Now.. imagine that person from 500 years ago dutifully voting "their conscience" at the polls.
Afterall, he grew up owning slaves. Why can't he have them now? Don't even get him started on women's sufferage.
If people from 500 years ago survived until now and got to vote, then women and slaves from that era would also have survived and would get to vote as well, which should balance it out.
Nobody has successfully hacked the 3DS or Vita yet (the only "hack" for the Vita is actually a PSP hack that runs inside the PSP emulator). A successful PS3 hack requires keeping the operating system at a certain revision, which most people will have already passed and cannot use, and a successful Xbox 360 hack only runs on certain kernel versions and requires modification that is beyond most people's expertise.
Looking just at his field, evolutionary biology, the unknowns are immense:
The parts that a nonscientist actually cares about are generally solved. To take just one example, evolution's "small" and "large" jumps are all large on a human scale. As far as everyone else is concerned, evolution takes a long time and scientists are just arguing exactly how long.
First, anyone who has a password to our accounts for all practical intents and purposes owns the content. When one dies, as long as some can get onto you equipment they have access to content.
The license can't be transferred. If they get the content by using the password after the owner's death, that's legally no better than if they just torrented everything. In that case, they could just as well skip the middleman and actually torrent everything. The DRM is limiting the physical transfer of ownership, but there's also the legal transfer of ownership to consider.
Criminals often do stupid things (especially in stressful situations, which hijacking a plan or planning a hijack is). I can easily see a terrorist putting on such a shirt reasoning that after all they don't know his plans so it's a private joke only he can get.
Besides, if you ignore it on the grounds that it's too obvious for a terrorist to do, you've suddenly turned it into non-obvious just by ignoring it.
Ah. We have to stop keeping national secrets To Save The Children.
I'm sure that if we were to make it legal for the government to intercept everyone's email on a fishing expedition (hey, maybe they already do) a few pedophiles would be caught. We'd save some children. That still doesn't justify it. I can think of a whole lot of things that would save some children but which we should never think of doing.
That's a technicality--the process is to talk to him and then make the accusation. They haven't charged him because of purely procedural reasons that are entirely his own doing. It's like trying to evade a process server.
He's an accused criminal. The accused criminal doesn't get to decide where the judicial process happens, even if the first step of the process consists of talking to him.
Imagine if Sweden's law was different and they could lay charges against him in absentia. Instead of ordering him to appear for an interview they order him to appear for a trial. He says "I'm not going to leave, but I'll make an offer: why not hold the trial here?", Do you think that the court would treat that as anything except refusing to appear at the trial?
What if he was sentenced to jail? Could he say "I invite you to jail me here instead of in Sweden" and expect to be taken seriously?
Bankruptcy lets a company renege on its obligations. If the company goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy court gets to decide whether the company has to make good on the "promise" that you can keep accessing your games. They may very well decide that the company should pay all its money to creditors and not use any money to pay for programmers, servers, or customer service people to give you access to your games. They might decide that the company should do it anyway to avoid losing intangible goodwill value, but they by no means have to.
Plagiarism is claiming you wrote something that you didn't. Copying something without permission isn't plagiarism unless you are claiming that the copied material is written by you; someone who torrents the Avengers film isn't considered to be committing plagiarism, even by the MPAA. If you copy an account of the Boston Tea Party written by an eyewitness, but you don't claim to be that eyewitness, you're not committing plagiarism at all.
It is certainly possible for there to be nothing important, in the sense of not revealing any whistleblower type of information, while still being dangerous, in the sense that a hostile person could use the information to kill or blackmail someone or disrupt a diplomatic operation.
Imagine that I published your credit card number to the world. That information isn't important to members of the general public, but it still puts your bank account in jeopardy. The two aren't contradictory.
If Dick Cheney went to London and wasn't arrested, 1) it would be because he was being treated unusually lightly rather than because people like Assange are treated unusually harshly 2) he would probably be in the embassy to conduct business that requires being in an embassy, with evading the law being a side effect, rather than that being the sole reason he's there 3) the criminal charges against him are trumped up for political purposes in the first place. They wanted to create anti-US headlines, not to actually put Cheney in prison 4) the criminal charges were brought by a government, Malaysia, which is notorious for human rights abuses itself, so the UK has no reason to pay much attention to it
While people can do things to your natural heart that can make cease to function, they know better than to just casually meddle in such things (unless they're major criminals, or too stupid to live.) And it takes more than a slip of a finger or an accidentally typed zero to do it. As a practical matter, this is not going to be true of implants.
The agency thinks it's safe, but didn't detail what the consequences would be if the agency was wrong?
Come on now, the answer to that depends entirely on which particular item you are asking if the agency is wrong about. If you ask "what are the consequences if the agency is wrong about their belief that the radiation won't drive away Santa Claus", the only answer is that the radiation will drive away Santa Claus.
This sounds like a question asked so the answer can be given a political spin. "You don't think it'll blow up the world?" "Of course not." "But what are the consequences if you're wrong about that?"
If Vietnam needs something from the US as a result of the war (cleanup of Agent Orange), and they didn't get it, and they are incapable of forcing the US to provide it, then it's not like total victory in every meaningful way.
We are friends with Germany and Japan, but the governments of Germany and Japan that we fought are gone, and if they came back I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be friends with them. The government of Vietnam isn't gone; we may have tried to help "Vietnam", but we certainly didn't try to help that particular government.
Has Al Qaeda paid any significant reparations for 9/11? We managed to freeze some assets, but I believe that was a pretty small percentage of the damage.
If you want to point out that to a Vietnamese civilian, the war wasn't exactly won, you don't even need to invoke the United States for that. Just getting the government that Vietnam actually got after the war was a clear loss for everyone except high-ranking members of that government.
When the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan, was that a win for the average Afghani? No, regardless of civilian casualties, because being ruled by the Taliban is a loss all by itself.
The losing side pays reparations if the winning side is capable of forcing them to. If the winning side is not capable of forcing them to, the losing side doesn't pay reparations.
The West couldn't even force Germany to pay all their reparations after World War I, and trying to force them was one of the things that helped start World War II.
And I don't think Iraq was made to pay any reparations to Kuwait after the Kuwaitis drove them out (with the help of a foreign power, same as Vietnam did). Nor has the Taliban paid reparations to the US over 9/11.
We always talk about the US fighting a war, winning it, but failing to win the peace. Well, that doesn't just apply when the US is the one who won the war. Vietnam fought a war, won it, and earned the right to send millions of their people to reeducation camps, and to execute up to 200,000 of them, but they failed to win the peace. (I wonder if more people went to reeducation camps than were affected by Agent Orange.) The US hasn't been able to get the Taliban to pay for the damage caused by 9/11; why should Vietnam expect anything when they win a war?
Or to put it another way, they didn't win the war by enough. Winning a war by enough that you can reduce your losses by looting the defeated enemy is actually pretty hard.
Most of the problems with Windows are either 1) real problems even by Microsoft standards, but problems that Microsoft puts low on the priority scale, or 2) problems that happen because marketing decides to put something stupid into Windows. If a big company asks for one of those to be fixed, Microsoft will fix it.
But UEFI is nearly unique. It fits into neither of these categories; it's something that Microsoft broke on purpose to help extend its monopoly. The fact that Microsoft is willing to fix bugs and override marketing for big companies doesn't mean they will undo UEFI; UEFI is in a complete other category of things wrong with Windows and there's little precedent for it.
Obama's quote was from 2008, but then, the question is "why did this not bother you assuming you voted for him in 2008"? After all, you didn't know he was going to change his mind later. At the time, you must have realized "if this man becomes president, he could put these ideas into practice" and you were perfectly fine with that without caring that it is what you now call anti-gay.
If Obama in 2008 didn't bother you, why should Chick-Fil-A in 2012 bother you, considering that Obama has a lot more power than the head of Chick-Fil-A even counting monetary donations?
There's a big difference between a business giving millions of dollars to an anti-gay marriage organisation, and some fry cook behind the counter who doesn't like the gays.
There's a difference between a business giving millions of dollars, and a fry cook. But the business has thousands (or more) fry cook level employees. The effect all adds up.
The only significant view about Romney's days at Cranbook, as reported in the mass media in the period before the election when political campaigns are in full swing, is his bullying.
That's not the same as "the only significant view is about his bullying". Rather, it means that political campaigning causes a temporary emphasis on things that otherwise aren't emphasized as much. Wikipedia doesn't give weight to incidents the same way they are weighted during a political campaign, but rather how they would be weighted in the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
If people from 500 years ago survived until now and got to vote, then women and slaves from that era would also have survived and would get to vote as well, which should balance it out.
No, that's not true.
We even had a story a few months ago.
Nobody has successfully hacked the 3DS or Vita yet (the only "hack" for the Vita is actually a PSP hack that runs inside the PSP emulator). A successful PS3 hack requires keeping the operating system at a certain revision, which most people will have already passed and cannot use, and a successful Xbox 360 hack only runs on certain kernel versions and requires modification that is beyond most people's expertise.
Looking just at his field, evolutionary biology, the unknowns are immense:
The parts that a nonscientist actually cares about are generally solved. To take just one example, evolution's "small" and "large" jumps are all large on a human scale. As far as everyone else is concerned, evolution takes a long time and scientists are just arguing exactly how long.
.
First, anyone who has a password to our accounts for all practical intents and purposes owns the content. When one dies, as long as some can get onto you equipment they have access to content.
The license can't be transferred. If they get the content by using the password after the owner's death, that's legally no better than if they just torrented everything. In that case, they could just as well skip the middleman and actually torrent everything. The DRM is limiting the physical transfer of ownership, but there's also the legal transfer of ownership to consider.
Criminals often do stupid things (especially in stressful situations, which hijacking a plan or planning a hijack is). I can easily see a terrorist putting on such a shirt reasoning that after all they don't know his plans so it's a private joke only he can get.
Besides, if you ignore it on the grounds that it's too obvious for a terrorist to do, you've suddenly turned it into non-obvious just by ignoring it.
That doesn't work. You have to pay sales taxes and income taxes on the purchases in both directions.
Ah. We have to stop keeping national secrets To Save The Children.
I'm sure that if we were to make it legal for the government to intercept everyone's email on a fishing expedition (hey, maybe they already do) a few pedophiles would be caught. We'd save some children. That still doesn't justify it. I can think of a whole lot of things that would save some children but which we should never think of doing.
That's a technicality--the process is to talk to him and then make the accusation. They haven't charged him because of purely procedural reasons that are entirely his own doing. It's like trying to evade a process server.
He's an accused criminal. The accused criminal doesn't get to decide where the judicial process happens, even if the first step of the process consists of talking to him.
Imagine if Sweden's law was different and they could lay charges against him in absentia. Instead of ordering him to appear for an interview they order him to appear for a trial. He says "I'm not going to leave, but I'll make an offer: why not hold the trial here?", Do you think that the court would treat that as anything except refusing to appear at the trial?
What if he was sentenced to jail? Could he say "I invite you to jail me here instead of in Sweden" and expect to be taken seriously?
Bankruptcy lets a company renege on its obligations. If the company goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy court gets to decide whether the company has to make good on the "promise" that you can keep accessing your games. They may very well decide that the company should pay all its money to creditors and not use any money to pay for programmers, servers, or customer service people to give you access to your games. They might decide that the company should do it anyway to avoid losing intangible goodwill value, but they by no means have to.
Plagiarism is claiming you wrote something that you didn't. Copying something without permission isn't plagiarism unless you are claiming that the copied material is written by you; someone who torrents the Avengers film isn't considered to be committing plagiarism, even by the MPAA. If you copy an account of the Boston Tea Party written by an eyewitness, but you don't claim to be that eyewitness, you're not committing plagiarism at all.
It is certainly possible for there to be nothing important, in the sense of not revealing any whistleblower type of information, while still being dangerous, in the sense that a hostile person could use the information to kill or blackmail someone or disrupt a diplomatic operation.
Imagine that I published your credit card number to the world. That information isn't important to members of the general public, but it still puts your bank account in jeopardy. The two aren't contradictory.
If Dick Cheney went to London and wasn't arrested,
1) it would be because he was being treated unusually lightly rather than because people like Assange are treated unusually harshly
2) he would probably be in the embassy to conduct business that requires being in an embassy, with evading the law being a side effect, rather than that being the sole reason he's there
3) the criminal charges against him are trumped up for political purposes in the first place. They wanted to create anti-US headlines, not to actually put Cheney in prison
4) the criminal charges were brought by a government, Malaysia, which is notorious for human rights abuses itself, so the UK has no reason to pay much attention to it
While people can do things to your natural heart that can make cease to function, they know better than to just casually meddle in such things (unless they're major criminals, or too stupid to live.) And it takes more than a slip of a finger or an accidentally typed zero to do it. As a practical matter, this is not going to be true of implants.
The agency thinks it's safe, but didn't detail what the consequences would be if the agency was wrong?
Come on now, the answer to that depends entirely on which particular item you are asking if the agency is wrong about. If you ask "what are the consequences if the agency is wrong about their belief that the radiation won't drive away Santa Claus", the only answer is that the radiation will drive away Santa Claus.
This sounds like a question asked so the answer can be given a political spin. "You don't think it'll blow up the world?" "Of course not." "But what are the consequences if you're wrong about that?"
If Vietnam needs something from the US as a result of the war (cleanup of Agent Orange), and they didn't get it, and they are incapable of forcing the US to provide it, then it's not like total victory in every meaningful way.
We are friends with Germany and Japan, but the governments of Germany and Japan that we fought are gone, and if they came back I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be friends with them. The government of Vietnam isn't gone; we may have tried to help "Vietnam", but we certainly didn't try to help that particular government.
I stand corrected for Iraq.
Has Al Qaeda paid any significant reparations for 9/11? We managed to freeze some assets, but I believe that was a pretty small percentage of the damage.
If you want to point out that to a Vietnamese civilian, the war wasn't exactly won, you don't even need to invoke the United States for that. Just getting the government that Vietnam actually got after the war was a clear loss for everyone except high-ranking members of that government.
When the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan, was that a win for the average Afghani? No, regardless of civilian casualties, because being ruled by the Taliban is a loss all by itself.
The losing side pays reparations if the winning side is capable of forcing them to. If the winning side is not capable of forcing them to, the losing side doesn't pay reparations.
The West couldn't even force Germany to pay all their reparations after World War I, and trying to force them was one of the things that helped start World War II.
And I don't think Iraq was made to pay any reparations to Kuwait after the Kuwaitis drove them out (with the help of a foreign power, same as Vietnam did). Nor has the Taliban paid reparations to the US over 9/11.
We always talk about the US fighting a war, winning it, but failing to win the peace. Well, that doesn't just apply when the US is the one who won the war. Vietnam fought a war, won it, and earned the right to send millions of their people to reeducation camps, and to execute up to 200,000 of them, but they failed to win the peace. (I wonder if more people went to reeducation camps than were affected by Agent Orange.) The US hasn't been able to get the Taliban to pay for the damage caused by 9/11; why should Vietnam expect anything when they win a war?
Or to put it another way, they didn't win the war by enough. Winning a war by enough that you can reduce your losses by looting the defeated enemy is actually pretty hard.
Most of the problems with Windows are either 1) real problems even by Microsoft standards, but problems that Microsoft puts low on the priority scale, or 2) problems that happen because marketing decides to put something stupid into Windows. If a big company asks for one of those to be fixed, Microsoft will fix it.
But UEFI is nearly unique. It fits into neither of these categories; it's something that Microsoft broke on purpose to help extend its monopoly. The fact that Microsoft is willing to fix bugs and override marketing for big companies doesn't mean they will undo UEFI; UEFI is in a complete other category of things wrong with Windows and there's little precedent for it.
Obama's quote was from 2008, but then, the question is "why did this not bother you assuming you voted for him in 2008"? After all, you didn't know he was going to change his mind later. At the time, you must have realized "if this man becomes president, he could put these ideas into practice" and you were perfectly fine with that without caring that it is what you now call anti-gay.
If Obama in 2008 didn't bother you, why should Chick-Fil-A in 2012 bother you, considering that Obama has a lot more power than the head of Chick-Fil-A even counting monetary donations?
There's a big difference between a business giving millions of dollars to an anti-gay marriage organisation, and some fry cook behind the counter who doesn't like the gays.
There's a difference between a business giving millions of dollars, and a fry cook. But the business has thousands (or more) fry cook level employees. The effect all adds up.
The only significant view about Romney's days at Cranbook, as reported in the mass media in the period before the election when political campaigns are in full swing, is his bullying.
That's not the same as "the only significant view is about his bullying". Rather, it means that political campaigning causes a temporary emphasis on things that otherwise aren't emphasized as much. Wikipedia doesn't give weight to incidents the same way they are weighted during a political campaign, but rather how they would be weighted in the long term.