So having an open wifi is likely less risky than choosing to live in a house instead of in a box cardboard box under a bridge. In terms of avoiding a no-knock raid when you haven't done anything wrong anyway.
People who live in cardboard boxes under bridges are, if anything, more used to no-knock raids and other forms of police action than those of us living in houses with knockable doors.
Actually, the whole reason it's a serious federal crime to read someone else's mail is that this is not true; we have a reasonable expectation of privacy with personal mail.
I'd like a law that allows any person to video/audio record any public official during work hours regardless of where they are. The only limitation should be that the release of the recording must be delayed by 60 days. We should be allowed to record
- anyone who works in a public facility (doctors, lawyers, IT, security, secretaries, directors, whatever).
I don't believe there should be open access to all parts of every facility.
If you don't want to be recorded, don't work in the public sector.
That's absurd and you are an idiot (or merely a troll, in which case I'm sorry I'm feeding you). Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to scrub from the recordings all the private data that most of these jobs involve? And many of these jobs depend on people coming to the employee with confidential matters. If all school teachers (guidance counselors, etc.) were recorded all the time, students would feel less comfortable bringing up personal issues with them, so things like child abuse would be less likely to be reported. And how do you record doctors' activities without revealing private medical data? And judges do a million things in chambers that are and should be private: for example, they may hear claims that is inflammatory and false, or private details such as medical records, or oversee negotiations between parties who can't speak freely in public because of NDAs, etc. And elected representatives and police meet in confidence with people they represent, yes, sometimes for nefarious purposes, but also for very legitimate ones, such as victims of crime who fear retribution if the mere fact that they made the visit were known. The examples are legion (do you want tapes from shelters for abused women to be put up on Youtube?). These are all very legitimate functions of government that involve individual privacy--not of the employee but of the citizen who is dealing with the government official. Do you have any idea what a nightmare it would be to ensure that no inappropriate information was released? Or do you really not care about the consequences?
IANADL (I am not a Dutch legislator), but if it causes the network's owner financial losses because of the bandwidth used, it could be reasonable to classify it as an economic crime.
even though by its definition (for thousands of years), tragedy is never an accident.
Really? Thousands of years? English is not that old. The Greek word from which the English word tragedy originates is that old, but it's a different word in a different language (and it means "goat song"). Where does this "definition" you are referring to come from? If you go by the dictionary, actually look at one; in the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, you'll find:
fig. An unhappy or fatal event or series of events in real life; a dreadful calamity or disaster.
Followed by examples going back to the 16th century.
Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that linguists truly believe that vanity is what drives language and changes words from meaningful to less meaningful (though I have heard the argument before).
Wait what? Vanity? Where does this idea of vanity come from?
Where do those meanings come from in the first place, if not usage? How do you decide which meaning is the "correct" one? Semantics, in the sense in which it's used by linguists, is descriptive, not prescriptive. Meanings change over time If you insist on a usage at odds with that of most native speakers of English, then it is you who will fail to be understood.
I agree with you in principle, except that the post I replied to referenced the date when CDs first came out. Still, 1992 seems a little late; I remember CDs becoming popular in the late 80s (albeit for higher-end stereo equipment, not in portable form). But sales grew steadily over the late 80s. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021711disruption
You have very idiosyncratic definitions of "accident" and "tragic." Most people include in "accident" both the effects of human mistakes and occurrences beyond human control; likewise "tragedy."
Centralized power generation networks is not a good idea, and it never will be. I do not build my data networks that way, or my computing infrastructure for the same reasons using a centralized model. They only reason why we build them that way is because a very few corrupt people want to control energy and you can't do that if it is built any other way.
One of the good reasons for central power generation is that demand shifts around and it would require enormous overcapacity to put a small generator (of whatever kind) in every point of consumption. I turn most of my power-using equipment off when I leave home in the morning, then use a bunch of power at work during the day, and then need more power at home in the evening (cooking, tv, etc.). Your model would require that both my home and my workplace have enough generating capacity to power full operations, whereas a centralized (or otherwise distributed) system only requires that the system as a whole have that capacity and flexibility.
Not to get into one side or the other of this debate, but when I see something like that statement I have to point out that the Titanic was unsinkable. Never speak in absolutes. While the reactors of today may be safer than Chernobyl, they are products of fallible people and subject to failure themselves.
The post did not say nothing could ever go wrong, just that this particular form of failure could not happen. It's like saying a helium-filled dirigible could never have a Hindenberg-type catastrophe. Lots of things could go wrong, but helium will never explode like hydrogen does.
How many died in America's worst nuclear accident ever (3 mile island)? Zero.
Depends on how you define "worst nuclear accident" and "in." (A) It's likely that some people died because of Three Mile Island, though not in it. If death is the measure of "worst," then we should count an accident at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls in 1961 that killed three people.
Slashdot Mirror
So having an open wifi is likely less risky than choosing to live in a house instead of in a box cardboard box under a bridge. In terms of avoiding a no-knock raid when you haven't done anything wrong anyway.
People who live in cardboard boxes under bridges are, if anything, more used to no-knock raids and other forms of police action than those of us living in houses with knockable doors.
No, it had better be neat. If it were on the rocks that would make the engine much less efficient.
...and 0.0398 rods is better?
Remind me again how you get from AK to FL without going through Canada?
spells his first name with an "i" at the end should never be taken seriously.
What do you have against the Luigis and Zvis of the world?
Actually, the whole reason it's a serious federal crime to read someone else's mail is that this is not true; we have a reasonable expectation of privacy with personal mail.
I'd like a law that allows any person to video/audio record any public official during work hours regardless of where they are. The only limitation should be that the release of the recording must be delayed by 60 days. We should be allowed to record - anyone who works in a public facility (doctors, lawyers, IT, security, secretaries, directors, whatever).
I don't believe there should be open access to all parts of every facility.
If you don't want to be recorded, don't work in the public sector.
That's absurd and you are an idiot (or merely a troll, in which case I'm sorry I'm feeding you). Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to scrub from the recordings all the private data that most of these jobs involve? And many of these jobs depend on people coming to the employee with confidential matters. If all school teachers (guidance counselors, etc.) were recorded all the time, students would feel less comfortable bringing up personal issues with them, so things like child abuse would be less likely to be reported. And how do you record doctors' activities without revealing private medical data? And judges do a million things in chambers that are and should be private: for example, they may hear claims that is inflammatory and false, or private details such as medical records, or oversee negotiations between parties who can't speak freely in public because of NDAs, etc. And elected representatives and police meet in confidence with people they represent, yes, sometimes for nefarious purposes, but also for very legitimate ones, such as victims of crime who fear retribution if the mere fact that they made the visit were known. The examples are legion (do you want tapes from shelters for abused women to be put up on Youtube?). These are all very legitimate functions of government that involve individual privacy--not of the employee but of the citizen who is dealing with the government official. Do you have any idea what a nightmare it would be to ensure that no inappropriate information was released? Or do you really not care about the consequences?
Is it possible that the rules vary from country to country? Nah...
IANADL (I am not a Dutch legislator), but if it causes the network's owner financial losses because of the bandwidth used, it could be reasonable to classify it as an economic crime.
Godwin's Law.
Are you volunteering to judge?
even though by its definition (for thousands of years), tragedy is never an accident.
Really? Thousands of years? English is not that old. The Greek word from which the English word tragedy originates is that old, but it's a different word in a different language (and it means "goat song"). Where does this "definition" you are referring to come from? If you go by the dictionary, actually look at one; in the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, you'll find:
Followed by examples going back to the 16th century.
Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that linguists truly believe that vanity is what drives language and changes words from meaningful to less meaningful (though I have heard the argument before).
Wait what? Vanity? Where does this idea of vanity come from?
Where do those meanings come from in the first place, if not usage? How do you decide which meaning is the "correct" one? Semantics, in the sense in which it's used by linguists, is descriptive, not prescriptive. Meanings change over time If you insist on a usage at odds with that of most native speakers of English, then it is you who will fail to be understood.
I'm afraid your proposal won't gain any twaction.
I agree with you in principle, except that the post I replied to referenced the date when CDs first came out. Still, 1992 seems a little late; I remember CDs becoming popular in the late 80s (albeit for higher-end stereo equipment, not in portable form). But sales grew steadily over the late 80s. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021711disruption
You have very idiosyncratic definitions of "accident" and "tragic." Most people include in "accident" both the effects of human mistakes and occurrences beyond human control; likewise "tragedy."
They're more trustworthy than government shills, and we have no other sources of information except for those two.
Not in this case. TEPCO routinely covered up and gave the government false reports about safety violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company#Scandal
Centralized power generation networks is not a good idea, and it never will be. I do not build my data networks that way, or my computing infrastructure for the same reasons using a centralized model. They only reason why we build them that way is because a very few corrupt people want to control energy and you can't do that if it is built any other way.
One of the good reasons for central power generation is that demand shifts around and it would require enormous overcapacity to put a small generator (of whatever kind) in every point of consumption. I turn most of my power-using equipment off when I leave home in the morning, then use a bunch of power at work during the day, and then need more power at home in the evening (cooking, tv, etc.). Your model would require that both my home and my workplace have enough generating capacity to power full operations, whereas a centralized (or otherwise distributed) system only requires that the system as a whole have that capacity and flexibility.
Not to get into one side or the other of this debate, but when I see something like that statement I have to point out that the Titanic was unsinkable. Never speak in absolutes. While the reactors of today may be safer than Chernobyl, they are products of fallible people and subject to failure themselves.
The post did not say nothing could ever go wrong, just that this particular form of failure could not happen. It's like saying a helium-filled dirigible could never have a Hindenberg-type catastrophe. Lots of things could go wrong, but helium will never explode like hydrogen does.
For some values of "live."
Adjusting for CPI, $14 in 1983 is about $31 in 2011. $20 today is about $9 in 1983 dollars.
If you're going to compare deaths from the two modes of generation, you should at least include deaths from uranium mining. Uranium miners probably have elevated cancer rates: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html And of course uranium miners die in regular accidents just like coal miners, e.g. this one last year: http://www.aggregateresearch.com/articles/19320/Uranium-miner-dies-in-rock-fall.aspx I'm not against nuclear, just bad statistics.
How many died in America's worst nuclear accident ever (3 mile island)? Zero.
Depends on how you define "worst nuclear accident" and "in." (A) It's likely that some people died because of Three Mile Island, though not in it. If death is the measure of "worst," then we should count an accident at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls in 1961 that killed three people.
Hamilton is downwind of so much industrial pollution that it would be impossible to sort out the effect of the coal emissions...
Man did his time, he's a free man now. I don't even think we should keep these records.
The repeat offenders, the 3 strikes rule is fair I think.
Wait, huh? How do you know who's a repeat offender without keeping records?