They have been taken to court over the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the public interest to have the FCC place reasonable restrictions on content aired within certain times over public airwaves. Moreover, even outside of those times, it is legal to limit broadcast material over public airwaves that is patently offensive. Transmissions over more limited media (cable and satellite) do not fall within the domain of the FCC, as has been determined by the courts on occasion, and which I believe even Michael Powell has stated in declining to get involved in certain satellite and cable broadcast issues (don't recall them specifically offhand).
I've never heard anybody in Canada (where I've lived all my life) say that we are "Real Americans" because we live on a continent called "North America". Nor do any Canadians particualarly care that the "United States of America" uses the word America in the name of their country.
Just hang around the Slashdot political rants for a while, and you'll see plenty of people -- Canadians included -- who will eagerly share their opinion about the definition and use of the word "American." They're easy to find. Just look for the references to "USians."
Yes, and I also know what a byline is. When it says, "By Bob Smith, Times Staff Writer" and finishes with the names of bureau writers that assisted, it's pretty safe to say that it was written by paper staff. When it has the Reuters or Knight-Ridder or AP byline, it's from them.
There's nothing wrong with "recommended" solutions. So long as Microsoft isn't requiring that the companies not support anything else, this is a perfectly legitimate tactic. I've seen web hosting companies that "recommend" Plesk or Cpanel, car companies that "recommend" Goodyear tires, and electronics shops that "recommend" Blaupunkt. They're doing it because the company cuts them a deal in exchange for the advertising.
Note to anyone who may think I'm a Microsoft junkie: I'm one of those who supported the original decision to split the company.
Marriage would probably become contractual arrangements to stay together for, say, 20 years, with options after that for a specified amount of time (5, 10, or 20 years). Romantics would probably still try for "til death do you part" but I suspect a major change would come around in how it's viewed by society.
Reproduction would almost certainly be done by permit only if one subjected oneself to these kind of treatments. If one did not, and the normal lifespan of ~75 years were expected, then perhaps they wouldn't be blocked, but those living for hundreds of years would probably have to restrict themselves, getting on a waiting list to be allowed to have children.
Another thought... How would people react to dangers if they could live for centuries? Suddenly, you're not risking the experiences of 10 or 20 or 50 years of life. You're risking the experiences of 100 or 200 or 500 years of life. Ouch. One might well think twice before pushing some of the boundaries in those cases.
Once the boomers are gone? You do realize that even as the Great Die-Off comes, the US population will still be growing, right? We'll have at best a reprieve for a little while, and then it will continue right back up the hill.
Social Security has become a pension, and like almost all pensions, it's a pyramid scheme, and pyramid schemes have to collapse at some point. Better to have a graceful shutdown of the system than to have the government one day realize that it can no longer sustain promised payments.
When something is "the news" we do not expect propaganda, nor do we expect this 3rd-grade relativist "all news is propaganda" bullshit.
Whether you get propaganda is often dependent on your own viewpoint. Consider the following statements that build with each iteration, and consider how they can be taken by people reading them.
Adam was killed. Adam was killed by Bob. Adam was killed by Bob with a gun. Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen. Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen from his roommate. Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen from his roommate, who is a police officer.
Depending on the details presented, which are often constrained by time on TV/radio or space in print, one could have various views based on the information presented. It could be a reaction that crime is a problem, that gun ownership is a problem, that gun theft is a problem, that gun storage is a problem, or that carelessness with guns is a problem. Depending on your viewpoint, each person will take each statement differently. For some people, a given statement will reinforce their beliefs, and for others, it will fly in the face of them. Some will be inquisitive and ask for more detail, and some will ignore it entirely because it doesn't affect them.
I bounce around a lot of news organizations -- CNN, Fox, AP, Reuters, NYT, LA Times, OC Register, NPR, and a bunch of others. I even visit Pravda's English site sometimes, if only for the occasional chuckle at the oddities that appear there. Most of the stories are pretty much the same from organization to organization, no matter who originally wrote them, because journalism is, at its core, a pretty basic thing. Who, what, when, where, why, how?
But if the story is more complex, or has conflicting information, then it gets much more difficult. For example, You have ten different sources for information; which information is considered the best? You have some long-time informants telling you one thing, and they've always panned out in the past, but you have two new informants telling you something quite different, neither of which know about each other but whose stories are almost exactly alike. Whom do you believe? Which do you put first in your story, and how much emphasis do you give them? From twelve hours of interviews, which quotes do you select to tell the story the most accurately? What does your gut tell you? Has your gut ever been wrong?
Being a journalist is seriously hard work and can be painful, because no matter what you say, someone is going to say that you said too much or not enough, that you slanted something this way or that. I do not envy them.
Re:Newsweek: The Cooling World - April 28, 1975
on
BBC on Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
I was correcting the parent to mine, who missed the date, and was thinking that it was a recent article that suggested the shorter growing season in England when it has, in the last 20 years or so, extended.
China could dam every river it has, and it still wouldn't be able to provide for its increasingly-sophistocated populace by the time the dams were complete. It just reached 1.3 billion people, and in 20 years, even at a 1% growth rate, it's going to be approaching 1.6 billion people. Either a LOT more oil consumption is going to be involved, or else a lot of nuclear reactors. Wind farms might be a possibility, but could be prohibitively expensive.
Re:Newsweek: The Cooling World - April 28, 1975
on
BBC on Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
You might want to read the title of the parent post, which is also reflected in your own title. The article posted was written in 1975, nearly 30 years ago.
The implication was that evolution has no factual backing, which is closer to the definition of a hypothesis. While evolution has not yet reached the level of a law, it still has a great deal of scientific backing behind it. There is still much to be explained, yes, but the abstracts of those aspects make a lot more sense than the ideas forwarded by creationists.
Einstein's theories are still taught, but no one questions that, because there's a strong base of evidence supporting it. Evolution just makes some people uneasy because it clashes with their faith. It's a matter of placing one's heart or one's head at a higher priority of belief.
California's gerrymandering may be going out the window before the next major election in 2006. One way (through the Legislature) or another (through ballot initiative), redistricting seems like it's going to be removed from the hands of the Legislature and handed to an independent commission; the governor suggested a commission of retired judges, and members of California's congressional delegation are already moving to try to get themselves off of the list of districts to be decided by independent commission.
Of 153 seats up for election in November, not one changed parties. If California changes methods (and we wouldn't be the first to do so), other states may well pick up on the trend and expand it, which can only be good, as far as I can see.
These kinds of guns usually use some form of electrical or electromechanical activation. Either the powder is set off by an electric charge, or the firing pin is activated by an electromechanical device. In either case, no simple hack is going to get around it.
The hot burglary rate in the UK is around 45%, while in the US it is closer to 15%. Felons interviewed about their habits will generally state that they will not go into a home if there is a reasonable chance that someone who may be armed is there. Many of them who have made that mistake did so thinking no one was home.
There is no way for the tower to land the plane in the case of an emergency. If there were, the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have been controlled from the ground. This concept has been brought up before, and the pilot unions have raised issues with it, particularly the possibility of someone unauthorized getting into the system and downing a few planes despite perfectly capable flight crews being on-board.
The price has come down to $200 for Workstation, and v5 (currently in beta) has some neat features for modeling networks, including bandwidth limitations and even packet loss between VMs.
This kind of thing may already be available in the higher end products (ESX/GSX), but since I'm stuck with the lower-end stuff, I have to make do with being impressed by WS.:)
You're stretching things to ridiculous lengths to back up a weak argument. I don't believe that anyone under 18 should be expected to work, and that for the most part, people under 18 should only work by choice. You're implying that I said that newborns should be put straight to work out of the womb, when I never said that.
We do have numbers for the institutionalized -- it's the actual population minus the non-institutionalized population, which right now is around six million people. The best estimates of illegals puts the count at 8 million to 12 million people. The census (from which, along with the BLS employment reports, I derived my numbers) does try to take them into account. There's no way that 55 million illegals could be in the nation, because it would have been all too clear.
My original point, which you chose to completely miss, is that the government should not be in the business of providing anything more than a brief safety net for people. What I said was, "If you want to have a house, you have to work." There's a difference between a house and a home. If you have family that's willing to put you up in their home, fine. More power to you. But if you don't have that, and you're not willing to work hard enough for a decent home, the government shouldn't be in the business of mandating that someone provide it for you. And if you want a house -- i.e., a structure that has your name on the deed -- you will have to work for it.
As of August 1, 2004, there were about 288.6 million people in the US who were not institutionalized (prison or jail, hospitals, nursing homes, etc). Of those, 64.9 million were age 15 or younger, so we're down to 221.2 million people (unless, of course, you prefer to put those kids to work). Another 32.5 million are 66 or older, a significant portion of whom are retired, bringing things down to 188.7 million people available for the workforce. According to BLS statistics, 140.2 million people were employed, and a further 8 million were unemployed but looking.
This leaves about 41 million people remaining. These will include students who aren't working; stay-at-home parents or friends/family members who live with someone, possibly to care for someone who requires constant care; people who are paid outside of the normal chain (for example, illegal immigrants, or those engaged in certain careers traditionally landing under the eye of vice squads such as prostitution and the drug trade) and people who, for one reason or another, simply aren't looking for a job, whether it's out of frustration or because they don't have any incentive to do so (financially independent, sponging off of family, or similar reasons).
In any case, your own percentages (the references of 66% and 75%) were shot out of the water by your own admissions.
Police are reactive. Even on stings, they're reacting to a threat (or at least a perceived threat). Installation of alarms and other security technologies is a proactive process, and those who want to get around them are largely reactive (though there is some reactivity on the part of the security industry to the occasional proactivity of the opponent).
A few days ago, there was a paper mentioned on Slashdot about safecracking. I found it fascinating, and it was really very eye-opening, because it cut through a lot of the mumbo-jumbo that's out there for physical security. The same author wrote a similar paper on dual-key locks that also altered my thinking about physical security. As a result of both papers that contained potentially dangerous knowledge, I am now much better informed on the capabilities and vulnerabilities (or at least potential capabilities and vulnerabilities) of the technologies securing my valuables.
Human labor has been in surplus since at least the invention of the cotton gin, and probably for decades and even centuries before that. How many dockworkers are required now to unload the record volumes of shipping going through the ports compared to fifty years ago? The number has dropped to about a tenth, if memory serves correctly, due to the use of standardized shipping containers and scheduling technology.
According to the latest numbers, there are 148 million people in the US labor force, and 140 million of them have jobs. Those jobs average nearly 34 hours a week, making $15.86 an hour. Yes, it could be better. I'd like to see unemployment rates down around 4.5% or so, but that's going to take time.
An SI second is "[t]he interval of time taken to complete 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium 133 atom exposed to a suitable excitation."
Light is used to measure the meter, which is the distance that light in a vacuum travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. (I seem to recall that a particular wavelength is used for that, but I can't find it now.)
Slashdot Mirror
They have been taken to court over the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the public interest to have the FCC place reasonable restrictions on content aired within certain times over public airwaves. Moreover, even outside of those times, it is legal to limit broadcast material over public airwaves that is patently offensive. Transmissions over more limited media (cable and satellite) do not fall within the domain of the FCC, as has been determined by the courts on occasion, and which I believe even Michael Powell has stated in declining to get involved in certain satellite and cable broadcast issues (don't recall them specifically offhand).
New form of that checklist:
1. Spend 18 years planning a space mission.
2. Lose out because someone missed a command
3. Profit!^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCommit mass murder!
Train on New Zealand first. I think they're down to two chefs and a burly janitor as their army.
I've never heard anybody in Canada (where I've lived all my life) say that we are "Real Americans" because we live on a continent called "North America". Nor do any Canadians particualarly care that the "United States of America" uses the word America in the name of their country.
Just hang around the Slashdot political rants for a while, and you'll see plenty of people -- Canadians included -- who will eagerly share their opinion about the definition and use of the word "American." They're easy to find. Just look for the references to "USians."
Yes, and I also know what a byline is. When it says, "By Bob Smith, Times Staff Writer" and finishes with the names of bureau writers that assisted, it's pretty safe to say that it was written by paper staff. When it has the Reuters or Knight-Ridder or AP byline, it's from them.
There's nothing wrong with "recommended" solutions. So long as Microsoft isn't requiring that the companies not support anything else, this is a perfectly legitimate tactic. I've seen web hosting companies that "recommend" Plesk or Cpanel, car companies that "recommend" Goodyear tires, and electronics shops that "recommend" Blaupunkt. They're doing it because the company cuts them a deal in exchange for the advertising.
Note to anyone who may think I'm a Microsoft junkie: I'm one of those who supported the original decision to split the company.
Actually, it might be interesting to spend 40 years living in a cave at that point. Why not?
I bet the divorce rate would reach 100% too.
Marriage would probably become contractual arrangements to stay together for, say, 20 years, with options after that for a specified amount of time (5, 10, or 20 years). Romantics would probably still try for "til death do you part" but I suspect a major change would come around in how it's viewed by society.
Reproduction would almost certainly be done by permit only if one subjected oneself to these kind of treatments. If one did not, and the normal lifespan of ~75 years were expected, then perhaps they wouldn't be blocked, but those living for hundreds of years would probably have to restrict themselves, getting on a waiting list to be allowed to have children.
Another thought... How would people react to dangers if they could live for centuries? Suddenly, you're not risking the experiences of 10 or 20 or 50 years of life. You're risking the experiences of 100 or 200 or 500 years of life. Ouch. One might well think twice before pushing some of the boundaries in those cases.
Once the boomers are gone? You do realize that even as the Great Die-Off comes, the US population will still be growing, right? We'll have at best a reprieve for a little while, and then it will continue right back up the hill.
Social Security has become a pension, and like almost all pensions, it's a pyramid scheme, and pyramid schemes have to collapse at some point. Better to have a graceful shutdown of the system than to have the government one day realize that it can no longer sustain promised payments.
When something is "the news" we do not expect propaganda, nor do we expect this 3rd-grade relativist "all news is propaganda" bullshit.
Whether you get propaganda is often dependent on your own viewpoint. Consider the following statements that build with each iteration, and consider how they can be taken by people reading them.
Adam was killed.
Adam was killed by Bob.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen from his roommate.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen from his roommate, who is a police officer.
Depending on the details presented, which are often constrained by time on TV/radio or space in print, one could have various views based on the information presented. It could be a reaction that crime is a problem, that gun ownership is a problem, that gun theft is a problem, that gun storage is a problem, or that carelessness with guns is a problem. Depending on your viewpoint, each person will take each statement differently. For some people, a given statement will reinforce their beliefs, and for others, it will fly in the face of them. Some will be inquisitive and ask for more detail, and some will ignore it entirely because it doesn't affect them.
I bounce around a lot of news organizations -- CNN, Fox, AP, Reuters, NYT, LA Times, OC Register, NPR, and a bunch of others. I even visit Pravda's English site sometimes, if only for the occasional chuckle at the oddities that appear there. Most of the stories are pretty much the same from organization to organization, no matter who originally wrote them, because journalism is, at its core, a pretty basic thing. Who, what, when, where, why, how?
But if the story is more complex, or has conflicting information, then it gets much more difficult. For example, You have ten different sources for information; which information is considered the best? You have some long-time informants telling you one thing, and they've always panned out in the past, but you have two new informants telling you something quite different, neither of which know about each other but whose stories are almost exactly alike. Whom do you believe? Which do you put first in your story, and how much emphasis do you give them? From twelve hours of interviews, which quotes do you select to tell the story the most accurately? What does your gut tell you? Has your gut ever been wrong?
Being a journalist is seriously hard work and can be painful, because no matter what you say, someone is going to say that you said too much or not enough, that you slanted something this way or that. I do not envy them.
I was correcting the parent to mine, who missed the date, and was thinking that it was a recent article that suggested the shorter growing season in England when it has, in the last 20 years or so, extended.
China could dam every river it has, and it still wouldn't be able to provide for its increasingly-sophistocated populace by the time the dams were complete. It just reached 1.3 billion people, and in 20 years, even at a 1% growth rate, it's going to be approaching 1.6 billion people. Either a LOT more oil consumption is going to be involved, or else a lot of nuclear reactors. Wind farms might be a possibility, but could be prohibitively expensive.
You might want to read the title of the parent post, which is also reflected in your own title. The article posted was written in 1975, nearly 30 years ago.
The implication was that evolution has no factual backing, which is closer to the definition of a hypothesis. While evolution has not yet reached the level of a law, it still has a great deal of scientific backing behind it. There is still much to be explained, yes, but the abstracts of those aspects make a lot more sense than the ideas forwarded by creationists.
Einstein's theories are still taught, but no one questions that, because there's a strong base of evidence supporting it. Evolution just makes some people uneasy because it clashes with their faith. It's a matter of placing one's heart or one's head at a higher priority of belief.
No, I just lead a cat around the house. I'm too busy looking up information to lead groups of people that might want to overthrow me at some point. :)
California's gerrymandering may be going out the window before the next major election in 2006. One way (through the Legislature) or another (through ballot initiative), redistricting seems like it's going to be removed from the hands of the Legislature and handed to an independent commission; the governor suggested a commission of retired judges, and members of California's congressional delegation are already moving to try to get themselves off of the list of districts to be decided by independent commission.
Of 153 seats up for election in November, not one changed parties. If California changes methods (and we wouldn't be the first to do so), other states may well pick up on the trend and expand it, which can only be good, as far as I can see.
These kinds of guns usually use some form of electrical or electromechanical activation. Either the powder is set off by an electric charge, or the firing pin is activated by an electromechanical device. In either case, no simple hack is going to get around it.
The hot burglary rate in the UK is around 45%, while in the US it is closer to 15%. Felons interviewed about their habits will generally state that they will not go into a home if there is a reasonable chance that someone who may be armed is there. Many of them who have made that mistake did so thinking no one was home.
There is no way for the tower to land the plane in the case of an emergency. If there were, the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have been controlled from the ground. This concept has been brought up before, and the pilot unions have raised issues with it, particularly the possibility of someone unauthorized getting into the system and downing a few planes despite perfectly capable flight crews being on-board.
The price has come down to $200 for Workstation, and v5 (currently in beta) has some neat features for modeling networks, including bandwidth limitations and even packet loss between VMs.
:)
This kind of thing may already be available in the higher end products (ESX/GSX), but since I'm stuck with the lower-end stuff, I have to make do with being impressed by WS.
You're stretching things to ridiculous lengths to back up a weak argument. I don't believe that anyone under 18 should be expected to work, and that for the most part, people under 18 should only work by choice. You're implying that I said that newborns should be put straight to work out of the womb, when I never said that.
We do have numbers for the institutionalized -- it's the actual population minus the non-institutionalized population, which right now is around six million people. The best estimates of illegals puts the count at 8 million to 12 million people. The census (from which, along with the BLS employment reports, I derived my numbers) does try to take them into account. There's no way that 55 million illegals could be in the nation, because it would have been all too clear.
My original point, which you chose to completely miss, is that the government should not be in the business of providing anything more than a brief safety net for people. What I said was, "If you want to have a house, you have to work." There's a difference between a house and a home. If you have family that's willing to put you up in their home, fine. More power to you. But if you don't have that, and you're not willing to work hard enough for a decent home, the government shouldn't be in the business of mandating that someone provide it for you. And if you want a house -- i.e., a structure that has your name on the deed -- you will have to work for it.
As of August 1, 2004, there were about 288.6 million people in the US who were not institutionalized (prison or jail, hospitals, nursing homes, etc). Of those, 64.9 million were age 15 or younger, so we're down to 221.2 million people (unless, of course, you prefer to put those kids to work). Another 32.5 million are 66 or older, a significant portion of whom are retired, bringing things down to 188.7 million people available for the workforce. According to BLS statistics, 140.2 million people were employed, and a further 8 million were unemployed but looking.
This leaves about 41 million people remaining. These will include students who aren't working; stay-at-home parents or friends/family members who live with someone, possibly to care for someone who requires constant care; people who are paid outside of the normal chain (for example, illegal immigrants, or those engaged in certain careers traditionally landing under the eye of vice squads such as prostitution and the drug trade) and people who, for one reason or another, simply aren't looking for a job, whether it's out of frustration or because they don't have any incentive to do so (financially independent, sponging off of family, or similar reasons).
In any case, your own percentages (the references of 66% and 75%) were shot out of the water by your own admissions.
Police are reactive. Even on stings, they're reacting to a threat (or at least a perceived threat). Installation of alarms and other security technologies is a proactive process, and those who want to get around them are largely reactive (though there is some reactivity on the part of the security industry to the occasional proactivity of the opponent).
A few days ago, there was a paper mentioned on Slashdot about safecracking. I found it fascinating, and it was really very eye-opening, because it cut through a lot of the mumbo-jumbo that's out there for physical security. The same author wrote a similar paper on dual-key locks that also altered my thinking about physical security. As a result of both papers that contained potentially dangerous knowledge, I am now much better informed on the capabilities and vulnerabilities (or at least potential capabilities and vulnerabilities) of the technologies securing my valuables.
Human labor has been in surplus since at least the invention of the cotton gin, and probably for decades and even centuries before that. How many dockworkers are required now to unload the record volumes of shipping going through the ports compared to fifty years ago? The number has dropped to about a tenth, if memory serves correctly, due to the use of standardized shipping containers and scheduling technology.
According to the latest numbers, there are 148 million people in the US labor force, and 140 million of them have jobs. Those jobs average nearly 34 hours a week, making $15.86 an hour. Yes, it could be better. I'd like to see unemployment rates down around 4.5% or so, but that's going to take time.
An SI second is "[t]he interval of time taken to complete 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium 133 atom exposed to a suitable excitation."
Light is used to measure the meter, which is the distance that light in a vacuum travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. (I seem to recall that a particular wavelength is used for that, but I can't find it now.)