Personally, I love off-roading on a two-stroke, but I hate driving. The independence part of driving is the ability to go where you want, when you want. I don't see that being inhibited. I suppose one could even get into the driverless vehicle and set it to random for the destination.
The fun of driving I can't speak to; I'm unqualified. But the independence would not be limited except that it will be easy to be traced by authorities, though I'm certain untracability will be lost regardless within the next decade or so. Hmmm... think I'll get that two-stroke running again. Open road? Hah! Who needs roads?
WHY are these bozos spending money on this? Who needs a driver-less car? Personally, I can't think of a single reason. I'm certain that all people everywhere will begin paying designated drivers rather than spend that last $20 on 3 more shots of Jager. Besides, these first models won't work perfectly which obviously means they never will. Such pie-in-the-sky endeavors should never even be considered.
This series of blogs has generated a fair amount of discussion on several photography forums, and I would like for the Slashdot community to clarify matters."
The only thing I see the slashdot community making clear is the maximum opacity of the muck it will be necessary to wade through before we are able to define the issues.
Alright, I don't claim enough knowledge of telecommunications to respond to this. It appears to be security through obscurity. I say we try an experiment and offer knowledgeable opinions as to why or why not we should treat tcom differently from other open systems.
Please write clearly as I intend to plagiarize your statements for my thesus:)
If by 'influence power' you mean 'control the democratic process in order to ensure that those who hold power are beholden and malliable thus establishing de-facto contol of the dwindling oil resources,' then I agree wholeheartedly. They most definitely are not trying to steal anything; they just want to ensure their cut.
Reprocessing. The most radioactive stuff that we bury now are the heavy metals which are actually fissile and could be used to produce more energy. The rest of the waste, if processed correctly, would be less radioactive in 30 years than the ore that was originally mined. So in the long run we'd be reducing the amount of radioactive stuff in the ground.
This is even better than my idea. I was going to see if the grandparent had room in his closet. Kidding aside, can we really reprocess it to that low a level of radioactivity at a cost that won't encourage some, or many, to bypass the regulations?
While I'm only mid-forties, I did make a myspace page. Kept it up for about a month. I received numerous invitations from a lot of silly people for odd things. The majority of these were women who wanted me to see their web cams or wanted to be 'reely goodly frends.' The latter came mostly from former Soviet-bloc countries.
I cancelled it, and fortunately hadn't used any real infomation (except my age). So, do the younger guys get the same messages? (I don't want to think about the crap my 17 year old daughter gets.)
I'm of a mind that bureaucracy only functions when the majority find ways to circumvent it. Dumbing down computer usage to the lowest common denominator of mindless users is seen by most as an annoyance to be worked around. Though of course, this leads to the cycle of those finding ways around stricter and stricter policies which slows real work and communication to a crawl.
Some policies make sense. Others... not so much. Reading web mail? Not a big deal. Clicking on the 'You've received a card link?' 'ere's a bonehead for ya.
Just tell Bob the luddite that Thunderbird causes athletes foot.
Why don't you walk into a mosque and proclaim Islam Satan?
Yes. If that mosque is in the United States, I do have that right. What is your point? On private property you may kill me if you don't like something I say? I believe the only thing they have a right to do is ask me to leave. Please explain why you think they may do more than this within the confines of US law.
Thank you for playing. You are absolutely wrong. They can claim the right to search. They can put up signs saying they have a right to search. They still have no legal right to search. Private property does not nullify one's rights. Where on earth did you get that silly idea?
Exactly. If they see a person stealing, stuffing something into their bag, pants, socks etc... they have a reason to search you and follow up with a citizens arrest. The reason stores have begun searching the bags on the way out is to be sure their employee (the cashier) is not a friend (or taking a kickback) to help you steal the item. This is the stores problem and the solution is not to pretend they have the right to search and detain you. They have the onus of proving you have stolen something. You are not required to prove that you did not. By that logic, they could ask for proof of purchase of any item on your person (assuming the store actually carries said item).
I personally will not shop anywhere where the policy is to search customers on the way out. It's not my responsibility to help them manage their own employees. I'm not a cow and have no intention of giving an inch where constitutional rights are concened.
I am wondering if this information may or may not discount the theory the Homosapians and Neanderthalls in Europe may have cross breaded?
Actually this was my thought and might explain the thicker brows of those in colder climates. It may not be so much a development in response to the climate as a trait inherited from our Neanderthal brethren. Of course this assumes cross breeding is even possible.
<joke type=bad>Or if the Neaderthals could make a decent Panillo</joke>.
That sure sounds impressive. How much did he cut it, and how prescisely did the employess benefit thereby?
Article states he cut his salary to $1. Since CEOs make the majority of their money from other sources (especially those who found the company and have an enormous share of the stock), I'm guessing he cut his pay by 2 or 3 percent. Might be as much as 20 or 30 percent if the company had a bad year, though bad years rarely affect the execs compensation.
I'm sure his total compensation is in a report somewhere.
Yes and someone who profits from selling gold is ALREADY required to pay income taxes in accordance with the laws in their jurisdiction. Nobody is concerned about that.
That about covers it. If tax agencies want more monitoring of this, it will suck for the publisher, but until real money changes hands, there is nothing to tax. If such insanity (taxing in-game gold and items) actually manages to become a law? I never thought I'd have these toons forever. It all gets deleted and I take up another hobby. But I seriously think this is unlikely. Games are a big enough industry to afford lobbyists who can whisper "this will hurt our bottom line," in the right ears.
for "trotting out the same old Ayn Rand quote whether it's applicable or not"
I would submit the quote was entirely appropriate. There may not be total authoritarianism yet but, there is the concept of the slippery slope, a concept that has been misused to protect true evil (e.g. paedophiles) but still remains valid.
This is in response to All of the Above rather than the direct parent comment.
In this book, they "killed" Montag at the end of the book by finding a random guy walking down the street and shooting him while the live cameras proclaimed that the "dangerous criminal" has been taken off the streets by the ever-vigilant government.
Simple smoke and mirror style politics. We need X number of criminals to justify actions A, B and C.
Obviously this does not apply to an Air Marshall who gets drunk and falls asleep on the plane but is the guy on the De Moines to Bend Oregon run going to find as many suspicious people as the guy on the NY to Boston run?
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I love off-roading on a two-stroke, but I hate driving. The independence part of driving is the ability to go where you want, when you want. I don't see that being inhibited. I suppose one could even get into the driverless vehicle and set it to random for the destination.
The fun of driving I can't speak to; I'm unqualified. But the independence would not be limited except that it will be easy to be traced by authorities, though I'm certain untracability will be lost regardless within the next decade or so. Hmmm... think I'll get that two-stroke running again. Open road? Hah! Who needs roads?
WHY are these bozos spending money on this? Who needs a driver-less car?
Personally, I can't think of a single reason. I'm certain that all people everywhere will begin paying designated drivers rather than spend that last $20 on 3 more shots of Jager. Besides, these first models won't work perfectly which obviously means they never will. Such pie-in-the-sky endeavors should never even be considered.
This series of blogs has generated a fair amount of discussion on several photography forums, and I would like for the Slashdot community to clarify matters."
The only thing I see the slashdot community making clear is the maximum opacity of the muck it will be necessary to wade through before we are able to define the issues.
Possession is 9 tenths of the law, right?
Nope. It gets repeated often enough, but has no basis in law. It's right up there with "cops gotta tell you they're a cop if you ask them directly."
Though I suppose being in possession of stolen goods...
I say sorry. Reconciliation rocks.
Alright, I don't claim enough knowledge of telecommunications to respond to this. It appears to be security through obscurity. I say we try an experiment and offer knowledgeable opinions as to why or why not we should treat tcom differently from other open systems.
:)
Please write clearly as I intend to plagiarize your statements for my thesus
Darwin also knocks off the aberrants who are unable to fit into the herd.
Well, I do have hairy legs, but I'm a celiac and stick mostly to meat and potatoes.
If by 'influence power' you mean 'control the democratic process in order to ensure that those who hold power are beholden and malliable thus establishing de-facto contol of the dwindling oil resources,' then I agree wholeheartedly. They most definitely are not trying to steal anything; they just want to ensure their cut.
Reprocessing. The most radioactive stuff that we bury now are the heavy metals which are actually fissile and could be used to produce more energy. The rest of the waste, if processed correctly, would be less radioactive in 30 years than the ore that was originally mined. So in the long run we'd be reducing the amount of radioactive stuff in the ground.
This is even better than my idea. I was going to see if the grandparent had room in his closet.
Kidding aside, can we really reprocess it to that low a level of radioactivity at a cost that won't encourage some, or many, to bypass the regulations?
While I'm only mid-forties, I did make a myspace page. Kept it up for about a month. I received numerous invitations from a lot of silly people for odd things. The majority of these were women who wanted me to see their web cams or wanted to be 'reely goodly frends.' The latter came mostly from former Soviet-bloc countries.
I cancelled it, and fortunately hadn't used any real infomation (except my age). So, do the younger guys get the same messages? (I don't want to think about the crap my 17 year old daughter gets.)
I'm of a mind that bureaucracy only functions when the majority find ways to circumvent it. Dumbing down computer usage to the lowest common denominator of mindless users is seen by most as an annoyance to be worked around. Though of course, this leads to the cycle of those finding ways around stricter and stricter policies which slows real work and communication to a crawl.
Some policies make sense. Others... not so much. Reading web mail? Not a big deal. Clicking on the 'You've received a card link?' 'ere's a bonehead for ya.
Just tell Bob the luddite that Thunderbird causes athletes foot.
Why don't you walk into a mosque and proclaim Islam Satan?
Yes. If that mosque is in the United States, I do have that right. What is your point? On private property you may kill me if you don't like something I say? I believe the only thing they have a right to do is ask me to leave. Please explain why you think they may do more than this within the confines of US law.
Thank you for playing. You are absolutely wrong. They can claim the right to search. They can put up signs saying they have a right to search. They still have no legal right to search. Private property does not nullify one's rights. Where on earth did you get that silly idea?
you shouldn't have to show your receipt
Exactly. If they see a person stealing, stuffing something into their bag, pants, socks etc... they have a reason to search you and follow up with a citizens arrest. The reason stores have begun searching the bags on the way out is to be sure their employee (the cashier) is not a friend (or taking a kickback) to help you steal the item. This is the stores problem and the solution is not to pretend they have the right to search and detain you. They have the onus of proving you have stolen something. You are not required to prove that you did not. By that logic, they could ask for proof of purchase of any item on your person (assuming the store actually carries said item).
I personally will not shop anywhere where the policy is to search customers on the way out. It's not my responsibility to help them manage their own employees. I'm not a cow and have no intention of giving an inch where constitutional rights are concened.
That's like so last week. That is, weak.
- 20070728.html
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert
All sports... or rather, s****ts
I get it! cuz they're nazi's. 'at's a rich un, shore 'nuff...
Actually this was my thought and might explain the thicker brows of those in colder climates. It may not be so much a development in response to the climate as a trait inherited from our Neanderthal brethren. Of course this assumes cross breeding is even possible.
That sure sounds impressive. How much did he cut it, and how prescisely did the employess benefit thereby?
Article states he cut his salary to $1. Since CEOs make the majority of their money from other sources (especially those who found the company and have an enormous share of the stock), I'm guessing he cut his pay by 2 or 3 percent. Might be as much as 20 or 30 percent if the company had a bad year, though bad years rarely affect the execs compensation.
I'm sure his total compensation is in a report somewhere.
I knew damn well 'Project Sluts' wouldn't be what I hoped, and went and read the article anyway. Damn tease sucked me in without any follow through...
I was kinda hoping for something like the cute dev who gave many of us lap dances at an office party before the bubble burst in 2000.
Yes and someone who profits from selling gold is ALREADY required to pay income taxes in accordance with the laws in their jurisdiction. Nobody is concerned about that.
That about covers it. If tax agencies want more monitoring of this, it will suck for the publisher, but until real money changes hands, there is nothing to tax. If such insanity (taxing in-game gold and items) actually manages to become a law? I never thought I'd have these toons forever. It all gets deleted and I take up another hobby. But I seriously think this is unlikely. Games are a big enough industry to afford lobbyists who can whisper "this will hurt our bottom line," in the right ears.
Don't give the slimeware merchants ideas. It's treasonous! You're letting the terrorists win!
for "trotting out the same old Ayn Rand quote whether it's applicable or not"
I would submit the quote was entirely appropriate. There may not be total authoritarianism yet but, there is the concept of the slippery slope, a concept that has been misused to protect true evil (e.g. paedophiles) but still remains valid.
This is in response to All of the Above rather than the direct parent comment.
In this book, they "killed" Montag at the end of the book by finding a random guy walking down the street and shooting him while the live cameras proclaimed that the "dangerous criminal" has been taken off the streets by the ever-vigilant government.
Simple smoke and mirror style politics. We need X number of criminals to justify actions A, B and C.
Obviously this does not apply to an Air Marshall who gets drunk and falls asleep on the plane but is the guy on the De Moines to Bend Oregon run going to find as many suspicious people as the guy on the NY to Boston run?