To use a real life example, does it make sense that the people in Nebraska should have to carry the insurance burden for the people who choose to live in hurricane alley?
Yes. If they don't like that, maybe they should move to a country where people care less about each other. Plenty to choose from.
Go ahead. Fly around the world. Spend your time photographing things, not looking at them. Don't contemplate, type. Don't observe, just blog it. When something unusual and different appears, retreat to the safety of your laptop. Above all, make sure that your travelling experience is as much unlike travelling as possible. After all, learning something from your experience is not the point.
A psychologically unstable (medicated!) young teenage girl should not be allowed on the Internet, period. The fact that her "suitor" was not real has no bearing on the fact that an interaction with a random personality on the Internet affected her enough to cause her to commit suicide. This person should not have been allowed unsupervised contact with ANYONE. This is completely the parents responsibility. The other parents seem to be children in grown persons' bodies but that isn't really the point.
Just because your human eye can't see yellow dots on a yellow background doesn't mean a chemical analysis couldn't spot it. Hell, for all we know, they might glow bright green under blacklight.
I have another idea. Me and 10 of my friends are going to go around the city at night and fix the brakes on people's cars. I promise, I know what I'm doing. Sounds good right?
You've got to have some serious refrigeration (requiring, uh oh, ENERGY) and some darned high pressure to store liquid CO2.
Refrigeration has nothing to do with it. At standard pressure, cooling CO2 just causes it to solidify. To get liquid CO2 you must increase the pressure by quite a bit, but again, no refrigeration is required.
Laws of thermodynamics aside, I'd rather not be sitting on a mobile dry ice bomb, thankyouverymuch.
I have several CO2 tanks sitting in my garage for serving beer. These contain liquid CO2. I hardly consider them dangerous objects. If a CO2 storage tank got punctured during a crash, a lot of gas would vent rather quickly but the tank isn't going to just peel apart. I've seen tanks shot with high power rifles, and they don't explode. You get a jet of CO2 "snow flakes" like out of a fire extinguisher. Is it dangerous? Yeah. But so is a car crash.
Interesting that you are concerned about a little liquid CO2, but apparently not concerned about driving a vehicle carrying gallons of highly flammable liquid? You do realize that people burn to death in car fires... a lot.
Using the wood to make paper or something is probably better from an air-pollution prospective, sure. Taking trees out of forests to get back to a "natural" density of trees is good for the forests. Firewood is just one way to use that wood, and yes does create some pollution in the air. But, it is a very renewable, carbon-recycling source of heat.
Not to mention that because of 20th century forestry practices, we have enormous overburdens of down wood in our forests, particularly in the west. There is absolutely no reason not to burn this wood, because if we just let it sit in the forest, it is going to eventually burn anyway, and in a much more catastrophic fashion.
In an undisturbed forest there is an equilibrium between decomposition of woody matter, and new growth. We are so far beyond this equilibrium that it would take centuries to balance itself naturally. In reality, massive forest fires will strike before that point.
Stating the obvious I know, but law is not software.
Maybe it should be more like it. That's the point.
natural language is based on a ambiguous grammar, thus a multitude of interpretations exists.
It would seem that the ideal is for a single, correct interpretation of law. Therefore, we should not use a base language which has inherent ambiguity to define our laws. We need something kind of like... a programming language. A declarative one, at that. Of course, it would be hard to interpret by laypeople, but the law is already hard to interpret and on top of that, ambiguous.
unfortunate that the exploit existed for so long, but a patch was available for my gentoo distro within four hours of the article being posted on slashdot.
It sucks, actually. The bug was clearly simple enough to patch within hours, but that didn't stop hundreds if not thousands of programmers from failing to see it for a long, long period of time. "Many eyes make bugs shallow" my ass. One brilliant eye makes a bug shallow (in this case, the exploit author).
Clearly there are not enough brilliant eyes looking.
Thanks for explaining what's obvious to anybody a step above the level of "retarded macaque." Although that does imply that you might have given a few kiddiez a lightbulb moment.
Their job is to do whatever the hell they want to do. If enough people don't like it, they'll go away, and a company will die. But don't think for a second that you can demand any company to do what you think "their job" is.
If images of the Prophet are banned, then how do you know what he looks like? How do you know that the picture on the Wikipedia page is actually a picture of him?
What if I took a picture of a pomegranate, and labelled it "The Prophet." Is this objectionable as well?
Really? so, are you saying that the whole 9/11, Subway Bombings, random car bombings all come with a declaration of intention?
A "random" car bombing, by definition, has no motivation. But yes, 9/11 and most other large scale terrorists attacks were very well explained by their perpetrators. The media usually chooses not to air these motivations because it is exactly what these people want. But that doesn't mean they're not screaming at the top of their lungs to get their message out -- you just aren't listening.
It's simple primitive brain response to being killed
I think the only response of a brain to being killed is "dying," don't you think?
all humans still have that primitive brain, it's known as our lizard brain. It's responsible for the fight, flight or freeze response.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism requires planning, patience, and execution. A reptile can accomplish none of these things. "Getting pissed off" is something universal to most animals. But terrorism is a uniquely human trait.
s/anonymity/desperation and you have a valid argument. Anonymity is completely counter to all the goals of terrorism. You cannot effect political change, if you do not reveal yourself or your motivations. Anonymous terrorism is just plain old murder. Doing it in secret defeats the purpose.
It helps to be anonymous when you are in the planning stages, but it is pointless to remain anonymous after the fact.
Slashdot Mirror
To use a real life example, does it make sense that the people in Nebraska should have to carry the insurance burden for the people who choose to live in hurricane alley?
Yes. If they don't like that, maybe they should move to a country where people care less about each other. Plenty to choose from.
Go ahead. Fly around the world. Spend your time photographing things, not looking at them. Don't contemplate, type. Don't observe, just blog it. When something unusual and different appears, retreat to the safety of your laptop. Above all, make sure that your travelling experience is as much unlike travelling as possible. After all, learning something from your experience is not the point.
What does it take to get impeached in this country? Will someome please blow Bush already, so we can finally get it over with?
Yes, that way we can get Dick Cheney put directly in charge as soon as possible. I wholeheartedly support this measure.
A psychologically unstable (medicated!) young teenage girl should not be allowed on the Internet, period. The fact that her "suitor" was not real has no bearing on the fact that an interaction with a random personality on the Internet affected her enough to cause her to commit suicide. This person should not have been allowed unsupervised contact with ANYONE. This is completely the parents responsibility. The other parents seem to be children in grown persons' bodies but that isn't really the point.
Just because your human eye can't see yellow dots on a yellow background doesn't mean a chemical analysis couldn't spot it. Hell, for all we know, they might glow bright green under blacklight.
I have another idea. Me and 10 of my friends are going to go around the city at night and fix the brakes on people's cars. I promise, I know what I'm doing. Sounds good right?
You've got to have some serious refrigeration (requiring, uh oh, ENERGY) and some darned high pressure to store liquid CO2.
Refrigeration has nothing to do with it. At standard pressure, cooling CO2 just causes it to solidify. To get liquid CO2 you must increase the pressure by quite a bit, but again, no refrigeration is required.
Laws of thermodynamics aside, I'd rather not be sitting on a mobile dry ice bomb, thankyouverymuch.
I have several CO2 tanks sitting in my garage for serving beer. These contain liquid CO2. I hardly consider them dangerous objects. If a CO2 storage tank got punctured during a crash, a lot of gas would vent rather quickly but the tank isn't going to just peel apart. I've seen tanks shot with high power rifles, and they don't explode. You get a jet of CO2 "snow flakes" like out of a fire extinguisher. Is it dangerous? Yeah. But so is a car crash.
Interesting that you are concerned about a little liquid CO2, but apparently not concerned about driving a vehicle carrying gallons of highly flammable liquid? You do realize that people burn to death in car fires... a lot.
Using the wood to make paper or something is probably better from an air-pollution prospective, sure. Taking trees out of forests to get back to a "natural" density of trees is good for the forests. Firewood is just one way to use that wood, and yes does create some pollution in the air. But, it is a very renewable, carbon-recycling source of heat.
Not to mention that because of 20th century forestry practices, we have enormous overburdens of down wood in our forests, particularly in the west. There is absolutely no reason not to burn this wood, because if we just let it sit in the forest, it is going to eventually burn anyway, and in a much more catastrophic fashion.
In an undisturbed forest there is an equilibrium between decomposition of woody matter, and new growth. We are so far beyond this equilibrium that it would take centuries to balance itself naturally. In reality, massive forest fires will strike before that point.
Cryptographic signing of mail. I'm sure it'll catch on this time. No, really. Duke Nukem Forever!
Stating the obvious I know, but law is not software.
Maybe it should be more like it. That's the point.
natural language is based on a ambiguous grammar, thus a multitude of interpretations exists.
It would seem that the ideal is for a single, correct interpretation of law. Therefore, we should not use a base language which has inherent ambiguity to define our laws. We need something kind of like... a programming language. A declarative one, at that. Of course, it would be hard to interpret by laypeople, but the law is already hard to interpret and on top of that, ambiguous.
unfortunate that the exploit existed for so long, but a patch was available for my gentoo distro within four hours of the article being posted on slashdot.
It sucks, actually. The bug was clearly simple enough to patch within hours, but that didn't stop hundreds if not thousands of programmers from failing to see it for a long, long period of time. "Many eyes make bugs shallow" my ass. One brilliant eye makes a bug shallow (in this case, the exploit author).
Clearly there are not enough brilliant eyes looking.
that's where optical fibre lives, with the long-range fibres below 10 m
I should certainly hope they don't need fibers thicker than 10 meters... Where do you get such a thick fiber anyway? That's like, house-sized.
Is that kind of like a potion of unlimited healing? And more importantly, how many mages can you strangle with a single, unlimitedly long wire?
Thanks for explaining what's obvious to anybody a step above the level of "retarded macaque." Although that does imply that you might have given a few kiddiez a lightbulb moment.
Right, and it's not the people who kill you during war, it's the bullets. Are you disputing that AIDS is a fatal condition?
Their job is to do whatever the hell they want to do. If enough people don't like it, they'll go away, and a company will die. But don't think for a second that you can demand any company to do what you think "their job" is.
In other news, a 45 kg karate expert gives lessons to a 485 pound Midwesterner. It isn't going too well.
If images of the Prophet are banned, then how do you know what he looks like? How do you know that the picture on the Wikipedia page is actually a picture of him?
What if I took a picture of a pomegranate, and labelled it "The Prophet." Is this objectionable as well?
Really? so, are you saying that the whole 9/11, Subway Bombings, random car bombings all come with a declaration of intention?
A "random" car bombing, by definition, has no motivation. But yes, 9/11 and most other large scale terrorists attacks were very well explained by their perpetrators. The media usually chooses not to air these motivations because it is exactly what these people want. But that doesn't mean they're not screaming at the top of their lungs to get their message out -- you just aren't listening.I guess we'll see you later then, scumbag. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
It's simple primitive brain response to being killed
I think the only response of a brain to being killed is "dying," don't you think?
all humans still have that primitive brain, it's known as our lizard brain. It's responsible for the fight, flight or freeze response.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism requires planning, patience, and execution. A reptile can accomplish none of these things. "Getting pissed off" is something universal to most animals. But terrorism is a uniquely human trait.
Anonymity breeds terrorism. end of sentence.
s/anonymity/desperation and you have a valid argument. Anonymity is completely counter to all the goals of terrorism. You cannot effect political change, if you do not reveal yourself or your motivations. Anonymous terrorism is just plain old murder. Doing it in secret defeats the purpose.
It helps to be anonymous when you are in the planning stages, but it is pointless to remain anonymous after the fact.
Carrying a lightning rod around will actually increase your chances of being struck.
Just so you know. I mean, I wouldn't want to see somebody get hurt.
What made so many Americans such cowards?
It has been a slow, degenerative process. The causes will probably all be obvious in the end, but that will be too late.
Because everybody knows that terrorism didn't exist until the Internet boom. I mean obviously, 9/11 was caused by the Internet.
Nothing puts a downer on your trip-of-a-lifetime quite like getting the shit beaten out of you for the sake of a cheap laptop.