greece or Rome. Too bad when they finally managed that, a bunch of guys with guns who were a thousand years more advanced than that showed up.
Ultimately, the Aztecs were conquered by luck, the Incas by intrigue (the conquistadors played local factions against each other, then erased as much of that history as possible to make it seem like they were supermen who did it all by themselves), and the North American natives were conquered by disease and the inherent technological deficiency and scattered, tribal nature of their culture. In some cases, chance could have made things harder for the Europeans than things ultimately were, but the idea that Native Americans anywhere in the hemisphere could have resisted the onslaught of a dozen civilizations all a thousand years more advanced is a ludicrous pipe dream.
Interestingly, my own family is an amalgam of these pasts. I don't deny nor devalue, as many with 'white guilt' do, those events which precipitated the capacity for a bunch of Scandinavians to settle in Washington state, any more than I begrudge Greco-Roman civilization for their crimes while enjoying the fruits of their culture and their knowledge. However, my own wife, and consequently my daughter, is descended from both Cherokee and Choktaw stock AND from African slaves (she is descended in fact from the author of Brighter Sun, Greene Buster, whose book describes his grandfather's transition from slavery to freedom). I am far more cognizant of the positive and negative patchwork of events that make my current reality possible. However, because I like my current reality, I would change none of them.
It remains undeniable that today's pleasures stand on the backs of yesterday's tortures. Tomorrow's pleasures will also. You should find some way of coming to terms with this, as throughout all human history it has never changed.
Yes, but you see people die. As soon as fertility drops below the replacement rate of 2.1, as it has in SIXTY-FOUR countries , you have declining population. If the reduction in fertility continues in most of the other countries, eventually the world population will level off and even decline. The trends all show it, but unfortunately 'everything will be fine' just isn't as sexy and exciting as 'MALTHUSIAN DISASTER WILL DESTROY US ALL! DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, NOW!' So people are frequently unwilling to be disabused of their conclusions.
Humanity has survived and can again survive despite the extinction of a primary food source. We used to eat mammoths you know. That's the cool thing about humans, they can eat just about anything, and this might shock you: we farm things, including fish. Fish farms are not impacted by the separate welfare of wild species.
I want to die in a time of our own choosing
This never happens, except in suicide, is that what you're advocating? You're romanticizing things that don't exist, and you lecture me for simply appreciating the cause/effect relationship of things that did exist?
Go tell your parents you're not thankful for them, that you don't care to remember them, because that's all in the past now. See how that goes over. The past is important in many dimensions, just as much as the future. There is no future without the past.
The point is that extinction events, even the most massive, are not the end of the world, just the beginnings of new paradigms. If I were killed by any kind of electrical discharge, humanity would move on without me. If humanity itself, as unlikely as that is, were to be unable to overcome a resource shortfall (which is extremely unlikely as humans can make use of virtually any resource), life would go on without us too. While some species may be dependent on others, no combination of loss of species has ever been "successful" in ending the totality of life.
Quite the opposite, regardless of the many mass extinctions over geologic time, both the rate of speciation and the total number of species has always increased on the aggregate. Extinctions actually ENABLE speciation by forcing more rapid adaptation.