Because more people read The Inquirer than Nature Neuroscience, and it doesn't assume a grounding in the basics of Neuroscience - a subject that while undoubtedly fascinating, I seem to have skipped at school.
I'd heard about that but couldn't find a link directly stating this. while I was searching I did stumble upon another suggesting that such an exception would be unnecessary. All the mines remaining in the DMZ are the responsibility of South Korea. There is support from the Senate over agreeing to the ban.
MasterCard is an American company. In America, distributing classified documents is illegal.
Is it? I'm pretty certrain a lot of media organisations have done exactly the same as Wikileaks since Wikileaks distributed these documents. Why is what wikileaks is doing illegal but not when reported by mainstream news organisations?
Mines aren't bad becuase they kill oposing soldiers. They're bad because they stick around after the war is over to kill civilians, and can't be easily detected and disabled. An autosentry can be easily detected because you can see the thing. It can be disabled reasonably easily as well, as long as you have decent artillary.
However, if an army plants mines only around strategic sites, accounts for every single one of them, puts an accurate loation on the map for every single some of them, ensures that they're detectable in the case of somehow failing to account for one is considerably better than planting undetectable mines without recording any details of where they are.
True, but there are a lot of aspect to "don't want to", and they need a better excuse than that in the face of public and international pressure. "We need to defend the DMZ/surround our camps with landmines" can be countered with "You can use these instead." "The US is still using them" can only be countered with the US no longer using them. Even less ethical arguments such as "The weapons manufacturers like the money" can be countered with "The weapons manufacturers are quite happy to sell you these instead", because I'm sure they are.
Wait, I'm confused. If the last comment was ironic then that means this is also ironic, but if it's not then neither is this.
Are you always ironic answer guy or never ironic guy. Wait. No. That doesn't answer the question. Uhm. Ah! Got it! If I asked your brother whether that was ironic then would he say it's ironic?
I tend not to get too excited by weapons since they are designed to kill people. Still, these are primarily defensive.
What is really great about them though is that they can be used s an alternative to landmines. There has been a strong demand for a landmine ban from a lot of the world for some time, but they have been unable to get US backing. Now, the US is pretty responsible with its landmines, but the failure of such a major nation to agree to treaties bannning mines has resulted in many less responsible nations refusing to do so either.
These autonomous sentries are a lot easier to spot and deactivate, and considerably less likely to be forgotten about. They're not exactly pleasant but far better than the alternative.
It looks like they're talking about percentage of consumers. So a guy who buys a cheap game on his iPhone is considered equivalent to a guy who buys several games a year for his DS.
True, but even in Britain with our lousy 20 days a year, it's not that common for such a low figure (25 is fairly typical ), and while it's not a legal obligation, virtually all employers will give public holidays (typically 8) in addition to this.
Also, most companies will not enumerate the sick days, and simply assume that people will only call in sick if they're actually ill.
What do you do in the US if you run out of sick days?
One who commits terrorism - terrorism being defined as use of terror as a means of coercion.
Who is he trying to coerce and who is being terrorised? I don't think anyone is particularly scared, and there's no violence involved. So stop being stupid and using emotive words like "terrorism", or you'll just devalue the word.
How many were? We had an interpol arrest warrant (which is hardly unusual in the case of a suspected criminal being in another country) and lots of politicians making vague threats. Has there actually been a manhunt to speak of?
Were we? I thought the attackers were Saudis and Egyptians.
They made themselves a target.
They who? The Afghan people? The warlords who didn't know a thing about this?
The US claimed they had the right to attack. The rest of the international community were willing to accept the word of the US (especially since everyone would like to be rid of the Taliban), but at the time it seemed like the US was just itching for an excuse to lash out.
Statistically trains have worked out better. Success rates are quite high, even though death tolls are lower. Blow up a plane - you'll get a few hundred passengers but be quite likely to fail, and quite visibly. Blow up a train you'll probably kill 50 or so but there's no security to speak of. If you fail you might be able to make a run for it. Plan ahead and you'll do pretty well.
Mind you - extremists that fanatical are quite hard to come by. If we eliminated security entirely, there would not be a huge number of attacks simply because we'd run out of suicide bombers. I don't think this would be a good idea but it's a useful consideration for the extreme case.
If he doesn't sell it he returns it to the publisher (or distributor) for a refund. So the publisher has some reasonably fine grain data about where its customers are, and also what type of shop they purchased the magazine from.
There's a lot of data if you know what you're looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Everything else he said was correct as far as I'm aware. Should have made this clear.
"Beyond Petroleum" was just a corporate slogan. The company's official name is "BP" which doesn't officially stand for anything any more.
It worked in 1973. Range was only 50m, but any experiments should be based off this one rather than Adam And Jamie's failures
Hey, that one about no 1940's rocket having the range to reach London from Germany was a fantastic episode!
Because more people read The Inquirer than Nature Neuroscience, and it doesn't assume a grounding in the basics of Neuroscience - a subject that while undoubtedly fascinating, I seem to have skipped at school.
Why? Is my absence of homicidal tendencies an indicator of a medical condition?
The filter also acts as a predictable joke filter.
I'd heard about that but couldn't find a link directly stating this. while I was searching I did stumble upon another suggesting that such an exception would be unnecessary. All the mines remaining in the DMZ are the responsibility of South Korea. There is support from the Senate over agreeing to the ban.
MasterCard is an American company. In America, distributing classified documents is illegal.
Is it? I'm pretty certrain a lot of media organisations have done exactly the same as Wikileaks since Wikileaks distributed these documents. Why is what wikileaks is doing illegal but not when reported by mainstream news organisations?
Scroll Lock - KVM "switch machines" key - used all day
I think the fact that this can be used by a KVM with no effect on any other application illustrates how useless the key normally is.
Mines aren't bad becuase they kill oposing soldiers. They're bad because they stick around after the war is over to kill civilians, and can't be easily detected and disabled. An autosentry can be easily detected because you can see the thing. It can be disabled reasonably easily as well, as long as you have decent artillary.
I'll grant you it's a relative term.
However, if an army plants mines only around strategic sites, accounts for every single one of them, puts an accurate loation on the map for every single some of them, ensures that they're detectable in the case of somehow failing to account for one is considerably better than planting undetectable mines without recording any details of where they are.
True, but there are a lot of aspect to "don't want to", and they need a better excuse than that in the face of public and international pressure. "We need to defend the DMZ/surround our camps with landmines" can be countered with "You can use these instead." "The US is still using them" can only be countered with the US no longer using them. Even less ethical arguments such as "The weapons manufacturers like the money" can be countered with "The weapons manufacturers are quite happy to sell you these instead", because I'm sure they are.
Wait, I'm confused. If the last comment was ironic then that means this is also ironic, but if it's not then neither is this.
Are you always ironic answer guy or never ironic guy. Wait. No. That doesn't answer the question. Uhm. Ah! Got it! If I asked your brother whether that was ironic then would he say it's ironic?
I tend not to get too excited by weapons since they are designed to kill people. Still, these are primarily defensive.
What is really great about them though is that they can be used s an alternative to landmines. There has been a strong demand for a landmine ban from a lot of the world for some time, but they have been unable to get US backing. Now, the US is pretty responsible with its landmines, but the failure of such a major nation to agree to treaties bannning mines has resulted in many less responsible nations refusing to do so either.
These autonomous sentries are a lot easier to spot and deactivate, and considerably less likely to be forgotten about. They're not exactly pleasant but far better than the alternative.
It looks like they're talking about percentage of consumers. So a guy who buys a cheap game on his iPhone is considered equivalent to a guy who buys several games a year for his DS.
True, but even in Britain with our lousy 20 days a year, it's not that common for such a low figure (25 is fairly typical ), and while it's not a legal obligation, virtually all employers will give public holidays (typically 8) in addition to this.
Also, most companies will not enumerate the sick days, and simply assume that people will only call in sick if they're actually ill.
What do you do in the US if you run out of sick days?
As a terrorist he almost fits the def 1:1.
One who commits terrorism - terrorism being defined as use of terror as a means of coercion.
Who is he trying to coerce and who is being terrorised? I don't think anyone is particularly scared, and there's no violence involved. So stop being stupid and using emotive words like "terrorism", or you'll just devalue the word.
How many were? We had an interpol arrest warrant (which is hardly unusual in the case of a suspected criminal being in another country) and lots of politicians making vague threats. Has there actually been a manhunt to speak of?
There is no way cleanup of this material would exceed the value of the house, which may be around a million dollars or more.
Sure, but we're only looking at rebuild cost. That has to be lower.
Yeah. Some people like Michael Jackson.
Curious thing - taste. Some people like some things that others really hate.
We were attacked from Afghanistan.
Were we? I thought the attackers were Saudis and Egyptians.
They made themselves a target.
They who? The Afghan people? The warlords who didn't know a thing about this?
The US claimed they had the right to attack. The rest of the international community were willing to accept the word of the US (especially since everyone would like to be rid of the Taliban), but at the time it seemed like the US was just itching for an excuse to lash out.
Statistically trains have worked out better. Success rates are quite high, even though death tolls are lower. Blow up a plane - you'll get a few hundred passengers but be quite likely to fail, and quite visibly. Blow up a train you'll probably kill 50 or so but there's no security to speak of. If you fail you might be able to make a run for it. Plan ahead and you'll do pretty well.
Mind you - extremists that fanatical are quite hard to come by. If we eliminated security entirely, there would not be a huge number of attacks simply because we'd run out of suicide bombers. I don't think this would be a good idea but it's a useful consideration for the extreme case.
I've always felt that if you pay that high a price you deserve something for your money...
If he doesn't sell it he returns it to the publisher (or distributor) for a refund. So the publisher has some reasonably fine grain data about where its customers are, and also what type of shop they purchased the magazine from.
There's a lot of data if you know what you're looking for.