Oh, snap! I see what you did there. You compared one person wanting to imprison another person with one person murdering 3 people and injuring 170+- more. Clearly your perspective is the proper one.
There are two different types of bankruptcy that most private debtors go through. Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code allows for most debts to be discharged but typically it is more difficult to qualify for that type of proceeding. Chapter 13 allows for restructured debt and in recent years, federal regulations make this the most common form allowed by bankruptcy courts.
Perhaps your friends both qualified for Chapter 7.
I'm one of those folks. Every year when I do my taxes, I take advantage of every loophole afforded me. Do you want me to lose my mortgage interest deduction? Ok, take that away and instead of cutting a check to the Treasury dept for $400, I make it out for $1750. Wow, $1350 is one month's mortgage payment. So yeah, I like my loophole. But hell yeah, when I need to drive my truck to work, I also take advantage of the road that my taxes helped pave. But having said all that, I don't get pissed off at the rich guy that ONLY payed hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes last year. You chicken shit assholes that think the rich should have to pay more need to shut your gap. Give me the option of not having to pay for your girlfriends abortion or the sex change for the convicted murderer. Give me the ability to "avoid" paying for research that involves putting shrimp on a treadmill. Give all of us the opportunity to say no to paying for a bunch of silly nonsense and guess what, you won't need as damn much money in the Govt coffers.
And no, before the hyperbole gets rank, I'm not proposing to stop supporting the needy. I give to charity because it affords a tax loophole, but I don't claim all of my charitable giving either. I'm not a monster that wants to see homeless folks dead on the street but I don't like being held responsible because some of you takers can't exercise some self-restraint.
Yep, these super wealthy punks only pay a few hundred thousand a year in taxes. When what they should be paying is a few hundred million. I mean, sheesh, that prick Romney only had to pay 15% on his capital gains and interest income. That only amounted to some bullshit amount of, what, $13million in taxes. One super wealthy dude only had to pay $13 million for the whole year. What kind of BS is that?
but the argument in the OP is for replacing manned pilots with remote pilots, arguing that switch is ready now with existing tech. i stand by my assertion that hitting a stationary building on the ground is an entirely different thing than chasing, evading, or hitting another jet actively engaged in the same objective, and without this currently-non-existent (though possible) autonamous dogfight AI, the drones would lose.
I would ordinarily tend to agree with you but I rather suspect that AI software does already exist. And yes, we humans that game tend to be able to out think the silly AI in our FPS games so it would appear we will maintain an advantage. What tends to be forgotten is the fact that gaming developers tune the AI to be just challenging enough to keep us engaged without it being so overwhelming that we just give up and go play some other game. What if the developers of real-time combat AI do not have that constraint?
But, what if I have an honest objection to the proposed actions put forward by the President? Am I simply supposed to just roll over and submit to his will? And will you be willing to do the same should a Republican be elected President next time? No, the American system is designed to limit the amount of power (read: dominance) that any one branch of government may exercise. I didn't want then President Bush to have unlimited authority during his tenure and I don't want that for President Obama either. President Obama is human and thus able to make mistakes. As are you. I suspect that should you go back and read your original comment, you might see the wording needs a little tweaking so that it doesn't come off as a plea for all the rest of us to just shut the fuck up and do what we're told.
After spending over a year on a mission to get my credit report "fixed", I have a number of anecdotal stories regarding the inherent inaccuracy of the reporting that goes into these databases. My credit reports were not that bad but after a review of the report from the top three agencies, I discovered dozens of factually inaccurate items ranging from wrong addresses to poorly formatted history items. My reports contained input from companies I had never done business with and companies that no longer existed.
The problem with this is that if they can't be trusted to confirm the proper spelling of your name, how can they be the "authoritative" source for detailed information regarding your trustworthiness.
Because you are not in the military you would not know that a significant part of initial and ongoing training covers being able to distinguish lawful vs unlawful orders and the proper process to follow in the event of the later. We were/are not automatons and mindless robots dutifully following orders. In actual fact, most of my training incorporated the need for me to be able to think for myself. It was one of the motivating factors used to encourage us during the cold war. We were better solders because we could think for ourselves and take direct action based on our own initiative.
Not trying to call you out, but it is a somewhat common misconception. Sorry for intruding on the discussion.
Except the school itself offered to provide a card to the kid that did not have the chip enabled. This was a conciliatory effort that, although well meaning, had little practical influence on the desires of the parents. And although my personal beliefs that humans were put on this planet by mystical beer swilling pandas with mad kung-fu skills conflict with those of the kid and her parents, I understand the concept of the slippery slope. If all of us give in just a little bit today, then what logical argument can we present in ten years when the authorities ask for just a little bit more.
While I understand that you wouldn't want to rely on someone with criminal background for your security, I don't see why bankruptcy should play a role.
Deep financial problems render the subject prone to coercion. "Look Tech Guy, I can help you with your bills. Get you out of trouble. All you gotta do is..."
I wonder how many lives would have been saved if we had only had cell phones available for our car wrecks before, oh say, 1980.
Please give it a break. I strongly suspect that more injury and death can be attributed to distracted drivers talking and/or texting while trying to drive than would be saved by having the situational ability to call for help in the event of an accident.
You can probably also factor in the possibility that once the vehicle crashes, the technology that disrupts the use of cell phones will most likely be damaged as well.
Not sure what point you may be trying to infer but for the record. I was raised on a cattle ranch in Oklahoma (just north of Edmond), joined the Army and have lived in 7 different countries. I've also lived in Chicago and Tampa. I currently provide network security services for a fortune 1000 company in Texas.
So, if I'm insulting anyone, I would necessarily be insulting myself. Or rather, to be blunt. I was making a subtle point about how stupid it is to be a bigot. Sorry if your failure to get the point offended you.
As a fellow athiest, I have to agree. I don't much care for the mythology believing folks calling me a devil worshipper (damned odd that you would think I believe in a fallen angel when I profess to not believe in a diety, but I digress).
So, I try not to make fun of the believers. So, all you other non-believers, cut those folks some slack. There are in fact a number of very bright, well educated and yes, even articulate individuals that profess a belief in a god. They are not all slack-jawed, mouth breathing rednecks from the hinterlands.
Dude, take your forumrage meds and a deep breath. You can't really have it both ways. You either accuse me of not RTFA or of not being funny. You don't get to do both. Ok? That's fair I think. I said my original comment WAS funny, just not that funny. Shades of grey, not black and white.
And now you can go back to yelling at kids to get off your lawn.
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'll now modify my inadequacies to suit your superior ideals.
BTW, that was sarcasm. And you win 3 interwebs. Spend them wisely.
/facepalm *sigh*
Thank you for so eloquently proving my point. If you didn't think my comment was funny, but now acknowledge it was an attempt (not a good attempt according to your analysis), shouldn't you go back and retract your original reply?
Oh, right.
I guess it's people like you who can't be arsed to RTFA that the warning labels are designed for. Go figure.
I read the article. Then I made a snarky comment. It was kinda funny but not really funny. Hence the need to include a warning label in my comments for people like you that can't be arsed to develop a sense of humor. Go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, snap! I see what you did there. You compared one person wanting to imprison another person with one person murdering 3 people and injuring 170+- more. Clearly your perspective is the proper one.
There are two different types of bankruptcy that most private debtors go through. Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code allows for most debts to be discharged but typically it is more difficult to qualify for that type of proceeding. Chapter 13 allows for restructured debt and in recent years, federal regulations make this the most common form allowed by bankruptcy courts.
Perhaps your friends both qualified for Chapter 7.
I'm one of those folks. Every year when I do my taxes, I take advantage of every loophole afforded me. Do you want me to lose my mortgage interest deduction? Ok, take that away and instead of cutting a check to the Treasury dept for $400, I make it out for $1750. Wow, $1350 is one month's mortgage payment. So yeah, I like my loophole. But hell yeah, when I need to drive my truck to work, I also take advantage of the road that my taxes helped pave. But having said all that, I don't get pissed off at the rich guy that ONLY payed hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes last year. You chicken shit assholes that think the rich should have to pay more need to shut your gap. Give me the option of not having to pay for your girlfriends abortion or the sex change for the convicted murderer. Give me the ability to "avoid" paying for research that involves putting shrimp on a treadmill. Give all of us the opportunity to say no to paying for a bunch of silly nonsense and guess what, you won't need as damn much money in the Govt coffers.
And no, before the hyperbole gets rank, I'm not proposing to stop supporting the needy. I give to charity because it affords a tax loophole, but I don't claim all of my charitable giving either. I'm not a monster that wants to see homeless folks dead on the street but I don't like being held responsible because some of you takers can't exercise some self-restraint.
Yep, these super wealthy punks only pay a few hundred thousand a year in taxes. When what they should be paying is a few hundred million. I mean, sheesh, that prick Romney only had to pay 15% on his capital gains and interest income. That only amounted to some bullshit amount of, what, $13million in taxes. One super wealthy dude only had to pay $13 million for the whole year. What kind of BS is that?
NOAA researchers discovered to be former DOJ Prosecutors. Why do we continue to pay for this. Let the sequester happen.
but the argument in the OP is for replacing manned pilots with remote pilots, arguing that switch is ready now with existing tech. i stand by my assertion that hitting a stationary building on the ground is an entirely different thing than chasing, evading, or hitting another jet actively engaged in the same objective, and without this currently-non-existent (though possible) autonamous dogfight AI, the drones would lose.
I would ordinarily tend to agree with you but I rather suspect that AI software does already exist. And yes, we humans that game tend to be able to out think the silly AI in our FPS games so it would appear we will maintain an advantage. What tends to be forgotten is the fact that gaming developers tune the AI to be just challenging enough to keep us engaged without it being so overwhelming that we just give up and go play some other game. What if the developers of real-time combat AI do not have that constraint?
Umm, I thought the AC post was at least on topic since he used the word "too" in the title. Just sayin'.
Just prior to making his speech on live TV, he had recorded an 18 min session in Spanish. I suspect he might have, oh, I don't know, been thirsty.
But, what if I have an honest objection to the proposed actions put forward by the President? Am I simply supposed to just roll over and submit to his will? And will you be willing to do the same should a Republican be elected President next time? No, the American system is designed to limit the amount of power (read: dominance) that any one branch of government may exercise. I didn't want then President Bush to have unlimited authority during his tenure and I don't want that for President Obama either. President Obama is human and thus able to make mistakes. As are you. I suspect that should you go back and read your original comment, you might see the wording needs a little tweaking so that it doesn't come off as a plea for all the rest of us to just shut the fuck up and do what we're told.
After spending over a year on a mission to get my credit report "fixed", I have a number of anecdotal stories regarding the inherent inaccuracy of the reporting that goes into these databases. My credit reports were not that bad but after a review of the report from the top three agencies, I discovered dozens of factually inaccurate items ranging from wrong addresses to poorly formatted history items. My reports contained input from companies I had never done business with and companies that no longer existed. The problem with this is that if they can't be trusted to confirm the proper spelling of your name, how can they be the "authoritative" source for detailed information regarding your trustworthiness.
Because you are not in the military you would not know that a significant part of initial and ongoing training covers being able to distinguish lawful vs unlawful orders and the proper process to follow in the event of the later. We were/are not automatons and mindless robots dutifully following orders. In actual fact, most of my training incorporated the need for me to be able to think for myself. It was one of the motivating factors used to encourage us during the cold war. We were better solders because we could think for ourselves and take direct action based on our own initiative. Not trying to call you out, but it is a somewhat common misconception. Sorry for intruding on the discussion.
Except the school itself offered to provide a card to the kid that did not have the chip enabled. This was a conciliatory effort that, although well meaning, had little practical influence on the desires of the parents. And although my personal beliefs that humans were put on this planet by mystical beer swilling pandas with mad kung-fu skills conflict with those of the kid and her parents, I understand the concept of the slippery slope. If all of us give in just a little bit today, then what logical argument can we present in ten years when the authorities ask for just a little bit more.
That can be addressed via things like vpro.
While I understand that you wouldn't want to rely on someone with criminal background for your security, I don't see why bankruptcy should play a role.
Deep financial problems render the subject prone to coercion. "Look Tech Guy, I can help you with your bills. Get you out of trouble. All you gotta do is..."
Then go tell the Republicans and their sycophants to end their hate campaign against portions of this nation's population.
Just as soon as someone goes and tells the Democrats and their sycophants to end their hate campaign against portions of this nation's population.
I wonder how many lives would have been saved if we had only had cell phones available for our car wrecks before, oh say, 1980. Please give it a break. I strongly suspect that more injury and death can be attributed to distracted drivers talking and/or texting while trying to drive than would be saved by having the situational ability to call for help in the event of an accident. You can probably also factor in the possibility that once the vehicle crashes, the technology that disrupts the use of cell phones will most likely be damaged as well.
Can you please site a relevent study that backs your claim that "most terrorist attacks on US soil have been middle aged white guys"?
And I just saw a tweet go by that said "Humans are a disease, Cybernetics is the cure." Swear to god.
Not sure what point you may be trying to infer but for the record. I was raised on a cattle ranch in Oklahoma (just north of Edmond), joined the Army and have lived in 7 different countries. I've also lived in Chicago and Tampa. I currently provide network security services for a fortune 1000 company in Texas. So, if I'm insulting anyone, I would necessarily be insulting myself. Or rather, to be blunt. I was making a subtle point about how stupid it is to be a bigot. Sorry if your failure to get the point offended you.
As a fellow athiest, I have to agree. I don't much care for the mythology believing folks calling me a devil worshipper (damned odd that you would think I believe in a fallen angel when I profess to not believe in a diety, but I digress). So, I try not to make fun of the believers. So, all you other non-believers, cut those folks some slack. There are in fact a number of very bright, well educated and yes, even articulate individuals that profess a belief in a god. They are not all slack-jawed, mouth breathing rednecks from the hinterlands.
Oddly, I recently heard a similar analogy used as a "proof" of the existence of god.
Dude, take your forumrage meds and a deep breath. You can't really have it both ways. You either accuse me of not RTFA or of not being funny. You don't get to do both. Ok? That's fair I think. I said my original comment WAS funny, just not that funny. Shades of grey, not black and white. And now you can go back to yelling at kids to get off your lawn.
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'll now modify my inadequacies to suit your superior ideals. BTW, that was sarcasm. And you win 3 interwebs. Spend them wisely.
/facepalm *sigh* Thank you for so eloquently proving my point. If you didn't think my comment was funny, but now acknowledge it was an attempt (not a good attempt according to your analysis), shouldn't you go back and retract your original reply? Oh, right.
I guess it's people like you who can't be arsed to RTFA that the warning labels are designed for. Go figure.
I read the article. Then I made a snarky comment. It was kinda funny but not really funny. Hence the need to include a warning label in my comments for people like you that can't be arsed to develop a sense of humor. Go figure.