Wondering why it wasn't "Researchers find a 'conservative gene'" - it's exactly as accurate (they've found genetic dispositions towards your political outlook).
Maybe because they know that liberals will say "gee, that's interesting", while conservatives would have torched the lab?
I'm enjoying SG:U, although I deeply wish they'd skipped the communication stones. Yes, they're canon and it makes sense that they'd be packed. But SG:A suffered from the same problem - it's hard to keep the "isolation" theme going when you can call home as much as you like.
Although I'm hopeful that they're going to subvert the trope.. they seem to be heading in the direction of "yes, you can tell us what to do - but you can't get here, so whatcha gonna do about it if I don't listen?"
And following up "They Have A Plan" with "But The Writers Can't Think Of A Good One" was just sad.
The Big Fail there was that they put "The Plan" out there as part of the premise; doing that without having half a clue as to what the Plan is was just insane.
If you can wrap your head around it, imagine BSG if they had just omitted that line - suddenly the show is a lot better, because you're not looking for something that ain't there...
Sadly, nothing will save the last episode. (Ditto for the last 15 minutes of Lost; I've put that in the filing cabinet along with other SciFi That Didn't Happen.)
Since the internet, by design, is built to route around damage (and taking "portions" offline would count), wouldn't the only real way to prevent an attack be to remove either the source or destination computers from the network?
And removing the destination system would by far be the simplest and least disruptive way to do it. (At least until you track down the source computer).
Is the energy of mozilla better on improving browsers or office suites ?
Of course, this is putting commercial assumptions on volunteer projects - namely, that Mozilla has the power to tell everyone to stop working on browsers and start working on office suites.
It's a safe bet that the programmers who are interested in working on open source office suites are probably already over at OpenOffice (or some other existing project). It's a safer bet that if they tried to force the issue, you'd just end up with fewer programmers.
Got to make sure? Why? It's fiction, it's a story, entertainment. If you have to make plausible claims and explaination for every little details it'll be a book that bore you to death.
Agreed - take a trick from Doctor Who or Firefly - explain just enough, and only when it's necessary for the plot. How do you get the time machine to keep you in the same relative position? You turn it on and drive really fast.
Is the amount of time spent sitting in a cell, the money lost in lawyers fees, and the hassle of going to court really worth it?
If I am blameless, and the authorities are abusing their power, then emphatically YES. Someone has to keep them honest.
Can you afford to not get paid for the duration of that time sitting in jail? (And quite possibly lose your job completely if it drags on)? Will you lose your house? Can your family afford to get by without your income (and also spending the lawyer fees)?
If you can, I salute you. In my case, I have people who depend on me, and making "a point" doesn't keep a roof over their head.
You would want to set the price ahead of time, based on a reasonable estimate of actual cost+convenience fee, just to avoid sleazy extortion setups; but it would be nice if there were a real retail cost in addition to an insurance option.
Sure there is - buy yourself a tanker full of water, some hoses, and a bunch of ladders. Ta-da, you have your own retail fire department. (Staffing not included.)
What we're missing here is the consequence of the FD's decision not to put out the fire: it spread to a neighbor's field. It's fortunate that it didn't damage any structures, because if it had then the neighbor would have had a serious grievance. Fires should not be allowed to burn freely for any reason because they pose a threat to the community.
Oddly, you're missing a point in the chain:
As the property owner, he is responsible for everything that happens on his property.
If there's a fire, it's his problem.
If he was a smart homeowner, he would pay for fire coverage (since it's not included in his property taxes). Then the FD would come and handle such things.
Since he didn't, the fire is still his problem. The neighbor would be quite reasonable in pursuing a claim against this guy for damages - he started a fire which damaged other's property.
That ends up, on a moral level, not too far from firefighters-arsonists...
(worst case scenario - what would be the problem with billing the firefighting action?)
Realistically? One, they're likely not set up to even calculate the cost of putting out a single fire. Two, they're not set up to handle collections in that manner (it's supposed to be a pre-pay, after all). Third, the guy probably couldn't afford it anyway.
They turned up to stop the spread of the fire to a neighbouring property, then they stood and watched as the house burnt to the ground, killing the animals inside. The guy forgot to pay $75, offered to make good on it, and they refused, they just watched his house, his life's possessions, and his pets burn alive.
I don't care who you are, that's callous beyond anything I wish to respect.
Simon
Well, that's your Not Tax Dollars at work. Neighbor paid for fire service, he didn't. And as TFA mentions, if you could pay "on delivery", no-one would pay (and the implication is that it costs a damn sight more than $75 to put out a fire.)
Is it callous? Maybe. Was it necessary, and fair to everyone else who was paying their taxes? Yep. Maybe folks will remember this next time they complain about taxes being too high - taxes also pay for nice things like Fire Departments.
I would suspect that the Quebec court was simply ruling that the judgment could be enforced there (treaties and such). I doubt they retried the case on merits.
... IIRC, they won't take money he needs to live (rent, food, transportation, etc), so they'll get his spending-money for the rest of his life (assuming they bother trying to collect), and that'll be the end of it.
Makes you wonder what the point of throwing such a stupidly large number at him - what private citizen has a billion dollars AND doesn't have the means to just bail to a non-extraditing country?
At which point I introduce my TV to the drinking bird.. look at me, I'm paying attention!
Seriously, though: I'll probably just skip the widget if the ad/enjoyment ratio is too far off.
Only sideways on topic - I'm in the process of turning off my cable, since I figured out that at $60/mth for the cable package, it's far cheaper to buy (and yes, I mean actually "pay for on iTunes") the entire seasons of whatever I actually want to watch. Show automatically shows up on my system, no ads, can watch it as much and whenever I want. And as an added bonus, my kid only gets to watch what I let her watch. (No more Elmo!)
I don't think encryption would have helped - if I'm a Bad Guy, I'll still know there's A Plane up there. (Because, um.. it's broadcasting at me). Just because I don't know which plane is which isn't such a big deal when I'm just gonna shoot it down.
Even if this app is banned the mere fact that this is possible means terrorists can write their own programs. If they want to protect air lines they should devise some means securing this automatic signal.
And anyone who thinks they *haven't* had this capability for a while is hiding in the sand.
You're requiring planes to broadcast their position - don't be surprised when people figure out how to receive it.
Disclaimer: I only did the demo for ST:O, and it didn't impress me enough to think of buying. Maybe it's all double rainbows in the paid version...
My problem with ST:O is twofold.
First, it didn't feel much like Trek. Here, Mr. Starfleet - take your phaser and kill X rebels. (Um.. don't these things have stun settings? Ones that knock people out and down, not debuff them?). Oh, and since everyone's shooting to kill, here's a Halo-brand shield to keep your ass alive. By the way, hope you picked tactical for your background, because there's not a lot of call for engineers or science officers here - at least, I never noticed getting any sort of bonus.
Second, and probably slightly unfairly to ST:O, is that the details for the first ST MMO looked really *good*. Team up for crews? Specialize in stations and have that matter? That sounded like Trek, not "Captain McAwesome and his Phaser Cannon of Doom".
I'll grant the Prophet plotline got a bit wacky at the end (was pretty obvious they didn't really know where they were going with it), but as a Commander/Captain, I liked Sisko. Someone who a little bit wily, a little bit pragmatic, willing to get his hands dirty, but still had the core Starfleet idealism.
If anything, that's what made DS9 interesting - it was the Trek that showed what life was like outside the squeaky clean Starfleet.
Slashdot Mirror
Wondering why it wasn't "Researchers find a 'conservative gene'" - it's exactly as accurate (they've found genetic dispositions towards your political outlook). Maybe because they know that liberals will say "gee, that's interesting", while conservatives would have torched the lab?
I'm enjoying SG:U, although I deeply wish they'd skipped the communication stones. Yes, they're canon and it makes sense that they'd be packed. But SG:A suffered from the same problem - it's hard to keep the "isolation" theme going when you can call home as much as you like.
Although I'm hopeful that they're going to subvert the trope.. they seem to be heading in the direction of "yes, you can tell us what to do - but you can't get here, so whatcha gonna do about it if I don't listen?"
And following up "They Have A Plan" with "But The Writers Can't Think Of A Good One" was just sad.
The Big Fail there was that they put "The Plan" out there as part of the premise; doing that without having half a clue as to what the Plan is was just insane.
If you can wrap your head around it, imagine BSG if they had just omitted that line - suddenly the show is a lot better, because you're not looking for something that ain't there...
Sadly, nothing will save the last episode. (Ditto for the last 15 minutes of Lost; I've put that in the filing cabinet along with other SciFi That Didn't Happen.)
So, what we're buying is a recording of Jonathan Frakes yelling "Shields up! Brace for impact!" ?
... as long as your attacker is outside the "border"
Since the internet, by design, is built to route around damage (and taking "portions" offline would count), wouldn't the only real way to prevent an attack be to remove either the source or destination computers from the network?
And removing the destination system would by far be the simplest and least disruptive way to do it. (At least until you track down the source computer).
The best way to avoid terrorism is to live in fear all the time.
Of course, private business could generate just as much fear as the government, but with much lower cost to the private citizen...
Support deprivatization of the fear industry!
Is the energy of mozilla better on improving browsers or office suites ?
Of course, this is putting commercial assumptions on volunteer projects - namely, that Mozilla has the power to tell everyone to stop working on browsers and start working on office suites.
It's a safe bet that the programmers who are interested in working on open source office suites are probably already over at OpenOffice (or some other existing project). It's a safer bet that if they tried to force the issue, you'd just end up with fewer programmers.
Got to make sure? Why? It's fiction, it's a story, entertainment. If you have to make plausible claims and explaination for every little details it'll be a book that bore you to death.
Agreed - take a trick from Doctor Who or Firefly - explain just enough, and only when it's necessary for the plot. How do you get the time machine to keep you in the same relative position? You turn it on and drive really fast.
Because you don't know that you're not implicated.
Remember: They are allowed to lie to you. Just because they told you "everything's OK, don't worry" means absolutely nothing.
Is the amount of time spent sitting in a cell, the money lost in lawyers fees, and the hassle of going to court really worth it? If I am blameless, and the authorities are abusing their power, then emphatically YES. Someone has to keep them honest.
Can you afford to not get paid for the duration of that time sitting in jail? (And quite possibly lose your job completely if it drags on)? Will you lose your house? Can your family afford to get by without your income (and also spending the lawyer fees)?
If you can, I salute you. In my case, I have people who depend on me, and making "a point" doesn't keep a roof over their head.
In this case, he won't win this fight. The best course of action at the point the FBI showed up is to hand it over.
Agreed. Although, I would have made an effort to record the meeting with the FBI - just to counter the "we can't talk about it" angle.
The lawyer would have been nice too. (I see someone beat me to the "ask for a receipt" joke.)
You would want to set the price ahead of time, based on a reasonable estimate of actual cost+convenience fee, just to avoid sleazy extortion setups; but it would be nice if there were a real retail cost in addition to an insurance option.
Sure there is - buy yourself a tanker full of water, some hoses, and a bunch of ladders. Ta-da, you have your own retail fire department. (Staffing not included.)
What we're missing here is the consequence of the FD's decision not to put out the fire: it spread to a neighbor's field. It's fortunate that it didn't damage any structures, because if it had then the neighbor would have had a serious grievance. Fires should not be allowed to burn freely for any reason because they pose a threat to the community.
Oddly, you're missing a point in the chain:
That ends up, on a moral level, not too far from firefighters-arsonists...
(worst case scenario - what would be the problem with billing the firefighting action?)
Realistically? One, they're likely not set up to even calculate the cost of putting out a single fire. Two, they're not set up to handle collections in that manner (it's supposed to be a pre-pay, after all). Third, the guy probably couldn't afford it anyway.
There's no conservatives in a house fire.
Guy has no problem "forgetting" to pay his fees until it's his arse on the line. Then suddenly it's time for the government to bail him out.
They turned up to stop the spread of the fire to a neighbouring property, then they stood and watched as the house burnt to the ground, killing the animals inside. The guy forgot to pay $75, offered to make good on it, and they refused, they just watched his house, his life's possessions, and his pets burn alive. I don't care who you are, that's callous beyond anything I wish to respect. Simon
Well, that's your Not Tax Dollars at work. Neighbor paid for fire service, he didn't. And as TFA mentions, if you could pay "on delivery", no-one would pay (and the implication is that it costs a damn sight more than $75 to put out a fire.)
Is it callous? Maybe. Was it necessary, and fair to everyone else who was paying their taxes? Yep. Maybe folks will remember this next time they complain about taxes being too high - taxes also pay for nice things like Fire Departments.
I would suspect that the Quebec court was simply ruling that the judgment could be enforced there (treaties and such). I doubt they retried the case on merits.
... IIRC, they won't take money he needs to live (rent, food, transportation, etc), so they'll get his spending-money for the rest of his life (assuming they bother trying to collect), and that'll be the end of it.
Makes you wonder what the point of throwing such a stupidly large number at him - what private citizen has a billion dollars AND doesn't have the means to just bail to a non-extraditing country?
At which point I introduce my TV to the drinking bird.. look at me, I'm paying attention!
Seriously, though: I'll probably just skip the widget if the ad/enjoyment ratio is too far off.
Only sideways on topic - I'm in the process of turning off my cable, since I figured out that at $60/mth for the cable package, it's far cheaper to buy (and yes, I mean actually "pay for on iTunes") the entire seasons of whatever I actually want to watch. Show automatically shows up on my system, no ads, can watch it as much and whenever I want. And as an added bonus, my kid only gets to watch what I let her watch. (No more Elmo!)
I don't think encryption would have helped - if I'm a Bad Guy, I'll still know there's A Plane up there. (Because, um.. it's broadcasting at me). Just because I don't know which plane is which isn't such a big deal when I'm just gonna shoot it down.
Even if this app is banned the mere fact that this is possible means terrorists can write their own programs. If they want to protect air lines they should devise some means securing this automatic signal.
And anyone who thinks they *haven't* had this capability for a while is hiding in the sand.
You're requiring planes to broadcast their position - don't be surprised when people figure out how to receive it.
Just the fact it is the same both ways leads me to think an artist designed it, a lot more so than it converts to anything meaningful.
Which is a shame really, but not unexpected.
Especially when you consider that anything short enough to fit in 33 bits is short enough to be reinterpreted into something embarrassing.
Besides, he's the new GG - he doesn't really have a need to hide secret messages; he can call press conferences whenever he wants!
Disclaimer: I only did the demo for ST:O, and it didn't impress me enough to think of buying. Maybe it's all double rainbows in the paid version...
My problem with ST:O is twofold.
First, it didn't feel much like Trek. Here, Mr. Starfleet - take your phaser and kill X rebels. (Um.. don't these things have stun settings? Ones that knock people out and down, not debuff them?). Oh, and since everyone's shooting to kill, here's a Halo-brand shield to keep your ass alive. By the way, hope you picked tactical for your background, because there's not a lot of call for engineers or science officers here - at least, I never noticed getting any sort of bonus.
Second, and probably slightly unfairly to ST:O, is that the details for the first ST MMO looked really *good*. Team up for crews? Specialize in stations and have that matter? That sounded like Trek, not "Captain McAwesome and his Phaser Cannon of Doom".
I'll grant the Prophet plotline got a bit wacky at the end (was pretty obvious they didn't really know where they were going with it), but as a Commander/Captain, I liked Sisko. Someone who a little bit wily, a little bit pragmatic, willing to get his hands dirty, but still had the core Starfleet idealism.
If anything, that's what made DS9 interesting - it was the Trek that showed what life was like outside the squeaky clean Starfleet.