Well, they do have to account for the fact that random button pushing will occasionally match the test conditions. (also known as: a broken clock is still correct twice a day)
For years, I couldn't go into the electronics section of retailers because the TVs were screeching so loud that I couldn't think straight. Same goes for some of the devices that stores would use to detect those tags, the amount of power used in those cases is substantially higher, but it's really not productive to suggest that because a claim is strange that it must be false. There's a lot of weird things that ultimately turned out to be true, or at least partially true.
Well, I was one of those kids who could hear an active CRT monitor from outside the classroom (used to freak out teachers by telling them a computer was left on, then unerringly walking directly to the one monitor out of fifty that was left on). But I'm sure that if I had complained about headaches and such that a doctor or scientist could show that yes, I can detect them.
Last I checked, these folks haven't managed to accurately detect whether they're near an EM source without being able to see it. I wish I had the link, but I loved the story where a public hearing ended after the complainants (who had just finished bemoaning their suffering at this very moment) were informed that the offending transmitter had been inactive for the past several weeks - they just didn't tell anyone to test if you were allergic to EM or just large metal towers.
Uh, yeah. We're talking about a game where friendly fire is disabled by default, and they're complaining that the inability to kill civilians detracts from the realism? Why are we even having this discussion?
Contrarywise, it's long been a feature of "shooting gallery" type games (Area 51, Silent Scope, etc) to have civilians and the ability to kill them. The difference is that the player is penalized (often heavily) for doing so. That means players don't intentionally do it (and if they do, will exhibit proper "that was a bad thing I just did" responses).
If you want civilians in your game, and you don't want players to shoot them, then you have to have in-game motivation to punish them when they do so.
As per international agreements, EM emissions from a country should not step into another country and interfere with systems there.
Of course, the USA violates these agreements, too (political guided broadcast in "enemy" countries, mainly Cuba).
That just means North Korea helped the US out, preventing the Americans from violating that agreement when the drone started broadcasting from within NK territory.
While we would not have the use of our uav's we have been watching North Korea for 50+ years and know what to expect. Not to mention that we still have the use of satelite recon and can best them with stealth and superior air power. It would be a messy war and that is the last thing our counrtry needs right now but I'm sure we will be prepared if they ever try their luck.
Hopefully, by "try their luck" you don't mean "stop the nosy Americans from flying into their airspace".
I wonder what the American reaction would be if another power (even someone "friendly") started flying recon flights uninvited...
While I did enjoy those shows, they weren't really robots so much as tricked out RC cars. An actual robot fight might be interesting, but based on video I've seen of robot races and robot soccer games, a battle between robots would be as exciting as one between rabbits.
I think that's a case where speeding up the film a bit would go a long way. Either that, or get baseball fans interested - they're used to slow paced games.;)
I think it wouldn't get that far, because the RIAA model doesn't want to go to court - they want quick and easy settlements. A corporation will likely just sic the in-house lawyers on this, so I would expect the RIAA to quietly ignore any IPs that lead to corp-owned points.
Not to defend the TSA, but the defendant of this suit seems to be a bit of a drama queen (I read some entries from her blog). I could easily see her bending a few facts to make her story sound more interesting.
I checked out the site, and while she's certainly not a dry read, it's no worse than Dan Savage or Dave Barry or any other syndicated columnist.
And while she has a blog, she's also in 100 newspapers as a columnist, plus some various other TV appearances, wrote a book, etc etc.
Doesn't make it more or less true, but does remove the "I'm whoring for page views" argument in my mind.
You pepper the TSA agent with derogatory remarks ("Checkpoint smurf", "Groper") based on allegations filed in a lawsuit? Do any of you ever look at a murder trial and immediately go "Oh, hey, look at that MURDERER on trial. They're on trial, so they must have killed someone."
Actually, that's pretty standard procedure in any media outlet I've seen in the last twenty years.
Also worth repeating - the TSA agent isn't denying that she did those things. She's claiming it's standard procedure.
But I'm also pretty sure, reading about this self-professed behavior on Ms. Alkon's part, that she's also a drama queen just looking for some new controversy to embroil herself in, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she was also deliberately provocative and confrontational, making the situation more tense than it needed to be, and blowing events out of proportion with histrionics.
Entirely possible, although I'd wonder under what circumstances those allegations become a proportional response to anything.
Also worth noting that the TSA agent is supposed to be a trained professional. (Meaning I wonder why they're allowing themselves to *be* provoked).
I know the white knights here who already despise the TSA will crucify me for saying it, but millions of people fly every fucking day. Yet this shit mostly seems to happen to self-important bloggers who have a history of engaging in nasty, vicious, spiteful little "campaigns," who are so broken up by the experience that they rush home and pound out 2000 words on their blog to generate some pageviews, extra bonus when they just happen to have a videocamera handy to record all the harrassment and abuse they're subjected to.
Alternate theory - we don't hear about the folks who don't have blogs or cameras handy, because they don't have a voice or evidence.
We're always willing to inflate other sexual assault statistics to account for "unreported crimes" - why not here?
Aside: If you're looking for a report from someone who literally has no need for attention, check out Penn Jillette's account. Amazing how things can be resolved when you have the time and money to stand your ground.
The "guilty-until-proven-not-working-for-the-government" headline bias also sort of tweaked the parts of me that cause me to stop caring about the article. CmdrTaco, glad you disassociated yourself with this tripe.
Well, let's see. The lawsuit is fact - the TSA agent is suing the lady. And I find it notable that the suit doesn't say that the facts are incorrect, but that's it's just standard procedure. Put another way, they're not disputing that the TSA agent groped; they're claiming that it shouldn't be called rape because the proper procedure was followed.
I expect the TSA brass to get involved to settle in short order, since the defense seems to be leaning to "the TSA taught me to finger women, so it must be OK". Not exactly a great message to be on the 6-oclock news.
You're absolutely right that people have bad experiences everywhere. But when I fly in Canada, if someone decides to grope my daughter, I have a much higher degree of confidence that actions would taken. (Sadly, I'm not certain of that because we're moving to the "Hide the evidence and deny everything" model of policing up here).
In the US, though, I have zero confidence that anything would happen, and severe concerns that if I did anything but smile and tell my daughter it's OK for the man to touch her in those places, that there would be further consequences for all of us, but none for them.
So, I choose not to take that sort of risks with my family.
This is why I don't fly anymore. Molest me, fine, it'll piss me off and I'll want to talk to a manager. Molest my kid, and I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
+1 Epic Quote Win, +1 Fatherly Truth.
Every time I start to think "maybe I'll travel to the US - my kid's never been to Disneyland" another of these cases shows up and I'm reminded why it's just not going to happen any time soon.
From what I understood, next time they do something like that it'd be paid for. People who applied now are the guinea pigs.
Or, to put a teeny bit of spin on it, they're doing it for free this time around, and if it works well, they're going to see if they can make money doing it.
TOS doesn't say I have to sell my soul or anything, so I'm game.
They are an supertanker with 2 steering wheels- the USPS leadership on one and congress on the other.
You're forgetting the third steering wheel that congress built, and turned over to: the labor union that has the USPS by the short hairs, fiscally. Their contract prohibits any layoffs, even when they close down an under-used post office. Those union employees don't pay as much for their own health care or contribute to their own retirement plans as do normal government employees, and so on - and there's nothing the USPS management can do about it, except hemorage money in that general direction.
The no-layoff clause struck me as completely stupid - if you don't need the staff, you don't need the staff. Although I suppose in a country that practices "at will" employment, you need that for any sort of job security.
So I guess you're not involved in Canadian politics at all. Rather you take all your talking points from what the CBC tells you. And know not that the liberals and the NDP have been behind the greatest excesses in removing freedoms in Canada.
One of the greatest of course was the charter. Thanks trudeau.
You're saying that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms removed freedoms from Canada? Really?
Also, while you can point fingers at Libs and Cons fairly (I find the difference between the two to be merely preference over the position you wish to be screwed in), the NDP have never formed a majority government at the federal level, so I would wonder how you're attributing any atrocities to them.
You know, that explanation would make sense if it was not for the fact that as stricter rules have been imposed on campaign contributions, the influence of corporations has increased.
I would say that their influence hasn't increased, but that it's more visible (since they can't hide it in campaign contributions anymore).
Anyone who thinks that the Big Four parties have never been in corporate pockets over the last couple generations wasn't paying attention.
True, but they haven't managed it yet. (It probably will, since the ruling party is in favor of it). I'm hopeful the courts would strike it down in that case.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that green technology is not profitable and therefore a big scam, or a modern religion if you will, with all of its guilt, shame and asking for money, let me state an opinion that might not be popular here: Maybe, just maybe, the subsidies was too low?
Ah, yes. We can make 'green technology' profitable by simply... taking more money from taxpayers and giving it to them.
That'll work.
You're looking at the math backwards. (So is the original poster, which makes his point look stupid).
The government (or more properly, the public) already subsidizes oil and coal, simply by absorbing the cost of cleaning up the pollution those technologies create.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they do have to account for the fact that random button pushing will occasionally match the test conditions. (also known as: a broken clock is still correct twice a day)
For years, I couldn't go into the electronics section of retailers because the TVs were screeching so loud that I couldn't think straight. Same goes for some of the devices that stores would use to detect those tags, the amount of power used in those cases is substantially higher, but it's really not productive to suggest that because a claim is strange that it must be false. There's a lot of weird things that ultimately turned out to be true, or at least partially true.
Well, I was one of those kids who could hear an active CRT monitor from outside the classroom (used to freak out teachers by telling them a computer was left on, then unerringly walking directly to the one monitor out of fifty that was left on). But I'm sure that if I had complained about headaches and such that a doctor or scientist could show that yes, I can detect them.
Last I checked, these folks haven't managed to accurately detect whether they're near an EM source without being able to see it. I wish I had the link, but I loved the story where a public hearing ended after the complainants (who had just finished bemoaning their suffering at this very moment) were informed that the offending transmitter had been inactive for the past several weeks - they just didn't tell anyone to test if you were allergic to EM or just large metal towers.
Uh, yeah. We're talking about a game where friendly fire is disabled by default, and they're complaining that the inability to kill civilians detracts from the realism? Why are we even having this discussion?
Contrarywise, it's long been a feature of "shooting gallery" type games (Area 51, Silent Scope, etc) to have civilians and the ability to kill them. The difference is that the player is penalized (often heavily) for doing so. That means players don't intentionally do it (and if they do, will exhibit proper "that was a bad thing I just did" responses).
If you want civilians in your game, and you don't want players to shoot them, then you have to have in-game motivation to punish them when they do so.
As per international agreements, EM emissions from a country should not step into another country and interfere with systems there.
Of course, the USA violates these agreements, too (political guided broadcast in "enemy" countries, mainly Cuba).
That just means North Korea helped the US out, preventing the Americans from violating that agreement when the drone started broadcasting from within NK territory.
While we would not have the use of our uav's we have been watching North Korea for 50+ years and know what to expect. Not to mention that we still have the use of satelite recon and can best them with stealth and superior air power. It would be a messy war and that is the last thing our counrtry needs right now but I'm sure we will be prepared if they ever try their luck.
Hopefully, by "try their luck" you don't mean "stop the nosy Americans from flying into their airspace".
I wonder what the American reaction would be if another power (even someone "friendly") started flying recon flights uninvited...
I am totally stealing that line.
While I did enjoy those shows, they weren't really robots so much as tricked out RC cars. An actual robot fight might be interesting, but based on video I've seen of robot races and robot soccer games, a battle between robots would be as exciting as one between rabbits.
I think that's a case where speeding up the film a bit would go a long way. Either that, or get baseball fans interested - they're used to slow paced games. ;)
Didn't we already have this? (Robot Wars, etc.)
Not to say I wouldn't pay money for some PPV robot fighting, built and funded by some startups.
The best place to hide it is simply off-site.
I think it wouldn't get that far, because the RIAA model doesn't want to go to court - they want quick and easy settlements. A corporation will likely just sic the in-house lawyers on this, so I would expect the RIAA to quietly ignore any IPs that lead to corp-owned points.
Not to defend the TSA, but the defendant of this suit seems to be a bit of a drama queen (I read some entries from her blog). I could easily see her bending a few facts to make her story sound more interesting.
I checked out the site, and while she's certainly not a dry read, it's no worse than Dan Savage or Dave Barry or any other syndicated columnist.
And while she has a blog, she's also in 100 newspapers as a columnist, plus some various other TV appearances, wrote a book, etc etc.
Doesn't make it more or less true, but does remove the "I'm whoring for page views" argument in my mind.
While rape is probably too strong a word to use here from an objective standpoint
Easy test - go up to the next woman you see, and try to do what's alleged.
If it's assault on the street, it's assault in the checkpoint.
You pepper the TSA agent with derogatory remarks ("Checkpoint smurf", "Groper") based on allegations filed in a lawsuit? Do any of you ever look at a murder trial and immediately go "Oh, hey, look at that MURDERER on trial. They're on trial, so they must have killed someone."
Actually, that's pretty standard procedure in any media outlet I've seen in the last twenty years.
Also worth repeating - the TSA agent isn't denying that she did those things. She's claiming it's standard procedure.
But I'm also pretty sure, reading about this self-professed behavior on Ms. Alkon's part, that she's also a drama queen just looking for some new controversy to embroil herself in, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she was also deliberately provocative and confrontational, making the situation more tense than it needed to be, and blowing events out of proportion with histrionics.
Entirely possible, although I'd wonder under what circumstances those allegations become a proportional response to anything.
Also worth noting that the TSA agent is supposed to be a trained professional. (Meaning I wonder why they're allowing themselves to *be* provoked).
I know the white knights here who already despise the TSA will crucify me for saying it, but millions of people fly every fucking day. Yet this shit mostly seems to happen to self-important bloggers who have a history of engaging in nasty, vicious, spiteful little "campaigns," who are so broken up by the experience that they rush home and pound out 2000 words on their blog to generate some pageviews, extra bonus when they just happen to have a videocamera handy to record all the harrassment and abuse they're subjected to.
Alternate theory - we don't hear about the folks who don't have blogs or cameras handy, because they don't have a voice or evidence.
We're always willing to inflate other sexual assault statistics to account for "unreported crimes" - why not here?
Aside: If you're looking for a report from someone who literally has no need for attention, check out Penn Jillette's account. Amazing how things can be resolved when you have the time and money to stand your ground.
The "guilty-until-proven-not-working-for-the-government" headline bias also sort of tweaked the parts of me that cause me to stop caring about the article. CmdrTaco, glad you disassociated yourself with this tripe.
Well, let's see. The lawsuit is fact - the TSA agent is suing the lady. And I find it notable that the suit doesn't say that the facts are incorrect, but that's it's just standard procedure. Put another way, they're not disputing that the TSA agent groped; they're claiming that it shouldn't be called rape because the proper procedure was followed.
I expect the TSA brass to get involved to settle in short order, since the defense seems to be leaning to "the TSA taught me to finger women, so it must be OK". Not exactly a great message to be on the 6-oclock news.
You're absolutely right that people have bad experiences everywhere. But when I fly in Canada, if someone decides to grope my daughter, I have a much higher degree of confidence that actions would taken. (Sadly, I'm not certain of that because we're moving to the "Hide the evidence and deny everything" model of policing up here).
In the US, though, I have zero confidence that anything would happen, and severe concerns that if I did anything but smile and tell my daughter it's OK for the man to touch her in those places, that there would be further consequences for all of us, but none for them.
So, I choose not to take that sort of risks with my family.
This is why I don't fly anymore. Molest me, fine, it'll piss me off and I'll want to talk to a manager. Molest my kid, and I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
+1 Epic Quote Win, +1 Fatherly Truth.
Every time I start to think "maybe I'll travel to the US - my kid's never been to Disneyland" another of these cases shows up and I'm reminded why it's just not going to happen any time soon.
I'm happy to beta-test too, but I wonder how the folks who are paying Stanford tuition feel about it.
They likely don't care - this class doesn't count for credit, so it's only useful for the curious and for continuing education.
From what I understood, next time they do something like that it'd be paid for. People who applied now are the guinea pigs.
Or, to put a teeny bit of spin on it, they're doing it for free this time around, and if it works well, they're going to see if they can make money doing it.
TOS doesn't say I have to sell my soul or anything, so I'm game.
They are an supertanker with 2 steering wheels- the USPS leadership on one and congress on the other.
You're forgetting the third steering wheel that congress built, and turned over to: the labor union that has the USPS by the short hairs, fiscally. Their contract prohibits any layoffs, even when they close down an under-used post office. Those union employees don't pay as much for their own health care or contribute to their own retirement plans as do normal government employees, and so on - and there's nothing the USPS management can do about it, except hemorage money in that general direction.
The no-layoff clause struck me as completely stupid - if you don't need the staff, you don't need the staff. Although I suppose in a country that practices "at will" employment, you need that for any sort of job security.
So I guess you're not involved in Canadian politics at all. Rather you take all your talking points from what the CBC tells you. And know not that the liberals and the NDP have been behind the greatest excesses in removing freedoms in Canada.
One of the greatest of course was the charter. Thanks trudeau.
You're saying that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms removed freedoms from Canada? Really?
Also, while you can point fingers at Libs and Cons fairly (I find the difference between the two to be merely preference over the position you wish to be screwed in), the NDP have never formed a majority government at the federal level, so I would wonder how you're attributing any atrocities to them.
You know, that explanation would make sense if it was not for the fact that as stricter rules have been imposed on campaign contributions, the influence of corporations has increased.
I would say that their influence hasn't increased, but that it's more visible (since they can't hide it in campaign contributions anymore).
Anyone who thinks that the Big Four parties have never been in corporate pockets over the last couple generations wasn't paying attention.
True, but they haven't managed it yet. (It probably will, since the ruling party is in favor of it). I'm hopeful the courts would strike it down in that case.
Really? My school started teaching LOGO in grade one.
By grade two, you should be able to explain it as "I write the instructions that tell your gadgets what to do".
Obviously, you probably don't want to get into recursion or anything like that. :)
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that green technology is not profitable and therefore a big scam, or a modern religion if you will, with all of its guilt, shame and asking for money, let me state an opinion that might not be popular here: Maybe, just maybe, the subsidies was too low?
Ah, yes. We can make 'green technology' profitable by simply... taking more money from taxpayers and giving it to them.
That'll work.
You're looking at the math backwards. (So is the original poster, which makes his point look stupid).
The government (or more properly, the public) already subsidizes oil and coal, simply by absorbing the cost of cleaning up the pollution those technologies create.