Not to mention that adoption only "helps out" after the woman was forced to remain pregnant by her rapist for an entire pregnancy (10 months, give or take a few weeks) and then give birth to the rapist's baby. And even after her rapist's baby is whisked off to be adopted and other people declare "Problem Solved!", she might very well have to deal with postpartum depression, changes in her physique, problems in her marriage due to stress over carrying a rape pregnancy to term, etc. Adoption addresses none of these issues, but is frequently cited as if it is a magic cure-all for women who find themselves pregnant after being raped.
There have been many studies where people saw a staged crime happen and were asked questions about the occurrence. Most, if not all, got many details wrong. And this was for memories of a recent event. Events from much longer ago would be harder to really remember. Other things such as your parents telling you stories of your youth could influence your memories. Your wife's friend could have been easily told by her parents about how X happened when she was in utero and therefore formed memories of the event which she attributes to being *from* when she was in utero. I highly doubt that she actually remembers being inside of her mother's uterus.
I also wonder why we don't throw "Conception Day" parties instead of "Birthday" parties. Then again, it might get a little awkward. "Yes, 16 years ago today your mom and I were getting hot and heavy, our only condom broke but we decided to go for it anyway and just pull out. Unfortunately, as your mom was getting closer, I... Hey, Junior, why are you running from the room screaming with your hands over your ears?"
Google might pull the entire text of news stories for indexing purposes, but they don't show it. If I'm searching for articles on a topic and enter my search term, Google News will show me links to the news articles in question with the title and perhaps some contextual text (the sentence surrounding it). They don't give me the entire article. If I want that, I need to click on over to the website to read it.
If your "calling for someone's head" statement includes descriptions of their heads being bloodily lopped off their body or claims that you are going to sever those heads yourself with your axe, then don't be surprised if someone takes you seriously and the police look into it.
If your "calling for someone's head" statement is within the context of wishing that a person should be fired from his job, then the fact that you own an axe, etc should be irrelevant.
To be fair, "heads will roll" in the context of "We're going to fire the people responsible" and "heads will roll" in the context of "... off the end of this battleax I'm sharpening as it turns red with their blood" are two completely different kinds of posts. The former isn't so bad (bad for the people losing their jobs, but not grossly illegal in and of itself). The latter is scary and bears looking into. If the person turns out to not only have the know how (ex-marine) but also the mindset (conspiracy theorist far down the rabbit hole) to carry out his statements, then his statements should be taken as serious threats of violence.
I think part of it is that Jewish people have historically gotten the short end of the stick when the government mandates religion. It's easy for someone who is Christian to say "Christianity should be our Official Religion" because they just assume it'll be their flavor of Christianity. Jews, however, know that any Official State Religion is likely to a) not be Judaism and b) be hostile to Jews.
Exactly. I've also heard these people claim that our country is really a Christian nation and that Christianity should be the official religion. They'll usually claim that the founding fathers were Christian and thus they obviously wanted the country run as a Christian theocracy... no reason why they'd want government and religion separate, right?
Well, except for actual historical reasons such as persecution of those who don't follow the official State religion and government officials being in charge of where/how/when/who you worship. The latter should scare any religious person who previously wanted a religion to be the official state religion. Look at the tax code. Now imagine that, instead of describing how you paid Uncle Sam every year, it described how you worshiped God. Does anyone really think, if church-state separation were abolished, that *PRIESTS* would be making the rules? It would be politicians and bureaucrats. Likely with corporate lobbyist influence. (All hymns need to be registered with the RIAA's "Religious Melodies" department or else the church will be levied a $750 fine.)
Disclosure: I'm Jewish so making the Official State Religion That Everyone Must Practice any form of Christianity would be bad for me. However, as I said above, I'd also be against the government making Judaism the official religion because *I* want to decide how I worship, not some government official. (So long as my worship doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, of course.)
When you access the Twitter API, you need 2 things: An API key for the app itself and a client key for the user. Yes, users might be able to register their own versions of OpenSourceTwitter, get their API keys, and put them into the app getting around the limitation, but I see a few problems.
1) It would be difficult for many users to do this. Right now, apps require you to enter your username and password. Some just require that you authorize them by clicking a button. You'd be replacing this with a multistep process of submitting a "new app", getting the "weird strings of letters" keys and putting them all in the right place in the app. Any misstep would cause the app not to work. Fine for you and me, perhaps, but not fine when dealing with users for whom typing in "password12345" in the password box is tricky. 2) Twitter might catch on and ban the app from accessing the API entirely. 3) If too many people take this approach, Twitter could restrict who could set up apps. Perhaps you'd even be charged for access to their API.
In fact, perhaps option 3 is the best. Have free API access for anyone with less than X users (where X is comfortably large enough to try out the API and grow but not so large as to exclude all Twitter apps). Then, if/when you grow beyond a certain level of users, charge a monthly fee to get a Pro API. Perhaps people could even decide to pay for Pro API access even if they have a smaller user base just to get special features not available in the normal API.
Translation: If we don't like you we'll either shut you down for 1) Mimicing or reproducing the "mainstream Twitter consumer client experience" or 2) NOT mimicing or reproducing the "mainstream Twitter consumer client experience" (at all or not closely enough).
They're just given themselves the ability to shut down any app they want at any time. In addition, apps can't grow too big. Don't want them competing with Twitter if someone uses their APIs to make something better than the official Twitter webpage/app, right?
I've developed Twitter apps and I'm trying to figure out if this means my apps are dead, my apps are alive, but can't grow too big, or my apps need to be redeveloped while still able to bekilled off at Twitter's whim.
Given that a single solar flare can "release 10% as much energy as the entire Sun, the equivalent of 10 billion one-megaton nuclear bombs" (Source: https://plus.google.com/108952536790629690817/posts/T7RU9pEe3nL ), I'd say this is out of our capacity to harness. However, if we could, considering that the world uses 474×10^18 joules of energy and a solar flare can release up to 6 × 10^25, we could power everything on the planet for the next hundred thousand years or so.
They kind of remind me of my kids at times: "Dad, we just want this one more toy. Just this one and we'll be satisfied and will be good and will never ask for anything again and will clean our room and will love you forever and ever."
I don't fall for it because I know they'll be happy for about a week before the toy gets tossed aside as they cry for New Shiny Toy Number 573. We shouldn't fall for it when the media companies say they just need this one additional bill to "fight piracy and protect the artists" and, if we give them this, they'll be satisfied. They won't ever be. Each bill is just a springboard to another bill for them.
Plus, QR codes are inherently cheaper since they can be printed using normal ink while the rectennas need magnetic ink. Now I might not know the market rate for each kind of ink, but it's fair to guess that normal ink would be far cheaper. Plus, since you are using that ink to print the rest of your flyer, sign, billboard, etc, you won't need to have a second pass with magnetic ink. It's built into generating the rest of your item.
Thinking of it this way, studying a single large tree (at multiple points along its growth) might reveal a lot of interesting information about how evolution works. As you head from the tips of the branches to the trunk and leaves, it would be like looking back in time.
Everyone has bomb shelters in Israel because they have enemy forces who are a very short distance away willing and able to lob bombs at them. When you live in this situation, having access to a bomb shelter is a fact of life.
We're not talking about copying everything the Israelis do in their day-to-day life, but looking at their airport security model should help us fashion a more effective TSA than the "What Lobbyist Has Paid A Congressman To Buy Machines For The TSA Now" method or the "Change Procedures To Look Like You Have Countered The Latest Terrorist Tactic" method (e.g. taking off shoes after the shoe bomber strikes).
Does nobody think of the Computer Simulated people living on Computer Simulated Earth? Or the Computer Simulated Children? Won't anyone think of the Computer Simulated Children?!!!
>-Can I call it on my cell phone and tell it to pick me up at the airport?
As cool as that may be, I could see opportunity for abuse. Especially if your car is "available" on the Internet.
Script Kiddie: Access car #bttf2015. Send command "Lock All Doors." Send command "Alter Destination". New destination: "Great Basin Desert"
Bad if you aren't in the car. (Your car drives off and might run out of gas somewhere on the road.) Worse, if you are in the car. (Your car drives off and strands you in the middle of nowhere when it runs out of gas.)
I would think that cars would still require maintenance, so mechanics wouldn't be out of a job. Even if you never got in an accident in your life, you still need to change your oil, rotate your tires, check that the various systems are working properly, etc. Some people do that themselves (at least the first two), but for most people this would mean going to a mechanic. And if there's a car software upgrade or a malfunctioning sensor that needs to be replaced, that would be a job for the mechanic too. (I'm guessing that they wouldn't make it easy for drivers to modify their own car software. Otherwise you are bound to get people who think they can do it but wind up bricking their cars... as the car is doing 70mph on the highway.)
Car makers would stay in business how they do today: Selling new model cars to people who could have otherwise squeezed another decade out of their old car. Oil magnates wouldn't care if the automated cars run on gas and hospitals would rather see less auto accidents coming in. They certainly won't be lobbying to keep accident rates high.
Someone stole my identity and tried to open a credit card in my name. They got my name, address, social security number and date of birth right. However, they got my mother's maiden name wrong. You would think that would raise red flags, but the credit card company just approved the card anyway. Sometimes these "security" questions are worse than an easily guessed joke: Sometimes the answers to them are simply ignored.
If someone in this relationships also wants the "marriage" moniker on their relationship, let them get a church to do this....but merely having a church blessed marriage, would not hold any legal binding bonds....that is the civil contract part offered by the govt.
Let's put marriage back in the church where it resides, and out of Govt hands where it causes controversy. The Govt is there to help enforce contracts...let's put the govt back to work doing what it is supposed to do in this case.
So what you're saying is that Atheists can't be married? Or Atheists must pretend to believe in God just long enough for a church whose beliefs they don't share to bless their union invoking a God they don't believe exists. Does any church get to declare people "married"? If I started the Church Of Anyone Can Be Married - whose only belief is that we marry any 2 consenting adults - does that count? Or is it only certain churches? If the latter, how do you decide which churches are allowed to marry people and which can't? (And by "churches", I include temples, synagogues, mosques, etc.)
I don't see why two people going to the local courthouse can't call themselves "married." What is it about a church that makes those unions more special than non-religious ones?
I'd argue that the war in Afghanistan was inevitable after 9-11. We were attacked so of course we were going to attack back. Of course, what we *should* have done was keep focused on Afghanistan instead of diverting resources to Iraq. Without Iraq, we might have finished our mission in Afghanistan earlier and thus saved money in the long term versus the current situation.
Sadly, I don't share your view about people living under oppressive governments. The government usually controls the media, schools, etc. People grow up only knowing the way of life that the government wants them to know. They see the vast powers of the government's army and don't rise up en masse because doing so would be more dangerous for them and their family than keeping their head down and being quiet. If they do rise up, they stand a very good chance of being beaten down (due to the government having more resources/weapons/power), thus dissuading more people from rebelling. Even if they rise up and overthrow the oppressive government, the resistance will often fall into the trap of becoming an oppressive government once in power. This isn't to say that we should march in and overthrow every oppressive government. Just that you can't simply count on the oppressed people to rise up and install a perfectly-fair government really quickly.
Here's Mars Curiosity on a scale people can conceive of: Go to New York City and throw a single red blood cell so that it hits a dartboard in Orlando, Florida a millimeter from dead center. If a fictional superhero was displayed as being that accurate, people would laugh at how unrealistic it is. And yet, NASA did it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that adoption only "helps out" after the woman was forced to remain pregnant by her rapist for an entire pregnancy (10 months, give or take a few weeks) and then give birth to the rapist's baby. And even after her rapist's baby is whisked off to be adopted and other people declare "Problem Solved!", she might very well have to deal with postpartum depression, changes in her physique, problems in her marriage due to stress over carrying a rape pregnancy to term, etc. Adoption addresses none of these issues, but is frequently cited as if it is a magic cure-all for women who find themselves pregnant after being raped.
There have been many studies where people saw a staged crime happen and were asked questions about the occurrence. Most, if not all, got many details wrong. And this was for memories of a recent event. Events from much longer ago would be harder to really remember. Other things such as your parents telling you stories of your youth could influence your memories. Your wife's friend could have been easily told by her parents about how X happened when she was in utero and therefore formed memories of the event which she attributes to being *from* when she was in utero. I highly doubt that she actually remembers being inside of her mother's uterus.
I also wonder why we don't throw "Conception Day" parties instead of "Birthday" parties. Then again, it might get a little awkward. "Yes, 16 years ago today your mom and I were getting hot and heavy, our only condom broke but we decided to go for it anyway and just pull out. Unfortunately, as your mom was getting closer, I... Hey, Junior, why are you running from the room screaming with your hands over your ears?"
Google might pull the entire text of news stories for indexing purposes, but they don't show it. If I'm searching for articles on a topic and enter my search term, Google News will show me links to the news articles in question with the title and perhaps some contextual text (the sentence surrounding it). They don't give me the entire article. If I want that, I need to click on over to the website to read it.
If your "calling for someone's head" statement includes descriptions of their heads being bloodily lopped off their body or claims that you are going to sever those heads yourself with your axe, then don't be surprised if someone takes you seriously and the police look into it.
If your "calling for someone's head" statement is within the context of wishing that a person should be fired from his job, then the fact that you own an axe, etc should be irrelevant.
To be fair, "heads will roll" in the context of "We're going to fire the people responsible" and "heads will roll" in the context of "... off the end of this battleax I'm sharpening as it turns red with their blood" are two completely different kinds of posts. The former isn't so bad (bad for the people losing their jobs, but not grossly illegal in and of itself). The latter is scary and bears looking into. If the person turns out to not only have the know how (ex-marine) but also the mindset (conspiracy theorist far down the rabbit hole) to carry out his statements, then his statements should be taken as serious threats of violence.
Oh sure... Just because a few of my sellers bought "avada kedavra" and dropped dead.
I think part of it is that Jewish people have historically gotten the short end of the stick when the government mandates religion. It's easy for someone who is Christian to say "Christianity should be our Official Religion" because they just assume it'll be their flavor of Christianity. Jews, however, know that any Official State Religion is likely to a) not be Judaism and b) be hostile to Jews.
Exactly. I've also heard these people claim that our country is really a Christian nation and that Christianity should be the official religion. They'll usually claim that the founding fathers were Christian and thus they obviously wanted the country run as a Christian theocracy... no reason why they'd want government and religion separate, right?
Well, except for actual historical reasons such as persecution of those who don't follow the official State religion and government officials being in charge of where/how/when/who you worship. The latter should scare any religious person who previously wanted a religion to be the official state religion. Look at the tax code. Now imagine that, instead of describing how you paid Uncle Sam every year, it described how you worshiped God. Does anyone really think, if church-state separation were abolished, that *PRIESTS* would be making the rules? It would be politicians and bureaucrats. Likely with corporate lobbyist influence. (All hymns need to be registered with the RIAA's "Religious Melodies" department or else the church will be levied a $750 fine.)
Disclosure: I'm Jewish so making the Official State Religion That Everyone Must Practice any form of Christianity would be bad for me. However, as I said above, I'd also be against the government making Judaism the official religion because *I* want to decide how I worship, not some government official. (So long as my worship doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, of course.)
When you access the Twitter API, you need 2 things: An API key for the app itself and a client key for the user. Yes, users might be able to register their own versions of OpenSourceTwitter, get their API keys, and put them into the app getting around the limitation, but I see a few problems.
1) It would be difficult for many users to do this. Right now, apps require you to enter your username and password. Some just require that you authorize them by clicking a button. You'd be replacing this with a multistep process of submitting a "new app", getting the "weird strings of letters" keys and putting them all in the right place in the app. Any misstep would cause the app not to work. Fine for you and me, perhaps, but not fine when dealing with users for whom typing in "password12345" in the password box is tricky.
2) Twitter might catch on and ban the app from accessing the API entirely.
3) If too many people take this approach, Twitter could restrict who could set up apps. Perhaps you'd even be charged for access to their API.
In fact, perhaps option 3 is the best. Have free API access for anyone with less than X users (where X is comfortably large enough to try out the API and grow but not so large as to exclude all Twitter apps). Then, if/when you grow beyond a certain level of users, charge a monthly fee to get a Pro API. Perhaps people could even decide to pay for Pro API access even if they have a smaller user base just to get special features not available in the normal API.
I suspect if anyone tried the "SuperTwit A, B, C, D, ..." approach, they'd find all of their "SuperTwit" keys revoked.
Translation: If we don't like you we'll either shut you down for 1) Mimicing or reproducing the "mainstream Twitter consumer client experience" or 2) NOT mimicing or reproducing the "mainstream Twitter consumer client experience" (at all or not closely enough).
They're just given themselves the ability to shut down any app they want at any time. In addition, apps can't grow too big. Don't want them competing with Twitter if someone uses their APIs to make something better than the official Twitter webpage/app, right?
I've developed Twitter apps and I'm trying to figure out if this means my apps are dead, my apps are alive, but can't grow too big, or my apps need to be redeveloped while still able to bekilled off at Twitter's whim.
It's more than that. It's "We are serious about remaining unintelligent, primitive bigots and we demand that you be primitive and unintelligent too!"
Given that a single solar flare can "release 10% as much energy as the entire Sun, the equivalent of 10 billion one-megaton nuclear bombs" (Source: https://plus.google.com/108952536790629690817/posts/T7RU9pEe3nL ), I'd say this is out of our capacity to harness. However, if we could, considering that the world uses 474×10^18 joules of energy and a solar flare can release up to 6 × 10^25, we could power everything on the planet for the next hundred thousand years or so.
They kind of remind me of my kids at times: "Dad, we just want this one more toy. Just this one and we'll be satisfied and will be good and will never ask for anything again and will clean our room and will love you forever and ever."
I don't fall for it because I know they'll be happy for about a week before the toy gets tossed aside as they cry for New Shiny Toy Number 573. We shouldn't fall for it when the media companies say they just need this one additional bill to "fight piracy and protect the artists" and, if we give them this, they'll be satisfied. They won't ever be. Each bill is just a springboard to another bill for them.
Plus, QR codes are inherently cheaper since they can be printed using normal ink while the rectennas need magnetic ink. Now I might not know the market rate for each kind of ink, but it's fair to guess that normal ink would be far cheaper. Plus, since you are using that ink to print the rest of your flyer, sign, billboard, etc, you won't need to have a second pass with magnetic ink. It's built into generating the rest of your item.
Thinking of it this way, studying a single large tree (at multiple points along its growth) might reveal a lot of interesting information about how evolution works. As you head from the tips of the branches to the trunk and leaves, it would be like looking back in time.
Everyone has bomb shelters in Israel because they have enemy forces who are a very short distance away willing and able to lob bombs at them. When you live in this situation, having access to a bomb shelter is a fact of life.
We're not talking about copying everything the Israelis do in their day-to-day life, but looking at their airport security model should help us fashion a more effective TSA than the "What Lobbyist Has Paid A Congressman To Buy Machines For The TSA Now" method or the "Change Procedures To Look Like You Have Countered The Latest Terrorist Tactic" method (e.g. taking off shoes after the shoe bomber strikes).
Does nobody think of the Computer Simulated people living on Computer Simulated Earth? Or the Computer Simulated Children? Won't anyone think of the Computer Simulated Children?!!!
>-Can I call it on my cell phone and tell it to pick me up at the airport?
As cool as that may be, I could see opportunity for abuse. Especially if your car is "available" on the Internet.
Script Kiddie: Access car #bttf2015. Send command "Lock All Doors." Send command "Alter Destination". New destination: "Great Basin Desert"
Bad if you aren't in the car. (Your car drives off and might run out of gas somewhere on the road.) Worse, if you are in the car. (Your car drives off and strands you in the middle of nowhere when it runs out of gas.)
I would think that cars would still require maintenance, so mechanics wouldn't be out of a job. Even if you never got in an accident in your life, you still need to change your oil, rotate your tires, check that the various systems are working properly, etc. Some people do that themselves (at least the first two), but for most people this would mean going to a mechanic. And if there's a car software upgrade or a malfunctioning sensor that needs to be replaced, that would be a job for the mechanic too. (I'm guessing that they wouldn't make it easy for drivers to modify their own car software. Otherwise you are bound to get people who think they can do it but wind up bricking their cars... as the car is doing 70mph on the highway.)
Car makers would stay in business how they do today: Selling new model cars to people who could have otherwise squeezed another decade out of their old car. Oil magnates wouldn't care if the automated cars run on gas and hospitals would rather see less auto accidents coming in. They certainly won't be lobbying to keep accident rates high.
Someone stole my identity and tried to open a credit card in my name. They got my name, address, social security number and date of birth right. However, they got my mother's maiden name wrong. You would think that would raise red flags, but the credit card company just approved the card anyway. Sometimes these "security" questions are worse than an easily guessed joke: Sometimes the answers to them are simply ignored.
So what you're saying is that Atheists can't be married? Or Atheists must pretend to believe in God just long enough for a church whose beliefs they don't share to bless their union invoking a God they don't believe exists. Does any church get to declare people "married"? If I started the Church Of Anyone Can Be Married - whose only belief is that we marry any 2 consenting adults - does that count? Or is it only certain churches? If the latter, how do you decide which churches are allowed to marry people and which can't? (And by "churches", I include temples, synagogues, mosques, etc.)
I don't see why two people going to the local courthouse can't call themselves "married." What is it about a church that makes those unions more special than non-religious ones?
I'd argue that the war in Afghanistan was inevitable after 9-11. We were attacked so of course we were going to attack back. Of course, what we *should* have done was keep focused on Afghanistan instead of diverting resources to Iraq. Without Iraq, we might have finished our mission in Afghanistan earlier and thus saved money in the long term versus the current situation.
Sadly, I don't share your view about people living under oppressive governments. The government usually controls the media, schools, etc. People grow up only knowing the way of life that the government wants them to know. They see the vast powers of the government's army and don't rise up en masse because doing so would be more dangerous for them and their family than keeping their head down and being quiet. If they do rise up, they stand a very good chance of being beaten down (due to the government having more resources/weapons/power), thus dissuading more people from rebelling. Even if they rise up and overthrow the oppressive government, the resistance will often fall into the trap of becoming an oppressive government once in power. This isn't to say that we should march in and overthrow every oppressive government. Just that you can't simply count on the oppressed people to rise up and install a perfectly-fair government really quickly.
Here's Mars Curiosity on a scale people can conceive of: Go to New York City and throw a single red blood cell so that it hits a dartboard in Orlando, Florida a millimeter from dead center. If a fictional superhero was displayed as being that accurate, people would laugh at how unrealistic it is. And yet, NASA did it.