Psych is a default major for girls. If you effectively cancel it, you will just have a new default major.
(Default majors are the majors that undecided people go into.)
Of course, if you channeled default majors to fields we could really use people in, the average quality of that field's graduates would go down, but the quantity of available talent would go up.
It may be designed not to. We have special controls in some of our electronic systems to stop government workers from looking up info on them--e.g. in State, the passport data system has a system that flags high-profile requests. (There was a story about it last year.)
Also, NSA may be conflicted about the idea of tracking some of those people. Tracking the intelligence committee, for example, would prevent intelligence leaks but also raises a big risk of (1) temptation for blackmail and (2) having their programs shut down.
Actually, now that I think about it, it is very appropriate. IIRC, the system was created for aggregating information on people who are not American Citizens, and coded to ignore and discard all data it received on American Citizens, but management removed that functionality because there was no oversight over them. Although created to be used by Good as of old a Palantir might have been used by the Lords of Gondor to track the affairs of neighboring lands, the system was taken and used for evil--indeed, one could even say that the prospect of visions within it corrupted the minds of those who watched, as with Denathor.
What about those in the culture that don't agree the oppression of them is ok? How many people would you have to be to legitimately claim that you should not be oppressed?
Human rights, one person.
International Law other than human rights law, a large enough area--there was a case where Quebec sued for their right to secede, the Canadian Supreme Court, applying international law principles, said that basically they had the right to if their claim were legitimate, but that they didn't have the right to yet because they hadn't tried to work out their differences like rational human beings.
Kinda reminds me, incidentally, of a more polite version of George III's response to the American Declaration of Independence.
This doesn't have to happen, but it will if the US continues to regard its own domestic laws as superior to those others countries even within the jurisdiction of those countries. The the US cannot recognise basic principles of jurisdiction, then the international system of internet controls cannot continue be based there.
Actually, basic principles of jurisdiction *do not work* in the internet age. And in any event there is arguably jurisdiction if at least a part of the transaction occurred in the United States--for example, if the DNS server is in the US.
The US does allow some restrictions on speech, but is generally quite permissive--and is most permissive when it comes to political speech, because it views is as the cornerstone of our democracy, where the solution to untruthful speech is truthful speech. (Empirically this is not the effective solution, but the idea that it is sounds very good and anything overturning it would have a massive chilling effect on free speech, so they don't overturn it.)
China does not have this problem because it lacks a democracy.
Can't be ignored? The supercommittee just failed to resolve a major budget dispute because one major political party is completely unwilling to address it.
Your "facts" are incorrect..
Heavens! I never said they were facts! =)
"In part because" would have been more accurate, yes. It is because they were unwilling to compromise, because they have all staked out a political claim. They are more interested in blame than solutions, and are both convinced that their solution (which, by some remarkable coincidence, is the one that will make the other side look bad to the other side's base) is the only solution.
It's not quite as simple as reduce spending, or else there would be nothing wrong with across-the-board cuts. You want some judgment involved. And sometimes increasing income helps, and sometimes spending helps (it may save money in the long run, although the risk is high inflation--which is good when you're in debt, but could be catastrophic for the actual people in the country, particularly with so many retiring).
Similarly, putting politics ahead of governing is not "typical of the left"--it is typical of successful politicians.
This is not in the public interest but allowing fragmentation of cellular standards between GSM/HSPA and CDMA was in the public interest...
I believe that when someone does something right, slamming them for doing something else wrong is not the best use of time. If we want to see more good activity, we should support the good activity--in other words, more flies with honey.
Can't be ignored? The supercommittee just failed to resolve a major budget dispute because one major political party is completely unwilling to address it.
Unfortunately the worst penalty the cop is likely to face is either a paid vacation known as "administrative leave" or maybe the loss of his job. This is a serious problem. A free society won't stay that way if the police have some kind of special status above the citizens they are supposed to be serving. Incidentally, a cop who beats someone basically has to also charge them with resisting arrest (or similar) or he's admitting he beat them for no reason, so there is both the assault and the criminal charge that may haunt the person for life.
The worst penalty from his boss, yes. But he can also expect to be sued out of his underwear, under a section 1983 lawsuit. Say what you will about our government, the fact that you can sue cops for breaking your Constitutional Rights is an *amazing* feature.
You can read some Henry David Thoreau and understand why he would have preferred to remain in jail instead of having a well-meaning but less-principled individual pay his poll tax for him.
Thoreau's essay (search for "Civil Disobedience" online) is excellent and should be required reading of every high school student in America.
(Preferring to remain in jail is a little less impressive when it's only overnight, until Emerson comes to bail him out in the morning. Kinda like how his whole self-reliance theme is a little less powerful when he's squatting on land owned by Emerson. But still, considering the essay that came out of the overnight stay in jail, and its subsequent influence, it was pretty awesome.)
Copyright infringement is not stealing. Look it up sometime.
And hackers just means people who use a keyboard...
Sorry. I'm not saying it's right, but the media war is pretty much won on this one--copyright violation is now normatively bad, and comparable to stealing, for the upper middle class.
It doesn't erode your privacy any more just because these are cheaper and more efficient.
Of course it does. There are limited resources. In a world of limited resources, your privacy is invaded less frequently when it costs something to invade your privacy. Think about the difference between police tracking a person by watching them on the public street, and police tracking every person in America by recording their cell phone GPS positions. That is the whole debate in United States v. Jones.
And it really came as a shock to me that some people actually put ketchup on top of pizza. No one in my country does so, but after moving to Asia I noticed how the restaurants started packing ketchup with ordered pizzas and saw that people actually put ketchup on them. Why? There's tomato sauce already, and it tastes much better on a pizza than ketchup does. And no, ketchup is equivalent to tomato sauce.
What? The salt content in a lot of pizza is already pretty dang high... adding ketchup is like a sign you're trying to turn your vicinity in Arrakis...
Depends on the Potter film. The directorial quality jumped around... was it the third movie? The bigger issue is themes. The potter themes are pretty simple. The Who themes are more bipolar--the deep loss and the brilliant moment. The writers sometimes do a good job with this. The themes are good enough, though, that you could do it very well. My guess is it will be better than the last horrible attempt, but still trying to serve a non-who and a who audience, which just doesn't work. You need to serve a who audience in a way which neither leaves everyone else in the dark nor wastes ridiculous time on backstory.
Specifically, one wonders about the environmental impact--how hard must this stuff be *to clean* when it gets stuck on something, for example? If we put it on a hundred million bottles a year, how will that impact the environment?
Slashdot Mirror
Psych is a default major for girls. If you effectively cancel it, you will just have a new default major.
(Default majors are the majors that undecided people go into.)
Of course, if you channeled default majors to fields we could really use people in, the average quality of that field's graduates would go down, but the quantity of available talent would go up.
Of course it could.
It may be designed not to. We have special controls in some of our electronic systems to stop government workers from looking up info on them--e.g. in State, the passport data system has a system that flags high-profile requests. (There was a story about it last year.)
Also, NSA may be conflicted about the idea of tracking some of those people. Tracking the intelligence committee, for example, would prevent intelligence leaks but also raises a big risk of (1) temptation for blackmail and (2) having their programs shut down.
Yet also a method for Aragorn to challenge Sauron, to draw his attention from the ringbearer at a critical time.
Actually, now that I think about it, it is very appropriate. IIRC, the system was created for aggregating information on people who are not American Citizens, and coded to ignore and discard all data it received on American Citizens, but management removed that functionality because there was no oversight over them. Although created to be used by Good as of old a Palantir might have been used by the Lords of Gondor to track the affairs of neighboring lands, the system was taken and used for evil--indeed, one could even say that the prospect of visions within it corrupted the minds of those who watched, as with Denathor.
...to me. Collate their combined services and presence on the web, and you'll know "everything about anyone".
Google is not empowered to use force against the populace, nor to maintain order, nor to enact law. The Government is. There is a subtle difference.
Maybe.
What about those in the culture that don't agree the oppression of them is ok? How many people would you have to be to legitimately claim that you should not be oppressed?
Human rights, one person.
International Law other than human rights law, a large enough area--there was a case where Quebec sued for their right to secede, the Canadian Supreme Court, applying international law principles, said that basically they had the right to if their claim were legitimate, but that they didn't have the right to yet because they hadn't tried to work out their differences like rational human beings.
Kinda reminds me, incidentally, of a more polite version of George III's response to the American Declaration of Independence.
Actually, basic principles of jurisdiction *do not work* in the internet age. And in any event there is arguably jurisdiction if at least a part of the transaction occurred in the United States--for example, if the DNS server is in the US.
"Fire" is not hate speech.
The US does allow some restrictions on speech, but is generally quite permissive--and is most permissive when it comes to political speech, because it views is as the cornerstone of our democracy, where the solution to untruthful speech is truthful speech. (Empirically this is not the effective solution, but the idea that it is sounds very good and anything overturning it would have a massive chilling effect on free speech, so they don't overturn it.)
China does not have this problem because it lacks a democracy.
So complain to the FTC, or to competitors who sell lower-end graphics chips. This is what truth in advertising is for.
Can't be ignored? The supercommittee just failed to resolve a major budget dispute because one major political party is completely unwilling to address it.
Your "facts" are incorrect..
Heavens! I never said they were facts! =)
"In part because" would have been more accurate, yes. It is because they were unwilling to compromise, because they have all staked out a political claim. They are more interested in blame than solutions, and are both convinced that their solution (which, by some remarkable coincidence, is the one that will make the other side look bad to the other side's base) is the only solution.
It's not quite as simple as reduce spending, or else there would be nothing wrong with across-the-board cuts. You want some judgment involved. And sometimes increasing income helps, and sometimes spending helps (it may save money in the long run, although the risk is high inflation--which is good when you're in debt, but could be catastrophic for the actual people in the country, particularly with so many retiring).
Similarly, putting politics ahead of governing is not "typical of the left"--it is typical of successful politicians.
Honestly, they should be charged with a violation of the Lanham act just for that statement.
This is not in the public interest but allowing fragmentation of cellular standards between GSM/HSPA and CDMA was in the public interest ...
I believe that when someone does something right, slamming them for doing something else wrong is not the best use of time. If we want to see more good activity, we should support the good activity--in other words, more flies with honey.
Can't be ignored? The supercommittee just failed to resolve a major budget dispute because one major political party is completely unwilling to address it.
Unfortunately the worst penalty the cop is likely to face is either a paid vacation known as "administrative leave" or maybe the loss of his job. This is a serious problem. A free society won't stay that way if the police have some kind of special status above the citizens they are supposed to be serving. Incidentally, a cop who beats someone basically has to also charge them with resisting arrest (or similar) or he's admitting he beat them for no reason, so there is both the assault and the criminal charge that may haunt the person for life.
The worst penalty from his boss, yes. But he can also expect to be sued out of his underwear, under a section 1983 lawsuit. Say what you will about our government, the fact that you can sue cops for breaking your Constitutional Rights is an *amazing* feature.
You can read some Henry David Thoreau and understand why he would have preferred to remain in jail instead of having a well-meaning but less-principled individual pay his poll tax for him.
Thoreau's essay (search for "Civil Disobedience" online) is excellent and should be required reading of every high school student in America.
(Preferring to remain in jail is a little less impressive when it's only overnight, until Emerson comes to bail him out in the morning. Kinda like how his whole self-reliance theme is a little less powerful when he's squatting on land owned by Emerson. But still, considering the essay that came out of the overnight stay in jail, and its subsequent influence, it was pretty awesome.)
Copyright infringement is not stealing. Look it up sometime.
And hackers just means people who use a keyboard...
Sorry. I'm not saying it's right, but the media war is pretty much won on this one--copyright violation is now normatively bad, and comparable to stealing, for the upper middle class.
It doesn't erode your privacy any more just because these are cheaper and more efficient.
Of course it does. There are limited resources. In a world of limited resources, your privacy is invaded less frequently when it costs something to invade your privacy. Think about the difference between police tracking a person by watching them on the public street, and police tracking every person in America by recording their cell phone GPS positions. That is the whole debate in United States v. Jones.
At last! Something to run Crysis at an acceptable frame rate!
At last! Something to run Firefox at an acceptable frame rate!
And it really came as a shock to me that some people actually put ketchup on top of pizza. No one in my country does so, but after moving to Asia I noticed how the restaurants started packing ketchup with ordered pizzas and saw that people actually put ketchup on them. Why? There's tomato sauce already, and it tastes much better on a pizza than ketchup does. And no, ketchup is equivalent to tomato sauce.
What? The salt content in a lot of pizza is already pretty dang high... adding ketchup is like a sign you're trying to turn your vicinity in Arrakis...
You are in violation of the laws forbidding the manufacture, sale and possession of chilled prawnography.
A good strong shell ought to keep him out of trouble. Don't Bash it if you've not tried it.
I don't understand. Should he tcsh it?
It's called the Streisand Effect, methinks.
Depends on the Potter film. The directorial quality jumped around... was it the third movie? The bigger issue is themes. The potter themes are pretty simple. The Who themes are more bipolar--the deep loss and the brilliant moment. The writers sometimes do a good job with this. The themes are good enough, though, that you could do it very well. My guess is it will be better than the last horrible attempt, but still trying to serve a non-who and a who audience, which just doesn't work. You need to serve a who audience in a way which neither leaves everyone else in the dark nor wastes ridiculous time on backstory.
Only because you know you're going back to the fish in your office.
You could have five fingers and count in binary the number you get right. There are only twenty questions.
Specifically, one wonders about the environmental impact--how hard must this stuff be *to clean* when it gets stuck on something, for example? If we put it on a hundred million bottles a year, how will that impact the environment?