The National Guard is a well-regulated armed body, but it sure isn't what the writers of the constitution meant by a well-regulated militia. They didn't trust the government. They may have meant a militia that was organized by the local government (as in town or village), but even that isn't clear.
Remember the founders didn't want there to be ANY standing army. 1812 probably changed a lot of minds, but when you say "well regulated militia" you are invoking the US Constitution Bill of Rights, and at that time most of the founders didn't trust the Federal government, and weren't too sure about the state governments. The constitution is almost entirely about what the government is NOT supposed to do. But there's no decent enforcement, so it tends to get ignored except when major fights come up between powerful groups with both (all?) sides haven't lots of governmental support. If it were really enforced there's no way they could have stretched the clause about interstate commerce to cover a farmer growing something for personal use.
Verbal is more unique to our species, but we have a history of trusting our eyes, and being skeptical about what we're told that predates our appearance as humans. Having believable pictures lie to us is something that we haven't evolved to deal with. Logically we know it can happen, but we have to stop an think before we don't just believe. And when we take our mind off it we start believing again.
That's nice when you can manage it, but often there is only one original source for certain information. In that case, multiple sources pointing to the same original source don't help. And multiple sources editorializing about it, but not pointing to it are all untrustworthy.
If you're a search engine, just give me the link, and if you want to tell me you don't trust it at the same time, that's fine. If I trust you, maybe I'll consider your opinion.
While true, humans are a visual species, so pictures are much more convincing than words.
OTOH, it's my understanding that handling things like faces and hair properly in a video is still so expensive that it will see minimal use...this year. Of course, it's already December.
Who do you trust to determine that something is a lie? It's quite reasonable for someone handing you a link to say "by the way, *I* wouldn't trust that" (or "*I* would"). That lets you decide how much you trust their evaluation. To just hide the data, however, marks *you* as untrustworthy even if the data *was* untrustworthy.
Well, if people don't like it, they'll switch to some other search engine. Like Bing.
If you believe in the free market, this isn't something you should complain about, and if you believe in monopolies this isn't something you should complain about. It's only reasonable to complain if you believe that the government should micromanage the economy.
Oddly enough, despite the preceding paragraph it does bother me. I *want* them to post "informational decals" on the web page searches, like "we judge this site to be fake news", "we judge this site to be clickbait", etc., but not to delist them.
It's an interesting idea. May I remind you that the Egyptian goddess Maat, normally called the goddess of truth, was actually the goddess of the officially accepted belief. And would you consider the meaning of the Russian word "Pravda", which is, I believe, translated as "the official truth".
I'm not real thrilled with corporate "truths", but they may be superior to political ones.
Actually, I believe that homosexual males are less likely to procreate themselves, but are more likely to have older brothers who are not homosexual. I could have read the statistics slightly wrong, as I wasn't that interested. It's from the current issue of New Scientist, but they were referring to a study somebody (I don't remember who) did. So if you're interested follow it up there.
OTOH, there's a lot of cultural influence. During the classical period most male citizens of Sparta were homosexuals, and *did* reproduce...if they didn't die fighting.
FWIW, it seems as if there are lots of genes that have a slight influence on sexual nature in various indirect ways, and some combinations tend to produce homosexual males...but there's also evidence that the mother's immune system has an effect. Possibly it's a bug in the program, but it exists across multiple mammalian species, so it's either not one that's strongly selected against, or the heterogeneous phenotypes have a large advantage. (Hey, it worked for sickle cell anemia...that's not the only place it could happen.)
I'm not sure that he is subservient to Putin. I suspect that he helps Russia commit crimes in the US not because he's a traitor, but rather because he gets flattered or bribed. That doesn't mean he isn't a traitor in common usage, though not within the definition given by the US Constitution. It just means that being a traitor isn't why he does that, it's doing that that makes him a traitor.
An earlier poster said the company was headquartered in Israel. So they *could* file suit in the US court system. I consider it unlikely, and I consider it unlikely that a jury would find in their favor. But a judge might...or might not.
No, there are limits. They can't enforce an agreement that's against the policy of the enforcing agency. They can't demand that you do something illegal. But the limits are quite broad. Broad enough that I stopped using both MS and Apple over EULAs. (Read it sometime, and try to understand it.)
No. Ideally the people who own the wires would be required to be totally independent of those who sent signals across the wires. And regulated in their ability to sell the same service a different prices to different customers. (That last bit get's a bit tricky though.)
You run your experiments on a test bed, or a small isolated chunk. If *that* works, *then* you scale up to a pilot program on a larger chunk. Only if that works do you roll it out everywhere.
Make sure your DVD drive is working, and make sure nothing you use depends on continuous access to the internet. I may dust off my dial-up modem, just in case.
Really? They used to promise they wouldn't deliver any more than so many baud (amount varied with the year). One year they were promising to not deliver more than 230 kilobaud. (I.e., "up to...")
I never heard of anybody trying to hold them to their promise.
That wouldn't be a crime in the US, because he was in Russia at the time. So evidence only needs to be good enough for PR.
The question is "Did he do it?", and I really don't care. I despise him for things he admits, so anything additional doesn't really matter...unless it can be pinned on him as a crime. Even then...would I really prefer Pence? Spiro Agnew used to be called Nixon's insurance policy.
Are you asserting that NASA currently has a working replacement for the Space Shuttle? I'm not real convinced that the current proposals will *ever* fly, despite what Boeing's VP of PR says.
To be fair the Space Shuttle program was a disaster, because the design was first low-balled financially, then then they decided to go with ceramic tiles rather than Titanium because they didn't like the politics of the main sources of Titanium ore. I really *did* need to be replaced, and never lived up to the original promises (made before the budget cuts and redesign).
However, considering the recent advanced US jet fighter....possibly some of the blame should also go to the corporations that were bidding to construct things.
What I don't get is "Who benefits from that?". It doesn't seem good, bad, or indifferent, just stupid, and I can't see who is supposed to benefit from that kind of post. Or is it just some sort of inoffensive troll?
Well, possibly this is because I never visit Linked In. But to me this feels mainly weird. It's like the "Enquirer" headline I read today that said "Oswald didn't shoot JFK, it was a cop", and that made me think Bob Wilson was writing for them, and wonder if "Illuminatus" was a history...for a second or two.
Slashdot Mirror
The National Guard is a well-regulated armed body, but it sure isn't what the writers of the constitution meant by a well-regulated militia. They didn't trust the government. They may have meant a militia that was organized by the local government (as in town or village), but even that isn't clear.
Remember the founders didn't want there to be ANY standing army. 1812 probably changed a lot of minds, but when you say "well regulated militia" you are invoking the US Constitution Bill of Rights, and at that time most of the founders didn't trust the Federal government, and weren't too sure about the state governments. The constitution is almost entirely about what the government is NOT supposed to do. But there's no decent enforcement, so it tends to get ignored except when major fights come up between powerful groups with both (all?) sides haven't lots of governmental support. If it were really enforced there's no way they could have stretched the clause about interstate commerce to cover a farmer growing something for personal use.
Verbal is more unique to our species, but we have a history of trusting our eyes, and being skeptical about what we're told that predates our appearance as humans. Having believable pictures lie to us is something that we haven't evolved to deal with. Logically we know it can happen, but we have to stop an think before we don't just believe. And when we take our mind off it we start believing again.
That's nice when you can manage it, but often there is only one original source for certain information. In that case, multiple sources pointing to the same original source don't help. And multiple sources editorializing about it, but not pointing to it are all untrustworthy.
If you're a search engine, just give me the link, and if you want to tell me you don't trust it at the same time, that's fine. If I trust you, maybe I'll consider your opinion.
While true, humans are a visual species, so pictures are much more convincing than words.
OTOH, it's my understanding that handling things like faces and hair properly in a video is still so expensive that it will see minimal use...this year. Of course, it's already December.
Who do you trust to determine that something is a lie?
It's quite reasonable for someone handing you a link to say "by the way, *I* wouldn't trust that" (or "*I* would"). That lets you decide how much you trust their evaluation. To just hide the data, however, marks *you* as untrustworthy even if the data *was* untrustworthy.
Well, if people don't like it, they'll switch to some other search engine. Like Bing.
If you believe in the free market, this isn't something you should complain about, and if you believe in monopolies this isn't something you should complain about. It's only reasonable to complain if you believe that the government should micromanage the economy.
Oddly enough, despite the preceding paragraph it does bother me. I *want* them to post "informational decals" on the web page searches, like "we judge this site to be fake news", "we judge this site to be clickbait", etc., but not to delist them.
It's an interesting idea. May I remind you that the Egyptian goddess Maat, normally called the goddess of truth, was actually the goddess of the officially accepted belief. And would you consider the meaning of the Russian word "Pravda", which is, I believe, translated as "the official truth".
I'm not real thrilled with corporate "truths", but they may be superior to political ones.
That's not that new an age. I grew up being assured of many things that were based on "fake news"...and that was over 50 years ago.
Actually, I believe that homosexual males are less likely to procreate themselves, but are more likely to have older brothers who are not homosexual. I could have read the statistics slightly wrong, as I wasn't that interested. It's from the current issue of New Scientist, but they were referring to a study somebody (I don't remember who) did. So if you're interested follow it up there.
OTOH, there's a lot of cultural influence. During the classical period most male citizens of Sparta were homosexuals, and *did* reproduce...if they didn't die fighting.
FWIW, it seems as if there are lots of genes that have a slight influence on sexual nature in various indirect ways, and some combinations tend to produce homosexual males...but there's also evidence that the mother's immune system has an effect. Possibly it's a bug in the program, but it exists across multiple mammalian species, so it's either not one that's strongly selected against, or the heterogeneous phenotypes have a large advantage. (Hey, it worked for sickle cell anemia...that's not the only place it could happen.)
I'm not sure that he is subservient to Putin. I suspect that he helps Russia commit crimes in the US not because he's a traitor, but rather because he gets flattered or bribed. That doesn't mean he isn't a traitor in common usage, though not within the definition given by the US Constitution. It just means that being a traitor isn't why he does that, it's doing that that makes him a traitor.
An earlier poster said the company was headquartered in Israel. So they *could* file suit in the US court system. I consider it unlikely, and I consider it unlikely that a jury would find in their favor. But a judge might...or might not.
No, there are limits. They can't enforce an agreement that's against the policy of the enforcing agency. They can't demand that you do something illegal. But the limits are quite broad. Broad enough that I stopped using both MS and Apple over EULAs. (Read it sometime, and try to understand it.)
Well, actually I use the Gimp, Inkscape, and Geany.
But you're right in the assumption that I don't compile them from source. I use the official repository.
I sure wasn't on AOL. I thought that was a disaster, and basically worthless.
If one distinguishes between an ISP and a reseller, as the above poster did, then most of the people on your list are resellers.
No. Ideally the people who own the wires would be required to be totally independent of those who sent signals across the wires. And regulated in their ability to sell the same service a different prices to different customers. (That last bit get's a bit tricky though.)
How does anyone have right to string wires over your neighbor's yard, and his neighbor's yard, and...
Without regulations you can't get power lines strung, much less network cables.
I can't tell whether you're an idiot or a troll.
You run your experiments on a test bed, or a small isolated chunk. If *that* works, *then* you scale up to a pilot program on a larger chunk. Only if that works do you roll it out everywhere.
Make sure your DVD drive is working, and make sure nothing you use depends on continuous access to the internet. I may dust off my dial-up modem, just in case.
Really? They used to promise they wouldn't deliver any more than so many baud (amount varied with the year). One year they were promising to not deliver more than 230 kilobaud. (I.e., "up to ...")
I never heard of anybody trying to hold them to their promise.
That wouldn't be a crime in the US, because he was in Russia at the time. So evidence only needs to be good enough for PR.
The question is "Did he do it?", and I really don't care. I despise him for things he admits, so anything additional doesn't really matter...unless it can be pinned on him as a crime. Even then...would I really prefer Pence? Spiro Agnew used to be called Nixon's insurance policy.
Because she won't do it for real.
You're sure about that?
Are you asserting that NASA currently has a working replacement for the Space Shuttle? I'm not real convinced that the current proposals will *ever* fly, despite what Boeing's VP of PR says.
To be fair the Space Shuttle program was a disaster, because the design was first low-balled financially, then then they decided to go with ceramic tiles rather than Titanium because they didn't like the politics of the main sources of Titanium ore. I really *did* need to be replaced, and never lived up to the original promises (made before the budget cuts and redesign).
However, considering the recent advanced US jet fighter....possibly some of the blame should also go to the corporations that were bidding to construct things.
What I don't get is "Who benefits from that?". It doesn't seem good, bad, or indifferent, just stupid, and I can't see who is supposed to benefit from that kind of post. Or is it just some sort of inoffensive troll?
Well, possibly this is because I never visit Linked In. But to me this feels mainly weird. It's like the "Enquirer" headline I read today that said "Oswald didn't shoot JFK, it was a cop", and that made me think Bob Wilson was writing for them, and wonder if "Illuminatus" was a history...for a second or two.