Despite the nature of the case (an anomaly), you've mischaracterized how law enforcement works.
The reason you can't blame police for not protecting you is because then everyone would sue when they got mugged or their car got broken into... despite the ruling, law enforcement generally does try to prevent crimes and protect citizens, and they generally do a pretty good job, but you just can't sue them if they didn't.
You think police around the country stopped trying to protect you when this ruling was handed down, or do you think it was business as usual?
"State of Fear" was widely decried as an anti-global warming spiel by Michael Crichton, but it was more about how politicians and the media use fear to sell us their product. It had some lame dialog, but it was a good book.
Agreed... when they say the terrorists have "won" it's because they've used fear to disrupt our economy, our way of life, and (as evidenced by the TSA) reduced our liberties. Well done, knee jerk reaction idiots...
With the underwear bomber last year, I'm surprised we're even allowed to wear clothing at all.
You're just being moronic now... I clearly stated well less than half the people I voted for were republicans... that makes me a republic? That's idiotic.
The legislation the democrats sent through congress does nothing to limit government, it limits private businesses... it's unbelievable you'd pretend it's otherwise.
And the claims republicans are blocking things are also, by and large, completely disingenuous... I realize they have a knee jerk opposite reaction to democratic legislation (but then so do democrats to republicans), but unless you're only viewing completely biased media you know you are not getting the whole story when they claim "republicans" blocked anything... republicans have a minority, how can they "block" anything? But most opposition comes from the fact that so much legislation is tied to other legislation... if I were a politician of ANY party, I would not vote for bad legislation just to get good legislation passed, no matter how "emotionally" appealing it is.
Look at Pelosi's quote, after all... so when republicans refuse to pass something that has no pay-go financing, they get accused of wanting to starve poor little children or "destroy the hopes" of the unemployed (yes, I actually saw that quote).
It's unfreaking believable the bias I see and the absolute confirmation bias you have.
That's right... and most of these republicans who won were not in office when we went to war (which most of the democrats voted FOR, by the way), but the economy is almost entirely democrats fault. Deficits are republicans faults (Reagan was the one who taught is deficits were great, after all).
But we can namby pamby back and and forth all day... the difference is that I see destructive policies all around, but it's mainly liberals and democrats that block legislation what would limit the destructive power the government has over us.
Meanwhile, "dingbat" Pelosi has successfully managed the House Speaker office for 4 years.
"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt." - Nancy Pelosi's inaugural address as speaker of the house.
And I'm not a "teabagger." I also don't like Palin, and didn't vote for McCain; well less than half my midterm votes were for republicans, and I specifically didn't vote for ones "endorsed" by the Tea Party because I don't like them, but I don't belittle them and make up crap about them either.
Both major U.S. parties are terrible and destructive to this country and the things that made it great, one is worse than the other, however.
I find your story plausible, too, but the post in which you are responding is completely off base. I don't watch Fox News or read their website... I'm about 1000 times more likely to read CNN or something else... they all have bias, and people watch what they want to watch; people who generally lean left are not going to watch Fox, and they're only going to hear one side W.R.T. "Tea Parties."
I've never attended a tea party rally, and have no inclination to do so - I think they're just as bad as any other party, none of which suit my personal ideologies. However, I do think the MSM has shown a decidedly one sided view of them... racists (despite minority keynote speakers at many of the rallies), hate mongering revolutionists... it's just plain ridiculous. I've heard the unsubstantiated stories from people claiming to be "victims" of tea partiers, but I've actually seen and heard evidence of actual violence against the tea party supporters... none of which I have EVER seen reported on CNN or in any foreign media (which is, granted, limited).
I see this and I don't even support the tea party, and I'm not "conservative." Why are so many people blinded by their own confirmation bias? And they don't even realize it. I'm not implying you are, but a general sentiment about slashdot.
The facts are the facts... there is right wing media out there, to be sure, and I certainly won't say Fox isn't biased, but the large majority of media in the U.S. and throughout the world leans to what we would call left, and they all show bias in their reporting. Remember that bias is not necessarily lying, just showing issues from a particular point of view; if you watch National Geographic, and if the show is about lions, you want the lion to catch the gazelle to feed it's young... if it's about gazelles, you want them to escape the lions. Same facts of life from two different perspectives. News reporting is no different, you get the same facts from a particular point of view, and what they choose to report and not report makes all the difference in the world.
For those of you outside the country, that's not surprising, seeing as how everything you've heard about them has been reported by the left wing mainstream media.
IF they really wanted a way to stop a terrorist from taking over the cockpit(as if they'd get through the door anyways), they'd install a device to release airborne anesthetic into the cabin. The pilots have emergency oxygen masks and they could easily land the plane while subduing the cabin.
That's a great idea, actually; I'd been thinking about that for some time, but memories of the 2002 Moscow Theater hostage situation kept coming back - but now it's time for me to put things in perspective and say the outcome of such a tactic is surely better than the outcome otherwise. It's a good idea... the Russians just used the wrong chemicals.
So, what are you willing to be subjected to by the TSA to prevent the next colon bomber?
We can eliminate 100% of the threat by eliminating flying.
Sounds stupid, but there's a point beyond which additional security measures are plainly stupid. We reached that point shortly after they fortified the cockpit doors on planes.
Great post, gurps_npc; yes, terrorism is a threat. So are drunk and distracted (cellphone using) drivers, but we put our lives at risk every day for the sake of convenience and saving time. I think people have lost all perspective.
When they fortified the doors the cockpits, IMO, the problem was adequately solved.
I recall seeing something like that (low-res BW "implants") at least 5 or more years ago. Someone was actually able to drive a car around a parking lot with one.
This just seems like a more advanced version, and unlike another poster, I think they should start implanting these now. Why make people wait for more trials? What's the worst that can happen? The person is already blind. This is one of the things that bothers me about the FDA; if people are willing to take the risks to get a "cure" now, they shouldn't be stopped.
But even still, once surgery to correct lens shape was allowed, that procedure really took off... it didn't take 50 years for it to become commonplace. Certainly this is more invasive, but once it's approved, I really doubt people will let that stand in the way... after all, people who were nearsighted could still see with corrective lenses, but now we're talking about people who can't see at all.
How do you figure? Democrats controlled congress since January 2007. It just strengthens what he said.
Here's something Nancy Pelosi said in her inaugural address as speaker, January 4, 2007: "After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."
I'm not a republican and I feel republicans completely failed us during the Bush years, but I can't help but think a democrat executive and legislative branch is even worse. Yhe gridlock and balanced budgets during the Clinton years were a boon. I would be nice to see the same thing now.
I like google-chrome better, but I've run into issues that Firfox doesn't seem to have; notably while having both a web based mail account open in one tab and facebook on another. For some reason chrome gives me a lot of "aw snap!," while firefox handles it just fine. Memory leak? Don't know.
But for now, I still use Firefox, and if it would load as fast as chrome I wouldn't even think of changing it.
I means lent "once." One time per book. Period. Not once to the same person, just the one time... and then you can never do it again.
Frankly, I find it a useless concession to hook people annoyed that they can't lend ebooks.
I have a Nook, which has had this feature since I bought it, and have never used it once... because then it's actually the kind of thing that ends up causing strife. With a real book, someone asks if they can borrow it and I say "I lent to so-and-so, I'll let you borrow it next." We have a sort of lending library at work... a bookshelf you can just put your previously read books on... honor system to return them.
I find a lot of benefits to e-readers, but copyright restrictions is not one of them and even with the lending policy, it's pretty draconian.
The benefits, though, are that we have two Nooks and can share books on the account immediately... no lending, each Nook is registered to the same account, so that mitigates the problem a little bit. For those who don't know, the Kindle does this as well. I they both limit maximum registrations, and it's not the kind of thing you want to do with your college house mates or something (it's registered by credit card).
I guess it's just a lot more intensive, including tracking motion and doing many of the same calculations for motion blur that it would do with computer animation.
First, not all Scientists work for a University. Many of them are employed by corporations, either public or private. You didn't "follow the money" in this case.
I'm fairly certain those aren't the ones he's talking about.... I don't see those types pushing public policy, only sometimes you see lobbyists pushing for something that benefits their company because their scientists invented/discovered something, but I don't think that's the issue at hand.
Second, Scientists working for a University can be directly influenced in ways besides grant money. You didn't "follow the money" for this case either.
Such as? Hookers? Tenure? Publicity? I don't really see much of a difference.
Third, it is a fact that historically scientists have banded together to push a political agenda. Research the history of the saying "Scientists on tap, not on top." for a good start.
I think that's part of the problem he's describing, and I agree (with him and you).
And if you say this is the way it should be, you're opposed to the idea of equal representation in government.
That makes no sense. I'm not opposed to each state having equal representation as states, nor each person having equal representation from their representatives.
There are further issues arising from the fact that representatives aren't... wait for it... representative.
If I understand you correctly, then no form of representative democracy... or even straightforward democracy, could possibly give you equal representation. You could elect a president by popular vote, and still not be represented. No one's saying we have a perfect system, to but to complain that people aren't equally represented is incorrect, IMO.
That's not contrary to equal representation - you are represented by... wait for it... your congressional representative. You have equal representation as congressmen represent roughly equal numbers of people.
Senators are SUPPOSED to represent the state, that's why changing their selection by governors to popular vote throws off equal representation - again, each state would have been equally represented.
And electoral votes are very like congressmen... based on population.
I don't get how we're not equally represented except for senators, but that's only because senators were never supposed to represent our interests.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the nature of the case (an anomaly), you've mischaracterized how law enforcement works.
The reason you can't blame police for not protecting you is because then everyone would sue when they got mugged or their car got broken into... despite the ruling, law enforcement generally does try to prevent crimes and protect citizens, and they generally do a pretty good job, but you just can't sue them if they didn't.
You think police around the country stopped trying to protect you when this ruling was handed down, or do you think it was business as usual?
It's not the military industrial complex anymore, it's the politico-legal-media complex. Fear sells.
"State of Fear" was widely decried as an anti-global warming spiel by Michael Crichton, but it was more about how politicians and the media use fear to sell us their product. It had some lame dialog, but it was a good book.
Agreed... when they say the terrorists have "won" it's because they've used fear to disrupt our economy, our way of life, and (as evidenced by the TSA) reduced our liberties. Well done, knee jerk reaction idiots...
With the underwear bomber last year, I'm surprised we're even allowed to wear clothing at all.
You're just being moronic now... I clearly stated well less than half the people I voted for were republicans... that makes me a republic? That's idiotic.
The legislation the democrats sent through congress does nothing to limit government, it limits private businesses... it's unbelievable you'd pretend it's otherwise.
And the claims republicans are blocking things are also, by and large, completely disingenuous... I realize they have a knee jerk opposite reaction to democratic legislation (but then so do democrats to republicans), but unless you're only viewing completely biased media you know you are not getting the whole story when they claim "republicans" blocked anything... republicans have a minority, how can they "block" anything? But most opposition comes from the fact that so much legislation is tied to other legislation... if I were a politician of ANY party, I would not vote for bad legislation just to get good legislation passed, no matter how "emotionally" appealing it is.
Look at Pelosi's quote, after all... so when republicans refuse to pass something that has no pay-go financing, they get accused of wanting to starve poor little children or "destroy the hopes" of the unemployed (yes, I actually saw that quote).
It's unfreaking believable the bias I see and the absolute confirmation bias you have.
That's right... and most of these republicans who won were not in office when we went to war (which most of the democrats voted FOR, by the way), but the economy is almost entirely democrats fault. Deficits are republicans faults (Reagan was the one who taught is deficits were great, after all).
But we can namby pamby back and and forth all day... the difference is that I see destructive policies all around, but it's mainly liberals and democrats that block legislation what would limit the destructive power the government has over us.
"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt." - Nancy Pelosi's inaugural address as speaker of the house.
And I'm not a "teabagger." I also don't like Palin, and didn't vote for McCain; well less than half my midterm votes were for republicans, and I specifically didn't vote for ones "endorsed" by the Tea Party because I don't like them, but I don't belittle them and make up crap about them either.
Both major U.S. parties are terrible and destructive to this country and the things that made it great, one is worse than the other, however.
I find your story plausible, too, but the post in which you are responding is completely off base. I don't watch Fox News or read their website... I'm about 1000 times more likely to read CNN or something else... they all have bias, and people watch what they want to watch; people who generally lean left are not going to watch Fox, and they're only going to hear one side W.R.T. "Tea Parties."
I've never attended a tea party rally, and have no inclination to do so - I think they're just as bad as any other party, none of which suit my personal ideologies. However, I do think the MSM has shown a decidedly one sided view of them... racists (despite minority keynote speakers at many of the rallies), hate mongering revolutionists... it's just plain ridiculous. I've heard the unsubstantiated stories from people claiming to be "victims" of tea partiers, but I've actually seen and heard evidence of actual violence against the tea party supporters... none of which I have EVER seen reported on CNN or in any foreign media (which is, granted, limited).
I see this and I don't even support the tea party, and I'm not "conservative." Why are so many people blinded by their own confirmation bias? And they don't even realize it. I'm not implying you are, but a general sentiment about slashdot.
The facts are the facts... there is right wing media out there, to be sure, and I certainly won't say Fox isn't biased, but the large majority of media in the U.S. and throughout the world leans to what we would call left, and they all show bias in their reporting. Remember that bias is not necessarily lying, just showing issues from a particular point of view; if you watch National Geographic, and if the show is about lions, you want the lion to catch the gazelle to feed it's young... if it's about gazelles, you want them to escape the lions. Same facts of life from two different perspectives. News reporting is no different, you get the same facts from a particular point of view, and what they choose to report and not report makes all the difference in the world.
For those of you outside the country, that's not surprising, seeing as how everything you've heard about them has been reported by the left wing mainstream media.
That's a great idea, actually; I'd been thinking about that for some time, but memories of the 2002 Moscow Theater hostage situation kept coming back - but now it's time for me to put things in perspective and say the outcome of such a tactic is surely better than the outcome otherwise. It's a good idea... the Russians just used the wrong chemicals.
TSA is unionized, so good luck with any disciplinary actions.
We can eliminate 100% of the threat by eliminating flying.
Sounds stupid, but there's a point beyond which additional security measures are plainly stupid. We reached that point shortly after they fortified the cockpit doors on planes.
Great post, gurps_npc; yes, terrorism is a threat. So are drunk and distracted (cellphone using) drivers, but we put our lives at risk every day for the sake of convenience and saving time. I think people have lost all perspective.
When they fortified the doors the cockpits, IMO, the problem was adequately solved.
That's all I'm saying.
I recall seeing something like that (low-res BW "implants") at least 5 or more years ago. Someone was actually able to drive a car around a parking lot with one.
This just seems like a more advanced version, and unlike another poster, I think they should start implanting these now. Why make people wait for more trials? What's the worst that can happen? The person is already blind. This is one of the things that bothers me about the FDA; if people are willing to take the risks to get a "cure" now, they shouldn't be stopped.
But even still, once surgery to correct lens shape was allowed, that procedure really took off... it didn't take 50 years for it to become commonplace. Certainly this is more invasive, but once it's approved, I really doubt people will let that stand in the way... after all, people who were nearsighted could still see with corrective lenses, but now we're talking about people who can't see at all.
How do you figure? Democrats controlled congress since January 2007. It just strengthens what he said.
Here's something Nancy Pelosi said in her inaugural address as speaker, January 4, 2007: "After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."
I'm not a republican and I feel republicans completely failed us during the Bush years, but I can't help but think a democrat executive and legislative branch is even worse. Yhe gridlock and balanced budgets during the Clinton years were a boon. I would be nice to see the same thing now.
I like google-chrome better, but I've run into issues that Firfox doesn't seem to have; notably while having both a web based mail account open in one tab and facebook on another. For some reason chrome gives me a lot of "aw snap!," while firefox handles it just fine. Memory leak? Don't know.
But for now, I still use Firefox, and if it would load as fast as chrome I wouldn't even think of changing it.
I means lent "once." One time per book. Period. Not once to the same person, just the one time... and then you can never do it again.
Frankly, I find it a useless concession to hook people annoyed that they can't lend ebooks.
I have a Nook, which has had this feature since I bought it, and have never used it once... because then it's actually the kind of thing that ends up causing strife. With a real book, someone asks if they can borrow it and I say "I lent to so-and-so, I'll let you borrow it next." We have a sort of lending library at work... a bookshelf you can just put your previously read books on... honor system to return them.
I find a lot of benefits to e-readers, but copyright restrictions is not one of them and even with the lending policy, it's pretty draconian.
The benefits, though, are that we have two Nooks and can share books on the account immediately... no lending, each Nook is registered to the same account, so that mitigates the problem a little bit. For those who don't know, the Kindle does this as well. I they both limit maximum registrations, and it's not the kind of thing you want to do with your college house mates or something (it's registered by credit card).
I guess it's just a lot more intensive, including tracking motion and doing many of the same calculations for motion blur that it would do with computer animation.
IOW, using CGI....
Then it's a hybrid of stop motion and computer animation that goes beyond things like simple color correction and aligning misaligned frames.
I'm so sick of the "music sucks nowadays" whines, it's sickening... every generations says the same damn thing.
This guy DDOSing Simmons is a complete asshole. There's no justification for it.
First, not all Scientists work for a University. Many of them are employed by corporations, either public or private. You didn't "follow the money" in this case.
I'm fairly certain those aren't the ones he's talking about.... I don't see those types pushing public policy, only sometimes you see lobbyists pushing for something that benefits their company because their scientists invented/discovered something, but I don't think that's the issue at hand.
Second, Scientists working for a University can be directly influenced in ways besides grant money. You didn't "follow the money" for this case either.
Such as? Hookers? Tenure? Publicity? I don't really see much of a difference.
Third, it is a fact that historically scientists have banded together to push a political agenda. Research the history of the saying "Scientists on tap, not on top." for a good start.
I think that's part of the problem he's describing, and I agree (with him and you).
And if you say this is the way it should be, you're opposed to the idea of equal representation in government.
That makes no sense. I'm not opposed to each state having equal representation as states, nor each person having equal representation from their representatives.
There are further issues arising from the fact that representatives aren't ... wait for it ... representative.
If I understand you correctly, then no form of representative democracy... or even straightforward democracy, could possibly give you equal representation. You could elect a president by popular vote, and still not be represented. No one's saying we have a perfect system, to but to complain that people aren't equally represented is incorrect, IMO.
That's not contrary to equal representation - you are represented by... wait for it... your congressional representative. You have equal representation as congressmen represent roughly equal numbers of people.
Senators are SUPPOSED to represent the state, that's why changing their selection by governors to popular vote throws off equal representation - again, each state would have been equally represented.
And electoral votes are very like congressmen... based on population.
I don't get how we're not equally represented except for senators, but that's only because senators were never supposed to represent our interests.
I agree with Darkness404 (post above yours)... The Hobbit was a fairly easy, entertaining, and fast paced read compared to LOTR.
Reading the Silmarillion, though, was like reading a cross between a bible and the world's most boring history book.
Sure, packed with details and interesting tidbits of Middle Earth history... but boring as sin.
In the US, there's even a lot of public sentiment against the idea of equal representation, so I don't see much chance of any significant changes.
Beg pardon? Who doesn't think there should be equal representation?