Smart enough to have tested a prototype in a vacuum chamber that simulates Mars' atmosphere. And probably smart enough to RTFA before bashing somebody else. But I'm sure after reading a one paragraph summary that you are more educated on the topic than they are.
Since the site only has scientific value because it has been sealed away for millennia, I'd have thought they'd take more care about preserving its microbial integrity and not just go diving in it.
the solution to the US terror problem seems simple. stop treating third world countries like they're children. quit overthrowing elected leaders and installing dictators, stop propping up nation states with a history of violence, and start treating the people who live in these regions as more than "hearts and minds" that you have to "win."
But then the terrorists win! Instead we need to be at war with them, and to win* that war we need to get that pesky constitution thingy the hell out of the way!
*winning the war on terror == giving large sums of money to defense contractors, and getting reelected by convincing the populous that they will get blown up if they vote for the other guy.
Or he's genuinely concerned about us STEM workers. Or the GOP wants to get STEM workers to switch sides (we're generally very strongly Democrat voters).
No, I'm quite certain he doesn't give a shit about STEM workers. It's the GOP's anti-immigration, pro-xenophobia ideology. But since the GOP also has their pro-corporation, anti-middleclass ideology, it's amusing to see what happens when those ideologies conflict. What it really tells us is that the particular companies he's beholden to aren't big H1-B'ers, so he is free to go with the anti-immigration ideology. Exxon Mobile, for example, only has 47 H1-B employees, out of 75,000 employees, so this probably doesn't even warrant a phone call from their CEO.
The quarter ending 6/30/2014 shows Dish Network had a net profit of $213Million. Considering the penalty could be up to $912Billion, a full year's worth of net (not even gross, so the year would be a draw, not even a loss) profit should be the minimum. That would be $852Million, any thing less is just a slap on the wrist.
By the way, the article is from early this morning, but Dish Network's shares are up 3.4%. Clearly shareholders aren't taking this seriously, so why should the company's executives take it seriously? They need to be made to take it seriously.
The need for separation of science and state becomes more and more obvious every year since 1947.
NO. There already is too much separation of science and state, as evidenced by this very issue. There needs to be less separation of science and state, but we need to make sure that it's science defining policy, and not policy defining science. Try reading that again but replacing the word "science" with the word "reality" and you'll see what I mean.
You have to have explicit permission in order to do a robocall to a number.
How do you define explicit permission? If it's buried in page 12 of a user agreement that you have to sign, is that explicit permission? From a legal perspective, how do you separate that from the actual real-world permission like what you're thinking of? How about a line on page 12 that explicitly gives their "affiliates" permission to robocall you?
And that an old carbureted vehicle without a single transistor can be carjacked with a gun and a mask. And can crash into other cars. The real question is: Is the risk of causing deaths higher for autonomous vehicles or human driven vehicles?
Than how about they add some memory dedicated to the OS? The stuff is not that expensive these days...
They do. It's part of that 16GB that they advertise. This is how pretty much all devices are advertised. Do laptops and desktops come with a separate disk for the OS? When they advertise the size of the hard drive do they subtract the size of the OS? How about other brands of phones or tablets?
These people are completely ignorant about what they are suing for, in which case they have no business suing, or are suing just to sue (or because their lawyers are hoping to turn it into a class action suit, settle, and rake in millions while a bunch of people get 50 cents each), in which case they still have no business suing.
There's also a difference between retaliation and defense. Scenario 1: Bank is being hacked. They take down attacking server to stop the attack. That's defense. Real world analogy: Somebody is mugging you. You punch them in the face to prevent them stealing your wallet.
Scenario 2: Bank was hacked. They take down the server that attacked them. That's retaliation. Real world analogy: Somebody mugged you. You figure out who they are, go over to their apartment and punch them in the face.
Of course, in scenario 2 they'll argue that they're bringing down the attacking servers because there is probably stolen data on them, but realistically, at that point do you think the hackers didn't copy it somewhere else?
uh, yeah, i've had extensive elite education in STEM, in the US. it's mostly a sausage fest. statistics will back this up and, no, they're not fabricated by teh feminist conspiracy.
I agree, but that sure as hell doesn't give them the right to be sexist, and disallow certain people from participating based solely on their gender. The Civil Rights Act, which has been law for 50 years, specifically disallows it. Just because it's in favor of a minority doesn't change it. And they weren't just favoring girls in cases where otherwise the merit was equal (affirmative action), they were specifically disallowing boys.
How would people feel if the sentence had instead read: "This holiday season, Google and the National Parks partnered to let boys program the White House Christmas tree lights," and instead they banned girls from participating? How is one direction of sexism moral, ethical, and legal, if the other isn't?
The language definition is complete gibberish to me...I do see some red flags, though
You don't need a CS background to see the red flags. You don't even have to get as far as the summary. "Unifies Web Development" - red flag #1 "Single, Speedy New Language" - red flag #2
People who are compliant tend not to get shot. People who react violently are far more likely to get shot.
The problems occur when the person is not compliant, but is not violent either. Informing an officer verbally of what you believe your rights are is not reacting violently - and yes, I know in most cases of that an officer will just roll their eyes, but it's times when the officer treats peaceful noncompliance as violence that problems occur, and is the reason for these cameras. (I don't disagree with you that we should care about violence against the police, just making a point)
I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.
"Quickly?" In other words, you're riding along the right hand side of your lane, and as a car approaches intending to pass you, you quickly move into the middle or left of the lane to force them to quickly slow down to prevent passing. Doing anything "quickly" that obstructs others is a dick move and you know it. You're an asshole who makes the rest of us cyclists look bad. Only in very rare situations would that "quickly" move promote safety. It's unsafe to anger another driver, both to you and the next cyclist they come upon. You're not doing it to promote safety, you're doing it to express dominance, like a gorilla beating its chest.
Next time you try that, think about this - are you doing it to promote safety, or are you doing it to try to express dominance by proving that you can legally be a dick? Believe me, the other driver doesn't care how big your penis is, so be the better person and don't be a dick or a dumbass to cars when you're on your bike, you're making the rest of us look bad, and it hurts us when we actually want to promote safety or policy changes (who wants their tax dollars to pay for bike lanes for a bunch of assholes like you?)
Slashdot Mirror
And yet they claim not to have resources to go after real crimes that they deem petty and unimportant, like theft.
Oh, and to clarify, Mars isn't a vacuum, it has atmosphere, just not much.
How stupid are these people?!
Smart enough to have tested a prototype in a vacuum chamber that simulates Mars' atmosphere. And probably smart enough to RTFA before bashing somebody else. But I'm sure after reading a one paragraph summary that you are more educated on the topic than they are.
Since the site only has scientific value because it has been sealed away for millennia, I'd have thought they'd take more care about preserving its microbial integrity and not just go diving in it.
You're confusing this with Lake Vostok.
They're absolutely desperate to get away from Lockheed.
That's sarcasm, right? Have you heard of the F-35?
If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.
Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.
the solution to the US terror problem seems simple. stop treating third world countries like they're children. quit overthrowing elected leaders and installing dictators, stop propping up nation states with a history of violence, and start treating the people who live in these regions as more than "hearts and minds" that you have to "win."
But then the terrorists win! Instead we need to be at war with them, and to win* that war we need to get that pesky constitution thingy the hell out of the way!
*winning the war on terror == giving large sums of money to defense contractors, and getting reelected by convincing the populous that they will get blown up if they vote for the other guy.
Or he's genuinely concerned about us STEM workers. Or the GOP wants to get STEM workers to switch sides (we're generally very strongly Democrat voters).
No, I'm quite certain he doesn't give a shit about STEM workers. It's the GOP's anti-immigration, pro-xenophobia ideology. But since the GOP also has their pro-corporation, anti-middleclass ideology, it's amusing to see what happens when those ideologies conflict. What it really tells us is that the particular companies he's beholden to aren't big H1-B'ers, so he is free to go with the anti-immigration ideology. Exxon Mobile, for example, only has 47 H1-B employees, out of 75,000 employees, so this probably doesn't even warrant a phone call from their CEO.
'You get what you pay for' is also common sense.
No, you don't always get what you pay for, but you don't get what you don't pay for.
The quarter ending 6/30/2014 shows Dish Network had a net profit of $213Million. Considering the penalty could be up to $912Billion, a full year's worth of net (not even gross, so the year would be a draw, not even a loss) profit should be the minimum . That would be $852Million, any thing less is just a slap on the wrist.
By the way, the article is from early this morning, but Dish Network's shares are up 3.4%. Clearly shareholders aren't taking this seriously, so why should the company's executives take it seriously? They need to be made to take it seriously.
The need for separation of science and state becomes more and more obvious every year since 1947.
NO. There already is too much separation of science and state, as evidenced by this very issue. There needs to be less separation of science and state, but we need to make sure that it's science defining policy, and not policy defining science. Try reading that again but replacing the word "science" with the word "reality" and you'll see what I mean.
I don't answer calls from numbers I don't recognize anyway, and I recommend everyone else do the same.
That's not an option for everybody, especially those who use their cell phone for business purposes.
You have to have explicit permission in order to do a robocall to a number.
How do you define explicit permission? If it's buried in page 12 of a user agreement that you have to sign, is that explicit permission? From a legal perspective, how do you separate that from the actual real-world permission like what you're thinking of? How about a line on page 12 that explicitly gives their "affiliates" permission to robocall you?
And that an old carbureted vehicle without a single transistor can be carjacked with a gun and a mask. And can crash into other cars. The real question is: Is the risk of causing deaths higher for autonomous vehicles or human driven vehicles?
Than how about they add some memory dedicated to the OS? The stuff is not that expensive these days...
They do. It's part of that 16GB that they advertise. This is how pretty much all devices are advertised. Do laptops and desktops come with a separate disk for the OS? When they advertise the size of the hard drive do they subtract the size of the OS? How about other brands of phones or tablets?
These people are completely ignorant about what they are suing for, in which case they have no business suing, or are suing just to sue (or because their lawyers are hoping to turn it into a class action suit, settle, and rake in millions while a bunch of people get 50 cents each), in which case they still have no business suing.
Any new competitor would now need to start from the very beginning like the smaller companies did in the 80s and 90s in obtaining access.
No, it wouldn't be like back then at all. Back then, they didn't have to fight a huge company with lots of money for lobbying and lawyers.
When developing FOSS is a crime, only criminals will develop FOSS.
Technically, it is an Internet, not an intranet. However, it's not the Internet.
Technically, it's an internet, not an Internet. The Internet is an internet, but an internet is not necessarily the Internet.
...should you not defend yourself?
There's also a difference between retaliation and defense.
Scenario 1: Bank is being hacked. They take down attacking server to stop the attack. That's defense.
Real world analogy: Somebody is mugging you. You punch them in the face to prevent them stealing your wallet.
Scenario 2: Bank was hacked. They take down the server that attacked them. That's retaliation.
Real world analogy: Somebody mugged you. You figure out who they are, go over to their apartment and punch them in the face.
Of course, in scenario 2 they'll argue that they're bringing down the attacking servers because there is probably stolen data on them, but realistically, at that point do you think the hackers didn't copy it somewhere else?
Nothing anywhere near conclusive from the information provided.
More conclusive than, "A Korean IP address was involved, so it must have been the North Korean government!"
uh, yeah, i've had extensive elite education in STEM, in the US. it's mostly a sausage fest. statistics will back this up and, no, they're not fabricated by teh feminist conspiracy.
I agree, but that sure as hell doesn't give them the right to be sexist, and disallow certain people from participating based solely on their gender. The Civil Rights Act, which has been law for 50 years, specifically disallows it. Just because it's in favor of a minority doesn't change it. And they weren't just favoring girls in cases where otherwise the merit was equal (affirmative action), they were specifically disallowing boys.
How would people feel if the sentence had instead read: "This holiday season, Google and the National Parks partnered to let boys program the White House Christmas tree lights," and instead they banned girls from participating? How is one direction of sexism moral, ethical, and legal, if the other isn't?
The language definition is complete gibberish to me...I do see some red flags, though
You don't need a CS background to see the red flags. You don't even have to get as far as the summary.
"Unifies Web Development" - red flag #1
"Single, Speedy New Language" - red flag #2
People who are compliant tend not to get shot. People who react violently are far more likely to get shot.
The problems occur when the person is not compliant, but is not violent either. Informing an officer verbally of what you believe your rights are is not reacting violently - and yes, I know in most cases of that an officer will just roll their eyes, but it's times when the officer treats peaceful noncompliance as violence that problems occur, and is the reason for these cameras. (I don't disagree with you that we should care about violence against the police, just making a point)
I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.
"Quickly?" In other words, you're riding along the right hand side of your lane, and as a car approaches intending to pass you, you quickly move into the middle or left of the lane to force them to quickly slow down to prevent passing. Doing anything "quickly" that obstructs others is a dick move and you know it. You're an asshole who makes the rest of us cyclists look bad. Only in very rare situations would that "quickly" move promote safety. It's unsafe to anger another driver, both to you and the next cyclist they come upon. You're not doing it to promote safety, you're doing it to express dominance, like a gorilla beating its chest.
Next time you try that, think about this - are you doing it to promote safety, or are you doing it to try to express dominance by proving that you can legally be a dick? Believe me, the other driver doesn't care how big your penis is, so be the better person and don't be a dick or a dumbass to cars when you're on your bike, you're making the rest of us look bad, and it hurts us when we actually want to promote safety or policy changes (who wants their tax dollars to pay for bike lanes for a bunch of assholes like you?)
Except everything in the Fundamental Principles in the Olympic Charter refers to sports and athleticism.