Dr. Margaret Hedstrom, whose career is all about preserving digital information, says "...digital preservation remains largely experimental and replete with the risks associated with untested methods".
Documentation: Ben Wallace, a former employee of one of the company's manufacturing the scanner technology, announced on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that "...in all the testing that we undertook, it was unlikely that it (the airport scanner) would have picked up the current explosive devices being used by al-Qaeda" and that "... it wasn't very good and it wasn't that easy to detect liquids and plastics unless they were very solid plastics (Airport, 2010)."
What to do about it is a political question. "Roll with the punches" is an option. "Industrial growth will do more for human welfare than climate stabilization" is an option. Both are "conservative" in the sense of not changing things. Why don't conservatives fight on the battlefield of policy, not science?
Not to mention that conservatism includes harm avoidance and a cautious approach to experimentation, so that if there's even a small chance that our current uncontrolled experiment with CO2 could cause harm, conservatives should be against continuing it.
In the Barry Goldwater era conservatives supported research. For decades conservatives talked about objective reality while academics played with deconstructionism and "different ways of knowing".
At a guess, it's the nature of the issues today. If science had proven that civil rights laws caused cancer, then liberals would be prey to anti-science propaganda.
There's more than one environmentalist out there, and they can and do have different motives.
One touchstone is how they react when clean power becomes realistic. Those who are motivated by concern for the environment (and the people who live in it) welcome clean power. The others sue to stop it.
The station will have a limit of some sort on the total power available to it. It's harder than it should be to get figures on the power consumption of a charging post, but it wouldn't take a huge number before the "gas station" needed as much power supply as a typical utility substation.
Doctors are not being drafted in countries with universal health care.
Doctors make contracts with insurance companies to sell services at a willing buyer/willing seller price. Patients make contracts with insurance companies such that their bills get paid by other premium payers, until it's the turn of the other premium payers to get sick.
The TSA is indeed stealing people's belongings, and has had someone dragged away in handcuffs for quoting the Fourth Amendment. Even in their routine operations, they are engaging in unwanted touch on parts of the body normally covered by underwear.
>If anybody has a better system to keep bombs, guns, and knives off our airplanes, then write a slashdot artice about it.
Anything would be better. Look at the list of terror plots stopped by the TSA and decide for yourself if it's worthwhile.
Also check out the comments by Israeli aviation security expert Rafi Sela and by the makers of the scanners about their effectiveness.
Concretely: close the gaps that allow access to airplanes by non-passengers.
In response to the inevitable rhetorical question: yes, I WOULD rather be blown up by a terrorist than be treated like a convict. Even if there were a tradeoff between freedom and security (and what are we trying to protect, again?), there's only one answer for an American.
I've taken Amtrak for every trip since the system went insane.
>Football is modern day gladiator fighting, they are paid to kill each other on the field of battle, not to tickle each other. this is a job hazard and you have have to accept that
Is this disclosed to college and high school players? Or are they told that they will be "playing"? Or that it's to teach them life skills?
If I were told that I'd be participating in the Olympics to honor my gods by perfecting my skill, and then instead got dumped into gladiatorial combat, I'd consider suing.
If I suddenly experience crushing chest pain, I want an EMT, not a helpful bystander. I also want one called as soon as possible, not as soon as someone can find a pay phone.
"...where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised"
There would be ethical and humanitarian applications for it, but mere death and pain would be hard pressed to compete with the potential damage of perfect propaganda. If some combination of psychology, hypnosis, drugs in the water, drugs in the drugs, or whatnot made it possible to get people to believe anything you said, that could be the end of all freedom forever.
Slashdot Mirror
Phone: check something quickly.
Tablet: read ebooks comfortably.
Laptop: actual work.
You could use the laptop for all three, but the battery life will be getting in your way all the time.
"Teleportation" would be for key creation and distribution.
Archive-grade printing costs extra.
Dr. Margaret Hedstrom, whose career is all about preserving digital information, says "...digital preservation remains largely experimental and replete with the risks associated with untested methods".
>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Are we even getting a little temporary safety from all this?
>ADMITTED TO NOT WORK
Documentation:
Ben Wallace, a former employee of one of the company's manufacturing the scanner technology, announced on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that "...in all the testing that we undertook, it was unlikely that it (the airport scanner) would have picked up the current explosive devices being used by al-Qaeda" and that "... it wasn't very good and it wasn't that easy to detect liquids and plastics unless they were very solid plastics (Airport, 2010)."
>AGW religion
I can't think of any religion that drills holes in glaciers and launches satellites to test its ideas. But maybe I'm "to[sic] dumb".
What to do about it is a political question. "Roll with the punches" is an option. "Industrial growth will do more for human welfare than climate stabilization" is an option. Both are "conservative" in the sense of not changing things. Why don't conservatives fight on the battlefield of policy, not science?
Not to mention that conservatism includes harm avoidance and a cautious approach to experimentation, so that if there's even a small chance that our current uncontrolled experiment with CO2 could cause harm, conservatives should be against continuing it.
In the Barry Goldwater era conservatives supported research. For decades conservatives talked about objective reality while academics played with deconstructionism and "different ways of knowing".
At a guess, it's the nature of the issues today. If science had proven that civil rights laws caused cancer, then liberals would be prey to anti-science propaganda.
There's more than one environmentalist out there, and they can and do have different motives.
One touchstone is how they react when clean power becomes realistic. Those who are motivated by concern for the environment (and the people who live in it) welcome clean power. The others sue to stop it.
The station will have a limit of some sort on the total power available to it. It's harder than it should be to get figures on the power consumption of a charging post, but it wouldn't take a huge number before the "gas station" needed as much power supply as a typical utility substation.
Yes, they would.
Flight 93.
Of all the instruments of American power, the only one that saved lives on 9/11 was the action of average citizens.
Doctors are not being drafted in countries with universal health care.
Doctors make contracts with insurance companies to sell services at a willing buyer/willing seller price. Patients make contracts with insurance companies such that their bills get paid by other premium payers, until it's the turn of the other premium payers to get sick.
The TSA is indeed stealing people's belongings, and has had someone dragged away in handcuffs for quoting the Fourth Amendment. Even in their routine operations, they are engaging in unwanted touch on parts of the body normally covered by underwear.
>You are welcomed to opt not to travel by air.
There's a long answer to this, but I prefer to boil it down to one word.
Aloha.
>If anybody has a better system to keep bombs, guns, and knives off our airplanes, then write a slashdot artice about it.
Anything would be better. Look at the list of terror plots stopped by the TSA and decide for yourself if it's worthwhile.
Also check out the comments by Israeli aviation security expert Rafi Sela and by the makers of the scanners about their effectiveness.
Concretely: close the gaps that allow access to airplanes by non-passengers.
In response to the inevitable rhetorical question: yes, I WOULD rather be blown up by a terrorist than be treated like a convict. Even if there were a tradeoff between freedom and security (and what are we trying to protect, again?), there's only one answer for an American.
I've taken Amtrak for every trip since the system went insane.
What's the EU going to do with tracking and logging that Doubleclick isn't already doing?
>Football is modern day gladiator fighting, they are paid to kill each other on the field of battle, not to tickle each other. this is a job hazard and you have have to accept that
Is this disclosed to college and high school players? Or are they told that they will be "playing"? Or that it's to teach them life skills?
If I were told that I'd be participating in the Olympics to honor my gods by perfecting my skill, and then instead got dumped into gladiatorial combat, I'd consider suing.
Football has been crippling its victims for decades. It wasn't news when this documentary came out: http://mobilemojoman.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/movie-review-disposable-heroes-the-blood-guts-and-tears-side-of-football/
Nothing will change.
Dark matter responds to gravity, and antimatter should as well. So they'd get pulled in and never seen again.
If I suddenly experience crushing chest pain, I want an EMT, not a helpful bystander. I also want one called as soon as possible, not as soon as someone can find a pay phone.
"...where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
It would be interesting to see an analysis of whether civil rights laws were violated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
It's a long-established point of law.
Some places don't allow government managers to direct the political activities of government employees.
There would be ethical and humanitarian applications for it, but mere death and pain would be hard pressed to compete with the potential damage of perfect propaganda. If some combination of psychology, hypnosis, drugs in the water, drugs in the drugs, or whatnot made it possible to get people to believe anything you said, that could be the end of all freedom forever.