I'm assuming, regardless of their personal position on privacy, they simply don't want to find themselves in the middle of domestic disputes like divorce proceedings.
I don't know what's wrong with these idiots. Don't they know how bad this is for PR. They should just bite the bullet and launch anyway. No risk, no reward is what I say. It worked out so well for Reagan...
Personally, while I don't think we should be trying to save these kinds of species in the wild I do think that what we should be doing is to catelog and preserve as many unique DNA specimines as possible. Create an international network of cookie-cutter repositories similar to the one in Scandanavia that is being used to store plant seeds in case of catastrophic natural disaster and share the whole library of genetic samples across the network. Just keep them all cryogenically frozen in case we ever find a need for them.
Not really. Most movies that run in 3d also have 2d showings at the same theater. It might be useful if your someone who gets sick watching 3d and you're stuck seeing the 3d version of a movie with a friend or friends but that probably isn't a large enough market to be worth it. When, and if, movie theaters ever convert over to 100% 3D, then this will become a much more viable product. I can see theaters having them on hand behind the counter for the small % of the population that can't handle 3D.
- all carbon fiber - ruggedized, mil-spec, gold contact connectors - ultra-high end camera system with custom x-y actuator and super zoom - latest generation night vision technology - super advanced radio tech with top-secret communications protocol/encryption - advanced, custom, guidance software - advanced, custom, camera software such as computer vision for identifying targets, etc.
Yes but, also (most likely), the camera and sensor package. RC planes have carried cameras before, but not of the quality level of what's installed on moder UAVs. Also, they probably have other nice toys like high-end night vision and an advanced software package to tie it all together.
As far as I know, while present GPUs do use a lot of power they, also, produce a massive number fo FLOPS compared to general processors. This means they, actualy, have a lower power cost per FLOP.
A) You asked which of the founders was Libertarian, he answered you and you confirmed that Peter Thiel was, in fact, one of the founders. The fact that eBay is the present owner has nothing to do with your orginal question.
B) The reason most people have been throwing the "you give up your rights under the UCMJ" line back at people angry about the military's treatment of Manning is that they are, somehow, trying to imply that the UCMJ makes it ok for the military to leave him in solitary confinement for almost a year while they take their time developing a case for him (or, as many people suspect, waiting for the isolation to break him mentally so that he's willing to just sign any plea bargain deal they shove in his face in order to get out of solitary). While common sense should really tell anyone that if the UCMJ did, in fact, allow such abuse of prisoners that it would be monsterous and should be changed immediately, fuzzyfuzzyfungus went the extra mile to quote the specific sections of the UCMJ that make this kind of treatment just as illegal in the military as it is in normal society.
C) I'm not going to get involved in this pissing match.
No, but authoritarian nuts like Isaac-1 like to use the boogie-man of "UCMJ" as a blanket shield to justify any treatment of someone like Bradley in the hopes that you won't look too closely at the actual UCMJ and realize that it doesn't actually allow abusive treatment of prisoners (even after they've been convicted).
Wow, talk about confusingly worded summary. If you're going to talk about how many sites have failed to pass the test, and then compare that to previous numbers, make sure that the second number is ALSO the percentage that FAILED and not the precentage that PASSED. At first I though it was saying that, last time, only 20% failed the test and was wondering why the OP seemed to be suggesting that 51% failure is better than 20% failure.
Yea, the OP also, conveniently, forgot to mention the fact that Tolkien was 81 when his ulcer killed him. Older people tend to have a much higher mortality rate with major surgery, for obvious reasons.
I can't tell if the first one is actually a patent office or just a company that helps people apply for patents. Either way, it doesn't look like they're past even the beginning stages of the patent process.
NPR reported basically the same story last night. Supposedly, they went to the police to try and force Assange to get a STD test but the first procesutor they talked to decided to press rape charges even though they didn't want to. Those sharges were thrown out by that procesutor's superior due to lack of evidence of a crime. Later, once the women had fallen in with the high profile lawyer and the Wikileaks issue had blown up in the press, the lawyer went to a higher level procecutor and convinced him/her to re-open the case.
Also, from what I understand, the initial warrent through Interpol wasn't even for arrest for a crime. They were only trying to bring him in for interrogation. He offered to meet them at an embassy (where, coincidentally, they wouldn't be able to hand him over to the US government or, if you're a little more susspicious of the Swedish police, break out the heat lamps and rubber hoses...) for questioning but they refused and demanded that he turn himself over to them.
The problem is that we need to back off on some of the "security measures" and work on ratcheting down the fear level. The whole point of terrorism is to instill large-scale fear in people and the US government has baught right into it. The simple reality is that, even at it's worst, terrorism has a incredibly low casualty rate. Now that people know to fight back in the event of a highjacking (and the terrorists know we know) the best they can really accomplish is to kill a place's worth of passengers. Is it horrible? Sure, but far far more people die every year from things like car accidents. It's the nature of a world with such high population counts and, statistically, the chances of it being you on that plane are probably worse than the chances of you winning the lottery.
We need, as a country, to grow some balls and realise that the actual threat isn't that high. Much of the money we're wasting implementing all this demeaning security theater at the airports could be better spent installing equipment and manpower in our ports where a terrorist agency could, possibly, sneak something like a nuclear weapon into the country. THAT is one of the few terrorist threats to this country that could cause a significant death-toll. Yet, we still don't check all, or even most, of the shipping containers that come into the country.
No, it is NOT illegal to publish them the way Assange did. There has even been case history where the media (in this case the New York Times) has published classified information. When they chose to publish the Vietnam War era "Pentagon Papers", they were charged with Espionage and the Supreme Court found that they had First Ammendmant rights to publish. Try learning some history before you shoot your mouth off.
As I said above, the only crime that was commited here was the act of giving the documents to Wikileaks in the first place. If they ever catch the person(s) that did it, then they'll have free reign to charge them with a crime.
Who cares what your opinion is of what you think Assange's interests are? What matters is whether, or not, the guy's actions are a crime. Your comment may stand, but that doesn't mean you have any actual fact behind it to prove your claim.
The law is clear regarding illegal search and seizure. The idea of a right to privacy only goes one way. Citizens have a right to privacy from the government. The government has no inherent right to privacy from the citizens. In fact, you could argue that it's impossible to have a truly functional democracy without the citizens having a clear idea of what their government is really doing. If I'm kept in the dark about the details of important actions committed by my government, what hope do I have to ever make a truly informed decision when it comes time to vote?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because Hubble was such a horrible failure. Why would we ever want to repeat that...
For the most part, gasoline powered cars only explode in television shows or movies.
I'm assuming, regardless of their personal position on privacy, they simply don't want to find themselves in the middle of domestic disputes like divorce proceedings.
I'm going to copy-paste all my comments to reproduce the feel of that old-time instant messenger experience.
I don't know what's wrong with these idiots. Don't they know how bad this is for PR. They should just bite the bullet and launch anyway. No risk, no reward is what I say. It worked out so well for Reagan...
You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have tiburon with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
Personally, while I don't think we should be trying to save these kinds of species in the wild I do think that what we should be doing is to catelog and preserve as many unique DNA specimines as possible. Create an international network of cookie-cutter repositories similar to the one in Scandanavia that is being used to store plant seeds in case of catastrophic natural disaster and share the whole library of genetic samples across the network. Just keep them all cryogenically frozen in case we ever find a need for them.
This doesn't sound like a horrible idea to me but I do have to say that it's a good thing this list wasn't around ~100,000 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Humans
Or you could, I don't know, just go to the 2d showing of the same movie and pay less money...
Not really. Most movies that run in 3d also have 2d showings at the same theater. It might be useful if your someone who gets sick watching 3d and you're stuck seeing the 3d version of a movie with a friend or friends but that probably isn't a large enough market to be worth it. When, and if, movie theaters ever convert over to 100% 3D, then this will become a much more viable product. I can see theaters having them on hand behind the counter for the small % of the population that can't handle 3D.
Just a guess but:
- all carbon fiber
- ruggedized, mil-spec, gold contact connectors
- ultra-high end camera system with custom x-y actuator and super zoom
- latest generation night vision technology
- super advanced radio tech with top-secret communications protocol/encryption
- advanced, custom, guidance software
- advanced, custom, camera software such as computer vision for identifying targets, etc.
Yes but, also (most likely), the camera and sensor package. RC planes have carried cameras before, but not of the quality level of what's installed on moder UAVs. Also, they probably have other nice toys like high-end night vision and an advanced software package to tie it all together.
As far as I know, while present GPUs do use a lot of power they, also, produce a massive number fo FLOPS compared to general processors. This means they, actualy, have a lower power cost per FLOP.
I'd hate to be the first person to use a new machine, I hear that the cartridge that comes with the machine only makes it to about 50%.
A) You asked which of the founders was Libertarian, he answered you and you confirmed that Peter Thiel was, in fact, one of the founders. The fact that eBay is the present owner has nothing to do with your orginal question.
B) The reason most people have been throwing the "you give up your rights under the UCMJ" line back at people angry about the military's treatment of Manning is that they are, somehow, trying to imply that the UCMJ makes it ok for the military to leave him in solitary confinement for almost a year while they take their time developing a case for him (or, as many people suspect, waiting for the isolation to break him mentally so that he's willing to just sign any plea bargain deal they shove in his face in order to get out of solitary). While common sense should really tell anyone that if the UCMJ did, in fact, allow such abuse of prisoners that it would be monsterous and should be changed immediately, fuzzyfuzzyfungus went the extra mile to quote the specific sections of the UCMJ that make this kind of treatment just as illegal in the military as it is in normal society.
C) I'm not going to get involved in this pissing match.
No, but authoritarian nuts like Isaac-1 like to use the boogie-man of "UCMJ" as a blanket shield to justify any treatment of someone like Bradley in the hopes that you won't look too closely at the actual UCMJ and realize that it doesn't actually allow abusive treatment of prisoners (even after they've been convicted).
Wow, talk about confusingly worded summary. If you're going to talk about how many sites have failed to pass the test, and then compare that to previous numbers, make sure that the second number is ALSO the percentage that FAILED and not the precentage that PASSED. At first I though it was saying that, last time, only 20% failed the test and was wondering why the OP seemed to be suggesting that 51% failure is better than 20% failure.
Yea, the OP also, conveniently, forgot to mention the fact that Tolkien was 81 when his ulcer killed him. Older people tend to have a much higher mortality rate with major surgery, for obvious reasons.
Apparently, these are the records for the patent application:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444
https://register.epoline.org/espacenet/application;jsessionid=EED869F8493242AA63BE71A09EA781FC.RegisterPlus_prod_0?number=EP08873805&tab=main
I can't tell if the first one is actually a patent office or just a company that helps people apply for patents. Either way, it doesn't look like they're past even the beginning stages of the patent process.
Return it and demand a replacement/refund.
NPR reported basically the same story last night. Supposedly, they went to the police to try and force Assange to get a STD test but the first procesutor they talked to decided to press rape charges even though they didn't want to. Those sharges were thrown out by that procesutor's superior due to lack of evidence of a crime. Later, once the women had fallen in with the high profile lawyer and the Wikileaks issue had blown up in the press, the lawyer went to a higher level procecutor and convinced him/her to re-open the case.
Also, from what I understand, the initial warrent through Interpol wasn't even for arrest for a crime. They were only trying to bring him in for interrogation. He offered to meet them at an embassy (where, coincidentally, they wouldn't be able to hand him over to the US government or, if you're a little more susspicious of the Swedish police, break out the heat lamps and rubber hoses...) for questioning but they refused and demanded that he turn himself over to them.
How else do you expect the ILM guys to get accurate bone structure measurements for the reproduction?
The problem is that we need to back off on some of the "security measures" and work on ratcheting down the fear level. The whole point of terrorism is to instill large-scale fear in people and the US government has baught right into it. The simple reality is that, even at it's worst, terrorism has a incredibly low casualty rate. Now that people know to fight back in the event of a highjacking (and the terrorists know we know) the best they can really accomplish is to kill a place's worth of passengers. Is it horrible? Sure, but far far more people die every year from things like car accidents. It's the nature of a world with such high population counts and, statistically, the chances of it being you on that plane are probably worse than the chances of you winning the lottery.
We need, as a country, to grow some balls and realise that the actual threat isn't that high. Much of the money we're wasting implementing all this demeaning security theater at the airports could be better spent installing equipment and manpower in our ports where a terrorist agency could, possibly, sneak something like a nuclear weapon into the country. THAT is one of the few terrorist threats to this country that could cause a significant death-toll. Yet, we still don't check all, or even most, of the shipping containers that come into the country.
No, it is NOT illegal to publish them the way Assange did. There has even been case history where the media (in this case the New York Times) has published classified information. When they chose to publish the Vietnam War era "Pentagon Papers", they were charged with Espionage and the Supreme Court found that they had First Ammendmant rights to publish. Try learning some history before you shoot your mouth off.
As I said above, the only crime that was commited here was the act of giving the documents to Wikileaks in the first place. If they ever catch the person(s) that did it, then they'll have free reign to charge them with a crime.
Who cares what your opinion is of what you think Assange's interests are? What matters is whether, or not, the guy's actions are a crime. Your comment may stand, but that doesn't mean you have any actual fact behind it to prove your claim.
The law is clear regarding illegal search and seizure. The idea of a right to privacy only goes one way. Citizens have a right to privacy from the government. The government has no inherent right to privacy from the citizens. In fact, you could argue that it's impossible to have a truly functional democracy without the citizens having a clear idea of what their government is really doing. If I'm kept in the dark about the details of important actions committed by my government, what hope do I have to ever make a truly informed decision when it comes time to vote?