I know they already have efforts in place to limit third parties. If a third party got popular enough, I'm sure the Democrats/Republicans would change the rules to keep themselves in power.
The "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it further" Darth Vader quote seems very appropriate here.
I used to think that the major parties would change if enough people voted third party. Now, I'm thinking that - were a third party actually a viable contender, the Democrats and Republicans would work together to alter the rules so that the third party candidate(s) would be removed from the ballots. Not that they'd ban the third party candidates (since that wouldn't hold up in court), but they'd put rules in place that the official Democrat and Republican candidates could easily meet but that the third party candidates would find difficult to fulfill. Then, if challenged, they'd just throw up their hands and say "It's not our fault that THIRD_PARTY_CANDIDATE couldn't meet that requirement."
If the zombies began in a small town, the uninfected would be evacuated and quarantined (to make sure they don't turn). Zombies would be either contained or killed.
If the zombies began in a large city, containment might be more difficult. Just try to evacuate New York City and you'd see that it would be nearly impossible. Even assuming that NYC fell totally zombie, though, the army would be called in to surround the city and destroy and zombies who tried to make it out. It would definitely be a huge loss as millions of people would have died, but it wouldn't threaten the worldwide human population.
This is especially true if zombification happens quickly after infection (like is often shown on zombie shows). If you get bitten and turn zombie in an hour or two, the "zombie virus" is susceptible to the same kind of quarantine efforts that we employ today for other diseases (with the added component of "kill any infected"). Now, if it took weeks or even years for a person to turn zombie after infection, zombies might persist for quite some time. It wouldn't turn "apocalypse" (as in rag tag group of uninfected humans fighting back the hordes), but there would always be the chance that the person next to you was about to turn into a zombie and infect you.
The real name requirement - along with deactivating the Google accounts of people who violated this policy - is what kept me off Google+. I use a pseudonym for my social media activities. (My Slashdot account is a relic from before I started using the pseudonym. It's one of a small number of accounts where I use my real name.) When I joined Google+, I wanted to post under my pseudonym, but Google wouldn't let me. Worse, if I started posting as my pseudonym, I risked losing my Gmail account (which I rely on) along with a bunch of other Google services which I used. I could post under a page as my pseudonym, but that meant I couldn't follow people or reply to G+ posts unless they followed me first - not a workable solution. While they finally allow pseudoynms, they list the user as "Pseudonym (Real Name)". Way to hide that real name!
I do like the circles model that Google+ had and would have loved for Google+ to have overtaken Facebook, but Google shot themselves in the foot with this one.
I plan on turning this sad news into happy memories by introducing my kids to Star Trek. Mr. Nimoy might be gone, but a piece of him will always live on.
That's what I keep reminding myself. There's always going to be people better than you and worse than you no matter where you work. The trick is not simply focusing on the people better than you and judging yourself harshly because of this limited view of the talent of others.
I'd say part of the cause of "invented-here syndrome" can be "not-good-enough syndrome." I'm often comparing my programming skills to people I see online - people whose skills far outpace my own. So when it comes time to access my programming skills, I'll understate how good I am because I'm simply not as good as those "coding superstars." Of course, when you see the online results of code people have written, you don't see the idiotic mistakes they made, the typos they've had to correct, the hours they spent Googling for an answer to a pesky problem. You just see some elegant, amazing looking code. It can be a daily struggle to balance admiring the programming skills of others without trying to compare myself to them (and thus knocking my own skills).
That's why I added "the cable ISPs hope." Of course, one of their other tactics is to price Internet Only so that it is more than Internet+TV. This way, to save money, you need to subscribe to cable TV. Then either you'll be more likely to watch cable TV since you already have it or, at the very least, you'll count as a "cable tv subscriber" instead of as a cord cutter. (The fact that pricing it this way means they are abusing their ISP monopoly to beat the TV service competition will hopefully mean that this will be stopped, but I won't be holding my breath.)
A scheme to kill off Internet video and protect cable TV profits.
An Internet connection with a low enough cap and overage fees will make Internet video too expensive to use and customers (the cable ISPs hope) will flock back to cable TV for their video entertainment.
They literally did. The FCC tried to put into place weak rules that would have done nothing. Verizon sued (over the objections of the other major ISPs) and got the rules thrown out. However, the courts said if the FCC wanted to put network neutrality rules into place, they needed to use Title II.
So Verizon is either to blame or to thank (depending on which side of the debate that you're on) for these rules.
Not only choosing between good and evil, but God should know how each of your actions would affect your future. How horrible would it be if - every time you tried taking an action - God chimed in about how this would lead to misery later on. At first, I'm sure we'd welcome it. ("Don't put your car keys there. If you do, you won't find them tomorrow morning and you'll be late for work." "Thanks, God.") Later on, it might get really annoying or else we might get overly reliant on asking God how choosing to do X might affecting us in the future.
There's got to be an interesting story in there about God revealing himself, talking to everyone, and the world ending up as a form of hell as a result.
Sadly, our political climate seems to favor politicians with religious views courting the fringes of the religious public - the ones who deny science and who would love to turn our country into a Theocracy. These folks will usually claim that the US was "based on Christianity" so they're not really making it a theocracy - it always was one. Of course, all evidence against their assertion is ignored.
The sooner we change the political climate so that these fringes are ignored instead of courted, the better.
I was just thinking this also. I'm a programmer. I love my job and I love coding. However, if someone needed to watch me work for "entertainment", they would be really disappointed. Long stretches of me typing at a keyboard. Occasionally, I stop and think about a problem. The most exciting moment would be when I'm so happy about solving a tricky problem that I let out an audible "I know!" and then go back to typing.
True. In my case, I want to introduce my kids to YouTube gradually. Start with a selection of video sources that I know are appropriate. Then, slowly expand the offerings while discussing how that video that seems to feature that cartoon character they love is probably not really appropriate since the title is "Bugs Bunny F****s Elmer Fudd" and thus should be avoided. However, my only options at this point are a) block all of YouTube (works in the short term but eventually they will have access away from my block - my oldest already can access it at school), b) hover over them at all moments (again, not possible), or c) allow them unfettered access to YouTube and hope that they understand when I say some of the content isn't appropriate. In essence, I can either keep them out of the pool or toss them in the deep end. It would be nice if there was a "YouTube shallow end" that I could set up.
(I actually thought about doing this, but don't have the programming skills at the moment to make Android apps or the free time to devote to this project.)
Not only that but there are differing ages (and social/emotional ages) that will vary what is appropriate. If my 11 year old wants to view a video, it might be appropriate for him, but it might not be appropriate for my 7 year old. Furthermore, my 7 year old might be able to watch something that wouldn't be good for a 5 year old to view.
My ideal method of YouTube parental controls would be parentally set white lists. I would be to say that Channel X is allowed for this child, Channel Y is allowed for both children, and Channel Z isn't allowed (by being left off the white list).
And don't forget that 4) A BB Gun, while not as dangerous as a gun that shoots actual bullets, can still cause serious harm, especially at close range. If a thief points a BB gun at your head and demands all of your money (assuming you are unarmed or otherwise not in a position to fight back), it is a real threat. A shot to the head could, at best, seriously hurt you and, at worst, kill you.
The Alcubierre warp drive would function by contracting space in front of it and letting the ship "skip over" the contracted space. Effectively, you'd be going faster than light, but you wouldn't be accelerating past light speed.
They only admitted the problem and provided a removal tool after they were caught. As a parent, I've tried to teach my boys that it is better to admit your mistakes outright and correct them than to wait until you are caught and then try to apologize. The former is more likely to be accepted and forgiven. The latter just shows you are sorry you were caught, not you are sorry you did the misdeed in the first place.
Lenovo isn't sorry for putting Superfish on PCs. They're sorry they were caught.
Whenever I hear a politician claim "terrorists", I think of that dog from the movie Up. He's just talking normally and then - SQUIRREL! - followed by him losing his train of thought and starting over. Except the politician thinks that we, the electorate, are the dog and that "terrorist" will make us lose focus and wind up supporting whatever inane bill they propose.
"We have to endure body cavity searches to get on airlines now? That's outrageous! I'm going to protest this by - TERRORIST! What was I talking about again?"
Government will always abuse power eventually. Suppose we elected a moral government that would never abuse their power (it's a hypothetical situation that will never be reality so might as well fill it with hypothetical politicians that will never be real), they make a law with good intentions, but one that has a loophole that could be abused. Supporters might say "this government would never abuse it because they gave their word/they are such good people/they don't believe in that sort of thing." Maybe the supporters would even be right. But governments always change.
Even if the present government was perfectly aligned to never abuse that law, the next one might be. Or the one after that. And when the government is in place that WILL abuse the law, it might not be abusing it in a way that happens to further your political views (and thus might result in you turning a blind eye to the abuse like people tend to do when it supports their causes).
So even if we assume that Harper is right and their current government would never abuse this law, what's to stop the next government from abusing it?
This is why, whenever a new law is proposed to grant government new powers, I always ask supporters how they would like it if PERSON_FROM_OPPOSING_POLITICAL_POWER was in charge and had those powers. All too often people support new government powers without oversight because it supports their causes without thinking ahead about how other politicians will abuse them.
Most of the proposed methods of obtaining FTL travel involve side-stepping light speed somehow. (e.g. Take a wormhole "shortcut") What is impossible (as far as we can tell) is speeding up to light speed and then speeding up a bit more to go past it.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like someone has made something similar to this.
I know they already have efforts in place to limit third parties. If a third party got popular enough, I'm sure the Democrats/Republicans would change the rules to keep themselves in power.
The "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it further" Darth Vader quote seems very appropriate here.
I used to think that the major parties would change if enough people voted third party. Now, I'm thinking that - were a third party actually a viable contender, the Democrats and Republicans would work together to alter the rules so that the third party candidate(s) would be removed from the ballots. Not that they'd ban the third party candidates (since that wouldn't hold up in court), but they'd put rules in place that the official Democrat and Republican candidates could easily meet but that the third party candidates would find difficult to fulfill. Then, if challenged, they'd just throw up their hands and say "It's not our fault that THIRD_PARTY_CANDIDATE couldn't meet that requirement."
No, vegetarian zombies have an insatiable appetite for GRAAAAAIIIINNNNNSSS!
If the zombies began in a small town, the uninfected would be evacuated and quarantined (to make sure they don't turn). Zombies would be either contained or killed.
If the zombies began in a large city, containment might be more difficult. Just try to evacuate New York City and you'd see that it would be nearly impossible. Even assuming that NYC fell totally zombie, though, the army would be called in to surround the city and destroy and zombies who tried to make it out. It would definitely be a huge loss as millions of people would have died, but it wouldn't threaten the worldwide human population.
This is especially true if zombification happens quickly after infection (like is often shown on zombie shows). If you get bitten and turn zombie in an hour or two, the "zombie virus" is susceptible to the same kind of quarantine efforts that we employ today for other diseases (with the added component of "kill any infected"). Now, if it took weeks or even years for a person to turn zombie after infection, zombies might persist for quite some time. It wouldn't turn "apocalypse" (as in rag tag group of uninfected humans fighting back the hordes), but there would always be the chance that the person next to you was about to turn into a zombie and infect you.
The real name requirement - along with deactivating the Google accounts of people who violated this policy - is what kept me off Google+. I use a pseudonym for my social media activities. (My Slashdot account is a relic from before I started using the pseudonym. It's one of a small number of accounts where I use my real name.) When I joined Google+, I wanted to post under my pseudonym, but Google wouldn't let me. Worse, if I started posting as my pseudonym, I risked losing my Gmail account (which I rely on) along with a bunch of other Google services which I used. I could post under a page as my pseudonym, but that meant I couldn't follow people or reply to G+ posts unless they followed me first - not a workable solution. While they finally allow pseudoynms, they list the user as "Pseudonym (Real Name)". Way to hide that real name!
I do like the circles model that Google+ had and would have loved for Google+ to have overtaken Facebook, but Google shot themselves in the foot with this one.
I plan on turning this sad news into happy memories by introducing my kids to Star Trek. Mr. Nimoy might be gone, but a piece of him will always live on.
That's what I keep reminding myself. There's always going to be people better than you and worse than you no matter where you work. The trick is not simply focusing on the people better than you and judging yourself harshly because of this limited view of the talent of others.
I'd say part of the cause of "invented-here syndrome" can be "not-good-enough syndrome." I'm often comparing my programming skills to people I see online - people whose skills far outpace my own. So when it comes time to access my programming skills, I'll understate how good I am because I'm simply not as good as those "coding superstars." Of course, when you see the online results of code people have written, you don't see the idiotic mistakes they made, the typos they've had to correct, the hours they spent Googling for an answer to a pesky problem. You just see some elegant, amazing looking code. It can be a daily struggle to balance admiring the programming skills of others without trying to compare myself to them (and thus knocking my own skills).
That's why I added "the cable ISPs hope." Of course, one of their other tactics is to price Internet Only so that it is more than Internet+TV. This way, to save money, you need to subscribe to cable TV. Then either you'll be more likely to watch cable TV since you already have it or, at the very least, you'll count as a "cable tv subscriber" instead of as a cord cutter. (The fact that pricing it this way means they are abusing their ISP monopoly to beat the TV service competition will hopefully mean that this will be stopped, but I won't be holding my breath.)
A scheme to kill off Internet video and protect cable TV profits.
An Internet connection with a low enough cap and overage fees will make Internet video too expensive to use and customers (the cable ISPs hope) will flock back to cable TV for their video entertainment.
They literally did. The FCC tried to put into place weak rules that would have done nothing. Verizon sued (over the objections of the other major ISPs) and got the rules thrown out. However, the courts said if the FCC wanted to put network neutrality rules into place, they needed to use Title II.
So Verizon is either to blame or to thank (depending on which side of the debate that you're on) for these rules.
Not only choosing between good and evil, but God should know how each of your actions would affect your future. How horrible would it be if - every time you tried taking an action - God chimed in about how this would lead to misery later on. At first, I'm sure we'd welcome it. ("Don't put your car keys there. If you do, you won't find them tomorrow morning and you'll be late for work." "Thanks, God.") Later on, it might get really annoying or else we might get overly reliant on asking God how choosing to do X might affecting us in the future.
There's got to be an interesting story in there about God revealing himself, talking to everyone, and the world ending up as a form of hell as a result.
Sadly, our political climate seems to favor politicians with religious views courting the fringes of the religious public - the ones who deny science and who would love to turn our country into a Theocracy. These folks will usually claim that the US was "based on Christianity" so they're not really making it a theocracy - it always was one. Of course, all evidence against their assertion is ignored.
The sooner we change the political climate so that these fringes are ignored instead of courted, the better.
I'd suggest reading Phil Plait's Death From The Skies. He goes into the details about the Earth being destroyed by supernovae, gamma ray bursts, etc.
I was just thinking this also. I'm a programmer. I love my job and I love coding. However, if someone needed to watch me work for "entertainment", they would be really disappointed. Long stretches of me typing at a keyboard. Occasionally, I stop and think about a problem. The most exciting moment would be when I'm so happy about solving a tricky problem that I let out an audible "I know!" and then go back to typing.
Not exactly riveting stuff there.
True. In my case, I want to introduce my kids to YouTube gradually. Start with a selection of video sources that I know are appropriate. Then, slowly expand the offerings while discussing how that video that seems to feature that cartoon character they love is probably not really appropriate since the title is "Bugs Bunny F****s Elmer Fudd" and thus should be avoided. However, my only options at this point are a) block all of YouTube (works in the short term but eventually they will have access away from my block - my oldest already can access it at school), b) hover over them at all moments (again, not possible), or c) allow them unfettered access to YouTube and hope that they understand when I say some of the content isn't appropriate. In essence, I can either keep them out of the pool or toss them in the deep end. It would be nice if there was a "YouTube shallow end" that I could set up.
(I actually thought about doing this, but don't have the programming skills at the moment to make Android apps or the free time to devote to this project.)
Not only that but there are differing ages (and social/emotional ages) that will vary what is appropriate. If my 11 year old wants to view a video, it might be appropriate for him, but it might not be appropriate for my 7 year old. Furthermore, my 7 year old might be able to watch something that wouldn't be good for a 5 year old to view.
My ideal method of YouTube parental controls would be parentally set white lists. I would be to say that Channel X is allowed for this child, Channel Y is allowed for both children, and Channel Z isn't allowed (by being left off the white list).
And don't forget that 4) A BB Gun, while not as dangerous as a gun that shoots actual bullets, can still cause serious harm, especially at close range. If a thief points a BB gun at your head and demands all of your money (assuming you are unarmed or otherwise not in a position to fight back), it is a real threat. A shot to the head could, at best, seriously hurt you and, at worst, kill you.
The Alcubierre warp drive would function by contracting space in front of it and letting the ship "skip over" the contracted space. Effectively, you'd be going faster than light, but you wouldn't be accelerating past light speed.
They only admitted the problem and provided a removal tool after they were caught. As a parent, I've tried to teach my boys that it is better to admit your mistakes outright and correct them than to wait until you are caught and then try to apologize. The former is more likely to be accepted and forgiven. The latter just shows you are sorry you were caught, not you are sorry you did the misdeed in the first place.
Lenovo isn't sorry for putting Superfish on PCs. They're sorry they were caught.
I would hope any programmer would filter out the TV's audio from the voice input stream.
Then again, I'd also hope that any programmer would use encryption when sending the data and we know how well that worked out.
Whenever I hear a politician claim "terrorists", I think of that dog from the movie Up. He's just talking normally and then - SQUIRREL! - followed by him losing his train of thought and starting over. Except the politician thinks that we, the electorate, are the dog and that "terrorist" will make us lose focus and wind up supporting whatever inane bill they propose.
"We have to endure body cavity searches to get on airlines now? That's outrageous! I'm going to protest this by - TERRORIST! What was I talking about again?"
Government will always abuse power eventually. Suppose we elected a moral government that would never abuse their power (it's a hypothetical situation that will never be reality so might as well fill it with hypothetical politicians that will never be real), they make a law with good intentions, but one that has a loophole that could be abused. Supporters might say "this government would never abuse it because they gave their word/they are such good people/they don't believe in that sort of thing." Maybe the supporters would even be right. But governments always change.
Even if the present government was perfectly aligned to never abuse that law, the next one might be. Or the one after that. And when the government is in place that WILL abuse the law, it might not be abusing it in a way that happens to further your political views (and thus might result in you turning a blind eye to the abuse like people tend to do when it supports their causes).
So even if we assume that Harper is right and their current government would never abuse this law, what's to stop the next government from abusing it?
This is why, whenever a new law is proposed to grant government new powers, I always ask supporters how they would like it if PERSON_FROM_OPPOSING_POLITICAL_POWER was in charge and had those powers. All too often people support new government powers without oversight because it supports their causes without thinking ahead about how other politicians will abuse them.
Most of the proposed methods of obtaining FTL travel involve side-stepping light speed somehow. (e.g. Take a wormhole "shortcut") What is impossible (as far as we can tell) is speeding up to light speed and then speeding up a bit more to go past it.