Do you want to foot the bill for massive army of personnel and equipment required to hunt for signals in the tens of thousands square miles covered by TWDR systems?
And before you say it... no, waiting for hundreds of people to die in a plane crash because interference prevented a TWDR system from detecting wind shear conditions is NOT an acceptable solution.
You're asking for specific criteria for telling whether someone is trying to lie to you. The moment you make a list like that, liars adapt and find new ways to tell lies.
Noisy assholes who disturb the theater have been around since the invention of theater. If you want to blame anyone for making it worse, blame the inventors of the cell phone and the cell phone screen backlight.
Any politician who agrees with this should have a pacemaker implanted that depends on instantaneous communication with a remote server through a Comcast connection.
Here's the actual request from the letter sent to Maine:
publicly available voter roll data for Maine, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.
You can interpret the phrase "voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward" two ways... a history of which elections you voted in or a history of what your votes were in the elections you voted in.
Yes, we know which one it SHOULD be interpreted as and states aren't supposed to keep a record of what your votes were, but the government wasn't supposed to gathering massive amounts of telephone records either and then we found out that they were. We have no proof that the data isn't being retained by someone.
Aside from that, the problem is that this fishing expedition, which has been triggered by Trump's inability to accept that he lost the popular vote, will create a database with no rules for who can access it and use the information in it. At the very least, it would be the wet dream of every politician who wants to engage in gerrymandering.
Upload your stuff to YouTube and get money. File lawsuits saying that it's not enough money. If you win the suit, you get more money. If you don't win, you still get the money you originally had.
The only risk of loss is the legal fees involved and those are minimal compared to the potential benefit, so the gamble makes complete sense as long as you leave ethics out of the equation (and when has the RIAA ever had those?).
"Yanâ(TM)s wife worked as an associate at the international firm Linklaters, which is based in London. Linklaters was working on acquisition deals involving the two companies Yan profited from"
He made $120,000 by trading on firms that were involved in acquisitions that his wife was handling. And then he searched for ways to get away with insider trading.
What part of that doesn't look like a goddamn crime to you?
Studies build on earlier studies. That's how science progresses. The induced cannibalism in the caterpillars is the new discovery in this case.
If you weren't in such a hurry to dismiss the article as unworthy, you might have noticed your link doesn't mention anything about induced cannibalism.
The music corporations see it as a problem because they want everyone to pay them a fee every time a song is played, heard, recorded or experienced in any other way. If they could scan your brain and catch you remembering a song, they'd want a payment.
The rule, which would have gone into effect on the 17th, is delayed until March. During the delay, the Trump administration is expected to propose rescinding it, but they haven't submitted that proposal yet. The title, which is the title of the linked article, summarizes the situation properly. Why would they change it?
The part of the article that mentions people losing visas is inaccurate because nobody has gotten a visa under a rule that isn't in effect, but that part of the article wasn't included in the summary or the title, so you can't really blame the/. editor for that.
Exactly none of that changes the fact that the summary and title are taken directly from the linked article. mssmash did not write any of it. Any fault in the article lies with the author of the article, not the/. editor who quoted it.
The summary is quoting the first three paragraphs of the linked article. Anything you see wrong in it is the fault of the author of the article, not the/. editor who posted the quote as-is (which is the proper way to quote something).
Dude is trying to care about other people, but he's so absorbed in his narcissism that he thinks the danger of being distracted by a cell phone he helped create is somehow equivalent to the danger of nuclear arms.
I guess his heart is kinda in the right place, but it seems he's completely out of touch with the real dangers that exist in the world. Maybe if he volunteered with Peace Corps or Red Cross or one of the other organizations that helps people who are actually facing real problems beyond "I'm too busy playing candy crush to make friends", he'd be less angsty about his contributions to technology.
Come on media, print what he says, not what others think he his thinking is like.
Perhaps if he stopped whining about talk show's being mean to him and continually lying about winning the popular vote, printing what he says would be worthwhile.
The summary title is the title of the c:net article. Are you suggesting that slashdot editors should randomly reword things as they see fit rather than actually quoting the articles they link?
Until somebody shows that the denial was based on Trump's "travel ban" why are we mentioning it?
Maybe to head off the inevitable deluge of comments about it being because of Trump's ban if it wasn't mentioned?
There are still quite a few from people who didn't read the summary before replying, but it would probably be worse without the disclaimer being there.
Go do a little more web browsing. There are terrifying handjob robots, a blowjob robot with hair, any number of dildo-carrying thrusting robots, etc. There's entire website devoted to sex with machines for god sake.
None of them are particularly appealing, but they're robots.
You might be thinking of true artificial intelligence, which we don't have yet and probably won't for quite some time. Robot != artificial intelligence, as demonstrated by the ample use of robots in factories to assemble electronics, cars and practically every other consumer good on the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you want to foot the bill for massive army of personnel and equipment required to hunt for signals in the tens of thousands square miles covered by TWDR systems?
And before you say it... no, waiting for hundreds of people to die in a plane crash because interference prevented a TWDR system from detecting wind shear conditions is NOT an acceptable solution.
They hired the guys who planned the Fyre Festival.
There are predatory journals for every branch of science. They'll all print literally anything and call it peer-reviewed for a fee
You're asking for specific criteria for telling whether someone is trying to lie to you. The moment you make a list like that, liars adapt and find new ways to tell lies.
At best, you can list the characteristics to look for, and you can find a list of those on Wikipedia.
Noisy assholes who disturb the theater have been around since the invention of theater. If you want to blame anyone for making it worse, blame the inventors of the cell phone and the cell phone screen backlight.
This is a ridiculous argument. The number of words in a document does not indicate how comprehensible that document is.
Any politician who agrees with this should have a pacemaker implanted that depends on instantaneous communication with a remote server through a Comcast connection.
Here's the actual request from the letter sent to Maine:
publicly available voter roll data for Maine, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.
You can interpret the phrase "voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward" two ways... a history of which elections you voted in or a history of what your votes were in the elections you voted in.
Yes, we know which one it SHOULD be interpreted as and states aren't supposed to keep a record of what your votes were, but the government wasn't supposed to gathering massive amounts of telephone records either and then we found out that they were. We have no proof that the data isn't being retained by someone.
Aside from that, the problem is that this fishing expedition, which has been triggered by Trump's inability to accept that he lost the popular vote, will create a database with no rules for who can access it and use the information in it. At the very least, it would be the wet dream of every politician who wants to engage in gerrymandering.
It makes a certain financial sense.
Upload your stuff to YouTube and get money. File lawsuits saying that it's not enough money. If you win the suit, you get more money. If you don't win, you still get the money you originally had.
The only risk of loss is the legal fees involved and those are minimal compared to the potential benefit, so the gamble makes complete sense as long as you leave ethics out of the equation (and when has the RIAA ever had those?).
"Yanâ(TM)s wife worked as an associate at the international firm Linklaters, which is based in London. Linklaters was working on acquisition deals involving the two companies Yan profited from"
He made $120,000 by trading on firms that were involved in acquisitions that his wife was handling. And then he searched for ways to get away with insider trading.
What part of that doesn't look like a goddamn crime to you?
Studies build on earlier studies. That's how science progresses. The induced cannibalism in the caterpillars is the new discovery in this case.
If you weren't in such a hurry to dismiss the article as unworthy, you might have noticed your link doesn't mention anything about induced cannibalism.
It's marginal. Here's an article with a bit more detail
So yeah, Mr. $251k owes $22.50.
The music corporations see it as a problem because they want everyone to pay them a fee every time a song is played, heard, recorded or experienced in any other way. If they could scan your brain and catch you remembering a song, they'd want a payment.
What part of the title do you feel is inaccurate?
The rule, which would have gone into effect on the 17th, is delayed until March. During the delay, the Trump administration is expected to propose rescinding it, but they haven't submitted that proposal yet. The title, which is the title of the linked article, summarizes the situation properly. Why would they change it?
The part of the article that mentions people losing visas is inaccurate because nobody has gotten a visa under a rule that isn't in effect, but that part of the article wasn't included in the summary or the title, so you can't really blame the /. editor for that.
Exactly none of that changes the fact that the summary and title are taken directly from the linked article. mssmash did not write any of it. Any fault in the article lies with the author of the article, not the /. editor who quoted it.
Not all federal legislation is intended to benefit silicon valley and startups do exist in other places.
The summary is quoting the first three paragraphs of the linked article. Anything you see wrong in it is the fault of the author of the article, not the /. editor who posted the quote as-is (which is the proper way to quote something).
Dude is trying to care about other people, but he's so absorbed in his narcissism that he thinks the danger of being distracted by a cell phone he helped create is somehow equivalent to the danger of nuclear arms.
I guess his heart is kinda in the right place, but it seems he's completely out of touch with the real dangers that exist in the world. Maybe if he volunteered with Peace Corps or Red Cross or one of the other organizations that helps people who are actually facing real problems beyond "I'm too busy playing candy crush to make friends", he'd be less angsty about his contributions to technology.
Yes, but balances died a few elections back.
Come on media, print what he says, not what others think he his thinking is like.
Perhaps if he stopped whining about talk show's being mean to him and continually lying about winning the popular vote, printing what he says would be worthwhile.
The summary title is the title of the c:net article. Are you suggesting that slashdot editors should randomly reword things as they see fit rather than actually quoting the articles they link?
People who don't understand that a refrigerator sized satellite won't blow apart or make large changes to the orbit of a 527 billion kg asteroid.
Until somebody shows that the denial was based on Trump's "travel ban" why are we mentioning it?
Maybe to head off the inevitable deluge of comments about it being because of Trump's ban if it wasn't mentioned?
There are still quite a few from people who didn't read the summary before replying, but it would probably be worse without the disclaimer being there.
Go do a little more web browsing. There are terrifying handjob robots, a blowjob robot with hair, any number of dildo-carrying thrusting robots, etc. There's entire website devoted to sex with machines for god sake.
None of them are particularly appealing, but they're robots.
Sex robots do not exist, and likely will not exist for quite some time.
Except they do
https://www.thesun.co.uk/livin...
https://www.theinquirer.net/in...
You might be thinking of true artificial intelligence, which we don't have yet and probably won't for quite some time. Robot != artificial intelligence, as demonstrated by the ample use of robots in factories to assemble electronics, cars and practically every other consumer good on the market.