Whether any law gets heeded simply depends on potential profit breaking it, potential fine for being caught and chance of being caught. If the product of the latter two is lower than the first, the law is toothless an will be ignored.
A comparative does not imply a positive. Saying that I trust A less than B does not imply that I trust B. It can well be that I trust A even less than B.
If you're doing better, you're usually not exactly doing well.
After years of changing privacy settings unannounced, flipping privacy switches silently, burying information about it in gigabytes of legalese, putting up smokes and mirrors whenever someone tried to find out just how much FB knows about them and even outright lying about accounts being deleted, and being generally opaque when it comes to what information they store about you, how and in what context, I hope that nobody is wondering why nobody trusts them.
Not that anyone else that's in the data collection business is any more trustworthy, mind you, but FB pretty much went out of their way to flaunt how they pwn your data and how you can't do jack shit about it.
Then explain to me what launching this thing manned, instead of, like NASA, with dummies and boilerplate assemblies, accomplished in terms of "testing for the final goal".
Have you ever talked to a flatearther? Trust me, the bar is pretty low.
99 out of 100 times you hear regurgitated arguments they heard somewhere else, with a good chance that they didn't even understand WHAT the argument is because as soon as you start arguing against them they immediately drop it and move on to the next argument, hoping that eventually they'll find one you can't instantly debunk. Sadly, the arguments are hardly new. It's the same arguments repeated over and over, and has been for at least the five years they have amused me by now. It honestly starts to get boring, there is nothing new coming from them, and no amount of debunking would make them stop spewing the same stories. Which kinda only allows the conclusion that they are not capable of understanding the explanation why they talk out of their ass and simply "want to believe".
Quite honestly, I more and more speculate that to them "science" pretty much means "something that I want to believe", and that faith and proof are basically the same to them in their little world. That is the ONLY rational explanation left.
And yes, I consider these people to be dumb. Too dumb, actually, to assemble something like this "rocket". Or at the very least dumb enough to build it in such a way that it kills them before they even leave the ground.
The problem is that you won't get your easy way to track terrorists. Terrorists aren't dumb. This is like upping the police presence at some drug hub. What happens? Does the drug trade stop? No. The dealers just move somewhere else and a week later we're back at square one. Just with more police standing around uselessly and wasting taxpayer money.
This is exactly the same. If there was at least some effect, I'd even be game to try it. But all this accomplishes is a huge waste of taxpayer money and at least as much damage to corporations having to implement useless protocols, while terrorists just move on to the next thing.
It was until that moment "Card number $whatever", just not linked to a certain person. That and how this card traveled was still recorded. Should it have raised some flags with someone, e.g. that this card was suspiciously close to some interesting events frequently, rest assured that they would have spent the time and money to find out who holds that card.
Now those 2 years of going out of your way are rendered moot, retroactively. The card is now not only for all future uses "yours", but the profile collected in those past 2 years now can be tacked to you, too.
That's the problem here. It gets increasingly inconvenient to stay "off". It's not like they force you to play along, but not doing it makes your life very uncomfortable. It's the usual "punishment and reward" system of getting people to do what you want them to do. Show them how easy others have it that conform to your wishes and make people question why they want to have it so hard instead.
Worked with so many regimes in the past, why should it fail now?
He went up 570 meters. Five hundred seventy meters.
For comparison: A Sopwith Camel, an airplane of the first world war, from a hundred years ago, had a service ceiling of about 5,791 meters. Approximately ten times the altitude this goofball reached. If his goal was to prove flat earth, he sure chose a poor way. ANY plane he could build out of plywood and cloth (like aforementioned Camel, which was not that much more than exactly this) would take him higher.
And since he obviously is not dumb (another reason why I can't picture him as a flat earther), my conclusion is that he's trolling flat earthers and duping them into giving him money for his stunts.
Because they make it sound like he actually did something newsworthy. 1875 feet sure sounds like more than 570 meters, and it's not as readily identified as laughable by 99% of the world.
That's already been explained by them. Light gets "tired" on long distances and "falls down" to earth, that's why it looks like the ship disappears behind the horizon. And I have to give it to them, if you ignore the rest of physics, it would actually explain the observation.
That's how most of their "proofs" work. They come up with something that explains the current problem at hand, completely ignoring that it might create a problem with explaining something else (like in this case how other light sources won't work in their scenario if light actually behaved that way). That's not the problem right now, so we don't have to explain it.
On one side you have a guy that puts his life at risk with a hodgepodge rocket, on the other hand you have people putting nothing at risk, not even their own money. The former could win... well... he could survive the flight if he's lucky, the latter could get rich risk-free and without hassle.
Eyewitness reports mean jack shit when it comes to proving something. By that logic, David Copperfield really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. There were hundreds of witnesses who saw it.
That's just the usual insurance gambit when you create laws that are supposed to keep them from putting people at a disadvantage. We're not disadvantaging anyone. But we do give discounts to certain people who do what we want. And yes, we had to triple our base premium, inflation, ya know...
Slashdot Mirror
No, with him it's more the "if you hold me prisoner, you have to feed me, maybe you want to reconsider after looking at me" defense.
Yes, but it happened to so many people before, so many had to suffer, why not that sleazeball?
Whether any law gets heeded simply depends on potential profit breaking it, potential fine for being caught and chance of being caught. If the product of the latter two is lower than the first, the law is toothless an will be ignored.
A comparative does not imply a positive. Saying that I trust A less than B does not imply that I trust B. It can well be that I trust A even less than B.
If you're doing better, you're usually not exactly doing well.
After years of changing privacy settings unannounced, flipping privacy switches silently, burying information about it in gigabytes of legalese, putting up smokes and mirrors whenever someone tried to find out just how much FB knows about them and even outright lying about accounts being deleted, and being generally opaque when it comes to what information they store about you, how and in what context, I hope that nobody is wondering why nobody trusts them.
Not that anyone else that's in the data collection business is any more trustworthy, mind you, but FB pretty much went out of their way to flaunt how they pwn your data and how you can't do jack shit about it.
Then explain to me what launching this thing manned, instead of, like NASA, with dummies and boilerplate assemblies, accomplished in terms of "testing for the final goal".
Have you ever talked to a flatearther? Trust me, the bar is pretty low.
99 out of 100 times you hear regurgitated arguments they heard somewhere else, with a good chance that they didn't even understand WHAT the argument is because as soon as you start arguing against them they immediately drop it and move on to the next argument, hoping that eventually they'll find one you can't instantly debunk. Sadly, the arguments are hardly new. It's the same arguments repeated over and over, and has been for at least the five years they have amused me by now. It honestly starts to get boring, there is nothing new coming from them, and no amount of debunking would make them stop spewing the same stories. Which kinda only allows the conclusion that they are not capable of understanding the explanation why they talk out of their ass and simply "want to believe".
Quite honestly, I more and more speculate that to them "science" pretty much means "something that I want to believe", and that faith and proof are basically the same to them in their little world. That is the ONLY rational explanation left.
And yes, I consider these people to be dumb. Too dumb, actually, to assemble something like this "rocket". Or at the very least dumb enough to build it in such a way that it kills them before they even leave the ground.
Has to? HAS TO? Challenge Accepted!
--signed, Tim Cook.
A country that doesn't let its war criminals go on trial in Den Hague doesn't deserve getting anyone extradited.
Period.
The problem is that you won't get your easy way to track terrorists. Terrorists aren't dumb. This is like upping the police presence at some drug hub. What happens? Does the drug trade stop? No. The dealers just move somewhere else and a week later we're back at square one. Just with more police standing around uselessly and wasting taxpayer money.
This is exactly the same. If there was at least some effect, I'd even be game to try it. But all this accomplishes is a huge waste of taxpayer money and at least as much damage to corporations having to implement useless protocols, while terrorists just move on to the next thing.
Both. At least from the perspective of the DOJ.
Sadly it's not a war on freedom. If it was, and was about as successful as the other "wars on..." (terrorism, drugs, etc), I wouldn't worry so much.
I'm actually hoping that Iran at some point in time starts assembling phones, I'd get one immediately.
You have to get ahead of your government.
Or... more likely a few heads.
Hey, when disaster strikes you may again operate your radio to coordinate the effort to establish allowed communication.
Then it's time for you to shut up again.
It was until that moment "Card number $whatever", just not linked to a certain person. That and how this card traveled was still recorded. Should it have raised some flags with someone, e.g. that this card was suspiciously close to some interesting events frequently, rest assured that they would have spent the time and money to find out who holds that card.
Now those 2 years of going out of your way are rendered moot, retroactively. The card is now not only for all future uses "yours", but the profile collected in those past 2 years now can be tacked to you, too.
That's the problem here. It gets increasingly inconvenient to stay "off". It's not like they force you to play along, but not doing it makes your life very uncomfortable. It's the usual "punishment and reward" system of getting people to do what you want them to do. Show them how easy others have it that conform to your wishes and make people question why they want to have it so hard instead.
Worked with so many regimes in the past, why should it fail now?
He went up 570 meters. Five hundred seventy meters.
For comparison: A Sopwith Camel, an airplane of the first world war, from a hundred years ago, had a service ceiling of about 5,791 meters. Approximately ten times the altitude this goofball reached. If his goal was to prove flat earth, he sure chose a poor way. ANY plane he could build out of plywood and cloth (like aforementioned Camel, which was not that much more than exactly this) would take him higher.
And since he obviously is not dumb (another reason why I can't picture him as a flat earther), my conclusion is that he's trolling flat earthers and duping them into giving him money for his stunts.
Because they make it sound like he actually did something newsworthy. 1875 feet sure sounds like more than 570 meters, and it's not as readily identified as laughable by 99% of the world.
That's already been explained by them. Light gets "tired" on long distances and "falls down" to earth, that's why it looks like the ship disappears behind the horizon. And I have to give it to them, if you ignore the rest of physics, it would actually explain the observation.
That's how most of their "proofs" work. They come up with something that explains the current problem at hand, completely ignoring that it might create a problem with explaining something else (like in this case how other light sources won't work in their scenario if light actually behaved that way). That's not the problem right now, so we don't have to explain it.
On one side you have a guy that puts his life at risk with a hodgepodge rocket, on the other hand you have people putting nothing at risk, not even their own money. The former could win ... well ... he could survive the flight if he's lucky, the latter could get rich risk-free and without hassle.
Your question is "who is crazy".
I have to ask, is this a trick question?
Eyewitness reports mean jack shit when it comes to proving something. By that logic, David Copperfield really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. There were hundreds of witnesses who saw it.
I start to understand how something like Schwarzenegger could become governor in your state...
One of the reasons might be that they're a tad unwieldy and relatively expensive.
They break too easily.
At least when I get forced to have one, I can be pretty creative.
That's just the usual insurance gambit when you create laws that are supposed to keep them from putting people at a disadvantage. We're not disadvantaging anyone. But we do give discounts to certain people who do what we want. And yes, we had to triple our base premium, inflation, ya know...