New Tory did it out of self-interest (and everyone who mattered, noticed the effect). Old Tory do it out of principle (and no-one who notices, matters).
When the choice is between two similar evils, always choose the man who doesn't have a queer conviction that he's doing it for your own good.
Expect policing to be farmed out to private enterprise... oh look, just announced...
Prison to be farmed out to private enterprise... and turned into compulsory labour for that enterprise... oh look, announced at the Tory conference yesterday...
Healthcare rationing to be turned into GPs buying from competing healthcare private enterprise, because goddammit the free market guarantees not just any laparoscopic cholecystectomy but the best profit-making laparoscopic cholecystectomy... oh look, announced a few weeks ago, despite manifesto commitments not to perform another wasteful NHS top-down change...
I'm going to sit back and do very little for this country until Thatcherism Part 2 fucks things up enough over the next decade that half the country hates Cameron with a similar passion.
There has recently been an orchestration of events surrounding existing anti-filesharing methods, and the purpose is simple: to bring on the Digital Economy Act.
Chief Master Winegarten, the judge who has been issuing all the Norwich Pharmacal orders requiring ISPs to release data, has suddenly become critical of ACS:Law. ISP user data has and confidential e-mails have appeared on a web server. Large ISPs which have complied summarily with ACS - i.e. the ones with government contracts more valuable than any collection of attentive geeks' custom - are now raising public objections.
That's a fairly passive aggressive response to my simply answering Stargoat's question as phrased. I also answered fairly early, although maybe it's been discussed at length by later posters in an earlier thread.
Yes, it's possible that he will die before 25 years are up, but this is a good estimate of an achievable upper limit. The patient has received assistance for his left ventricle, not an artificial heart; this treatment is not new, although what is interesting is the age of the patient and the/hope/ that it will last for several decades rather than as a temporary measure before transplant. If you want an answer, sign up more guinea pigs.
tl;dr don't take anything you read in the Torygraph at face value, and don't get so worked up:-).
How do you go through life knowing that you are relying on a muscle to beat regularly, every second or two at least, almost without interruption, for more than 2,207,520,000 seconds? Such a minute, weak mass of carbon in a soulless universe, somehow managing to keep itself together for that long... and so many things could go wrong, both within and without.
Yet the majority, while young, neither seem nor need to give it a second thought.
These days, though, with advances in lights out management, you can build a huge data center and only need a few low-pay button pushers
This explains why 10 years ago the admin helped you out, and today you help out the admin.
Remind me not to host any nontrivial systems where your philosophy manages the data centre. I want skilled people working quickly where the problem is going to happen, not slowly by trying to troubleshoot 1000 miles away.
Why does everyone get caught in the "fear" part and not in the "coercion" part?
Are you asking that question of yourself? Read the post you made earlier. I even responded in a similar light to your own, i.e. that the problem[tm] with a bomb threat is the apprehension of physical force rather than the instilling of fear.
I find "visual" mechanics, i.e. anything which supposedly can be deduced by cursory visual observation rather than a consideration of theory and careful experimentation, most difficult of all. Sometimes I go so far as to wonder whether people who stare at an engine and start waffling in detail about what bit does what, how and why are simply regurgitating what they have read in a book.
Contrast with quantum mechanics, which may not be "intuitive" to those who find classical mechanics so. But it is precisely why it makes me feel more comfortable. I rely on the facts presented, not on everyone's favourite harbinger of prejudice, common sense, and her sister in arms, the crude analogy. Anyway, it would not have taken thousands of years of human civilisation, including a mathematical and scientific component, to reach F=ma if classical mechanics were really that obvious.
I recently read a good counter argument to yours: throwing a cream pie in your face may be illegal, but it doesn't mean I raped you.
And even if special interest groups succeed in getting people to call cream pieing (see what I did there?) someone "rape", it still won't actually be rape.
Finally, copying software without authorisation is often not criminal.
Well sure, if you can't be bothered researching for yourself.
Yes, I'm better off finding more reliable, detailed information elsewhere. If I'm lazy when it comes to current political events, I'm not going to go beyond Twitter and I'm going to have a very distorted, shallow view; if I'm not lazy, I will do the research myself and not use Twitter in the first place.
Broadcast message services like twitter are about exchanging ideas, globally, quickly.
The whole Internet is about exchanging ideas, globally, quickly. Why do I need the restrictive environment of Twitter to do this? Better in the case of the Iranian protests was to read the blogs of people with a connection with Iran who were receiving information from those in Iran, being open about how they have received information and providing a degree of commentary.
I mean, really, do you ask your friends for authentication every time they tell you something?
Strawman. It is likely that you have a good idea as to the reliability and fields of expertise of your friends. They have the time and space to provide detail which you can analyse and discuss. These valuable aspects of knowledge dissemination are missing from Twitter as it was used during the protests.
For all you know I set up a troll account to randomly describe horrible things I "saw". Since it is so easy to make claims in 140 characters and, as you show, Twitter users have low standards for knowledge verification, readers would be sucked up into the mayhem and have another "source" showing how evil the Iranian government is. The regime genuinely being oppressive notwithstanding, such knee-jerk public furor would be quite valuable for anyone wanting to commence military action against Iran.
Ask for irrefutable evidence of veracity every time they mention something they think they heard on TV last year?
If Twitter is about "exchanging ideas globally, quickly" then something my friend thinks he heard on television last year is hopefully not illustrative. For anything nontrivial (e.g. the protests in Iran), I certainly would not take "I think I heard it on TV last year" as confirmation of anything. Would you?
This. The only time I thought "wow, maybe Twitter has a use" was during the American-sponsored protests of the election in Iran. But then I was reminded:
As is so often the case in the media world, Twitter's strengths are also its weaknesses. The vast body of information about current events in Iran that circulates on Twitter is chaotic, subjective and totally unverifiable. It's impossible to authenticate sources. It's also not clear who exactly is using Twitter within Iran, especially in English. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the bulk of tweets are coming from "hyphenated" Iranians not actually in the country who are getting the word out to Western observers, rather than from the protesters themselves, who favor other, less public media. This is, after all, a country where the government once debated the death penalty for dissident bloggers.
It generally wasn't people running around watching things and sending updates on their mobiles. 140 soon-forgotten characters on yet another lazy Internet user medium isn't worth risking your life for when you're protesting such a government. The useful information was exported and placed on traditional and independent news sites/blogs.
They are trying to harm people by instilling fear, and that should be punished
Seriously? So if I can think of things to make you frightened, or if I say something which just happens to make you frightened, I need to be punished by the law? What would you do if I told you that in the US as a young man you were several thousand times more likely to die in a road accident? Or from mental illness?
Surely you should never leave the house to cross the street. And don't think negative thoughts, it might destroy you.
Is this post communism^Wterrorism?
Look, a bomb threat might come under assault because you are apprehensive of physical harm. But to make it a crime because "it instils fear" is absurd. Also, anything you say in response to this post that I disagree with is likely to instil fear in me.
You mean, like working in central London before the Good Friday Agreement? Oh, that's right, everyone got on with his life and didn't "live in fear", even though some of the bombs were real.
Of course, you may just be from the UK, where you have the options to state that acts of the government's definition of terror are wrong or to risk up to 7 years in prison.
Remember, kids, driving opinions underground is a great way of preventing angry words from turning into action.
The glorified security guard gets convicted; the bureaucrats in East Germany responsible for monitoring dissent... where is Putin now?
I wonder what happens if I try selling cannabis in the US then make an attempt to scale the prison walls? Or perhaps we can tack on an endgame to America's Army where some hypothetical court in 2038 (signed integers will surely play havoc with civilisation) lets you face the consequences of your actions?
Slashdot Mirror
A data visualisation researcher hasn't seen this method of visualising data before xkcd? Really?
What is the correct way to respond to a post obviously meant as a joke, Chief Humour Officer?
New Tory did it out of self-interest (and everyone who mattered, noticed the effect). Old Tory do it out of principle (and no-one who notices, matters).
When the choice is between two similar evils, always choose the man who doesn't have a queer conviction that he's doing it for your own good.
Expect policing to be farmed out to private enterprise... oh look, just announced...
Prison to be farmed out to private enterprise... and turned into compulsory labour for that enterprise... oh look, announced at the Tory conference yesterday...
Healthcare rationing to be turned into GPs buying from competing healthcare private enterprise, because goddammit the free market guarantees not just any laparoscopic cholecystectomy but the best profit-making laparoscopic cholecystectomy... oh look, announced a few weeks ago, despite manifesto commitments not to perform another wasteful NHS top-down change...
I'm going to sit back and do very little for this country until Thatcherism Part 2 fucks things up enough over the next decade that half the country hates Cameron with a similar passion.
There has recently been an orchestration of events surrounding existing anti-filesharing methods, and the purpose is simple: to bring on the Digital Economy Act.
Chief Master Winegarten, the judge who has been issuing all the Norwich Pharmacal orders requiring ISPs to release data, has suddenly become critical of ACS:Law. ISP user data has and confidential e-mails have appeared on a web server. Large ISPs which have complied summarily with ACS - i.e. the ones with government contracts more valuable than any collection of attentive geeks' custom - are now raising public objections.
That's a fairly passive aggressive response to my simply answering Stargoat's question as phrased. I also answered fairly early, although maybe it's been discussed at length by later posters in an earlier thread.
Yes, it's possible that he will die before 25 years are up, but this is a good estimate of an achievable upper limit. The patient has received assistance for his left ventricle, not an artificial heart; this treatment is not new, although what is interesting is the age of the patient and the /hope/ that it will last for several decades rather than as a temporary measure before transplant. If you want an answer, sign up more guinea pigs.
tl;dr don't take anything you read in the Torygraph at face value, and don't get so worked up :-).
How do you go through life knowing that you are relying on a muscle to beat regularly, every second or two at least, almost without interruption, for more than 2,207,520,000 seconds? Such a minute, weak mass of carbon in a soulless universe, somehow managing to keep itself together for that long... and so many things could go wrong, both within and without.
Yet the majority, while young, neither seem nor need to give it a second thought.
Duchenne. See summary. He won't live past 40 w/ current med.
These days, though, with advances in lights out management, you can build a huge data center and only need a few low-pay button pushers
This explains why 10 years ago the admin helped you out, and today you help out the admin.
Remind me not to host any nontrivial systems where your philosophy manages the data centre. I want skilled people working quickly where the problem is going to happen, not slowly by trying to troubleshoot 1000 miles away.
Why does everyone get caught in the "fear" part and not in the "coercion" part?
Are you asking that question of yourself? Read the post you made earlier. I even responded in a similar light to your own, i.e. that the problem[tm] with a bomb threat is the apprehension of physical force rather than the instilling of fear.
I find "visual" mechanics, i.e. anything which supposedly can be deduced by cursory visual observation rather than a consideration of theory and careful experimentation, most difficult of all. Sometimes I go so far as to wonder whether people who stare at an engine and start waffling in detail about what bit does what, how and why are simply regurgitating what they have read in a book.
Contrast with quantum mechanics, which may not be "intuitive" to those who find classical mechanics so. But it is precisely why it makes me feel more comfortable. I rely on the facts presented, not on everyone's favourite harbinger of prejudice, common sense, and her sister in arms, the crude analogy. Anyway, it would not have taken thousands of years of human civilisation, including a mathematical and scientific component, to reach F=ma if classical mechanics were really that obvious.
My post including subject was exactly 140 characters. Not that I expected anyone to notice ;'(.
If you are interested in the truth and have the required attention span to analyse detailed information, you won't be using Twitter.
I recently read a good counter argument to yours: throwing a cream pie in your face may be illegal, but it doesn't mean I raped you.
And even if special interest groups succeed in getting people to call cream pieing (see what I did there?) someone "rape", it still won't actually be rape.
Finally, copying software without authorisation is often not criminal.
Indeed; with piracy, canon demands cannon.
Well sure, if you can't be bothered researching for yourself.
Yes, I'm better off finding more reliable, detailed information elsewhere. If I'm lazy when it comes to current political events, I'm not going to go beyond Twitter and I'm going to have a very distorted, shallow view; if I'm not lazy, I will do the research myself and not use Twitter in the first place.
Broadcast message services like twitter are about exchanging ideas, globally, quickly.
The whole Internet is about exchanging ideas, globally, quickly. Why do I need the restrictive environment of Twitter to do this? Better in the case of the Iranian protests was to read the blogs of people with a connection with Iran who were receiving information from those in Iran, being open about how they have received information and providing a degree of commentary.
I mean, really, do you ask your friends for authentication every time they tell you something?
Strawman. It is likely that you have a good idea as to the reliability and fields of expertise of your friends. They have the time and space to provide detail which you can analyse and discuss. These valuable aspects of knowledge dissemination are missing from Twitter as it was used during the protests.
For all you know I set up a troll account to randomly describe horrible things I "saw". Since it is so easy to make claims in 140 characters and, as you show, Twitter users have low standards for knowledge verification, readers would be sucked up into the mayhem and have another "source" showing how evil the Iranian government is. The regime genuinely being oppressive notwithstanding, such knee-jerk public furor would be quite valuable for anyone wanting to commence military action against Iran.
Ask for irrefutable evidence of veracity every time they mention something they think they heard on TV last year?
If Twitter is about "exchanging ideas globally, quickly" then something my friend thinks he heard on television last year is hopefully not illustrative. For anything nontrivial (e.g. the protests in Iran), I certainly would not take "I think I heard it on TV last year" as confirmation of anything. Would you?
This. The only time I thought "wow, maybe Twitter has a use" was during the American-sponsored protests of the election in Iran. But then I was reminded:
As is so often the case in the media world, Twitter's strengths are also its weaknesses. The vast body of information about current events in Iran that circulates on Twitter is chaotic, subjective and totally unverifiable. It's impossible to authenticate sources. It's also not clear who exactly is using Twitter within Iran, especially in English. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the bulk of tweets are coming from "hyphenated" Iranians not actually in the country who are getting the word out to Western observers, rather than from the protesters themselves, who favor other, less public media. This is, after all, a country where the government once debated the death penalty for dissident bloggers.
It generally wasn't people running around watching things and sending updates on their mobiles. 140 soon-forgotten characters on yet another lazy Internet user medium isn't worth risking your life for when you're protesting such a government. The useful information was exported and placed on traditional and independent news sites/blogs.
They are trying to harm people by instilling fear, and that should be punished
Seriously? So if I can think of things to make you frightened, or if I say something which just happens to make you frightened, I need to be punished by the law? What would you do if I told you that in the US as a young man you were several thousand times more likely to die in a road accident? Or from mental illness?
Surely you should never leave the house to cross the street. And don't think negative thoughts, it might destroy you.
Is this post communism^Wterrorism?
Look, a bomb threat might come under assault because you are apprehensive of physical harm. But to make it a crime because "it instils fear" is absurd. Also, anything you say in response to this post that I disagree with is likely to instil fear in me.
You mean, like working in central London before the Good Friday Agreement? Oh, that's right, everyone got on with his life and didn't "live in fear", even though some of the bombs were real.
Of course, you may just be from the UK, where you have the options to state that acts of the government's definition of terror are wrong or to risk up to 7 years in prison.
Remember, kids, driving opinions underground is a great way of preventing angry words from turning into action.
The glorified security guard gets convicted; the bureaucrats in East Germany responsible for monitoring dissent... where is Putin now?
I wonder what happens if I try selling cannabis in the US then make an attempt to scale the prison walls? Or perhaps we can tack on an endgame to America's Army where some hypothetical court in 2038 (signed integers will surely play havoc with civilisation) lets you face the consequences of your actions?
Oh, Nikita, is it cold?
Because taxpayer money is for maintaining roads, but not for building political monuments.
You buy the land and build your own towers.
If you are able to do it for less, why don't you submit a bid?
The 21st century doesn't need you breeding.
This applies to everyone.