"Imagine if President Obama had stated, 'I believe the nation should commit itself to the goal of enabling all Americans to access affordable health insurance' but then left the how to do it to some of the best experts in health care and economics without partisan interference."
Because anything those people would come up with would immediately have been shot down by Republicans simply because it was Obama's goal. That, and the fact that any serious discussion would have to raise the specter of increased regulation.
After reading a story how NASA is testing 3D printed rocket injector parts and seeing success, it becomes apparent why this failed (and why the Liberator doesn't hold up too well). NASA spends a couple weeks having the parts polished, ensuring that tolerances are all met. You can see how this can affect a gun also. If the tolerances are even a smidgen off, problems can occur. The common person probably doesn't have easy access to equipment that can accomplish this and may never even think about it.
Edward Snowden is not a whistleblower. He stopped being that the moment he revealed classified information that did not concern what he was 'whistleblowing'. He has committed espionage, plain and simple, and Russia is only making sure they've got everything from him before they agree to return him.
Plus, if anyone thinks there hasn't been some back-room negotiation between the US and Russia about any borderline people in the US that fled Russia to escape the same charges, you haven't paid attention to history.
I have a family of 7. A matinee showing of a 2D movie costs me about $50 before concessions. I cannot afford to go see multiple summer blockbusters because I'm lucky if I even go see one. So movies I wouldn't mind seeing, but don't feel like I have to, get put on my 'rent this later' list.
You are forgetting one important fact. They are getting warrants. They just don't have to tell you they have it before they do the seizure. That's the point of the FISA court and the PATRIOT Act.
Kind of sad my post has been rated so badly. Is it because I do not agree with everything Edward Snowden did? Nothing I said was technically incorrect. We killed the Rosenbergs because they revealed details of the atom bomb to the Soviets, yet we want to give a Peace Prize to a man who revealed to other countries how we spy on them?
Not technically unconstitutional either. There is no right to privacy coded in the constitution and the Court has come down on both sides of the issue. If you want to make a 4th Amendment claim about illegal search and seizure, then you still lose because the government still can claim it got a warrant through the secret court.
I'm not stating I agree with this line of thinking. I've been complaining about the PATRIOT Act since Day 1.
But if you read my post again, Snowden went beyond revealing one potentially unconstitutional program. He revealed more than that to other countries.
This is the worst possible moment in time to move away from nuclear power. Renewables may never reach the point that their energy production matches any decent size gas/coal/oil/nuclear plant. Coal has to go. So many people will talk about natural gas, because now we have so much of it available that prices are low. But the industry doesn't want the general public to know that they have been petitioning the government to export our natural gas. That's right, good old Capitalism wants to win out over energy security. Energy companies need reasons to continue to charge hundreds of dollars a month for energy they now get for a much cheaper price. Energy producers see an opportunity to increase profits, which wouldn't be bad if the end result is natural gas prices rising. In several years, the cost of nuclear power per kilowatt will once again be comparable to, if not cheaper than natural gas. By then our current plants will be even older, the cost to build a new plant will be even greater, and we'll once again wonder why we didn't grab the bull by the horns and prepare for the future in advance.
This man not only revealed a not-technically illegal surveillance program, he told other countries we were spying on them and revealed details about programs that aren't covered by any Consitutional protection. May as well go back and award the Peace Prize to the Rosenbergs because they helped make sure other countries had the bomb.
While I would never put Ender's Game at the top of my 'best science fiction' list, it is a lot deeper than any 'juvenile-level' science fiction book I ever saw. Considering it won a Nebula and a Hugo, I'm thinking I'd rather go with those opinions over yours.
1) Sadly, too many people don't understand that these what the government was doing was legal, so you can't sue over them. Change the law if you must, but suing is stupid.
2) 'Widely' hailed as a hero?!? Why not also put that he's also 'widely' denounced as a traitor.
3) Keeping secrets from civilians is inherently non-democratic, but we accept it so that other countries do not have access to secrets we want to keep. It isn't for Mr. Snowden to decide if it is, as he says, an 'existential threat to democracy'.
4) The man knew what he was doing was illegal and fled the country before revealing himself. A true 'patriot' would've stayed and faced the courts. I'll give Bradley Manning that much credit.
There was no way the NRC was going to authorize a startup at reduced power. New generators were going to cost millions and more time (meaning more money lost). The government seems to have a smoking gun that SCE management knew the generators were not 'like-for-like' therefore they may have misled the NRC, giving the regulators even more reason to not authorize a restart.
Yes, negotiating with a supplier is one part of it. But I'm thinking that last part is what made them give up the fight so quick. Crystal River tried for a lot longer to get insurance funds and sue the contractor that helped break their shield building.
I agree. The OP stated that the company owned the code to the app, which must have been part of the work contract. So the copyright should be listed as belonging to them. And he can always ask that the code be modified to add his name back in as the author of the code.
No it is not. Nixon essentially authorized robbery, something that is completely against the law. Then he refused to turn over recordings from his office that he was told to by the Court system. Then he threatened to fire the Special Prosecuter investigating Watergate unless he stopped the investigation. So, you have conspiracy to commit a crime, failure to obey a court order, and retribution. What does Obama have? Nothing. There isn't evidence the White House is involved (no matter how you feel about the matter) and it is still debatable if what ONE IRS office did is even illegal.
30 years in the grand scheme of innovation is nothing. I think we've gotten used to the pace of advancement born out of the industrial revolution and should not believe it will continue. While it could be nice for robots to take over more of the basic, repetitive tasks we humans still do, I still don't see them making the great leap they need to make up for those human traits we've not been able to program. If, however, I am wrong, I do believe that humanity will turn its attention back to the goal of improving humanity.
You forget the opposite. If Google takes its business away from Germany, Germany loses any taxes it gets from Google. I think I need to go read the article again. It seemed that the court was trying to force something on Google as a whole, which they cannot do because Google is a US company. If it is only directed at software/hardware only available in Germany, then they can. It's like what happened with Microsoft. EU judgement didn't affect what they did with software elsewhere as it applied to localized versions..
1) German court cannot 'force' Google to do anything of the sort. Such matters are covered by international treaty, and the proper US response to such a request would be to state that this is a case of protected speech.
2) Boo-hoo. It's auto-complete.
Such an act as described by Mr. Schmidt is against the law. Obtaining a drone doesn't mean one can perform illegal surveilances on you. And why in the hell would my neighbor spend tens of thousands of dollars on a drone just to do so? To embarass me? Yes, drone use needs to be regulated, but let's not jump to using very poor examples.
My father and I were huge fans of B5 and loved its concept of finite serialization. Since that time, I've found that many new TV shows attempt to at least follow the same philosophy (BSG, for example) and have proven that the quality of writing stays higher for a much longer period of time when there is a concrete end to reach. How do you feel about your role in the acceptance by networks and fans of such shows?
Having earned my degree in CompSci, I can say I was severely disappointed in my C++ texts. While the Deitel text is very comprehensive, it is so much so that it loses any effect. What is really needed is a multi-function text. One part deals solely with teaching the language constructs along with basic examples. The second part needs to focus on "real-world" style code. Current texts focus so much on the constructs, do a moderate job at best at tackling them, then leave any real examples as exercises buried 30 exercises in behind a bunch of boring "write a loop that adds 5 to each member of an array" type questions.
Freedom to assemble and protest only extends so far. Once you begin to disrupt the normal course of business or government, you are breaking the law. If you wish to compare it to a regular protest, then it would be like the protesters physically preventing an employee from entering the business. You can stand outside and shout all you want, but you still have to allow the business to operate.
Slashdot Mirror
"Imagine if President Obama had stated, 'I believe the nation should commit itself to the goal of enabling all Americans to access affordable health insurance' but then left the how to do it to some of the best experts in health care and economics without partisan interference."
Because anything those people would come up with would immediately have been shot down by Republicans simply because it was Obama's goal. That, and the fact that any serious discussion would have to raise the specter of increased regulation.
After reading a story how NASA is testing 3D printed rocket injector parts and seeing success, it becomes apparent why this failed (and why the Liberator doesn't hold up too well). NASA spends a couple weeks having the parts polished, ensuring that tolerances are all met. You can see how this can affect a gun also. If the tolerances are even a smidgen off, problems can occur. The common person probably doesn't have easy access to equipment that can accomplish this and may never even think about it.
Edward Snowden is not a whistleblower. He stopped being that the moment he revealed classified information that did not concern what he was 'whistleblowing'. He has committed espionage, plain and simple, and Russia is only making sure they've got everything from him before they agree to return him. Plus, if anyone thinks there hasn't been some back-room negotiation between the US and Russia about any borderline people in the US that fled Russia to escape the same charges, you haven't paid attention to history.
I have a family of 7. A matinee showing of a 2D movie costs me about $50 before concessions. I cannot afford to go see multiple summer blockbusters because I'm lucky if I even go see one. So movies I wouldn't mind seeing, but don't feel like I have to, get put on my 'rent this later' list.
You are forgetting one important fact. They are getting warrants. They just don't have to tell you they have it before they do the seizure. That's the point of the FISA court and the PATRIOT Act.
I think you misunderstand. I mean that his revealing of them isn't covered by the Consitutition, not the programs themselves.
Kind of sad my post has been rated so badly. Is it because I do not agree with everything Edward Snowden did? Nothing I said was technically incorrect. We killed the Rosenbergs because they revealed details of the atom bomb to the Soviets, yet we want to give a Peace Prize to a man who revealed to other countries how we spy on them?
Not technically unconstitutional either. There is no right to privacy coded in the constitution and the Court has come down on both sides of the issue. If you want to make a 4th Amendment claim about illegal search and seizure, then you still lose because the government still can claim it got a warrant through the secret court. I'm not stating I agree with this line of thinking. I've been complaining about the PATRIOT Act since Day 1. But if you read my post again, Snowden went beyond revealing one potentially unconstitutional program. He revealed more than that to other countries.
This is the worst possible moment in time to move away from nuclear power. Renewables may never reach the point that their energy production matches any decent size gas/coal/oil/nuclear plant. Coal has to go. So many people will talk about natural gas, because now we have so much of it available that prices are low. But the industry doesn't want the general public to know that they have been petitioning the government to export our natural gas. That's right, good old Capitalism wants to win out over energy security. Energy companies need reasons to continue to charge hundreds of dollars a month for energy they now get for a much cheaper price. Energy producers see an opportunity to increase profits, which wouldn't be bad if the end result is natural gas prices rising. In several years, the cost of nuclear power per kilowatt will once again be comparable to, if not cheaper than natural gas. By then our current plants will be even older, the cost to build a new plant will be even greater, and we'll once again wonder why we didn't grab the bull by the horns and prepare for the future in advance.
This man not only revealed a not-technically illegal surveillance program, he told other countries we were spying on them and revealed details about programs that aren't covered by any Consitutional protection. May as well go back and award the Peace Prize to the Rosenbergs because they helped make sure other countries had the bomb.
While I would never put Ender's Game at the top of my 'best science fiction' list, it is a lot deeper than any 'juvenile-level' science fiction book I ever saw. Considering it won a Nebula and a Hugo, I'm thinking I'd rather go with those opinions over yours.
Wrong, and wrong. Intolerance of the interlerant only breeds more intolerance. It also breeds violence. Tolerance doesn't mean agreement.
See Edward Snowden
1) Sadly, too many people don't understand that these what the government was doing was legal, so you can't sue over them. Change the law if you must, but suing is stupid. 2) 'Widely' hailed as a hero?!? Why not also put that he's also 'widely' denounced as a traitor. 3) Keeping secrets from civilians is inherently non-democratic, but we accept it so that other countries do not have access to secrets we want to keep. It isn't for Mr. Snowden to decide if it is, as he says, an 'existential threat to democracy'. 4) The man knew what he was doing was illegal and fled the country before revealing himself. A true 'patriot' would've stayed and faced the courts. I'll give Bradley Manning that much credit.
There was no way the NRC was going to authorize a startup at reduced power. New generators were going to cost millions and more time (meaning more money lost). The government seems to have a smoking gun that SCE management knew the generators were not 'like-for-like' therefore they may have misled the NRC, giving the regulators even more reason to not authorize a restart. Yes, negotiating with a supplier is one part of it. But I'm thinking that last part is what made them give up the fight so quick. Crystal River tried for a lot longer to get insurance funds and sue the contractor that helped break their shield building.
I agree. The OP stated that the company owned the code to the app, which must have been part of the work contract. So the copyright should be listed as belonging to them. And he can always ask that the code be modified to add his name back in as the author of the code.
No it is not. Nixon essentially authorized robbery, something that is completely against the law. Then he refused to turn over recordings from his office that he was told to by the Court system. Then he threatened to fire the Special Prosecuter investigating Watergate unless he stopped the investigation. So, you have conspiracy to commit a crime, failure to obey a court order, and retribution. What does Obama have? Nothing. There isn't evidence the White House is involved (no matter how you feel about the matter) and it is still debatable if what ONE IRS office did is even illegal.
30 years in the grand scheme of innovation is nothing. I think we've gotten used to the pace of advancement born out of the industrial revolution and should not believe it will continue. While it could be nice for robots to take over more of the basic, repetitive tasks we humans still do, I still don't see them making the great leap they need to make up for those human traits we've not been able to program. If, however, I am wrong, I do believe that humanity will turn its attention back to the goal of improving humanity.
You forget the opposite. If Google takes its business away from Germany, Germany loses any taxes it gets from Google. I think I need to go read the article again. It seemed that the court was trying to force something on Google as a whole, which they cannot do because Google is a US company. If it is only directed at software/hardware only available in Germany, then they can. It's like what happened with Microsoft. EU judgement didn't affect what they did with software elsewhere as it applied to localized versions..
1) German court cannot 'force' Google to do anything of the sort. Such matters are covered by international treaty, and the proper US response to such a request would be to state that this is a case of protected speech. 2) Boo-hoo. It's auto-complete.
helping get IPv6 implemented rather than crying about it not being implemented?
Such an act as described by Mr. Schmidt is against the law. Obtaining a drone doesn't mean one can perform illegal surveilances on you. And why in the hell would my neighbor spend tens of thousands of dollars on a drone just to do so? To embarass me? Yes, drone use needs to be regulated, but let's not jump to using very poor examples.
My father and I were huge fans of B5 and loved its concept of finite serialization. Since that time, I've found that many new TV shows attempt to at least follow the same philosophy (BSG, for example) and have proven that the quality of writing stays higher for a much longer period of time when there is a concrete end to reach. How do you feel about your role in the acceptance by networks and fans of such shows?
Having earned my degree in CompSci, I can say I was severely disappointed in my C++ texts. While the Deitel text is very comprehensive, it is so much so that it loses any effect. What is really needed is a multi-function text. One part deals solely with teaching the language constructs along with basic examples. The second part needs to focus on "real-world" style code. Current texts focus so much on the constructs, do a moderate job at best at tackling them, then leave any real examples as exercises buried 30 exercises in behind a bunch of boring "write a loop that adds 5 to each member of an array" type questions.
Freedom to assemble and protest only extends so far. Once you begin to disrupt the normal course of business or government, you are breaking the law. If you wish to compare it to a regular protest, then it would be like the protesters physically preventing an employee from entering the business. You can stand outside and shout all you want, but you still have to allow the business to operate.