By safeguarding children, one may indirectly feel they are safeguarding their own children. When taking down these offenders, the officers involved can easily sense a direct impact they've had in rescuing someone from emotionally intense and distressing situations.
Let's look at the other two categories. National Security Intrusions. OK, some Chinese hackers got through and stole some anti-missle plans. The ramifications won't be felt for years, if ever, even though it has the potential to deliver much more devastating harm to many more people.
Criminal Intrusions. They stole your identity. Ruined your credit. Racked up some bills. But hey, you want to know what, you're children are probably for the most part still OK. Sure, there might be financial struggle for a few years, but nothing that will require years of psychological therapy and cause all your kids' interpersonal relationships to suffer.
Most PhD students in the sciences (unlike those in other fields of education, such as medicine or law school) are fully funded through research assistantships, teaching opportunities, and fellowships. With so many graduates these days taking jobs they are overqualified for, some educators and economists believe this money is simply being wasted.
Regret is when acting, or failing to act, causes negative consequences -- not merely a smaller reward than expected. Or failure to act cause you to miss a potential opportunity for great reward.
"I do not regret the things I've done, but those I did not do."
In this scenario, the only fact-checking that needs to be done is that the stolen documents are not authentic. Wikileaks then exposes the contents of verified documents. They are not trying to say what the documents espouse are truth. Merely that the documents did say it.
For instance, if one of the cables said "China is populated by little green Martians", it's not Wikileaks responsibility to see if that's really true. Because Wikileaks itself is not making that assertion. They are asserting the cable made that assertion.
you know nobody is going to bother fact checking before publishing it.
Even if this were true, and you think everyone else thinks it, then no one will ever base their purchasing decisions on a Wikileaks post.
Before people in America rise up in any significant way, our way of life would have to be so severely hampered that little Susie could no longer attend soccer practice. Or the morning latte from the local chain coffee shop is now unavailable. Until then, expect nothing.
It's like those silly people who say "9/11 changed the world forever!" Oh really? How has it affected the day-to-day existence of the average American who didn't lose a love one in the attacks? What's that? Inconvenienced at the airport? No, no, I said day to day for the average American. Not your, "but I fly every 2 weeks for business!" exception.
And hopefully an America who is finally willing to do what it takes to safeguard sensitive information, without trampling or oppressing people in the process.
The government is for the people, by the people. We need proof our government is "pursuing peaceful relations" and not just taking their word for it.
If nothing else, I hope this is the last wave of major Wikileaks. Not because they are shut down or because they are inept. But because the US finally woke up and actually hardened their intelligence security, as it always should have been. Wikileaks SHOULD fail -- not because of interference -- but because what they are after became just too damn hard to acquire.
Even though Ellen Burstyn did not mess up in her first 20 minute take, she expressed not being pleased with her performance, and did it AGAIN for another 20 minutes!
The beatdown scene in The Limey is my other favorite long take.
We don't really know where early hominds or early primates came from. Signs point to Africa merely because 1) it geologically has a good track record of fossilization and 2) yearly powerful rains directly pounding millions year-old exposed mud and rock make it easy to find fossils at ground level. For all we know, early primates and hominids could have come from where Detroit or Seoul or Sydney currently is. If those sites are geologically poor at lending itself to fossilization, we'd never know.
HR is giving a very dour and tight-lipped "name and dates of employment only" response that, while skirting the law, makes it very clear the company considers him a horrible employee.
Not necessarily. Some HR departments enforce this policy across ALL its former employees, on principle. If they respond "he's a malcontent," then the ex-employee might sue. It's not skirting the law. It's proofing yourself to lawsuit. If the same HR department showered some employees with glowing praise and was neutral for others, then we'd have a problem.
I find the ( ) for a variable confusing, as well. Fortunately, at the bottom of the article, they list a contact phone number for the guy being quoted as expressing it this way. I believe I will give him a call and have a long talk.
What happens if you have an equation with two or more variables? How do you distinguish one variable from another? Do you double up the parentheses? Instead of x^2 + y^2 = 1 for teaching about circles, do you state it as ( )^2 + (( ))^2 = 1 ?
Also, the confusion about ( ) has very little to do with not understanding the equals sign. It has everything to do with contextual syntax overloading. We already use parentheses in algebraic equations for grouping, to denote an explicit order of operations. For defining functions, we use parentheses to denote a variable list, like f(x, y) = 2.
So, why in the bloody hell would we want to give the same symbols yet a THIRD meaning in the same statement?
There's lots of reasons you could be detained and have the bomb vest confiscated without having to actually criminalize possession. You could be slapped with lots of civil suits for violating safety and zoning codes since you willingly and knowingly transported the explosives sans protective measures.
If a paper trail showed up lending evidence you had a "guilty mind" and intended to inflict mass harm with it, then you should also be criminally prosecuted, without having to actually trigger it.
The other side could argue his "area of expertise" cannot authoritatively ascertain the defendant's mental awareness. A more bulletproof question is "What evidence, if any, is on the computer that can lend weight to the possibility the defendant put those files on the computer himself? What evidence, if any, is on the computer that can lend weight to the possibility someone else put those files on his computer. What limitations do computers in general have, or this computer in particular have, that disallows even an expert, to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, the identity of the creator of a file?"
If I use a glossy screen in an office environment, I get powerful headaches from eye strain. So it's matte all the way.
Related question: Even if you defend glossy screens with a knife between your teeth, how can you justify the bevel around the screen being glossy, too? Such laptops are often marketed as being hip and trendy, but they really should be sledgehammered!
Israel has a high concentration of firearm-packing citizens. But the rates of Israeli-on-Israeli homicides are low. Australia also saw a spike in crime after stricter gun control laws were enforced.
It's not so much that Americans like guns or have a strong desire to own them. It's that we don't want to give the government more power than it needs.
Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine was fascinating in that it debunked all the popularly bantered-about "reasons" for why there is so much gun violence in America. At the same time, it couldn't come up with any plausible theories of its own (nor did it really try). We know excessive gun violence is there. But no one has ever figured out why. So, I cannot be behind any law or regulation that fails to give a clear rationale for its own existence. It greatly increases the probability of unintended consequences.
What irks me much, much more is its filing under the guns-don't-kill-toddlers-do dept. Especially since the article below it is under the well-that's-so-sad dept.. Although the latter was meant sarcastically, the juxtaposition with the former is unsettling.
Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. talks about pilots being blinded by lasers when spying on Russian vessels. I don't remember anything about an AI in it, though.
Despite its sensational title, the book declares mind control to be bogus. However, that hasn't stopped people from trying -- and committing atrocites in the process.
It also discusses ambassadors and spies contracting rare blood diseases from being exposed to very low frequency radiation emitters in their offices over long periods of time. This is related to another Slashdot article today about the cellphone tower next to a NYC apartment.
Slashdot Mirror
By safeguarding children, one may indirectly feel they are safeguarding their own children. When taking down these offenders, the officers involved can easily sense a direct impact they've had in rescuing someone from emotionally intense and distressing situations.
Let's look at the other two categories. National Security Intrusions. OK, some Chinese hackers got through and stole some anti-missle plans. The ramifications won't be felt for years, if ever, even though it has the potential to deliver much more devastating harm to many more people.
Criminal Intrusions. They stole your identity. Ruined your credit. Racked up some bills. But hey, you want to know what, you're children are probably for the most part still OK. Sure, there might be financial struggle for a few years, but nothing that will require years of psychological therapy and cause all your kids' interpersonal relationships to suffer.
Since this event happened just this week, the EFF might want to majorly reconsider.
Ars Technica has a highly-related article
Amen.
Regret is when acting, or failing to act, causes negative consequences -- not merely a smaller reward than expected. Or failure to act cause you to miss a potential opportunity for great reward.
"I do not regret the things I've done, but those I did not do."
Or tuck Mr. Winkie down so it doesn't have to TOUCH said seat or rim.
In this scenario, the only fact-checking that needs to be done is that the stolen documents are not authentic. Wikileaks then exposes the contents of verified documents. They are not trying to say what the documents espouse are truth. Merely that the documents did say it.
For instance, if one of the cables said "China is populated by little green Martians", it's not Wikileaks responsibility to see if that's really true. Because Wikileaks itself is not making that assertion. They are asserting the cable made that assertion.
you know nobody is going to bother fact checking before publishing it.
Even if this were true, and you think everyone else thinks it, then no one will ever base their purchasing decisions on a Wikileaks post.
Before people in America rise up in any significant way, our way of life would have to be so severely hampered that little Susie could no longer attend soccer practice. Or the morning latte from the local chain coffee shop is now unavailable. Until then, expect nothing.
It's like those silly people who say "9/11 changed the world forever!" Oh really? How has it affected the day-to-day existence of the average American who didn't lose a love one in the attacks? What's that? Inconvenienced at the airport? No, no, I said day to day for the average American. Not your, "but I fly every 2 weeks for business!" exception.
And hopefully an America who is finally willing to do what it takes to safeguard sensitive information, without trampling or oppressing people in the process.
The government is for the people, by the people. We need proof our government is "pursuing peaceful relations" and not just taking their word for it.
If nothing else, I hope this is the last wave of major Wikileaks. Not because they are shut down or because they are inept. But because the US finally woke up and actually hardened their intelligence security, as it always should have been. Wikileaks SHOULD fail -- not because of interference -- but because what they are after became just too damn hard to acquire.
Even though Ellen Burstyn did not mess up in her first 20 minute take, she expressed not being pleased with her performance, and did it AGAIN for another 20 minutes!
The beatdown scene in The Limey is my other favorite long take.
We don't really know where early hominds or early primates came from. Signs point to Africa merely because 1) it geologically has a good track record of fossilization and 2) yearly powerful rains directly pounding millions year-old exposed mud and rock make it easy to find fossils at ground level. For all we know, early primates and hominids could have come from where Detroit or Seoul or Sydney currently is. If those sites are geologically poor at lending itself to fossilization, we'd never know.
It would be more apt to file it under "Your Rights Deniers Offline"
BRILLIANT!
HR is giving a very dour and tight-lipped "name and dates of employment only" response that, while skirting the law, makes it very clear the company considers him a horrible employee.
Not necessarily. Some HR departments enforce this policy across ALL its former employees, on principle. If they respond "he's a malcontent," then the ex-employee might sue. It's not skirting the law. It's proofing yourself to lawsuit. If the same HR department showered some employees with glowing praise and was neutral for others, then we'd have a problem.
I find the ( ) for a variable confusing, as well. Fortunately, at the bottom of the article, they list a contact phone number for the guy being quoted as expressing it this way. I believe I will give him a call and have a long talk.
What happens if you have an equation with two or more variables? How do you distinguish one variable from another? Do you double up the parentheses? Instead of x^2 + y^2 = 1 for teaching about circles, do you state it as ( )^2 + (( ))^2 = 1 ?
Also, the confusion about ( ) has very little to do with not understanding the equals sign. It has everything to do with contextual syntax overloading. We already use parentheses in algebraic equations for grouping, to denote an explicit order of operations. For defining functions, we use parentheses to denote a variable list, like f(x, y) = 2.
So, why in the bloody hell would we want to give the same symbols yet a THIRD meaning in the same statement?
There's lots of reasons you could be detained and have the bomb vest confiscated without having to actually criminalize possession. You could be slapped with lots of civil suits for violating safety and zoning codes since you willingly and knowingly transported the explosives sans protective measures.
If a paper trail showed up lending evidence you had a "guilty mind" and intended to inflict mass harm with it, then you should also be criminally prosecuted, without having to actually trigger it.
The other side could argue his "area of expertise" cannot authoritatively ascertain the defendant's mental awareness. A more bulletproof question is "What evidence, if any, is on the computer that can lend weight to the possibility the defendant put those files on the computer himself? What evidence, if any, is on the computer that can lend weight to the possibility someone else put those files on his computer. What limitations do computers in general have, or this computer in particular have, that disallows even an expert, to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, the identity of the creator of a file?"
I've been dreaming of this since I was ten years old. Of course, remember, a ten year old designed it.
If I use a glossy screen in an office environment, I get powerful headaches from eye strain. So it's matte all the way.
Related question: Even if you defend glossy screens with a knife between your teeth, how can you justify the bevel around the screen being glossy, too? Such laptops are often marketed as being hip and trendy, but they really should be sledgehammered!
If mIRC can still make money, and come out with regular enhancements to boot, piracy is a non-issue.
Israel has a high concentration of firearm-packing citizens. But the rates of Israeli-on-Israeli homicides are low. Australia also saw a spike in crime after stricter gun control laws were enforced. It's not so much that Americans like guns or have a strong desire to own them. It's that we don't want to give the government more power than it needs. Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine was fascinating in that it debunked all the popularly bantered-about "reasons" for why there is so much gun violence in America. At the same time, it couldn't come up with any plausible theories of its own (nor did it really try). We know excessive gun violence is there. But no one has ever figured out why. So, I cannot be behind any law or regulation that fails to give a clear rationale for its own existence. It greatly increases the probability of unintended consequences.
What irks me much, much more is its filing under the guns-don't-kill-toddlers-do dept. Especially since the article below it is under the well-that's-so-sad dept.. Although the latter was meant sarcastically, the juxtaposition with the former is unsettling.
Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. talks about pilots being blinded by lasers when spying on Russian vessels. I don't remember anything about an AI in it, though.
Despite its sensational title, the book declares mind control to be bogus. However, that hasn't stopped people from trying -- and committing atrocites in the process.
It also discusses ambassadors and spies contracting rare blood diseases from being exposed to very low frequency radiation emitters in their offices over long periods of time. This is related to another Slashdot article today about the cellphone tower next to a NYC apartment.