NASA already released a statement saying that they don't know of any significant astronomical events on Friday, and as far as they know, there's nothing to worry about. Beyond that, people are going to believe what they want to believe, and a "full court press" is not going to change that. Either that or they're in cahoots with Quetzlcoatl.
Am I the only one here who remembers the scene in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest where the hero pretends to swallow his daily sedative and then slyly spits it out? The movie would have been a lot shorter if this technology was around then...
This idea makes some sense with antibiotics, but once you get into psychiatric medicine it's downright scary.
Must we design the whole world to protect the least competent people from themselves?
Eh? The "least competent people" did nothing to themselves. Google did it. They went around spying on people who neglected to lock their proverbial doors. The idea that it was the fault of the people who failed to protect themselves is astounding, and flies in the face of the most basic premises of civil society.
This whole argument reeks of "she had it coming, the way she was dressed".
But cocaine isn't just highly addictive, it also causes direct damage to one's body. There's a reason crackheads have rotten teeth, deviated septums, and emphysema.
What does that have anything to do with it being a crime punishable by jail time? Alcohol causes liver damage, and tobacco causes lung damage. Should possession of those merit jail time as well? Hell, I live in a city whose mayor wants to ban soda.
If cocaine became inexpensive and readily available in the U.S. it would do horrible things to society. The healthcare and prisons systems wouldn't be able to handle the burden.
This reminds me of the equally baseless argument against legalizing prostitution - as if everyone would do it if it became legal, and society would crumble from the new license. This is typical nanny state mentality. Wouldn't legalizing cocaine in fact take a significant burden *off* prisons and law enforcement?
p.s. I agree with everything you say re Google and vigilantism.
Just like the Emergency Broadcasting System, which was in place for decades, and lets the government take over the airwaves in an emergency. "The Emergency Broadcast System was established to provide the President of the United States with an expeditious method of communicating with the American public in the event of war, threat of war, or grave national crisis. Broadcast stations would have used the two-tone Attention Signal on their assigned broadcast frequency to alert other broadcast stations to stand by for a message from the President."
This seems to be nothing more than an upgrade/extension of that original system, which is honestly pretty important.
Really? From the same exact page - "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
Early religion was an attempt to fill in the gaps of a society's collective knowledge with some sort of narrative explanation. Before the various deities were imagined to fill in the gaps, humans weren't even smart enough to have gaps. In that sense, religion was the world's first "science".
It's not that simple. Being able to harbor the new bacteria is now a measure of fitness in these insects. Insects that reject the bacteria will die off (if they haven't already), and insects that do a better job accommodating the bacteria are more likely to survive to the next generation. We happen to be seeing the end product of that process.
He's not blaming the victim. He's saying that the law is largely based on the expectation of privacy, and goes into some detail about how that works from a legal perspective (and how to define privacy in the first place).
Fourth Amendment protections don’t turn entirely on the conduct of any one individual; to a large extent they depend on whether we, as a society, treat something as private.
As the law stands right now, any time you share information with (or through) a third party, whether it's Facebook, Twitter, your browsing habits, or even your finances, the government can legally ask that third party for the information, without a warrant, and present it as evidence against you. The 4th Amendment doesn't prevent that data from being admissible in court; if you share the data with a third party, the third party can legally submit it as evidence. If you don't want a third party to be able to hand over your data in court, don't give them your data. Since people are routinely sharing their data with third party services these days (knowingly or not), it sets up a reduced expectation of privacy for everyone.
That's the law and how it works. Don't shoot the messenger.
Yes it is, even if the members of the jury are not. The people writing the laws, or the judge, could be Klansmen, too*. Corrupt justice is corrupt justice. At least putting the power in the hands of the jury (i.e. "the people") keeps the problem from being systemic and permanent, so that a new generation of jurors have a chance assert their rights.
If you expect that most of the randomly selected jury supports the Klan, then the legislators and judges they elect probably will, too.
As an American, it would be nice if a major US discovery got Americans excited about physics research again. Europe is already committed to high-energy physics.
Slashdot Mirror
... they take the wristband off you when you leave, right?
Leave?
@_@
Not to mention that virtually every other language is implemented in C.
NASA already released a statement saying that they don't know of any significant astronomical events on Friday, and as far as they know, there's nothing to worry about. Beyond that, people are going to believe what they want to believe, and a "full court press" is not going to change that. Either that or they're in cahoots with Quetzlcoatl.
Am I the only one here who remembers the scene in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest where the hero pretends to swallow his daily sedative and then slyly spits it out? The movie would have been a lot shorter if this technology was around then...
This idea makes some sense with antibiotics, but once you get into psychiatric medicine it's downright scary.
Must we design the whole world to protect the least competent people from themselves?
Eh? The "least competent people" did nothing to themselves. Google did it. They went around spying on people who neglected to lock their proverbial doors. The idea that it was the fault of the people who failed to protect themselves is astounding, and flies in the face of the most basic premises of civil society.
This whole argument reeks of "she had it coming, the way she was dressed".
"Shit, we sent hundreds of vans all over the United States and Europe with equipment to collect data that we probably shouldn't have..." FTFY
If people left their front doors open, and Google employees just walked in (because, you know, the door was open), would you be ok with that too?
You know you can add words to your spell-check dictionary, right? :-)
But cocaine isn't just highly addictive, it also causes direct damage to one's body. There's a reason crackheads have rotten teeth, deviated septums, and emphysema.
What does that have anything to do with it being a crime punishable by jail time? Alcohol causes liver damage, and tobacco causes lung damage. Should possession of those merit jail time as well? Hell, I live in a city whose mayor wants to ban soda.
If cocaine became inexpensive and readily available in the U.S. it would do horrible things to society. The healthcare and prisons systems wouldn't be able to handle the burden.
This reminds me of the equally baseless argument against legalizing prostitution - as if everyone would do it if it became legal, and society would crumble from the new license. This is typical nanny state mentality. Wouldn't legalizing cocaine in fact take a significant burden *off* prisons and law enforcement?
p.s. I agree with everything you say re Google and vigilantism.
I love the name.
Just like the Emergency Broadcasting System, which was in place for decades, and lets the government take over the airwaves in an emergency. "The Emergency Broadcast System was established to provide the President of the United States with an expeditious method of communicating with the American public in the event of war, threat of war, or grave national crisis. Broadcast stations would have used the two-tone Attention Signal on their assigned broadcast frequency to alert other broadcast stations to stand by for a message from the President."
This seems to be nothing more than an upgrade/extension of that original system, which is honestly pretty important.
It's a wise decision to welcome us. We've already started to infiltrate your guts and the guts of your loved ones.
Really? From the same exact page - "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
Early religion was an attempt to fill in the gaps of a society's collective knowledge with some sort of narrative explanation. Before the various deities were imagined to fill in the gaps, humans weren't even smart enough to have gaps. In that sense, religion was the world's first "science".
It's not that simple. Being able to harbor the new bacteria is now a measure of fitness in these insects. Insects that reject the bacteria will die off (if they haven't already), and insects that do a better job accommodating the bacteria are more likely to survive to the next generation. We happen to be seeing the end product of that process.
I find this story pretty hopeful, actually. "Life finds a way". Maybe we are also a more resilient species than we give ourselves credit for...
As the law stands right now, any time you share information with (or through) a third party, whether it's Facebook, Twitter, your browsing habits, or even your finances, the government can legally ask that third party for the information, without a warrant, and present it as evidence against you. The 4th Amendment doesn't prevent that data from being admissible in court; if you share the data with a third party, the third party can legally submit it as evidence. If you don't want a third party to be able to hand over your data in court, don't give them your data. Since people are routinely sharing their data with third party services these days (knowingly or not), it sets up a reduced expectation of privacy for everyone.
That's the law and how it works. Don't shoot the messenger.
It seems that most Facebook and Google users can't keep their mouths shut.
there is a fair chance the web site will have embedded in it HTTP connections to doubleclick.net, google-analytics.com
*cough* Slashdot *cough*
What if "X" is simply showing up to a friend's party? These days, I ask my friends not to tag me on Facebook when they take pictures of me at parties.
The Jury, apparently.
This is really interesting. Thanks for posting this!
If you expect that most of the randomly selected jury supports the Klan, then the legislators and judges they elect probably will, too.
As an American, it would be nice if a major US discovery got Americans excited about physics research again. Europe is already committed to high-energy physics.