The advantage of using GoogleAPI far outweighs your perceived negatives - Google has a far better uptime and availability than any other free host,
The worst downside to using GoogleAPI is that it forces your readers to do business with Google. If I find Google's TOS objectionable, and you use GoogleAPI, I cannot use your site. If I choose to block Google's scripts & Google's cookies, I can evade tracking by Google pretty well, unless I visit sites that require GoogleAPI. Your use of GoogleAPI is contributing to the de facto tracking of everythign done on the internet.
I like the idea of Hyperloop, but what happens with a 600mph crash?
You die a lot quicker than you would at 60mph. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my brain smeared across hundreds of feet of tunnel in under a second than get impaled by a piece of windshield and bleed out over 10 minutes.
sports are surprisingly important to modern culture
Sports are the circuses in "bread and circuses". Meaningless artificial importance meant to keep us distracted from things that really matter. It's primative tribalistic behavior, we can do better than that.
The only way I can get by using my IT mandated RedHat box is by installing CentOS packages on it. RedHat simply doesn't keep the packages I need up to date. If CentOS didn't exist, I wouldn't use RedHat at all, which would entail a huge fight with IT. Thanks CentOS!
None of that excuses the lack of prosecutions for the very clear cut crimes he did expose. Anyone who believes in the rule of law should demand prosecutions for those crimes.
Our Big Brother equivalents hide information obsessively but they know they can't actually control it once out, nor can they rewrite history.
They don't need to. The propaganda system is so good, that any time a revelation is made they misdirect away from it. Consider the Snowden leaks. How much air time was dedicated to the actual content of the leaks, and how much was merely "Where in the world is Edward Snowden"? And a few short weeks afterwards, they make a big showing of shutting down embassies due to vague threats.
so far in the west I believe we have a pretty good idea of what's truth vs fiction - we might be missing information but we are not widely believing propaganda.
You should get out more. Ask some Obama supporters about the "most transparent administration in history". They swallow the propaganda hook, line, and sinker, and are proud of it.
No, the logical conclusion from my statement is that remorse should never be a factor in sentencing at all. You never know if the convicted is truly remorseful or just acting.
However, it does not follow that the maximum sentence should be imposed. Take into account the intent, which in this case was good. And also take into account the harm caused, which was none whatsoever. I don't see any argument based in justice that Manning should receive more than the minimum. But we don't have a justice system that's based on justice.
That's a good point. Really, Manning should not have talked to anyone. If he simply had to talk to someone, there are much safer ways to do it than IM.
Some of what he released was crimes by soldiers, and they SHOULD be punished.
But they won't be punished. Think hard about what this means about this country and the rule of law. Do you want to support powerful criminals, or those who break the law for the greater good?
Or what reason you break it you may well have to pay the price. That is precisely why we have laws.
Why do we have laws, when they don't apply to those in power? Manning uncovered crimes, and he is the only person being punished. If you believe in the rule of law, that should chill you to the bone.
Bad things happen, but when they happen they should be aired publically and those responsible tried for their crimes. Cover-ups, like Manning exposed, are never acceptable in a free country.
He broke his word, he broke whatever trust and faith and responsibilities that his chain of command entrusted in him.
What about the trust and faith he placed in his chain of command, which was broken by covering up illegal and immoral actions condoned by that chain of command? That's far worse than anything Manning did.
He messed up in the biggest way possible for someone of his job.
The only way Manning messed up was confiding in Adrian Lamo.
Which documents show that? The ones showing our military murdering unarmed civilians and journalists taking a wounded man to the hospital? The ones showing that US defense contractors engaged in child trafficking? The ones showing that the US condones torture?
If the US military wants to better the world, they can start by bettering themselves.
Exactly. Those in authority care nothing for the betterment of the world. Only their own betterment, which is tied to the betterment of the rich and powerful.
Resistance to those with authority is the only way we are actually going to better the world.
Notice how economic indicators never come with measures of uncertainty. It's always "we added 100,000 jobs this month". You'll never hear "we added 100,000 +/- 50,000 jobs". Yet another reason why economics is not a real science.
I remember reading in an ecology textbook about researchers who wanted to model reforestation after a Mt. St. Helens erupted. They used the average seed dispersion as input to their model, and found that reforestation occured much, much faster.
Turns out the farthest flung seeds take root just as well as the average seed, and they grow and disperse seeds. And the farthest flung of those seeds grow and disperse seeds, compounding the disparity between average and extreme seed dispersion.
Just something to keep in mind when you're working with averages.
If you really see absolutely no difference between the two leading candidates your analysis is fine.
There really is no difference between the two leading candidates. They both represent corporations first, rich individuals second, and average people not at all.
I'll point out, however, that a bunch of people claiming that they believed that in 2000 lead to Bush being President instead of Gore, and in polls they actually preferred Gore to Bush by a wide margin, so voting for the third party lead to the election of a (in your terms) more evil candidate.
If you think Gore would have been any better, look at Obama. Gore didn't even promise change. Obama promised change, and has been as bad as Bush ever was.
Slashdot Mirror
The advantage of using GoogleAPI far outweighs your perceived negatives - Google has a far better uptime and availability than any other free host,
The worst downside to using GoogleAPI is that it forces your readers to do business with Google. If I find Google's TOS objectionable, and you use GoogleAPI, I cannot use your site. If I choose to block Google's scripts & Google's cookies, I can evade tracking by Google pretty well, unless I visit sites that require GoogleAPI. Your use of GoogleAPI is contributing to the de facto tracking of everythign done on the internet.
Why would you even want that?
That only rewards their wacky DRM schemes. Pirate it and play it, or don't play it at all. Just don't pay for DRM. Ever.
I like the idea of Hyperloop, but what happens with a 600mph crash?
You die a lot quicker than you would at 60mph. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my brain smeared across hundreds of feet of tunnel in under a second than get impaled by a piece of windshield and bleed out over 10 minutes.
sports are surprisingly important to modern culture
Sports are the circuses in "bread and circuses". Meaningless artificial importance meant to keep us distracted from things that really matter. It's primative tribalistic behavior, we can do better than that.
Why are they blocking any content at all? Because they are small minded fools, that's why.
Freenx and R & Bioconductor. I eventually found that R and Bioconductor still lagged on centos, so I compile them myself now.
The only way I can get by using my IT mandated RedHat box is by installing CentOS packages on it. RedHat simply doesn't keep the packages I need up to date. If CentOS didn't exist, I wouldn't use RedHat at all, which would entail a huge fight with IT. Thanks CentOS!
None of that excuses the lack of prosecutions for the very clear cut crimes he did expose. Anyone who believes in the rule of law should demand prosecutions for those crimes.
Our Big Brother equivalents hide information obsessively but they know they can't actually control it once out, nor can they rewrite history.
They don't need to. The propaganda system is so good, that any time a revelation is made they misdirect away from it. Consider the Snowden leaks. How much air time was dedicated to the actual content of the leaks, and how much was merely "Where in the world is Edward Snowden"? And a few short weeks afterwards, they make a big showing of shutting down embassies due to vague threats.
so far in the west I believe we have a pretty good idea of what's truth vs fiction - we might be missing information but we are not widely believing propaganda.
You should get out more. Ask some Obama supporters about the "most transparent administration in history". They swallow the propaganda hook, line, and sinker, and are proud of it.
No, the logical conclusion from my statement is that remorse should never be a factor in sentencing at all. You never know if the convicted is truly remorseful or just acting.
However, it does not follow that the maximum sentence should be imposed. Take into account the intent, which in this case was good. And also take into account the harm caused, which was none whatsoever. I don't see any argument based in justice that Manning should receive more than the minimum. But we don't have a justice system that's based on justice.
Seems to me that issuing such an error code would already violate the gag order they routinely apply to these court orders.
That's a good point. Really, Manning should not have talked to anyone. If he simply had to talk to someone, there are much safer ways to do it than IM.
Some of what he released was crimes by soldiers, and they SHOULD be punished.
But they won't be punished. Think hard about what this means about this country and the rule of law. Do you want to support powerful criminals, or those who break the law for the greater good?
Or what reason you break it you may well have to pay the price. That is precisely why we have laws.
Why do we have laws, when they don't apply to those in power? Manning uncovered crimes, and he is the only person being punished. If you believe in the rule of law, that should chill you to the bone.
Bad things happen, but when they happen they should be aired publically and those responsible tried for their crimes. Cover-ups, like Manning exposed, are never acceptable in a free country.
He broke his word, he broke whatever trust and faith and responsibilities that his chain of command entrusted in him.
What about the trust and faith he placed in his chain of command, which was broken by covering up illegal and immoral actions condoned by that chain of command? That's far worse than anything Manning did.
He messed up in the biggest way possible for someone of his job.
The only way Manning messed up was confiding in Adrian Lamo.
Which documents show that? The ones showing our military murdering unarmed civilians and journalists taking a wounded man to the hospital? The ones showing that US defense contractors engaged in child trafficking? The ones showing that the US condones torture?
If the US military wants to better the world, they can start by bettering themselves.
Exactly. Those in authority care nothing for the betterment of the world. Only their own betterment, which is tied to the betterment of the rich and powerful.
Resistance to those with authority is the only way we are actually going to better the world.
This apology carries no more weight than confessions extracted by torture. It's only purpose is to legtimize barbaric injustice. .
Taking notes in general is just distracting. Better to listen and think, and use the book when you get home.
Notice how economic indicators never come with measures of uncertainty. It's always "we added 100,000 jobs this month". You'll never hear "we added 100,000 +/- 50,000 jobs". Yet another reason why economics is not a real science.
Also, I think there is a theorem about modern crypto systems that says if you can guess one bit, the rest doesn't get any easier.
Nah, once you guess one bit, the only bit left is zero.
I remember reading in an ecology textbook about researchers who wanted to model reforestation after a Mt. St. Helens erupted. They used the average seed dispersion as input to their model, and found that reforestation occured much, much faster.
Turns out the farthest flung seeds take root just as well as the average seed, and they grow and disperse seeds. And the farthest flung of those seeds grow and disperse seeds, compounding the disparity between average and extreme seed dispersion.
Just something to keep in mind when you're working with averages.
If you really see absolutely no difference between the two leading candidates your analysis is fine.
There really is no difference between the two leading candidates. They both represent corporations first, rich individuals second, and average people not at all.
I'll point out, however, that a bunch of people claiming that they believed that in 2000 lead to Bush being President instead of Gore, and in polls they actually preferred Gore to Bush by a wide margin, so voting for the third party lead to the election of a (in your terms) more evil candidate.
If you think Gore would have been any better, look at Obama. Gore didn't even promise change. Obama promised change, and has been as bad as Bush ever was.
The differences between D & R are negligible.