Having played a substantial amount of Defcon, I can vouch for the validity of this. Unless you have a potential ally you have doubts about. Then you want to keep a few just in case he stabs you in the back. You're screwed regardless, but it at least is an incentive for him not to be a dick. If course, even if you sneak a sub up there and get a "first strike", you can't actually negate the opponent's capabilities and millions are screwed even if you play a flawless game. But that's one of the overarcing points of the game. Everybody dies.
1) Dick waving. If you wave it about and nobody slaps it down it makes other people afraid of your ability. If you can showcase your strength it increases your political capital. It's a gamble though, if the UN throws a fit, ham-strings Russia, cock-blocks Putin, and generally beats down Russia for their illegal actions, then Russia will have just showed how weak they are.
2) The opportunity presented itself. There's the thinnest veneer that they're "protecting ethnic Russians". And since the Ukrainian government is going through tormoil, it's not like they're going to have an organized response.
3) Resources, power. This is the old-school thinking but it still applies. Cimera simply has value. Russia now has it.
But could Putin and other politicians in Russia be so shirt sighted that they would risk labeling Russia and starting the next Cold War for this simplistic short term goal?
Yes.
Whoa, wait a minute.
they would risk labeling Russia
Risk labeling Russia as what? "Someone that will unilaterally invade a sovereign nation" The USA is way ahead of them there. "A war-mongering beast that'll invade your country if you even think about revolting " Arguably that stabalizes the region "A powerful political player that can disreguard international laws" That just makes them more powerful.
As for risking a COLD war, hell yeah Putin would risk that. Hell, he'd welcome it. He's KGB. The cold war made him, the soviet government (and the federal government of the USA) a hell of a lot more important, powerful, and needed. It's the hot war that nobody wants.
Sure, I don't think any really costly sanctions will be applied to Russia again, but I think from now on Russia will simply be tolerated because other countries still have to do business with it.
So even you can see that there's really not going to be any actual negative impact to Russia.
No one will harbor any illusions about Putin's regime from now on.
? Right, Putin is solidifying his position. No one will question that he is running the show. He probably won't even have to step down for that other guy to pretend to be president.
Ok, lemme make this clear. You are simultaneously claiming that Russia is good/pro-democracy/pro-freedom, and lambasting nationalism. And you are Russian.
Duuuuuude, you're being nationalistic here. Russia just got caught doing something very anti-freedom. You, as a Russian, are shouting about how good and pro-freedom Russia is. That's nationalism. You're the nationalist here.
And you claim you want to get rid of all nations, while also wanting a world government. Just... whoa dude. Lemme guess, that world government happens to be run by Putin?
oh shit dude, and you trusted them? You already dun fucked up.
I just made a POS boring as hell business app for family*. I slapped a gui over a simple console application because ohbytheway while you're working on it we want the user to be able to redefine the sorting ruleset at runtime.
It has labels, text entry boxes, and comboboxes, and to pack it I used vboxes, hboxes, and tables. THAT'S IT.
Oh, yes, sure. Russia is keeping those damn Keiv rioters from genociding the poor poor Crimeans. Just like the UN, NATO, and OSCE kept the peace. "This expressed 'grave concern' at reports reaching the Secretary General that over 230,000 persons had been displaced from their homes by 'the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by Serbian security forces and the Yugoslav Army'"
Fun fact, Russia is part of the UN and was part of that decision. (China abstained)
Now, if case that sarcasm passes over your head, civilians were being targeted by military in Kosovo. Racial violence. Cleansing. Meanwhile, just because the riots threw out a president that was trying to institute a totalitarian regime doesn't mean they're sending tanks to conquore part of their own land. That said, the non-russian side was certainly shaking that saber against the ethnic russians of the Ukraine and the proposed bill to outlaw the russian language was certainly a slap in the face. But is it exactly like what happened in Kosovo? No. Not even close.
Now, you see, this is the sort of shit which makes me REALLY wary of any Russian actions.
It's the sort of post that's drenched in pro-Russian propoganda that I draw parrallels to something that would come out of Rush Limbagh or Glenn Beck. 1) Except they didn't outlaw the Russian language. Someone proposed the bill and it got vetoed. But hey, you could twist that to be a major slight against the ethnic Russians. 2) You "side with Crimea and Russia?" Whoa dude. Whoa. While I'd LOVE to see a real actual vote by the people (or even their representative) about what they want to do, I'm not really sure I can trust the Crimean parliment because of all the armed foreign troops deciding who gets to go in and vote. 3) You are desperately trying to spin it that the Russians are helping the suppressed Crimean people. No dude. Just no.
Yeah, this is the sort of nationalistic bullshit which scares me. It's not so bad when the bad guy spews bullshit. But when he gets true believers that eat it up, you've got a bad situation where people get stupid and start launching things at each other.
Hey, if they really want to be Russian again, good for them. But the Russians troops would have to stop holding a gun to their head before I trusted anything come out of the region.
Yeah, I know, right? I thought we had to instantly rage at anything he said.
But he/she/they are very much pro-america. The nationalistic sort that think their government can do no wrong and is fighting a vailant struggle against foreign devils. So... pretty the exact sort of thinking that gives Putin the political capital to unilaterally invade a nation and bullshit out both sides of his head. But hey, since Cold Fjord is talking about Russia being dicks, you can be assured that their own bias isn't getting in the way too badly.
Even Fox News can report that it's been a cold winter. They're not automatically wrong.
It's really disappointing that Putin is doing a land-grab in the midst of this upheval in Ukraine. I mean, they helped stoke the idea that the government has to be brutal and fascist to beat down any rioters which was where all this hubbub started. But it really sends the message to everyone in the former USSR states that if they have ANY instability, then Russia is going to invade their ass.
And the USA can't really say jack shit. Because we unilaterally invaded Iraq. So any reaction is going to have to come out of the UN. Which sure as shit ain't gonna happen soon. I mean, is that even possible? Can't Russia just block whatever they want? And Ukraine isn't part of NATO. And Russia has most of the EU by their gas-fueled balls. So yeah, Ukraine is looking damn lonely and probably wishes they had nukes a few months ago.
Well, yes it is, because it flies. That's kind of why the FAA exists.
You don't need separate rules for profit and not for profit. You can't even enforce them anyway.
No, you don't strictly need separate rules. But it certainly helps hobbyists and the fields they're playing in. And, yes, actually the FAA HAVE enforced rules about commercializing flight. But that's going to get harder and harder the cheaper and more accessible drones get. Maybe. I mean, the FCC still regulates the airwaves like it's the 1950's while radio transmitters are cheap as dirt. But sure, this here might be the tipping point.
What if I published my drone footage using public domain or creative commons, and someone used that in their for profit movie? Who broke the law then?
No one. No really, that scenario is fine. The public has bitchin footage and a commercial enterprise got something on the cheap. Everyone wins. You might draw the FAA's ire if Mr. BusinessEmployee blatently gets paid to go get some footage, ostensibly publish it online somewhere under guard of a leapord for a day, and then take it down after his business picks it up for use in a movie. But hey, this sort of case-by-case scenario is why we have legal courts.
Extending trespassing laws to a reasonable height would solve all these safety and privacy problems,
Are you fucking with me? You're literally bitching about a blanket law, and then propose a blanket law that will somehow "solve all safety and privacy problems"?
The FAA can regulate actions not intentions.
Right. Which is why if you perform the action of MAKING MONEY with something that flies, you need a waiver from them.
We need a few here in Iowa. Military applications that can't be shipped overseas (yet we're owned by a British company), although most of the embedded work is in the Agriculture business in town.
Problem is, management is so antiquated they hear we need software developed on embedded platforms and they open reqs for electrical engineers.
You have open disdain for anyone with a boss. Yet you employ 40 people under you....So, uh, how well do you respect them? You think all bosses are assholes. You're a boss. Can you follow this line of thought?
Are you implying that American employers have matured in the last 15 years?
Yeah, 15 years ago is 1999. In the programming/technology business you're looking at the peak of the dotcom bubble. Yes, businesses have gotten slightly more mature when it comes to software. And software companies have gotten less ballstothewalls-nutso-retarded. But sure, if your impression of the field was developed in 1999, then your views on the subject are understandably skewed.
Sarten would fire you because he's worries you'd have a personal disagreement with clients. I mean, you don't exactly have a soft touch. "I have technical skills superior to any five people you've ever worked with combined....outproduce any corporate tie-wearing fuck and ten of his while eating a sammich." Yeah man, you have a sort of generic disdain for anyone working a corporate gig. If, say, your consulting company worked for, you know, corporations there's just a tiny chance that you'd have to talk or even work with people working in a corporation. People with bosses. And they would be your customer. You'd have to kiss their ass and do what they paid you to do. And you just don't seem like that sort of guy. In the consulting world, that costs money.
Finally, C IS the One True Language, Sarten. Bow before it's might and majesty!
Yes yes, and telling someone not to get their panties in a twist is racism. And suggesting we eat the rich is racism. And Screaming down with darky is racism. And not subsidizing mortgages is racism. And mortgages is racism. It's all racism. We got it.
Seriously, the race card is getting a little frayed at the edges from all that use.
Because if, for whatever reason, there was a booming business of kite photography you'd have a lot of idiots flying their kites into electrical lines, into traffic, bickering over the right to recover lost cameras that fell on someon else's land, etc. You know, issues. And these sort of issues are excuseable and tolerated when it's hobbyists, and inexcusable when it's by a for-profit business?
Why? Because we know that supporting hobbyists get people into the field. It turns non-geeks into geeks. (at least while we're talking about HAM, drones, and arieal photography). And that has a benefit to society. On the other hand, if these are buisinesses doing it for profit, we should expect them to train their employees about eletrical lines, right of way, property rights, and how you REALLY shouldn't climb that phone pole to get back the $400 camera. They should damn well know better. It's their job. And they should have to follow the proper legal route to getting their shit back from the land-owners whose tree ate their kite. It's a business expense. Also entering into play is the moral hazard. If you can make a buck by doing it or not doing it, you are insentivised to do so. Hobbiests aren't there to make money, they're simply more trustworthy in that regard.
And there's some common sense here. It's simply a different scenario when it's a kid with a kite flying around in a park than when it's a minimum-wage-slave flying a kite over a privacy fence/treeline because his corporate overlord wants to buy another yatch. How do you codify that into law? Something a federal administration can cite in court? The profit factor.
I'm even more baffled by the simple failure of logic.
The thing can be used as a means of exchange. I can exchange it for things. I value it by why I can exchange it for. If I have 2 bitcoins, I can trade it for.. what? $1000?. I can trade that cash for decent laptop. I value 2 bitcoins at "laptop".
You know... today. Who knows if bitcoin will fall apart by next year. A standard means of exchange is good. A stable means of exchange that doesn't have wild volatile swings is better. A stable means of exchange that isn't headed for the crapper because of massive douchebags devaluing it over the years would be ideal. It's a long road to get there.
And they probably have round-the-clock security as a matter of habit. Because that's the lifestyle of the ludicrously filthy rich. New money don't nessesarily have that sort of experience with being rich and might not yet have security.
It's like, imagine you're a bank robber and you've got two banks in town. One is an old-school bank that has thwarted dozens of bank robbers in the past and routinely. They hire people specifically to worry about bank robbers. On the other side of town, there's this new hip young bank that's getting money thrown at them like mad. They used to just take all the money home with them at the end of the night, but now they've got this new "cold storage" place to put money they're not using at the moment. They're known to be idiotic fools, everything thinks the whole thing is a fly-by-night operation, and they don't even have a safe.
Now which one do you rob?
Also there's a good chance that Satoshi has these bitcoins on a hard-drive in his home. Of course, I'd expect it to be encrypted, but there are probably idiots out there who think they could simply walk in and take his bitcoins. And when you're talking about protecting yourself from criminals, the vast majority of them are idiots.
Hey. Do you like FireFly? Wish it would continue? When would you watch it? When are you free to watch it?
This is the sort of information that you WANT to give the people making decisions about such things. They want to make something you want. You want them to stop fucking shit up and give you want you want. Communicating that sort of information is tricky.
First off, no, I don't think anyone in their right mind would simply hand over all their records and sign away all their privacy. That's bloody stupid. But I imagine there are a few select details and personal views that you'd be willing to shout at some execs with a loudspeaker if you had the chance.
Second, if it's anonymous and open to all, the quality of that data is going to be abysmally low as every shill, marketer, and PR corporation is going to game it as hard as they can to make a buck. There is a very active dis-information campaign against the truth. It's called marketing.
So the underlying reason for why this politician would suggest such a thing isn't so crazy out there. But it's almost certainly worthless bullshit because it's a laughably unworkable solution.
Wow, your entire brain just shut down when you read that word didn't it? And in the same breath you accuse me of "weak minded foolishness". It's kind of a big word but it means something. Here's lemme write it out like simple wikipedia:
"The useful bit of these horseshoe crabs are one of the reasons that people think we should take care of nature and avoid killing off species. Because you never know when something is going to be useful. "
My point is simple, the inhabitants of the planet Earth are constantly in flux. And "preserving everything" is simply a naive and thinly veiled method of stifling human progress.
Well, sure, there's always flux. But the amount of flux certainly goes up and down. The introduction of civilization certainly kicked it up a notch for certain groups. Industrialization kicked it up a few more notches for a larger swath. And it really doesn't look like anything is going to slow that rate of change. Going from 0-60mph in 6 seconds is a fun time while going from 0-60mph in 0.6 seconds can kill you.
There are certainly those eco-nuts that think we should all live in grass huts or something. I think those people are crazy. And I simply love a good steak too much to fret about feedlot's impact on... whatever. And we certainly won't be able to preserve everything, but I think it's a good thing to strive for. And I don't want to stifle human progress. I am balls to the walls in favor of progress. Indeed, things like the usefulness of the horseshoe crab are a specific example of how biodiversity HELPS human progress.
Would it ease your anti-environmentalists rampage if I pointed out that keeping species alive in zoos, or keeping samples of their genome are valid ways to preserve their value? You know, genetics wise.
I think you'd do yourself a favor if you eased up on the knee-jerk reactions. Just because I use words that you don't like doesn't mean I want to tear down society.
I'm more or less with you except for a few nuances and that mental turd you threw in there at the end.
When a species "moves out", is that a euphemism for genocide? Species can literally physically move out of an area for a lot of reasons. Or a species can have their home environment removed. Or their food source could dry up. Sometimes that includes moving into another area, but depending on the scale, it usually just means they all die.
A species that is a specialist (as opposed to a generalist) usually can't have their "specialization pocket" be filled by someone else. That's the entire point of being a specialist. You out-compete the shit out of anyone that isn't dedicated to whatever niche thing you call your own.
This was explained to me by a guy at a nature park the other month: During periods of upheval, chaotic change, turbulence, whatnot, generalists are favored. They can better adapt to the change. That's what I was taught in school. But he then went on to point out that during static periods of stability, specialists are favored. They out-compete with others for a desired resource. And it's these species that develop some of the really interesting weird shit. Turns out if you spend a few million generations striving for a specific goal, sometimes they come up with creative solutions. Racoons and cockroaches might do a fantastic job of eating whatever they can get a hold of, but they don't have awesome super-vision like mantis shrimp or, you know, flight. (although, racoons do have neat cold-resistant-yet-sensative fingers)
You should study the reality behind how ecosystems adapt and reform equilibriums.
Uh. ok. Will do.
Anyway, my point here is that while certain species may take advantage of another's demise and "move in", it still means we lose a species that may have useful genetic information. And the sort of creatures that have weird freaky abilities are the exact sort that die off during periods of upheaval.
Fear mongering about runaway ecosystems is a sign of weak minded foolishness.
Wut?
What runaway ecosystems? Who mentioned that? Where are these strict environmentalists you're talking about? Are these crabs eating everything or something?
It's one of the big arguments for environmentalism and bio diversity. When push comes to shove you sometimes hear "so what if a few species go extinct? They weren't doing all that well before $BUSINESSACTIVITY, why should we try saving them? Why do I care about this species?". And the answer is that the creature represents a massive chain of thousands to millions of generations of genetic experimentation in real-world real-time environments. We're just starting to open Pandora's box of genetics and culling the biodiversity of the planet could be throwing away truly helpful and useful tools we could use in the future.
making facility into GEO to actually do the laying.
Facility? laying?
You launch up a spindle of ribbon. You take the loose end of the ribbon, and you chuck it towards earth and unwind the spindle. Gravity takes over and pulls it's end down.
(You also take the other end of the ribbon and throw it out away from earth, centripital force takes it and pulls it up.)
There's really no "laying" of the ribbon. But hey, sure, putting some sort of station at GEO with the ribbon is probably a good idea. Something with thrusters that can make corrections and, I dunno, store all the crap they send up there. But initially, the thing that does the unspooling is just whatever vehicle that carried it there.
In fact, GO HERE. Now. Manna is telling you that you have 1 minute to open the link and perform a scan of the instructions at hand. Don't think. Just click the link. Manna will do all the thinking for you.
When the marines secure a building they drop in from helicopters, throw in flashbangs, kick open the doors, and kill everyone inside. When the army secures a building they add defensive fortifications, razor wire, and machine gun emplacements. When the air force secures a building they turn off the lights and lock the doors. When the navy secures a building it's for a 10 year lease with the option to buy.
Slashdot Mirror
Having played a substantial amount of Defcon, I can vouch for the validity of this.
Unless you have a potential ally you have doubts about. Then you want to keep a few just in case he stabs you in the back. You're screwed regardless, but it at least is an incentive for him not to be a dick. If course, even if you sneak a sub up there and get a "first strike", you can't actually negate the opponent's capabilities and millions are screwed even if you play a flawless game. But that's one of the overarcing points of the game. Everybody dies.
Why
1) Dick waving. If you wave it about and nobody slaps it down it makes other people afraid of your ability. If you can showcase your strength it increases your political capital. It's a gamble though, if the UN throws a fit, ham-strings Russia, cock-blocks Putin, and generally beats down Russia for their illegal actions, then Russia will have just showed how weak they are.
2) The opportunity presented itself. There's the thinnest veneer that they're "protecting ethnic Russians". And since the Ukrainian government is going through tormoil, it's not like they're going to have an organized response.
3) Resources, power. This is the old-school thinking but it still applies. Cimera simply has value. Russia now has it.
But could Putin and other politicians in Russia be so shirt sighted that they would risk labeling Russia and starting the next Cold War for this simplistic short term goal?
Yes.
Whoa, wait a minute.
they would risk labeling Russia
Risk labeling Russia as what?
"Someone that will unilaterally invade a sovereign nation" The USA is way ahead of them there.
"A war-mongering beast that'll invade your country if you even think about revolting " Arguably that stabalizes the region
"A powerful political player that can disreguard international laws" That just makes them more powerful.
As for risking a COLD war, hell yeah Putin would risk that. Hell, he'd welcome it. He's KGB. The cold war made him, the soviet government (and the federal government of the USA) a hell of a lot more important, powerful, and needed. It's the hot war that nobody wants.
Sure, I don't think any really costly sanctions will be applied to Russia again, but I think from now on Russia will simply be tolerated because other countries still have to do business with it.
So even you can see that there's really not going to be any actual negative impact to Russia.
No one will harbor any illusions about Putin's regime from now on.
?
Right, Putin is solidifying his position. No one will question that he is running the show. He probably won't even have to step down for that other guy to pretend to be president.
Are you starting to realize why he did it now?
Yes. Russia is for democracy and freedom too.
Wut? Whoa dude. Just.... whoa.
Ok, lemme make this clear. You are simultaneously claiming that Russia is good/pro-democracy/pro-freedom, and lambasting nationalism. And you are Russian.
Duuuuuude, you're being nationalistic here. Russia just got caught doing something very anti-freedom. You, as a Russian, are shouting about how good and pro-freedom Russia is. That's nationalism. You're the nationalist here.
And you claim you want to get rid of all nations, while also wanting a world government. Just... whoa dude. Lemme guess, that world government happens to be run by Putin?
You can't possibly be serious.
oh shit dude, and you trusted them? You already dun fucked up.
I just made a POS boring as hell business app for family*. I slapped a gui over a simple console application because ohbytheway while you're working on it we want the user to be able to redefine the sorting ruleset at runtime.
It has labels, text entry boxes, and comboboxes, and to pack it I used vboxes, hboxes, and tables.
THAT'S IT.
Here's the libraries I needed:
freetype6.dll
intl.dll
libatk-1.0-0.dll
libcairo-2.dll
libcairo-gobject-2.dll
libexpat-1.dll
libfontconfig-1.dll
libgdk-win32-2.0-0.dll
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0-0.dll
libgio-2.0-0.dll
libglib-2.0-0.dll
libgmodule-2.0-0.dll
libgobject-2.0-0.dll
libgthread-2.0-0.dll
libgtk-win32-2.0-0.dll
libpango-1.0-0.dll
libpangocairo-1.0-0.dll
libpangoft2-1.0-0.dll
libpangowin32-1.0-0.dll
libpng14-14.dll
zlib1.dll
Yes... yes... I developed a windows program with the GTK. Shut up.
*NEVER get roped into working for family by the way.
Oh, yes, sure. Russia is keeping those damn Keiv rioters from genociding the poor poor Crimeans. Just like the UN, NATO, and OSCE kept the peace.
"This expressed 'grave concern' at reports reaching the Secretary General that over 230,000 persons had been displaced from their homes by 'the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by Serbian security forces and the Yugoslav Army'"
Fun fact, Russia is part of the UN and was part of that decision. (China abstained)
Now, if case that sarcasm passes over your head, civilians were being targeted by military in Kosovo. Racial violence. Cleansing. Meanwhile, just because the riots threw out a president that was trying to institute a totalitarian regime doesn't mean they're sending tanks to conquore part of their own land. That said, the non-russian side was certainly shaking that saber against the ethnic russians of the Ukraine and the proposed bill to outlaw the russian language was certainly a slap in the face. But is it exactly like what happened in Kosovo? No. Not even close.
If he bought a "Hello Kitty" .44 magnum no-one would steal his gun.
Now, you see, this is the sort of shit which makes me REALLY wary of any Russian actions.
It's the sort of post that's drenched in pro-Russian propoganda that I draw parrallels to something that would come out of Rush Limbagh or Glenn Beck.
1) Except they didn't outlaw the Russian language. Someone proposed the bill and it got vetoed. But hey, you could twist that to be a major slight against the ethnic Russians.
2) You "side with Crimea and Russia?" Whoa dude. Whoa. While I'd LOVE to see a real actual vote by the people (or even their representative) about what they want to do, I'm not really sure I can trust the Crimean parliment because of all the armed foreign troops deciding who gets to go in and vote.
3) You are desperately trying to spin it that the Russians are helping the suppressed Crimean people. No dude. Just no.
Yeah, this is the sort of nationalistic bullshit which scares me. It's not so bad when the bad guy spews bullshit. But when he gets true believers that eat it up, you've got a bad situation where people get stupid and start launching things at each other.
Hey, if they really want to be Russian again, good for them. But the Russians troops would have to stop holding a gun to their head before I trusted anything come out of the region.
Yeah, I know, right? I thought we had to instantly rage at anything he said.
But he/she/they are very much pro-america. The nationalistic sort that think their government can do no wrong and is fighting a vailant struggle against foreign devils. So... pretty the exact sort of thinking that gives Putin the political capital to unilaterally invade a nation and bullshit out both sides of his head. But hey, since Cold Fjord is talking about Russia being dicks, you can be assured that their own bias isn't getting in the way too badly.
Even Fox News can report that it's been a cold winter. They're not automatically wrong.
It's really disappointing that Putin is doing a land-grab in the midst of this upheval in Ukraine. I mean, they helped stoke the idea that the government has to be brutal and fascist to beat down any rioters which was where all this hubbub started. But it really sends the message to everyone in the former USSR states that if they have ANY instability, then Russia is going to invade their ass.
And the USA can't really say jack shit. Because we unilaterally invaded Iraq. So any reaction is going to have to come out of the UN. Which sure as shit ain't gonna happen soon. I mean, is that even possible? Can't Russia just block whatever they want? And Ukraine isn't part of NATO. And Russia has most of the EU by their gas-fueled balls. So yeah, Ukraine is looking damn lonely and probably wishes they had nukes a few months ago.
Not the FAA's problem.
Well, yes it is, because it flies. That's kind of why the FAA exists.
You don't need separate rules for profit and not for profit. You can't even enforce them anyway.
No, you don't strictly need separate rules. But it certainly helps hobbyists and the fields they're playing in.
And, yes, actually the FAA HAVE enforced rules about commercializing flight. But that's going to get harder and harder the cheaper and more accessible drones get. Maybe. I mean, the FCC still regulates the airwaves like it's the 1950's while radio transmitters are cheap as dirt. But sure, this here might be the tipping point.
What if I published my drone footage using public domain or creative commons, and someone used that in their for profit movie? Who broke the law then?
No one. No really, that scenario is fine. The public has bitchin footage and a commercial enterprise got something on the cheap. Everyone wins. You might draw the FAA's ire if Mr. BusinessEmployee blatently gets paid to go get some footage, ostensibly publish it online somewhere under guard of a leapord for a day, and then take it down after his business picks it up for use in a movie. But hey, this sort of case-by-case scenario is why we have legal courts.
Extending trespassing laws to a reasonable height would solve all these safety and privacy problems,
Are you fucking with me? You're literally bitching about a blanket law, and then propose a blanket law that will somehow "solve all safety and privacy problems"?
The FAA can regulate actions not intentions.
Right. Which is why if you perform the action of MAKING MONEY with something that flies, you need a waiver from them.
We need a few here in Iowa.
Military applications that can't be shipped overseas (yet we're owned by a British company), although most of the embedded work is in the Agriculture business in town.
Problem is, management is so antiquated they hear we need software developed on embedded platforms and they open reqs for electrical engineers.
You have open disdain for anyone with a boss. Yet you employ 40 people under you. ...So, uh, how well do you respect them?
You think all bosses are assholes. You're a boss. Can you follow this line of thought?
Are you implying that American employers have matured in the last 15 years?
Yeah, 15 years ago is 1999. In the programming/technology business you're looking at the peak of the dotcom bubble. Yes, businesses have gotten slightly more mature when it comes to software. And software companies have gotten less ballstothewalls-nutso-retarded. But sure, if your impression of the field was developed in 1999, then your views on the subject are understandably skewed.
Sarten would fire you because he's worries you'd have a personal disagreement with clients. I mean, you don't exactly have a soft touch. "I have technical skills superior to any five people you've ever worked with combined. ...outproduce any corporate tie-wearing fuck and ten of his while eating a sammich." Yeah man, you have a sort of generic disdain for anyone working a corporate gig. If, say, your consulting company worked for, you know, corporations there's just a tiny chance that you'd have to talk or even work with people working in a corporation. People with bosses. And they would be your customer. You'd have to kiss their ass and do what they paid you to do. And you just don't seem like that sort of guy. In the consulting world, that costs money.
Finally, C IS the One True Language, Sarten. Bow before it's might and majesty!
Yes yes, and telling someone not to get their panties in a twist is racism. And suggesting we eat the rich is racism. And Screaming down with darky is racism. And not subsidizing mortgages is racism. And mortgages is racism. It's all racism. We got it.
Seriously, the race card is getting a little frayed at the edges from all that use.
Because if, for whatever reason, there was a booming business of kite photography you'd have a lot of idiots flying their kites into electrical lines, into traffic, bickering over the right to recover lost cameras that fell on someon else's land, etc. You know, issues. And these sort of issues are excuseable and tolerated when it's hobbyists, and inexcusable when it's by a for-profit business?
Why? Because we know that supporting hobbyists get people into the field. It turns non-geeks into geeks. (at least while we're talking about HAM, drones, and arieal photography). And that has a benefit to society. On the other hand, if these are buisinesses doing it for profit, we should expect them to train their employees about eletrical lines, right of way, property rights, and how you REALLY shouldn't climb that phone pole to get back the $400 camera. They should damn well know better. It's their job. And they should have to follow the proper legal route to getting their shit back from the land-owners whose tree ate their kite. It's a business expense. Also entering into play is the moral hazard. If you can make a buck by doing it or not doing it, you are insentivised to do so. Hobbiests aren't there to make money, they're simply more trustworthy in that regard.
And there's some common sense here. It's simply a different scenario when it's a kid with a kite flying around in a park than when it's a minimum-wage-slave flying a kite over a privacy fence/treeline because his corporate overlord wants to buy another yatch. How do you codify that into law? Something a federal administration can cite in court? The profit factor.
Well, I was going specifically for mtgox.
Seriously, it's "Magic the Gather: Online eXchange." Anyone that was fooled by the rebranding to Mt.Gox deserves to have their money taken.
The other exchanges are hopefully more legit.
I'm even more baffled by the simple failure of logic.
The thing can be used as a means of exchange. I can exchange it for things. I value it by why I can exchange it for.
If I have 2 bitcoins, I can trade it for.. what? $1000?. I can trade that cash for decent laptop.
I value 2 bitcoins at "laptop".
You know... today. Who knows if bitcoin will fall apart by next year. A standard means of exchange is good. A stable means of exchange that doesn't have wild volatile swings is better. A stable means of exchange that isn't headed for the crapper because of massive douchebags devaluing it over the years would be ideal. It's a long road to get there.
And they probably have round-the-clock security as a matter of habit. Because that's the lifestyle of the ludicrously filthy rich.
New money don't nessesarily have that sort of experience with being rich and might not yet have security.
It's like, imagine you're a bank robber and you've got two banks in town. One is an old-school bank that has thwarted dozens of bank robbers in the past and routinely. They hire people specifically to worry about bank robbers. On the other side of town, there's this new hip young bank that's getting money thrown at them like mad. They used to just take all the money home with them at the end of the night, but now they've got this new "cold storage" place to put money they're not using at the moment. They're known to be idiotic fools, everything thinks the whole thing is a fly-by-night operation, and they don't even have a safe.
Now which one do you rob?
Also there's a good chance that Satoshi has these bitcoins on a hard-drive in his home. Of course, I'd expect it to be encrypted, but there are probably idiots out there who think they could simply walk in and take his bitcoins. And when you're talking about protecting yourself from criminals, the vast majority of them are idiots.
Hey. Do you like FireFly? Wish it would continue? When would you watch it? When are you free to watch it?
This is the sort of information that you WANT to give the people making decisions about such things. They want to make something you want. You want them to stop fucking shit up and give you want you want. Communicating that sort of information is tricky.
First off, no, I don't think anyone in their right mind would simply hand over all their records and sign away all their privacy. That's bloody stupid. But I imagine there are a few select details and personal views that you'd be willing to shout at some execs with a loudspeaker if you had the chance.
Second, if it's anonymous and open to all, the quality of that data is going to be abysmally low as every shill, marketer, and PR corporation is going to game it as hard as they can to make a buck. There is a very active dis-information campaign against the truth. It's called marketing.
So the underlying reason for why this politician would suggest such a thing isn't so crazy out there. But it's almost certainly worthless bullshit because it's a laughably unworkable solution.
Wow, your entire brain just shut down when you read that word didn't it?
And in the same breath you accuse me of "weak minded foolishness".
It's kind of a big word but it means something. Here's lemme write it out like simple wikipedia:
"The useful bit of these horseshoe crabs are one of the reasons that people think we should take care of nature and avoid killing off species. Because you never know when something is going to be useful. "
My point is simple, the inhabitants of the planet Earth are constantly in flux. And "preserving everything" is simply a naive and thinly veiled method of stifling human progress.
Well, sure, there's always flux. But the amount of flux certainly goes up and down. The introduction of civilization certainly kicked it up a notch for certain groups. Industrialization kicked it up a few more notches for a larger swath. And it really doesn't look like anything is going to slow that rate of change. Going from 0-60mph in 6 seconds is a fun time while going from 0-60mph in 0.6 seconds can kill you.
There are certainly those eco-nuts that think we should all live in grass huts or something. I think those people are crazy. And I simply love a good steak too much to fret about feedlot's impact on... whatever. And we certainly won't be able to preserve everything, but I think it's a good thing to strive for. And I don't want to stifle human progress. I am balls to the walls in favor of progress. Indeed, things like the usefulness of the horseshoe crab are a specific example of how biodiversity HELPS human progress.
Would it ease your anti-environmentalists rampage if I pointed out that keeping species alive in zoos, or keeping samples of their genome are valid ways to preserve their value? You know, genetics wise.
I think you'd do yourself a favor if you eased up on the knee-jerk reactions. Just because I use words that you don't like doesn't mean I want to tear down society.
I'm more or less with you except for a few nuances and that mental turd you threw in there at the end.
When a species "moves out", is that a euphemism for genocide? Species can literally physically move out of an area for a lot of reasons. Or a species can have their home environment removed. Or their food source could dry up. Sometimes that includes moving into another area, but depending on the scale, it usually just means they all die.
A species that is a specialist (as opposed to a generalist) usually can't have their "specialization pocket" be filled by someone else. That's the entire point of being a specialist. You out-compete the shit out of anyone that isn't dedicated to whatever niche thing you call your own.
This was explained to me by a guy at a nature park the other month: During periods of upheval, chaotic change, turbulence, whatnot, generalists are favored. They can better adapt to the change. That's what I was taught in school. But he then went on to point out that during static periods of stability, specialists are favored. They out-compete with others for a desired resource. And it's these species that develop some of the really interesting weird shit. Turns out if you spend a few million generations striving for a specific goal, sometimes they come up with creative solutions. Racoons and cockroaches might do a fantastic job of eating whatever they can get a hold of, but they don't have awesome super-vision like mantis shrimp or, you know, flight. (although, racoons do have neat cold-resistant-yet-sensative fingers)
You should study the reality behind how ecosystems adapt and reform equilibriums.
Uh. ok. Will do.
Anyway, my point here is that while certain species may take advantage of another's demise and "move in", it still means we lose a species that may have useful genetic information. And the sort of creatures that have weird freaky abilities are the exact sort that die off during periods of upheaval.
Fear mongering about runaway ecosystems is a sign of weak minded foolishness.
Wut?
What runaway ecosystems? Who mentioned that? Where are these strict environmentalists you're talking about? Are these crabs eating everything or something?
It's one of the big arguments for environmentalism and bio diversity. When push comes to shove you sometimes hear "so what if a few species go extinct? They weren't doing all that well before $BUSINESSACTIVITY, why should we try saving them? Why do I care about this species?". And the answer is that the creature represents a massive chain of thousands to millions of generations of genetic experimentation in real-world real-time environments. We're just starting to open Pandora's box of genetics and culling the biodiversity of the planet could be throwing away truly helpful and useful tools we could use in the future.
Plus genocide is just sort of a dick move.
Ah yes. We turn to space when we start running dangerously low on oil and rocket fuel.
making facility into GEO to actually do the laying.
Facility? laying?
You launch up a spindle of ribbon. You take the loose end of the ribbon, and you chuck it towards earth and unwind the spindle. Gravity takes over and pulls it's end down.
(You also take the other end of the ribbon and throw it out away from earth, centripital force takes it and pulls it up.)
There's really no "laying" of the ribbon. But hey, sure, putting some sort of station at GEO with the ribbon is probably a good idea. Something with thrusters that can make corrections and, I dunno, store all the crap they send up there. But initially, the thing that does the unspooling is just whatever vehicle that carried it there.
This.
In fact, GO HERE. Now. Manna is telling you that you have 1 minute to open the link and perform a scan of the instructions at hand. Don't think. Just click the link. Manna will do all the thinking for you.
Oh man, are we doing these jokes?
When the marines secure a building they drop in from helicopters, throw in flashbangs, kick open the doors, and kill everyone inside.
When the army secures a building they add defensive fortifications, razor wire, and machine gun emplacements.
When the air force secures a building they turn off the lights and lock the doors.
When the navy secures a building it's for a 10 year lease with the option to buy.
The A-10 isn't a sexy plane in the air force's eyes
That's because it's not a plane. It's a gun they put wings onto.