It does seem a little hypocritical that Obama, who always seems to be calling for compromise, is refusing to compromise now that something he values is at risk.
What part does Obama play in the Senate passing or not passing a resolution approved by the House? The Republican-lead House approved a budget bill that includes several cuts to the ACA. The Democrat-lead Senate refuses to approve the same bill. Where is Obama's hypocrisy in that?
Don't get me wrong, Obama isn't about compromise any more than any other politician, but this particular issue is not the fault of the president. This is yet another problem that we can lay directly at the feet of all of Congress so that we can all wonder how the fuck they got elected, what their job actually is if it's not running the country, and wonder when people are going to pay attention and demand some real change in how government works. Because right now, government doesn't work. As much as I think Obama is personally a dickhead, when the entire government shuts down I tend to blame the 635 or so people who were elected specifically to run the fucking government.
Each and every one of them, without exception, should be replaced (sorry to the few good ones, but everyone else ruined it for you). We need term limits on all members of Congress, and we need the political parties to be banned from organizing any aspect of the debate or election process other than their respective campaigns. The people in government work for themselves, not us.
Just 2 weeks ago I was happily driving along when the flood water on the road ripped the skid plate right off my car. It was enough to make me want to declare a fatwa against water.
I think the main reason why people had a problem with his comments is because he tried to suggest that women have some sort of defense mechanism against rapes. Regardless of the rates of pregnancy, the concept that a woman's body has the subconscious ability to stop a pregnancy if she is being raped is just stupid. That's where I see the parallel with this Saudi cleric - someone trying to spout off about women's health and medical issues when their background and rationale is in religion and not medicine. Todd Akin is no more of a doctor than this cleric, and neither of them should act like they know anything about women's health issues.
I have been to some airports where a wrong turn leads you between two building an dthen into the runway. There isn't a way to realize this when you are in the car.
Can you name an airport that dumps you on the runway without a sign telling you that you're not supposed to be there? Regardless, that is not the case here. This is an international airport where apparently they had to drive for a mile down the taxiway first with signs indicating that they are in fact on the airport and that planes might share the road, followed by signs indicating that they should not be there at all. From TFA:
"They had to enter the airport property via a motion-activated gate, and afterwards there are many signs, lights and painted markings, first warning that aircraft may share the road and then that drivers should not be there at all.
"They needed to drive over a mile with all this before reaching the runway. But the drivers disregarded all that because they were following the directions given on their iPhones."
I don't know of a way to describe those drivers other than "stupid". Maybe "completely oblivious" or "willfully ignorant", but that's not too different from "stupid". They saw or should have seen signs indicating that they are not supposed to be there, and they kept going because their iPhone told them to. I'd like to get a look at that access control gate to figure out what they went through to get on the airport property in the first place, so that I can further judge the intelligence of people who drive through an airport access control gate thinking that they are approaching the terminal. I've never been to a major airport where I had to stop and wait for a gate to open in order to get to the terminal.
It looks like the gate in question is here. A big yellow sign that says "Aircraft Operations Area", and someone thinks "wow, this is exactly where I'm supposed to be." The Yield To Aircraft sign is a nice touch too. I always see those when I'm going to the passenger terminal. So there is someone out there driving their car, looking at that airport entrance, and mistaking it with this. Yeah, I'll go with "stupid".
If the foot slips off the brake for any reason, the car will propel itself forward while the driver likely has no hands on the steering wheel, and is distracted by their phone. You might think that scenario unlikely, but if someone even bumps the back of your car gently, your foot is going to come off the brake and you are now going into the car in front of you - one that might be driving through the intersection at speed.
Are you really trying to suggest that if a car idles forward into the back of another car, then the person that got hit is going to become so flustered that they lose control of their (stopped) vehicle? If someone's car is moving at idle speed and hits my car I don't freak the fuck out and lose my shit, I look at them like they're fucking stupid and then put my car in park and get out and ask them if they actually are. Where exactly are you driving where people have so little awareness and confidence when they drive that their parked car getting gently bumped at any speed causes them to completely lose control?
Someone in a sports car sitting at a red light isn't violating a law. Someone texting while they are in control of a vehicle is violating a law. See the difference?
If you think that it's stupid for that to be illegal, then the solution is to change the law, not berate the cop.
That would actually be fairly effective, if you're dealing with a mine or something like that. Get a little cheap robot, put a brick on it, and go send it out to jump on the mine. You lose a couple hundred bucks at most (plus a brick), and the mine is gone. Different story when you're dealing with a remotely-triggered bomb though where some dick is watching it through binoculars waiting to hit dial on their phone. You could have some small guys with a wire cutter and camera each, but then you have to deal with them getting stuck in sand plus the cost of miniaturization. It's easier to go with a larger robot that can carry more tools and better cameras and batteries. The bomber probably isn't going to hit the button if the only thing he takes out is a robot, unless he doesn't think he'll be able to detonate at all. In that case, might as well just take out the robot and then Zerg the road with more bombs while the EOD squad is minus one robot.
The CO knows that the $60,000 TALON is only a tool, like a radio or gun. If a TALON approaches a bomb to defuse, and the bomb goes off, no one is going to give the tech any shit. After all, the bomb isn't there any more and it didn't kill anyone. The tech just needs a new robot, which hopefully arrives before the next call comes in.
Their "willingness to use it"? You realize these are EOD guys they are talking about, right? If there's a bomb on the road, and you're responsible for disarming it, and you can either put on the big suit and walk out there to do it or fire up your robot and bust out the joystick, which choice are you going to make? The EOD guys don't think that they would rather lose a limb than have to put in an order for another robot. They use the robot unless they have no other choice, they don't want to be standing over that bomb if it goes off. Even if they gave their robot a name and painted eyes and a mouth on it and sleep next to it and act like they're feeding it, when it's time for them to do their job the choice is obvious.
My brother in law is an EOD guy. He's not going to have the Marines call his wife and son to let them know that he's not going to be coming home, or that he's missing a couple arms and legs, because he didn't want to deploy his robot. This entire discussion is stupid.
I played through the game 6 times, on two characters (one through hell, one half way through inferno), and never saw a single legendary item drop.
So you played through the game 5 times without seeing any legendary items and though to yourself "ehhh... I'll give it one more shot." Sixth time's the charm, right?
DoubleClick, owned by Google, is not a party to this lawsuit. This is a suit between FindTheBest and apparently something called Lumen View. FindTheBest's CEO's old company has nothing to do with this.
People using google products are indeed zombies. In particular Fandroids. Completely mindless while attacking everyone who doesn't want to join the zombie ranks.
Really? ALL people using any Google product are zombies? Let me take a minute to decide whether I want to take you seriously. I'll be back to let you know.
Yes, I am (in case that wasn't obvious). Android is like the anarchistic wild west compared to the control, rigidity, and mindless acceptance of the Apple ecosystem. It's like Windows vs. Linux, if Microsoft had decided to require that they approve everything you do with your Windows machine. There are a lot of things that apply to Android, being "Big Brother" is not one of them.
Are you suggesting that the NSA isn't envious how the Fandroids rush to the defense every time people uncover yet another way Google gathered all kinds of data from them?
There's a little too much hyperbole there to respond. If you'd like to cite specific examples, go ahead.
I think most of the confusion is what defines the solar system. They've been wondering for a while whether it did or did not cross into interstellar space, but most of the confusion seems to stem around the definition of where the solar system ends. If the Oort cloud is included, then it still has a long way to go.
It sounds like a definition of the edge of the solar system is where the interstellar wind overtakes the solar wind. There is a line there, on one side of the line the solar wind is blowing away from the sun, and on the other side of the line the interstellar wind is blowing towards the sun. The line is where the force of the two is the same.
What they are actually announcing is that the data shows that it left the solar system in August of 2012. The news over the last year was that they weren't sure if it had left yet. The news now is that it did leave, a little over a year ago.
You are aware that they used Apple in the presentation because at that time nobody used Android?
Are you suggesting that the NSA would equate Android with Big Brother and describe Android customers as "zombies"? They specifically referred to Apple's 1984 ad campaign, and suggested that it is ironic that Apple has become big brother, and the mindless zombies in their ad are actually their customers. I don't think that description applies to Android.
Are you suggesting that their description of Apple does not apply today? Apple hasn't relinquished any of their control, and people will line up in front of an Apple store before they even announce the release dates or features. They don't care about what the phone does or does not do, they just want it.
I'm unclear what statement of mine you're trying to contradict and in what way
I'm just pointing out that it does not matter if they are or are not storing fingerprints on their server when they have access to the fingerprints on the device. They, and anyone else they allow.
I don't think Apple would make these claims (without anyone asking no less) if they weren't true. If they were storing this data, they would have been quiet about it, don't you think?
No, I don't think so. I don't have any reason to trust Apple, and you shouldn't either. You have to realize that you don't have the whole story when an agency like the NSA refers to Apple as "Big Brother". If the NSA thinks Apple is Big Brother and its customers are zombies, then why would you put any level of trust into Apple to not use your personal data however they please? Both Apple and the NSA know that Apple's customers don't care about things like that, what they care about is owning the newest Apple device, regardless of what that entails. Apple can quietly push out any update they want and people won't care once it leaves the news cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
It does seem a little hypocritical that Obama, who always seems to be calling for compromise, is refusing to compromise now that something he values is at risk.
What part does Obama play in the Senate passing or not passing a resolution approved by the House? The Republican-lead House approved a budget bill that includes several cuts to the ACA. The Democrat-lead Senate refuses to approve the same bill. Where is Obama's hypocrisy in that?
Don't get me wrong, Obama isn't about compromise any more than any other politician, but this particular issue is not the fault of the president. This is yet another problem that we can lay directly at the feet of all of Congress so that we can all wonder how the fuck they got elected, what their job actually is if it's not running the country, and wonder when people are going to pay attention and demand some real change in how government works. Because right now, government doesn't work. As much as I think Obama is personally a dickhead, when the entire government shuts down I tend to blame the 635 or so people who were elected specifically to run the fucking government.
Each and every one of them, without exception, should be replaced (sorry to the few good ones, but everyone else ruined it for you). We need term limits on all members of Congress, and we need the political parties to be banned from organizing any aspect of the debate or election process other than their respective campaigns. The people in government work for themselves, not us.
Unfortunately for us, no one really gives a shit.
Just 2 weeks ago I was happily driving along when the flood water on the road ripped the skid plate right off my car. It was enough to make me want to declare a fatwa against water.
I think the main reason why people had a problem with his comments is because he tried to suggest that women have some sort of defense mechanism against rapes. Regardless of the rates of pregnancy, the concept that a woman's body has the subconscious ability to stop a pregnancy if she is being raped is just stupid. That's where I see the parallel with this Saudi cleric - someone trying to spout off about women's health and medical issues when their background and rationale is in religion and not medicine. Todd Akin is no more of a doctor than this cleric, and neither of them should act like they know anything about women's health issues.
There are a couple of problems with your post.
I have been to some airports where a wrong turn leads you between two building an dthen into the runway. There isn't a way to realize this when you are in the car.
Can you name an airport that dumps you on the runway without a sign telling you that you're not supposed to be there? Regardless, that is not the case here. This is an international airport where apparently they had to drive for a mile down the taxiway first with signs indicating that they are in fact on the airport and that planes might share the road, followed by signs indicating that they should not be there at all. From TFA:
"They had to enter the airport property via a motion-activated gate, and afterwards there are many signs, lights and painted markings, first warning that aircraft may share the road and then that drivers should not be there at all.
"They needed to drive over a mile with all this before reaching the runway. But the drivers disregarded all that because they were following the directions given on their iPhones."
I don't know of a way to describe those drivers other than "stupid". Maybe "completely oblivious" or "willfully ignorant", but that's not too different from "stupid". They saw or should have seen signs indicating that they are not supposed to be there, and they kept going because their iPhone told them to. I'd like to get a look at that access control gate to figure out what they went through to get on the airport property in the first place, so that I can further judge the intelligence of people who drive through an airport access control gate thinking that they are approaching the terminal. I've never been to a major airport where I had to stop and wait for a gate to open in order to get to the terminal.
It looks like the gate in question is here. A big yellow sign that says "Aircraft Operations Area", and someone thinks "wow, this is exactly where I'm supposed to be." The Yield To Aircraft sign is a nice touch too. I always see those when I'm going to the passenger terminal. So there is someone out there driving their car, looking at that airport entrance, and mistaking it with this. Yeah, I'll go with "stupid".
If the foot slips off the brake for any reason, the car will propel itself forward while the driver likely has no hands on the steering wheel, and is distracted by their phone. You might think that scenario unlikely, but if someone even bumps the back of your car gently, your foot is going to come off the brake and you are now going into the car in front of you - one that might be driving through the intersection at speed.
Are you really trying to suggest that if a car idles forward into the back of another car, then the person that got hit is going to become so flustered that they lose control of their (stopped) vehicle? If someone's car is moving at idle speed and hits my car I don't freak the fuck out and lose my shit, I look at them like they're fucking stupid and then put my car in park and get out and ask them if they actually are. Where exactly are you driving where people have so little awareness and confidence when they drive that their parked car getting gently bumped at any speed causes them to completely lose control?
Depends. Did you put the car in park?
Someone in a sports car sitting at a red light isn't violating a law. Someone texting while they are in control of a vehicle is violating a law. See the difference?
If you think that it's stupid for that to be illegal, then the solution is to change the law, not berate the cop.
Hey buddy, you watch your mouth when you're talking about NYCL!
That would actually be fairly effective, if you're dealing with a mine or something like that. Get a little cheap robot, put a brick on it, and go send it out to jump on the mine. You lose a couple hundred bucks at most (plus a brick), and the mine is gone. Different story when you're dealing with a remotely-triggered bomb though where some dick is watching it through binoculars waiting to hit dial on their phone. You could have some small guys with a wire cutter and camera each, but then you have to deal with them getting stuck in sand plus the cost of miniaturization. It's easier to go with a larger robot that can carry more tools and better cameras and batteries. The bomber probably isn't going to hit the button if the only thing he takes out is a robot, unless he doesn't think he'll be able to detonate at all. In that case, might as well just take out the robot and then Zerg the road with more bombs while the EOD squad is minus one robot.
The CO knows that the $60,000 TALON is only a tool, like a radio or gun. If a TALON approaches a bomb to defuse, and the bomb goes off, no one is going to give the tech any shit. After all, the bomb isn't there any more and it didn't kill anyone. The tech just needs a new robot, which hopefully arrives before the next call comes in.
The TALON costs $60,000, not several million. EOD techs aren't out there fielding ED-209 units. All they need is a camera and some tools.
Exactly how many robots does the EOD tech need in order to sneak up on the bomb and disarm it?
Their "willingness to use it"? You realize these are EOD guys they are talking about, right? If there's a bomb on the road, and you're responsible for disarming it, and you can either put on the big suit and walk out there to do it or fire up your robot and bust out the joystick, which choice are you going to make? The EOD guys don't think that they would rather lose a limb than have to put in an order for another robot. They use the robot unless they have no other choice, they don't want to be standing over that bomb if it goes off. Even if they gave their robot a name and painted eyes and a mouth on it and sleep next to it and act like they're feeding it, when it's time for them to do their job the choice is obvious.
My brother in law is an EOD guy. He's not going to have the Marines call his wife and son to let them know that he's not going to be coming home, or that he's missing a couple arms and legs, because he didn't want to deploy his robot. This entire discussion is stupid.
That's a fantastic opinion there "Ravaldy"... if that is your real name.
I played through the game 6 times, on two characters (one through hell, one half way through inferno), and never saw a single legendary item drop.
So you played through the game 5 times without seeing any legendary items and though to yourself "ehhh... I'll give it one more shot." Sixth time's the charm, right?
DoubleClick, owned by Google, is not a party to this lawsuit. This is a suit between FindTheBest and apparently something called Lumen View. FindTheBest's CEO's old company has nothing to do with this.
People using google products are indeed zombies. In particular Fandroids. Completely mindless while attacking everyone who doesn't want to join the zombie ranks.
Really? ALL people using any Google product are zombies? Let me take a minute to decide whether I want to take you seriously. I'll be back to let you know.
Are you suggesting they wouldn't?
Yes, I am (in case that wasn't obvious). Android is like the anarchistic wild west compared to the control, rigidity, and mindless acceptance of the Apple ecosystem. It's like Windows vs. Linux, if Microsoft had decided to require that they approve everything you do with your Windows machine. There are a lot of things that apply to Android, being "Big Brother" is not one of them.
Are you suggesting that the NSA isn't envious how the Fandroids rush to the defense every time people uncover yet another way Google gathered all kinds of data from them?
There's a little too much hyperbole there to respond. If you'd like to cite specific examples, go ahead.
I think most of the confusion is what defines the solar system. They've been wondering for a while whether it did or did not cross into interstellar space, but most of the confusion seems to stem around the definition of where the solar system ends. If the Oort cloud is included, then it still has a long way to go.
It sounds like a definition of the edge of the solar system is where the interstellar wind overtakes the solar wind. There is a line there, on one side of the line the solar wind is blowing away from the sun, and on the other side of the line the interstellar wind is blowing towards the sun. The line is where the force of the two is the same.
What they are actually announcing is that the data shows that it left the solar system in August of 2012. The news over the last year was that they weren't sure if it had left yet. The news now is that it did leave, a little over a year ago.
So it's not about Apple - any vendor has the potential be compelled by NSA. What's the alternative? Shall we all move back to the caves?
If the problem is the NSA, then the solution should be obvious.
You are aware that they used Apple in the presentation because at that time nobody used Android?
Are you suggesting that the NSA would equate Android with Big Brother and describe Android customers as "zombies"? They specifically referred to Apple's 1984 ad campaign, and suggested that it is ironic that Apple has become big brother, and the mindless zombies in their ad are actually their customers. I don't think that description applies to Android.
Are you suggesting that their description of Apple does not apply today? Apple hasn't relinquished any of their control, and people will line up in front of an Apple store before they even announce the release dates or features. They don't care about what the phone does or does not do, they just want it.
I'm unclear what statement of mine you're trying to contradict and in what way
I'm just pointing out that it does not matter if they are or are not storing fingerprints on their server when they have access to the fingerprints on the device. They, and anyone else they allow.
I don't think Apple would make these claims (without anyone asking no less) if they weren't true. If they were storing this data, they would have been quiet about it, don't you think?
No, I don't think so. I don't have any reason to trust Apple, and you shouldn't either. You have to realize that you don't have the whole story when an agency like the NSA refers to Apple as "Big Brother". If the NSA thinks Apple is Big Brother and its customers are zombies, then why would you put any level of trust into Apple to not use your personal data however they please? Both Apple and the NSA know that Apple's customers don't care about things like that, what they care about is owning the newest Apple device, regardless of what that entails. Apple can quietly push out any update they want and people won't care once it leaves the news cycle.