Instead of doing this, they run the laptop through the x-ray scanner, which (in theory) confirms that it contains only electronics, not explosives.
Apparently they have you remove them from bags because the bags (in conjunction with the case of the laptop) are too much of a barrier to the x-rays to properly image the inside of the laptop.
There could be some odd states out there, but I've looked at a number of states' laws on possession of CP. I've also mentioned a single case where someone is not in jail for simply possessing against their knowledge, and you've mentioned a single case where someone has. You didn't copy, however, my note that you could get in serious legal trouble if it's not clear that you didn't come by this material innocently. There's always the possibility that there is evidence your friend willfully downloaded the material and no evidence to the contrary, or that your friend is guilty.
For most state laws that I've looked at, if you encounter material that is child pornography, it is not criminal if you immediately report it and surrender it to law enforcement. This happens fairly frequently, and you only get embroiled in legal troubles if it's not clear that you happened upon the CP innocently.
It's also not a crime to be in possession of CP if you did not willfully acquire it and did not discover its presence. You may, however, have some significant legal wrangling ahead of you before that defense is accepted. (For example, one individual was found with an external hard drive containing CP on top of his computer. He claimed that he had purchased it from a neighbor and never used it. Forensic evidence corroborated this story, and so he was in the clear. His neighbor, not so much.)
Acting in a movie or TV series actually takes a ton more work than you portray. A decent movie has a lot more shooting time than "four half days", and that's just the end result of a lot of preparation.
Part of popular actors' pay has to do with the small fraction of people who can successfully do it. Part of it has to do with how incredibly little chance a qualified person trying to "make it" has in succeeding.
And yes, a big part of it is that personality-driven, marketing-fueled consumer culture ends up producing a ton of money. So, big personalities are in demand, which means they command high prices.
No, but you can perhaps believe that you would give a presentation on preliminary results and describe much about your methods, but leave out information necessary to replicate it.
Of course, you couldn't publish a paper without that information, but that's the way the scientific community works.
While I hardly give the RIAA the benefit of the doubt, I've learned that there's a wide spectrum between "no information" and "full disclosure".
Granted, I don't know to what extent they're using this to drive their development, but...
Most people seem to be commenting that if just suggestions drive their development, the end result will be terrible. That's probably true. But often as a developer you just have no real idea if implementing X, which is on your to-do list, is a feature people even care about, wheras people may really care about implementing Y, another item you know you can take care of but just haven't gotten around to.
"Such a claim should be investigated and not rejected at its face value."
The origin of the Earth and the Universe is well-studied. This has been going on a long time, but the serious study started after that claim was made. So it has been addressed. You just don't like the answer.
"Many claim that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. However, many scientists and normal people alike disagree."
No, many scientists don't disagree. Very, very few scientists disagree.
Well, that much is true -- but bear in mind that someone who agrees with Nader might consider both (Democrat) and McCain to share a policy that they disagree with. Granted, voting for Nader won't stop that, because he won't win, but it draws attention to an issue.
As far as drawing attention goes, Nader is pretty good at that. Whether or not it's productive, I'm not sure.
The network is divided in two. One part is China, the other part is the rest of the Internet. Not just the US. It's natural to consider the latter "the Internet" and say China lost its connection.
Additionally, almost all of the Tier 1 networks are based in the US, as is a lot of the control and regulatory structure.
Of course, this to an extent glosses over the fact that sections of the Internet are highly interconnected. While presumably China ultimately buys transport from Tier 1s, loss of those connections still leaves a functioning network, albeit one disconnected from the rest of the Internet.
You know the Nobel prizes come in categories, right? You can't just suggest that someone you like get a Nobel prize instead of someone you dislike and hope to have anyone care.
It's funny that this particular paper shows other papers are likely to be wrong (for a very particular definition of "wrong") without examining a single paper's veracity -- entirely by theoretical statistics.
It's difficult to explain in a concise fashion how their work differs in the way it was developed than that of people who create free-energy devices.
Let's just say the guy who makes a perpetual-motion machine, bitches about how the scientific establishment doesn't respect him, and tries to sell this idea to the local paper and to anyone else who will listen is much, much less likely to have discovered a means of energy production that *doesn't* violate any thermodynamic laws -- much less a means that *does* -- than actual scientists.
Scientists don't debate. Not about science; at least, not for the conventional meaning of "debate".
When people say "the debate is over about global warming", they mean "the question of whether or not anthropogenic factors are a significant component of global climate change is now answered". Like any other scientific subject, there's still a lot to learn about ongoing climate change. Whether or not human influence is causing global warming is no longer one of those questions.
It's not correct. Among the many faults of this argument, I'll pick the simplest, for brevity.
Say it's between Obama and McCain. Nader, along with many other third parties and independent candidates, is also running. The claim is "a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain".
Consider a person who would not have voted for either Obama or McCain. A vote for Nader is equivalent to a vote for nobody.
Consider a person who would have voted for Obama, if Nader wasn't running. Voting for Nader decreases Obama's "potential votes" by one, and doesn't affect McCain. If that person had instead voted for McCain, it would decrease Obama's potential votes by one and increase McCain's votes by one -- twice the effect. Here, again, voting for Nader is like not voting -- in much the same way that if Obama lost, a vote for McCain "was" a vote for nobody -- something McCain supporters probably wouldn't agree with.
Even the above is predicated on the idea that it's appropriate to narrow the acceptable choices in an election to the two "most popular" candidates and that you "owe" your vote to whichever of these two candidates the general populace considers closer to your ideology.
There's actually a pretty subtle distinction here. "Superbugs" are caused by the overuse or misuse of antibiotic medicines -- chemical agents that selectively kill bacteria and other germs. Less-subtle techniques, like most antiseptics, are much tougher to develop a mechanism for avoiding, so topical antiseptics like soap and bleach stand no real chance of becoming ineffective germ-killers. (They're also not selective, and so doing something like ingesting them is not feasible.) While putting antibiotics into products unnecessarily increases the risk of developing an antibiotic-resistant bacterial strain, this isn't the case for an antiseptic (like what is produced by TiO2).
Scientists working with no equipment or supplies could take a very long time to make much progress at all.
Creating or purchasing custom equipment and infrastructure is a huge expense. (Guys in their basements have lower infrastructure costs, but much worse success rates.)
Let's say it's the release of the next hot new gaming console. Our local purveyor has 100 units for the release, and there's a line. I'm 100th in line, you're 101st. You're a dick if you blame me for your not getting a console.
Shall we continue the inappropriate and obviously biased metaphors?
I often think it's interesting that people blame third parties for a Democrat or Republican losing (somehow, neither the Democrat nor Republican are to blame).
It seems they've lost sight of the fact that most Americans don't vote. While some don't want to vote for an inappropriate reason, many don't vote because they feel none of the candidates represent their views. You can consider third-party voting a more vocal and obvious form of this same thinking -- since I think everyone voting third-party knows full well their candidate's realistic chances of winning. So the "blame" lies just as much with the tens or hundreds of millions of Americans whose concerns are not addressed by any of the candidates -- and ultimately, *that* is the fault of the candidates, the parties, and the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of doing this, they run the laptop through the x-ray scanner, which (in theory) confirms that it contains only electronics, not explosives.
Apparently they have you remove them from bags because the bags (in conjunction with the case of the laptop) are too much of a barrier to the x-rays to properly image the inside of the laptop.
There could be some odd states out there, but I've looked at a number of states' laws on possession of CP. I've also mentioned a single case where someone is not in jail for simply possessing against their knowledge, and you've mentioned a single case where someone has. You didn't copy, however, my note that you could get in serious legal trouble if it's not clear that you didn't come by this material innocently. There's always the possibility that there is evidence your friend willfully downloaded the material and no evidence to the contrary, or that your friend is guilty.
I'd ask how much you really know about cosmology, but I think I can guess the answer.
For most state laws that I've looked at, if you encounter material that is child pornography, it is not criminal if you immediately report it and surrender it to law enforcement. This happens fairly frequently, and you only get embroiled in legal troubles if it's not clear that you happened upon the CP innocently.
It's also not a crime to be in possession of CP if you did not willfully acquire it and did not discover its presence. You may, however, have some significant legal wrangling ahead of you before that defense is accepted. (For example, one individual was found with an external hard drive containing CP on top of his computer. He claimed that he had purchased it from a neighbor and never used it. Forensic evidence corroborated this story, and so he was in the clear. His neighbor, not so much.)
Is your claim based on data, experience as a robber, or just based on a logical statement you invented?
Anything they can see from a public street is not private. I suggest finding a house further from the street.
Acting in a movie or TV series actually takes a ton more work than you portray. A decent movie has a lot more shooting time than "four half days", and that's just the end result of a lot of preparation.
Part of popular actors' pay has to do with the small fraction of people who can successfully do it. Part of it has to do with how incredibly little chance a qualified person trying to "make it" has in succeeding.
And yes, a big part of it is that personality-driven, marketing-fueled consumer culture ends up producing a ton of money. So, big personalities are in demand, which means they command high prices.
No, but you can perhaps believe that you would give a presentation on preliminary results and describe much about your methods, but leave out information necessary to replicate it.
Of course, you couldn't publish a paper without that information, but that's the way the scientific community works.
While I hardly give the RIAA the benefit of the doubt, I've learned that there's a wide spectrum between "no information" and "full disclosure".
Granted, I don't know to what extent they're using this to drive their development, but...
Most people seem to be commenting that if just suggestions drive their development, the end result will be terrible. That's probably true. But often as a developer you just have no real idea if implementing X, which is on your to-do list, is a feature people even care about, wheras people may really care about implementing Y, another item you know you can take care of but just haven't gotten around to.
"Such a claim should be investigated and not rejected at its face value."
The origin of the Earth and the Universe is well-studied. This has been going on a long time, but the serious study started after that claim was made. So it has been addressed. You just don't like the answer.
"Many claim that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. However, many scientists and normal people alike disagree."
No, many scientists don't disagree. Very, very few scientists disagree.
"Arguments" for Creationism hold no merit to the scientist, and there are no facts supporting Creationism.
:-)
There is no "evolutionary thought".
As for arrogance, scientists can be arrogant, yes. On the other hand, we're also right.
Actually, science is about observation, not logic or reason. :-)
Well, that much is true -- but bear in mind that someone who agrees with Nader might consider both (Democrat) and McCain to share a policy that they disagree with. Granted, voting for Nader won't stop that, because he won't win, but it draws attention to an issue.
As far as drawing attention goes, Nader is pretty good at that. Whether or not it's productive, I'm not sure.
Alternately, they could break out a book on statistics and explain how temperature is noisy at that scale.
The network is divided in two. One part is China, the other part is the rest of the Internet. Not just the US. It's natural to consider the latter "the Internet" and say China lost its connection.
Additionally, almost all of the Tier 1 networks are based in the US, as is a lot of the control and regulatory structure.
Of course, this to an extent glosses over the fact that sections of the Internet are highly interconnected. While presumably China ultimately buys transport from Tier 1s, loss of those connections still leaves a functioning network, albeit one disconnected from the rest of the Internet.
The fact that you didn't read the article is showing. :-)
I'm going to assume from that that you also didn't investigate the source of their funding.
You know the Nobel prizes come in categories, right? You can't just suggest that someone you like get a Nobel prize instead of someone you dislike and hope to have anyone care.
It's funny that this particular paper shows other papers are likely to be wrong (for a very particular definition of "wrong") without examining a single paper's veracity -- entirely by theoretical statistics.
It's difficult to explain in a concise fashion how their work differs in the way it was developed than that of people who create free-energy devices.
Let's just say the guy who makes a perpetual-motion machine, bitches about how the scientific establishment doesn't respect him, and tries to sell this idea to the local paper and to anyone else who will listen is much, much less likely to have discovered a means of energy production that *doesn't* violate any thermodynamic laws -- much less a means that *does* -- than actual scientists.
Scientists don't debate. Not about science; at least, not for the conventional meaning of "debate".
When people say "the debate is over about global warming", they mean "the question of whether or not anthropogenic factors are a significant component of global climate change is now answered". Like any other scientific subject, there's still a lot to learn about ongoing climate change. Whether or not human influence is causing global warming is no longer one of those questions.
It's not correct. Among the many faults of this argument, I'll pick the simplest, for brevity.
Say it's between Obama and McCain. Nader, along with many other third parties and independent candidates, is also running. The claim is "a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain".
Consider a person who would not have voted for either Obama or McCain. A vote for Nader is equivalent to a vote for nobody.
Consider a person who would have voted for Obama, if Nader wasn't running. Voting for Nader decreases Obama's "potential votes" by one, and doesn't affect McCain. If that person had instead voted for McCain, it would decrease Obama's potential votes by one and increase McCain's votes by one -- twice the effect. Here, again, voting for Nader is like not voting -- in much the same way that if Obama lost, a vote for McCain "was" a vote for nobody -- something McCain supporters probably wouldn't agree with.
Even the above is predicated on the idea that it's appropriate to narrow the acceptable choices in an election to the two "most popular" candidates and that you "owe" your vote to whichever of these two candidates the general populace considers closer to your ideology.
There's actually a pretty subtle distinction here. "Superbugs" are caused by the overuse or misuse of antibiotic medicines -- chemical agents that selectively kill bacteria and other germs. Less-subtle techniques, like most antiseptics, are much tougher to develop a mechanism for avoiding, so topical antiseptics like soap and bleach stand no real chance of becoming ineffective germ-killers. (They're also not selective, and so doing something like ingesting them is not feasible.) While putting antibiotics into products unnecessarily increases the risk of developing an antibiotic-resistant bacterial strain, this isn't the case for an antiseptic (like what is produced by TiO2).
Scientists working with no equipment or supplies could take a very long time to make much progress at all.
Creating or purchasing custom equipment and infrastructure is a huge expense. (Guys in their basements have lower infrastructure costs, but much worse success rates.)
Let's say it's the release of the next hot new gaming console. Our local purveyor has 100 units for the release, and there's a line. I'm 100th in line, you're 101st. You're a dick if you blame me for your not getting a console.
Shall we continue the inappropriate and obviously biased metaphors?
I often think it's interesting that people blame third parties for a Democrat or Republican losing (somehow, neither the Democrat nor Republican are to blame).
It seems they've lost sight of the fact that most Americans don't vote. While some don't want to vote for an inappropriate reason, many don't vote because they feel none of the candidates represent their views. You can consider third-party voting a more vocal and obvious form of this same thinking -- since I think everyone voting third-party knows full well their candidate's realistic chances of winning. So the "blame" lies just as much with the tens or hundreds of millions of Americans whose concerns are not addressed by any of the candidates -- and ultimately, *that* is the fault of the candidates, the parties, and the system.