I don't think that the US is established on the idea of God and religion. The Religious Right wants to rewrite history and make the US a Christian nation, but we were founded on religious freedom. On the principle that the government shouldn't dictate to you which religion you practice (if any) and how you practice it (again, if any). A Catholic can go to Church at the same time as a Jew can go to Temple and a Muslim can attend services in a Mosque. Please don't confuse the Religious Right's agenda of turning the US into a theocracy with the normal religious person's agenda of practicing their religion without someone telling them that they can't because the government outlawed it.
For the record: Yes, I am religious. No, I don't want to push my religious views on anyone else and I just ask that others don't try to force their religious views - or lack thereof - on me. I'm fine with a friendly conversation on the merits and/or pitfalls of religion, but name-calling, insults or threats have no place there. (This goes both ways. I'd expect that religious folks talking with atheists refrain from any "You're going to burn in hell, heathen" talk. Not that the atheist would be scared, but it's just not polite.)
We've borrowed eBooks for our Kindle from our library. Here's the process:
1) Log into your library's website. 2) Find the book you want to borrow. 3) Click Borrow and get sent to Amazon's site where it is added into your Kindle account. 4) Your Kindle syncs up and your book is available.
The entire process takes under 5 minutes (depending on how long you spend searching) and you don't need to leave your house. When the book expires, it simply vanishes from your account. (Though bookmarks, notes, the page you were on, etc. are saved and will reappear if you borrow it again or if you purchase it.)
I'm not sure if other eBook lenders are the same, but I'd guess that they are. You can borrow books without ever setting foot in a library which is enormously convenient. (Especially in the winter months.) Of course, we like visiting the library. My boys get excited to go there and pick out books and DVDs to borrow. The eBook rental is a nice side-feature, but isn't the main reason we like the library.
Hot Wheels now makes a toy car that you can drive around and record video. It's only a matter of time before they (or another company) expands into video remote controlled planes. I'd love to fly an RC plane around a local park with my kids and then offload the video to show them what it looked like from the plane's point of view.
Imagine if they applied their level of tech knowledge to other areas. Like the economy:
"Congressman, how do you counter the charge that the 150% tax rate on the middle class and 0% tax rate on anyone making more than a million dollars in the Save Our Poor Affluent bill will result in millions going bankrupt?"
"Well, I've been assured by the good folks in the Rich Individuals Association of America that this tax rate change will result in people buying more summer homes, yachts, and expensive cars. So obviously, it will highly boost the economy!"
"But won't it...."
"Look, I just pass the laws written for me by powerful lobbying organizations. I'm not an economics nerd!"
I don't know if this was the right decision. Then again, I'm not impartial since I'm being cyber-stalked/harassed on Twitter right now by someone who claims God talks to her. (Thank goodness I don't use my real name/address there.) If the guy was repeatedly telling her that she should die, then I think that crosses the line from free speech to harassment.
To quote Farscape, specifically Noranti answering the question "Do religions hate each other where you come from?":
"Oh, good heavens no. Religions are grand lofty ideals. Religious followers, now that's another story."
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
I would think that, if you are informed of a hearing and refuse to show up, your absence is taken into account by the judge. Perhaps he might rule that the hearing should be postponed to give you adequate time to attend or, if you have shown that you just are refusing to attend, perhaps you will be tried in absentia. The latter case is a good way to get a legal ruling very one-sidedly against you, but you would have nobody to blame but yourself for not showing up.
You're modded as funny, but sometimes there's a reason to remain semi-anonymous. I signed up for Slashdot a long time ago when I didn't think twice about using my real name in online communications. When I signed up for Twitter, though, I decided to use a pseudonym. Now, I find myself under assault by someone who claims I'm the made-up identity of someone else. I could reveal my real name, but that won't really help. This person claims God told her about my "fraud". You can guess how successful presenting facts would be when the other person is arguing that their knowledge comes straight from God.
Meanwhile, I'm happy to be hidden behind the pseudonym because she won't know my real name and real location. She can't track my family down and take actions in person.
(I'm being vague enough in my post here that I'm comfortable that she won't track down this post and connect the two.)
Then strengthen and lock the cockpit door. Tell the pilots that they are *NOT* to open the door no matter what. Write laws removing all legal culpability if need be. Hijacker holds up a pregnant lady and threatens to slit her throat if he doesn't open the door? Radio the nearest airport for an emergency landing. Hijacker holds up a little baby? Stay on course and land. It would be hard for the pilots to do, of course. Their morals will be telling them to open the door to stop the bloodshed going on behind them. However, it is better that one plane of people die than the hijackers turn it into a missile (which would kill everyone on board plus people in the target).
If I were given the power to unilaterally change the TSA, I'd do three things:
1) TSA security checkpoints would go back to pre-911 levels. Check for guns, knives, etc. No more Rapiscans (I still can't believe they couldn't find a better name for that) or FeelYouUp pat-downs.
2) Cockpit doors would be locked and secured prior to anyone getting on board and would stay that way for the duration of the flight. If anything happened, pilots would be instructed to land at the nearest airport. They would not be held liable in any way for passenger's injuries/deaths if they didn't open the doors for the hijackers. It might sound morbid, but better the entire plane's population be killed and the plane lands then the plane's population is temporarily spared and the hijackers ramp the plane into another building.
3) Specially trained plainclothes officers would patrol airports looking for suspicious looking individuals in a manner similar to what the Israelis employ.
I could virtually guarantee that these three steps would save money, make air travel less inconvenient, and would actually catch just as many would-be terrorists as the current TSA (if not more considering that the TSA's current count is zero).
Just to add more details, all but one of her blog posts was thrown out. So the $2.5 million judgement was based on one blog post. In addition, the judge wrote in his judgement:
Although the defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.
This means that unless you are part of "Old Media", you aren't considered a journalist. Nobody writing for a Internet-based news site is entitled to journalist protections.
This declaration and the judgement for one blog post will be chilling.
Then again, the woman was idiotic to try to win this case without a lawyer. As much as we like knocking lawyers, heading into a trial without one is a sure recipe for losing.
People kept records during later civilizations (Egypt, for example). We know a lot about those civilizations, but not everything. We don't know the names of every trade caravan, for example. We know that there were some, but don't know their names. From now to 73,000 years from now, a lot could happen. Our recorded history could be lost, languages could change, data encoding schemes could change (rendering current data impossible to read even if the decoded language is similar), etc.
We could also "lose" Voyager via needle in a haystack, as you pointed out, but from too many probes sent out. We've sent out dozens of probes since the 1960's. Even assuming we only sent out an average of one every two years, 73,000 years from now would mean 36,500 more probes. In a few thousand years, sending space probes might become a commonplace activity that people would yawn over. Kind of like how sailing a ship across the ocean was a big deal in the 1400's but elicits a yawn today. Or how flying a plane isn't an exceptional activity today, unlike in the early 1900's. Quick: Name the 21st airplane flight. Can't? That's how people 73,000 years from now might view Voyager.
Back in the day, I played the original Warcraft (when it was a 1 player game and not a MMPORG). I killed many orcs during my campaigns. Could I be tried for those "crimes"? Do non-human kills count? Also, what's the statute of limitations? This was over 10 years ago. Am I safe or should I have my online avatar flee to another virtual country for awhile?
Probably not as they expected it to just impact with the water containers. Still, the path it took was quite impressive. From the article:
The cantaloupe-sized cannonball missed the water, tore through a cinder-block wall, skipped off a hillside and flew some 700 yards east, right into the Tassajara Creek neighborhood, where children were returning home from school at 4:15 p.m., authorities said.
There, the 6-inch projectile bounced in front of a home on quiet Cassata Place, ripped through the front door, raced up the stairs and blasted through a bedroom, where a man, woman and child slept through it all - only awakening because of plaster dust.
The ball wasn't done bouncing.
It exited the house, leaving a perfectly round hole in the stucco, crossed six-lane Tassajara Road, took out several tiles from the roof of a home on Bellevue Circle and finally slammed into the Gill family's beige Toyota Sienna minivan in a driveway on Springvale Drive.
Out of the cannon, through the cinder-block wall, off the hillside, flies 700 yards, bursts through a front door, races up the stairs, through a bedroom, exiting the house, across a six lane highway, off a roof and slams into a Toyota Sienna. Wow.
I think part of it is selective memory. We remember good shows like I Love Lucy or The Honeymooners but duds of that era are long forgotten. (Ok, some people might recall but most people don't.)
Part of it depends on where they set the cap. Time Warner tried to set it at 5GB (with large overage fees) and had to back down due to overwhelming critical response.
Of course, if they try it again, I'm pretty much stuck. They're the only high speed ISP in my neighborhood. It's either them or the not-that-supported-anymore Verizon DSL.
Because when the ISPs (usually the cable companies) talk about metered bandwidth, they aren't talking about charging, say, $1 per GB used. In a scenario like that, you could have a low use user who gets Internet access for $2 a month. (e.g. Grandma who uses it for e-mail and light web browsing like on Facebook.) Meanwhile, a high use user could pay much more. (e.g. Someone who likes playing the latest 3D, high definition, MMPORG while downloading HD movies on the side.)
Instead, they usually talk about having a minimum payment, say $45 a month. Then, if you go over their caps (set as low as the cable company can set them without causing a user revolt - see Time Warner's plans for a 5GB cap), you would begin getting surcharges per GB that are way out of line with the costs involved, say $10 per GB.
This isn't only-charging-people-for-what-they-use, this is keep-people-from-using-too-much-bandwidth. And, as the ISPs that most often do this also usually provide television services, the reasoning is clear. The less bandwidth a person has, the less likely they are to cancel TV and stream online instead. The cable companies hate online streaming, even if you limit to 100% legal sources and ignore piracy for the moment. A future where anyone can watch any show via streaming is a future where their main business model - Providing entertainment to people in segmented channels at preset times - is dead. They won't let that happen without gouging the customers thus slowing it down for as long as possible if not outright killing it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that the US is established on the idea of God and religion. The Religious Right wants to rewrite history and make the US a Christian nation, but we were founded on religious freedom. On the principle that the government shouldn't dictate to you which religion you practice (if any) and how you practice it (again, if any). A Catholic can go to Church at the same time as a Jew can go to Temple and a Muslim can attend services in a Mosque. Please don't confuse the Religious Right's agenda of turning the US into a theocracy with the normal religious person's agenda of practicing their religion without someone telling them that they can't because the government outlawed it.
For the record: Yes, I am religious. No, I don't want to push my religious views on anyone else and I just ask that others don't try to force their religious views - or lack thereof - on me. I'm fine with a friendly conversation on the merits and/or pitfalls of religion, but name-calling, insults or threats have no place there. (This goes both ways. I'd expect that religious folks talking with atheists refrain from any "You're going to burn in hell, heathen" talk. Not that the atheist would be scared, but it's just not polite.)
We've borrowed eBooks for our Kindle from our library. Here's the process:
1) Log into your library's website.
2) Find the book you want to borrow.
3) Click Borrow and get sent to Amazon's site where it is added into your Kindle account.
4) Your Kindle syncs up and your book is available.
The entire process takes under 5 minutes (depending on how long you spend searching) and you don't need to leave your house. When the book expires, it simply vanishes from your account. (Though bookmarks, notes, the page you were on, etc. are saved and will reappear if you borrow it again or if you purchase it.)
I'm not sure if other eBook lenders are the same, but I'd guess that they are. You can borrow books without ever setting foot in a library which is enormously convenient. (Especially in the winter months.) Of course, we like visiting the library. My boys get excited to go there and pick out books and DVDs to borrow. The eBook rental is a nice side-feature, but isn't the main reason we like the library.
Hot Wheels now makes a toy car that you can drive around and record video. It's only a matter of time before they (or another company) expands into video remote controlled planes. I'd love to fly an RC plane around a local park with my kids and then offload the video to show them what it looked like from the plane's point of view.
Actually, if you lived under his regime, there was no denying his Internet expertise. In fact, you couldn't deny anything good about him... or else!
That's not true.... They also care about who has promised them lucrative lobbyist positions after they leave Congress.
Imagine if they applied their level of tech knowledge to other areas. Like the economy:
"Congressman, how do you counter the charge that the 150% tax rate on the middle class and 0% tax rate on anyone making more than a million dollars in the Save Our Poor Affluent bill will result in millions going bankrupt?"
"Well, I've been assured by the good folks in the Rich Individuals Association of America that this tax rate change will result in people buying more summer homes, yachts, and expensive cars. So obviously, it will highly boost the economy!"
"But won't it...."
"Look, I just pass the laws written for me by powerful lobbying organizations. I'm not an economics nerd!"
In which case, this wasn't so much a victory for free speech as it was a failing of the prosecution to go after the right charges.
I don't know if this was the right decision. Then again, I'm not impartial since I'm being cyber-stalked/harassed on Twitter right now by someone who claims God talks to her. (Thank goodness I don't use my real name/address there.) If the guy was repeatedly telling her that she should die, then I think that crosses the line from free speech to harassment.
To quote Farscape, specifically Noranti answering the question "Do religions hate each other where you come from?":
"Oh, good heavens no. Religions are grand lofty ideals. Religious followers, now that's another story."
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
With so many "of the Year" awards, I demand they award a Year of the Year award. Personally, I think 2011 is a shoe-in.
In the past, I'd have said that would be a bad idea. Recent interactions with a troll, however, make me think it might not be.
Sadly, though, that power would likely work 2 ways and you'd be vulnerable to random pepper sprayings by every troll and script kiddie around.
I would think that, if you are informed of a hearing and refuse to show up, your absence is taken into account by the judge. Perhaps he might rule that the hearing should be postponed to give you adequate time to attend or, if you have shown that you just are refusing to attend, perhaps you will be tried in absentia. The latter case is a good way to get a legal ruling very one-sidedly against you, but you would have nobody to blame but yourself for not showing up.
Nano-Steampunk Technology!
I have an easy solution. Just put up a giant menorah instead. Then you won't be spreading a Christian message.
You're modded as funny, but sometimes there's a reason to remain semi-anonymous. I signed up for Slashdot a long time ago when I didn't think twice about using my real name in online communications. When I signed up for Twitter, though, I decided to use a pseudonym. Now, I find myself under assault by someone who claims I'm the made-up identity of someone else. I could reveal my real name, but that won't really help. This person claims God told her about my "fraud". You can guess how successful presenting facts would be when the other person is arguing that their knowledge comes straight from God.
Meanwhile, I'm happy to be hidden behind the pseudonym because she won't know my real name and real location. She can't track my family down and take actions in person.
(I'm being vague enough in my post here that I'm comfortable that she won't track down this post and connect the two.)
Then strengthen and lock the cockpit door. Tell the pilots that they are *NOT* to open the door no matter what. Write laws removing all legal culpability if need be. Hijacker holds up a pregnant lady and threatens to slit her throat if he doesn't open the door? Radio the nearest airport for an emergency landing. Hijacker holds up a little baby? Stay on course and land. It would be hard for the pilots to do, of course. Their morals will be telling them to open the door to stop the bloodshed going on behind them. However, it is better that one plane of people die than the hijackers turn it into a missile (which would kill everyone on board plus people in the target).
If I were given the power to unilaterally change the TSA, I'd do three things:
1) TSA security checkpoints would go back to pre-911 levels. Check for guns, knives, etc. No more Rapiscans (I still can't believe they couldn't find a better name for that) or FeelYouUp pat-downs.
2) Cockpit doors would be locked and secured prior to anyone getting on board and would stay that way for the duration of the flight. If anything happened, pilots would be instructed to land at the nearest airport. They would not be held liable in any way for passenger's injuries/deaths if they didn't open the doors for the hijackers. It might sound morbid, but better the entire plane's population be killed and the plane lands then the plane's population is temporarily spared and the hijackers ramp the plane into another building.
3) Specially trained plainclothes officers would patrol airports looking for suspicious looking individuals in a manner similar to what the Israelis employ.
I could virtually guarantee that these three steps would save money, make air travel less inconvenient, and would actually catch just as many would-be terrorists as the current TSA (if not more considering that the TSA's current count is zero).
The license is free... provided you are part of one of the approved organizations.
Just to add more details, all but one of her blog posts was thrown out. So the $2.5 million judgement was based on one blog post. In addition, the judge wrote in his judgement:
(Source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/in-2-5-million-judgment-court-finds-blogger-is-not-a-journalist/ )
This means that unless you are part of "Old Media", you aren't considered a journalist. Nobody writing for a Internet-based news site is entitled to journalist protections.
This declaration and the judgement for one blog post will be chilling.
Then again, the woman was idiotic to try to win this case without a lawyer. As much as we like knocking lawyers, heading into a trial without one is a sure recipe for losing.
People kept records during later civilizations (Egypt, for example). We know a lot about those civilizations, but not everything. We don't know the names of every trade caravan, for example. We know that there were some, but don't know their names. From now to 73,000 years from now, a lot could happen. Our recorded history could be lost, languages could change, data encoding schemes could change (rendering current data impossible to read even if the decoded language is similar), etc.
We could also "lose" Voyager via needle in a haystack, as you pointed out, but from too many probes sent out. We've sent out dozens of probes since the 1960's. Even assuming we only sent out an average of one every two years, 73,000 years from now would mean 36,500 more probes. In a few thousand years, sending space probes might become a commonplace activity that people would yawn over. Kind of like how sailing a ship across the ocean was a big deal in the 1400's but elicits a yawn today. Or how flying a plane isn't an exceptional activity today, unlike in the early 1900's. Quick: Name the 21st airplane flight. Can't? That's how people 73,000 years from now might view Voyager.
Back in the day, I played the original Warcraft (when it was a 1 player game and not a MMPORG). I killed many orcs during my campaigns. Could I be tried for those "crimes"? Do non-human kills count? Also, what's the statute of limitations? This was over 10 years ago. Am I safe or should I have my online avatar flee to another virtual country for awhile?
Probably not as they expected it to just impact with the water containers. Still, the path it took was quite impressive. From the article:
Out of the cannon, through the cinder-block wall, off the hillside, flies 700 yards, bursts through a front door, races up the stairs, through a bedroom, exiting the house, across a six lane highway, off a roof and slams into a Toyota Sienna. Wow.
I think part of it is selective memory. We remember good shows like I Love Lucy or The Honeymooners but duds of that era are long forgotten. (Ok, some people might recall but most people don't.)
Part of it depends on where they set the cap. Time Warner tried to set it at 5GB (with large overage fees) and had to back down due to overwhelming critical response.
Of course, if they try it again, I'm pretty much stuck. They're the only high speed ISP in my neighborhood. It's either them or the not-that-supported-anymore Verizon DSL.
Because when the ISPs (usually the cable companies) talk about metered bandwidth, they aren't talking about charging, say, $1 per GB used. In a scenario like that, you could have a low use user who gets Internet access for $2 a month. (e.g. Grandma who uses it for e-mail and light web browsing like on Facebook.) Meanwhile, a high use user could pay much more. (e.g. Someone who likes playing the latest 3D, high definition, MMPORG while downloading HD movies on the side.)
Instead, they usually talk about having a minimum payment, say $45 a month. Then, if you go over their caps (set as low as the cable company can set them without causing a user revolt - see Time Warner's plans for a 5GB cap), you would begin getting surcharges per GB that are way out of line with the costs involved, say $10 per GB.
This isn't only-charging-people-for-what-they-use, this is keep-people-from-using-too-much-bandwidth. And, as the ISPs that most often do this also usually provide television services, the reasoning is clear. The less bandwidth a person has, the less likely they are to cancel TV and stream online instead. The cable companies hate online streaming, even if you limit to 100% legal sources and ignore piracy for the moment. A future where anyone can watch any show via streaming is a future where their main business model - Providing entertainment to people in segmented channels at preset times - is dead. They won't let that happen without gouging the customers thus slowing it down for as long as possible if not outright killing it.