"Oh, and while we're on the topic, Middle Eastern nuts wouldn't have so much money to finance terror attacks if we weren't giving it to them for the goddamn oil. They wouldn't even have a reason to attack us if we weren't involved in their politics in the first place. Our post-oil energy policy is also our anti-terror policy."
And that is the key to so much. Screw climate change or otherwise. So much oil is in "politically inconvenient" places that western countries becoming much more energy self -sufficient seems like such a no brainer that I don't see why anyone could think attempting to move away from burning things was a bad idea.
That's easy - if there's one thing that oil companies have right now, it's astoundingly large amounts of money. And if we used less oil, they would make less money. And if there's one thing politicians need or want, it's money. So it's a simple transaction.
At this rate, expect to have it under 50% by early December. People are rapidly become educated about the absurdity, invasiveness, high cost, lack of security, lack of privacy, and radiation of this procedure.
I don't know if I'd call it "educated", but there's enough videos out now that everyone knows someone who would get hosed by these new screenings. Have elderly parents who need medical supplies? They'll make you wet yourself. Small kids? They'll grope them while they scream for help, wondering why their parents aren't protecting them. Cancer survivor? Have some more rads! Of course, they'll give you a choice - you can either be sexually assaulted in public, or become fap-fodder for the guy in the back room?
(Apologies for the lack of links, but I've seen newspaper articles for all of these. Which brings up the scarier question of "what hasn't been reported yet?")
A DRM-free game released by a publisher that intends to hunt down pirates. Am I supposed to cheer them on or cry foul? I'm so confused:(
Actually, it seems like the best possible solution - people who buy the game don't get inconvenienced by stupid DRM, and they chase down the people who are actually infringing (no DRM means no need to get a cracked version of the game that actually works as advertised).
Or as a general case, yes, the average air traveller isn't worth looking at naked. But since we've already established that these things can (and do) store images, and can (and do) get passed around, the "good pics" will be sorted out and handed to their various friends. (For whatever definition of "good" you want).
This also ignores the fact that for any given picture, someone will get turned on by it.
Agreed - I watched the video of the 3-year old screaming "stop touching me!" as the "nice man" pats him down, and I can point at the exact moment where I'd be telling them to get their hands off my kid. (No 'tube at work, but it made the news because the father is the weatherman at the local news station, and taped it).
Only Congressional leaders or members of Congress with armed security details are allowed to go around security. The same privilege is afforded to governors and cabinet members if they are escorted by agents or law enforcement officers.
She said, "Well, the airport is very important to all of our incomes and we don't want bad press. It'll hurt everyone, but you have to do what you think is right. But, if you give me your itinerary every time you fly, I'll be at the airport with you and we can make sure it's very pleasant for you."
(No knock against Penn - I think he might be our best hope for getting some sanity out of this: he's passionate enough to want to do something about it, rich enough to afford it, and popular enough that people will listen.) But how amazing is it that for security that's Absolute Necessary, there are so many ways to skip the line?
And we haven't even talked about the lack of security for people and things going through cargo yet...
I'll ascribe it to the fact that none of the people who are making these rules have to abide by them. Make the congressfolks, senators, governors, and presidents go through the same screening as regular folks, and I wonder how much longer the rules will stay the same.
Is it cheaper for the gov't to grow the crops, thresh the wheat, mill the grain, bake the bread, haul it all around, distribute it to the peasants?
The Soviet Union tried that and failed miserably.
It stops at the point where the benefits of private ownership outweigh the benefit of community ownership. The exact line will vary from community to community.
Any other definition necessarily requires taking my money and giving it to someone else.
Ah, the "anti-tax" argument. I'm happy with taxes. Honestly. Do I wish they were lower - of course. Do I think that we spend money on stupid things? Yep.
Put taxes are still cheaper than having my own private doctor and hospital, my own roads, my own water towers and power generation, my own private library, swimming pool, and so on. Governments should do these things, because it's cheaper for everyone to pitch in.
How can one be fiscally conservative (spend less money) and simultaneously be socially liberal (spend more money on those sad, pitiful poor people)?
By using better definitions. I'm fiscally conservative (we shouldn't spend more than we make), and socially liberal (we shouldn't legislate morality, and helping neighbors is helping ourselves).
Putting the two together means that we help as much as we can, and there's plenty of money we give away to big corps that we can cut to balance the budget without hacking at actual necessities.
(Local example: city gave tax breaks and subsidies to Dell to build a new call centre out here. Usual "new jobs" rhetoric. First downturn, Dell packs up and leaves down, before the tax breaks had even finished. Turns out that the city didn't bother to put any guarantees into the deal, and we ended up losing money and not getting any jobs either.)
... they weren't charging for directory assistance.
While I can't remember the last time I bothered looking something up in the Book, it seems sketchy to expect folks to subscribe to a different service (internet) in order to fully use this one.
By definition, you have to be in traditional media to get [an Oscar or Emmy].
In that case, how do you recommend to make an award for free cultural works equal in prestige to the awards for traditional media?
I'd question how you're measuring "prestige". Many of the "mainstream" awards aren't broadcast or widely known (IIRC, the Academy "technical" awards aren't even given during the Big Event). But theoretically they're just as "prestigous" as the Best Actor that everyone gushes about.
IMO, measurements of viewership are more accurate if you're looking for mainstream acceptance of free cultural works.
Yep, they can. It all comes down to (a) how smart the university IT are (as opposed to administration), and (b) how forceful the student body decides to be about it. If you can talk a professor into putting his course notes online using a torrent, that would go a long way as well.
Sadly, a lone student will probably find his academic career cut short if he makes too much noise. Such is university.
Name three works distributed under a license for free cultural works that has won an Oscar, Emmy, Grammy, or other such well-known awards. Name one song distributed under a license for free cultural works that has spent two weeks on a major developed country's music charts.
Emmy's are voted by members of the "Academy", who are people who work in the industry. By definition, you have to be in traditional media to get one. Oscar voters are invite only. Grammy is a bit better - creative or technical credit on a minimum of six tracks in at least one voting discipline and the album must have been commercially released in the U.S - but I wouldn't be surprised if "commercially released" has a loophole.
So, an obvious reason that a web series or such hasn't won a "major award" is that the awards are set up to only reward people "in the business". (Similar to how the "best sellers" racks at your local store won't mention stuff they don't carry.)
Of course, the reason the company is providing housing in northern Canada is that otherwise there just isn't anywhere to live, period. The companies are forced to provide housing in order to get staff.
Getting kicked out at termination is less of an issue there, because either you'll get a new job (and get housed at *their* bunks), or you're on the road back to civilization because there's nothing else up there.
(I don't work in those industries, but one of the support industries.)
This is the first time Google has ever actually attempted to wield power. What happens if they find they like it?
I'm not sure how much of an Evil Move this is. To me it's looking like they're trying to stop Facebook from running an "embrace and extend" gambit, where FB lets everything in and nothing out. Considering they're both starting to compete in the social market, I can't say I wouldn't be having the same response to a competitor who wants everything going in one direction.
A proper power move would have been a small tweak that breaks the API when Facebook calls. Make the error message imply that it's a problem on Facebook's end.
Well, hang on - Google isn't censoring anything. They're simply choosing not to advertise on a site. Google isn't obliged to provide anyone with money.
Google may be and do a lot of things (and I take solace in the fact that when they do screw up, they tend to announce their screwup up front - the only reason we know about the wifi issue is that *they* said "crap, we didn't want that." - that's miles better than most companies), but I don't believe we can scream "censorship" at them for this one.
(My money is that it's some idiot who clicked an automated complaint button, and once a Real Person looks at the site everything will turn back on - tvtropes is a pretty darn safe site.)
That's GDP. For federal budget it would be this, but that doesn't split it down to per-person detail. (You spend $15/year on the space program, for instance.)
Divide it by the US's population, that's a bit more than $300 for each person... you can eat a nice meal with that but it's not a lot.
In that case, I'd choose science.
Less, actually - TFA says the US only paid half (us lesser countries paid the rest). So, $150 per US citizen over 10 years. Or, $15 per person per year.
(As an aside, is there anywhere that shows the US budget on a per-person basis like this?)
3-D is waning. It's not they money maker they thought it was. People are not paying for the 3-D movie, they are opting for the 2-D movie instead.
Or, once the theaters finish refitting all the screens to 3-D, they just won't offer the 2-D version at peak times, moving the choice from "2-D or 3-D" to "3-D or nothing" (Our local screens did this on "Up" - very few showing were in 2-D. Movie was great, but we missed most of it trying to keep the stupid glasses on over our own glasses. Our daughter's ended up with popcorn fingerprints after about 5 minutes...)
Are we allowed to request opposite-sex guards for these new-and-improved patdowns? If I'm gonna be fondled, it'd be nice if we can at least ask for a phone number...
On the other hand, if you don't do your research, it's not that obvious that clicking a button to watch a video means you've agreed to hand over your life's history for advertising purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh, and while we're on the topic, Middle Eastern nuts wouldn't have so much money to finance terror attacks if we weren't giving it to them for the goddamn oil. They wouldn't even have a reason to attack us if we weren't involved in their politics in the first place. Our post-oil energy policy is also our anti-terror policy."
And that is the key to so much. Screw climate change or otherwise. So much oil is in "politically inconvenient" places that western countries becoming much more energy self -sufficient seems like such a no brainer that I don't see why anyone could think attempting to move away from burning things was a bad idea.
That's easy - if there's one thing that oil companies have right now, it's astoundingly large amounts of money. And if we used less oil, they would make less money. And if there's one thing politicians need or want, it's money. So it's a simple transaction.
At this rate, expect to have it under 50% by early December. People are rapidly become educated about the absurdity, invasiveness, high cost, lack of security, lack of privacy, and radiation of this procedure.
I don't know if I'd call it "educated", but there's enough videos out now that everyone knows someone who would get hosed by these new screenings. Have elderly parents who need medical supplies? They'll make you wet yourself. Small kids? They'll grope them while they scream for help, wondering why their parents aren't protecting them. Cancer survivor? Have some more rads! Of course, they'll give you a choice - you can either be sexually assaulted in public, or become fap-fodder for the guy in the back room?
(Apologies for the lack of links, but I've seen newspaper articles for all of these. Which brings up the scarier question of "what hasn't been reported yet?")
A DRM-free game released by a publisher that intends to hunt down pirates. Am I supposed to cheer them on or cry foul? I'm so confused :(
Actually, it seems like the best possible solution - people who buy the game don't get inconvenienced by stupid DRM, and they chase down the people who are actually infringing (no DRM means no need to get a cracked version of the game that actually works as advertised).
I do not actually care if anyone sees me naked (been to nude beaches before). So what?
So, do you regularly strip down any time an authority figure asks you to?
There's a very big difference between "I choose to do this" and "I am compelled to do this"
People would like to see the scans of celebs.
Or as a general case, yes, the average air traveller isn't worth looking at naked. But since we've already established that these things can (and do) store images, and can (and do) get passed around, the "good pics" will be sorted out and handed to their various friends. (For whatever definition of "good" you want).
This also ignores the fact that for any given picture, someone will get turned on by it.
Agreed - I watched the video of the 3-year old screaming "stop touching me!" as the "nice man" pats him down, and I can point at the exact moment where I'd be telling them to get their hands off my kid. (No 'tube at work, but it made the news because the father is the weatherman at the local news station, and taped it).
In 12-18 months non distorted images of celebreties and politicians will be on the Internet.
Nope - most politicians are exempt from going through security:
From the New York Times
Only Congressional leaders or members of Congress with armed security details are allowed to go around security. The same privilege is afforded to governors and cabinet members if they are escorted by agents or law enforcement officers.
And does it surprise anyone that they'll give celebrities a pass
as well?
She said, "Well, the airport is very important to all of our incomes and we don't want bad press. It'll hurt everyone, but you have to do what you think is right. But, if you give me your itinerary every time you fly, I'll be at the airport with you and we can make sure it's very pleasant for you."
(No knock against Penn - I think he might be our best hope for getting some sanity out of this: he's passionate enough to want to do something about it, rich enough to afford it, and popular enough that people will listen.) But how amazing is it that for security that's Absolute Necessary, there are so many ways to skip the line?
And we haven't even talked about the lack of security for people and things going through cargo yet...
I'll ascribe it to the fact that none of the people who are making these rules have to abide by them. Make the congressfolks, senators, governors, and presidents go through the same screening as regular folks, and I wonder how much longer the rules will stay the same.
Honest question: where does it stop?
Is it cheaper for the gov't to grow the crops, thresh the wheat, mill the grain, bake the bread, haul it all around, distribute it to the peasants?
The Soviet Union tried that and failed miserably.
It stops at the point where the benefits of private ownership outweigh the benefit of community ownership. The exact line will vary from community to community.
Socially liberal does not mean "spend money".
Any other definition necessarily requires taking my money and giving it to someone else.
Ah, the "anti-tax" argument. I'm happy with taxes. Honestly. Do I wish they were lower - of course. Do I think that we spend money on stupid things? Yep.
Put taxes are still cheaper than having my own private doctor and hospital, my own roads, my own water towers and power generation, my own private library, swimming pool, and so on. Governments should do these things, because it's cheaper for everyone to pitch in.
How can one be fiscally conservative (spend less money) and simultaneously be socially liberal (spend more money on those sad, pitiful poor people)?
By using better definitions. I'm fiscally conservative (we shouldn't spend more than we make), and socially liberal (we shouldn't legislate morality, and helping neighbors is helping ourselves).
Putting the two together means that we help as much as we can, and there's plenty of money we give away to big corps that we can cut to balance the budget without hacking at actual necessities.
(Local example: city gave tax breaks and subsidies to Dell to build a new call centre out here. Usual "new jobs" rhetoric. First downturn, Dell packs up and leaves down, before the tax breaks had even finished. Turns out that the city didn't bother to put any guarantees into the deal, and we ended up losing money and not getting any jobs either.)
... they weren't charging for directory assistance.
While I can't remember the last time I bothered looking something up in the Book, it seems sketchy to expect folks to subscribe to a different service (internet) in order to fully use this one.
By definition, you have to be in traditional media to get [an Oscar or Emmy].
In that case, how do you recommend to make an award for free cultural works equal in prestige to the awards for traditional media?
I'd question how you're measuring "prestige". Many of the "mainstream" awards aren't broadcast or widely known (IIRC, the Academy "technical" awards aren't even given during the Big Event). But theoretically they're just as "prestigous" as the Best Actor that everyone gushes about.
IMO, measurements of viewership are more accurate if you're looking for mainstream acceptance of free cultural works.
Yep, they can. It all comes down to (a) how smart the university IT are (as opposed to administration), and (b) how forceful the student body decides to be about it. If you can talk a professor into putting his course notes online using a torrent, that would go a long way as well.
Sadly, a lone student will probably find his academic career cut short if he makes too much noise. Such is university.
Name three works distributed under a license for free cultural works that has won an Oscar, Emmy, Grammy, or other such well-known awards. Name one song distributed under a license for free cultural works that has spent two weeks on a major developed country's music charts.
Emmy's are voted by members of the "Academy", who are people who work in the industry. By definition, you have to be in traditional media to get one. Oscar voters are invite only. Grammy is a bit better - creative or technical credit on a minimum of six tracks in at least one voting discipline and the album must have been commercially released in the U.S - but I wouldn't be surprised if "commercially released" has a loophole.
So, an obvious reason that a web series or such hasn't won a "major award" is that the awards are set up to only reward people "in the business". (Similar to how the "best sellers" racks at your local store won't mention stuff they don't carry.)
Of course, the reason the company is providing housing in northern Canada is that otherwise there just isn't anywhere to live, period. The companies are forced to provide housing in order to get staff.
Getting kicked out at termination is less of an issue there, because either you'll get a new job (and get housed at *their* bunks), or you're on the road back to civilization because there's nothing else up there.
(I don't work in those industries, but one of the support industries.)
I suppose we should give them some credit for not even bothering to pretend to monitor conservative causes?
This is the first time Google has ever actually attempted to wield power. What happens if they find they like it?
I'm not sure how much of an Evil Move this is. To me it's looking like they're trying to stop Facebook from running an "embrace and extend" gambit, where FB lets everything in and nothing out. Considering they're both starting to compete in the social market, I can't say I wouldn't be having the same response to a competitor who wants everything going in one direction.
A proper power move would have been a small tweak that breaks the API when Facebook calls. Make the error message imply that it's a problem on Facebook's end.
And now, is a self-appointed censor.
Well, hang on - Google isn't censoring anything. They're simply choosing not to advertise on a site. Google isn't obliged to provide anyone with money.
Google may be and do a lot of things (and I take solace in the fact that when they do screw up, they tend to announce their screwup up front - the only reason we know about the wifi issue is that *they* said "crap, we didn't want that." - that's miles better than most companies), but I don't believe we can scream "censorship" at them for this one.
(My money is that it's some idiot who clicked an automated complaint button, and once a Real Person looks at the site everything will turn back on - tvtropes is a pretty darn safe site.)
With consulting attorneys Dewey, Beatem, and Howe, LLP.
That's GDP. For federal budget it would be this, but that doesn't split it down to per-person detail. (You spend $15/year on the space program, for instance.)
Divide it by the US's population, that's a bit more than $300 for each person... you can eat a nice meal with that but it's not a lot. In that case, I'd choose science.
Less, actually - TFA says the US only paid half (us lesser countries paid the rest). So, $150 per US citizen over 10 years. Or, $15 per person per year.
(As an aside, is there anywhere that shows the US budget on a per-person basis like this?)
3-D is waning. It's not they money maker they thought it was. People are not paying for the 3-D movie, they are opting for the 2-D movie instead.
Or, once the theaters finish refitting all the screens to 3-D, they just won't offer the 2-D version at peak times, moving the choice from "2-D or 3-D" to "3-D or nothing" (Our local screens did this on "Up" - very few showing were in 2-D. Movie was great, but we missed most of it trying to keep the stupid glasses on over our own glasses. Our daughter's ended up with popcorn fingerprints after about 5 minutes...)
Are we allowed to request opposite-sex guards for these new-and-improved patdowns? If I'm gonna be fondled, it'd be nice if we can at least ask for a phone number...
On the other hand, if you don't do your research, it's not that obvious that clicking a button to watch a video means you've agreed to hand over your life's history for advertising purposes.