Yes, that is horrible. In fact, you should petition the UN Human Rights Council about this atrocity. Get one of the council member states to back your case. Maybe Syria could, since they have such a spectacular history of protecting human rights.
Though you might have to wait for the UN to act on things like the genocide in Darfur, religious intolerance and persecution in Saudi Arabia, political prisoners in Cuba and Venezuela, and other human rights problems around the world, before they get to yours. I know not being able to have a PayPal account is far more important than any of those, but, hey, they got on the agenda first. So you'll just have to wait.
Everyone knows you don't make threatening, disparaging, or otherwise inflammatory remarks when you're in an airport. The security there takes things very seriously, as they must. Putting comments like that on a bag going through the security checkpoint is going to make them look at you twice or three times, possibly in a way that usually requires buying someone dinner first.
How about digital art? A store front could have a large LCD display, showing the same models/actors doing X in different seasons to showcase a new season lineup of clothing. As you walk by, you see them go from playing in the sun, to shivering in the cold, to playing in the cold in their new down jackets. That would be pretty cool.
Or billboards that do the same trick, as you drive past them the ad changes. Now you can rent out billboard space to more than one advertiser.
You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortise, The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Why am I walking in the desert? I don't understand.
We invaded Iraq (ostensibly) to prevent them from using WMDs against us. Why Iran thinks trying to develop them will keep them safe makes the mind boggle.
You joke, but it's not that bad an idea. One of these days, some private group of investors is going to look at the mineral wealth sitting under the ground and the sea in Nigeria, compare that to the cost of invading the country and running things, and come up with math that says it could be profitable. When that happens, we'll be one step closer to a cyberpunk world.
As someone else pointed out, patents are exactly the opposite of what you seem to think they are. In fact, when patents were debated in the late 18th century, they were referred to as "monopolies" more than "patents". So, yes, patents do grant monopolies, that is their sole purpose and function.
As for the consumers, their best recourse is to sue the company that made the product they bought that has been found to violate patents to get their money back if the product doesn't work anymore. A class action lawsuit of all EchoStar consumers might serve as further warning to future would-be patent infringers to make sure all their ducks are in a row before taking innocent consumers' money.
For example, every time a new technology is mentioned we get someone yelling about "Where are those flying cars you promised?! We'll never see this in 20 years!"
Then perhaps the solution is to allow mathematical proofs to be patented so that the original discoverer can benefit from the resulting technological innovations. Ultimately, we're a resource based society, if someone wants to be compensated for the abilities they have to produce a resource with those abilities that can be bought and sold (or licensed, at least). If you give away your knowledge for free, you really can't complain when other people become multi-billionaires because of your initial hard work.
Swallowing it wouldn't be very effective, since you'd have to swallow enough not only to blow up yourself, but to expel shrapnel and/or concussive force significant enough to damage the skin of the aircraft (though even just killing the people sitting within five feet of you would be a minor victory). I doubt anyone could swallow enough balloons to create that large of an explosion and not have their body involuntarily vomit it back up.
Surgically implanting it in your abdomen, however, that's something that would work, and work well. Especially since the surgeon could create a shaped charge effect by packing silicone packs behind the bomb, against the spine and not sew up the incision as tightly as might normally be the case. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would make it much easier for the would-be bomber to press his belly up against a porthole and cause decompression in the craft. If you could get two or three guys on board and have them detonate at disparate locations simultaneously, you could probably bring down an airliner.
Of course, pulling this off requires considerable technical skill in medicine, surgery, post-op care, anesthesia, as well as explosives, not to mention the resources of a modern operating room (at least at the level of a battlefield one). I doubt it would be easy to pull all the together. And you'd still have to sneak the bomb components past the metal detector, which strikes me as difficult at the least.
I've asked many different liberals who have made the claim that Ann Coulter is a post-op tranny this same question many times, but so far none of them have answered. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but I'll ask anyway:
I thought libs were supposed to be tolerant of transgendered people. So if it's true that Coulter was once a man (something I seriously doubt), why would you make a big deal about it? Isn't it wrong to criticize other people's choices?
Of course, you're willing to engage in ad hominem attacks and libel, proving that civility is a foreign concept to you. So I assume logic and reason are, as well.
Two examples of terrorism, the rest are common criminals. And note that I never said "all young Muslim men are terrorists", and not even "all terrorists are young Muslim men", just that "the overwhelming majority of terrorists are you Muslim men." Citing two instances of other terrorists, one from a group which isn't nearly as active as it once was and the other is pretty much inactive now, does nothing to counter that assertion. For every one instance of a terrorist action performed by someone other than a young Muslim man, there are at least 10 others perpetrated by young Muslim men. You simply can't ignore the level of violence associated with that group, it's just too large.
To answer the question, how do you profile that? That's a complicated answer, and I'll admit I don't have a ready answer for it. It's too important to just give a flippant answer, because there are so many variables in play and so much at stake. For a start, though, the US should consider and debate the usefulness of including religion on passports, as other countries do. It offends our sense of freedom of religion, I know, but aside from allowing profiling, it also serves a useful and, dare I say, kind purpose: appropriate rites for the dead. As a Catholic with a traditionally Protestant last name, I'd like to be sure I receive the correct death rites, should I die in a foreign land where no one knows me from Adam.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that is horrible. In fact, you should petition the UN Human Rights Council about this atrocity. Get one of the council member states to back your case. Maybe Syria could, since they have such a spectacular history of protecting human rights.
Though you might have to wait for the UN to act on things like the genocide in Darfur, religious intolerance and persecution in Saudi Arabia, political prisoners in Cuba and Venezuela, and other human rights problems around the world, before they get to yours. I know not being able to have a PayPal account is far more important than any of those, but, hey, they got on the agenda first. So you'll just have to wait.
Good. The more people on the list, the less effective it will become. The sooner that happens, the sooner the thing will be dumped.
Bwa-ha-ha! I can see you've never had direct experience working with a government agency!
...to be stupid.
Everyone knows you don't make threatening, disparaging, or otherwise inflammatory remarks when you're in an airport. The security there takes things very seriously, as they must. Putting comments like that on a bag going through the security checkpoint is going to make them look at you twice or three times, possibly in a way that usually requires buying someone dinner first.
How about digital art? A store front could have a large LCD display, showing the same models/actors doing X in different seasons to showcase a new season lineup of clothing. As you walk by, you see them go from playing in the sun, to shivering in the cold, to playing in the cold in their new down jackets. That would be pretty cool.
Or billboards that do the same trick, as you drive past them the ad changes. Now you can rent out billboard space to more than one advertiser.
What sort of safeguards are in place to do fact-checking and prevent false/obviously slanted mob-rule style reports from being propagated as fact?
Considering that Reuters is one of the players involved, I'd say the answer is "None."
Yes, and my response is from the movie Blade Runner, based on the book.
/.
Jeez, you wouldn't think you'd have to explain Blade Runner references to someone on
The article presents a lot of ... information.
Shoot, what's that word? Not insightful, not useful... something that makes you more concerned/aware about something than you were before.
It's right on the tip of my tongue...
You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortise, The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Why am I walking in the desert? I don't understand.
We invaded Iraq (ostensibly) to prevent them from using WMDs against us. Why Iran thinks trying to develop them will keep them safe makes the mind boggle.
You joke, but it's not that bad an idea. One of these days, some private group of investors is going to look at the mineral wealth sitting under the ground and the sea in Nigeria, compare that to the cost of invading the country and running things, and come up with math that says it could be profitable. When that happens, we'll be one step closer to a cyberpunk world.
I might save my friend even over several strangers. Maybe. It just all depends on finer circumstances.
And what those strangers look like...chicks dig guys who jump through flaming debris to save them.
Snakes on a plane, man. Snakes on a plane.
(see the original blog that started the hype)
Bill O'Reilly is always up to crazy stuff. Next he'll want to patent racy phone calls that generate a lawsuit.
Prior art.
Have you checked with a lawyer to see how much a simple C&D letter to eBay would cost?
As someone else pointed out, patents are exactly the opposite of what you seem to think they are. In fact, when patents were debated in the late 18th century, they were referred to as "monopolies" more than "patents". So, yes, patents do grant monopolies, that is their sole purpose and function.
As for the consumers, their best recourse is to sue the company that made the product they bought that has been found to violate patents to get their money back if the product doesn't work anymore. A class action lawsuit of all EchoStar consumers might serve as further warning to future would-be patent infringers to make sure all their ducks are in a row before taking innocent consumers' money.
I know an awful lot of people, and OLDER people at that (mid 20's to 30)
WTF? What are you, eight years old? Since when is someone in their 20's "older"?
Damn kids. Get off my lawn!
For example, every time a new technology is mentioned we get someone yelling about "Where are those flying cars you promised?! We'll never see this in 20 years!"
Speaking of which...
Then perhaps the solution is to allow mathematical proofs to be patented so that the original discoverer can benefit from the resulting technological innovations. Ultimately, we're a resource based society, if someone wants to be compensated for the abilities they have to produce a resource with those abilities that can be bought and sold (or licensed, at least). If you give away your knowledge for free, you really can't complain when other people become multi-billionaires because of your initial hard work.
First of all, he didn't say "all religious people," he said "religious zealots." Any reasonable person can realize the distinction between the two.
And strangely enough, zealots can't!
Do you mean that when free software is outlawed, only outlaws will use free software?
Swallowing it wouldn't be very effective, since you'd have to swallow enough not only to blow up yourself, but to expel shrapnel and/or concussive force significant enough to damage the skin of the aircraft (though even just killing the people sitting within five feet of you would be a minor victory). I doubt anyone could swallow enough balloons to create that large of an explosion and not have their body involuntarily vomit it back up.
Surgically implanting it in your abdomen, however, that's something that would work, and work well. Especially since the surgeon could create a shaped charge effect by packing silicone packs behind the bomb, against the spine and not sew up the incision as tightly as might normally be the case. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would make it much easier for the would-be bomber to press his belly up against a porthole and cause decompression in the craft. If you could get two or three guys on board and have them detonate at disparate locations simultaneously, you could probably bring down an airliner.
Of course, pulling this off requires considerable technical skill in medicine, surgery, post-op care, anesthesia, as well as explosives, not to mention the resources of a modern operating room (at least at the level of a battlefield one). I doubt it would be easy to pull all the together. And you'd still have to sneak the bomb components past the metal detector, which strikes me as difficult at the least.
Tim, is that you? What are you doing wasting time on /.? Get into my office, you're fired!
I've asked many different liberals who have made the claim that Ann Coulter is a post-op tranny this same question many times, but so far none of them have answered. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but I'll ask anyway:
I thought libs were supposed to be tolerant of transgendered people. So if it's true that Coulter was once a man (something I seriously doubt), why would you make a big deal about it? Isn't it wrong to criticize other people's choices?
Of course, you're willing to engage in ad hominem attacks and libel, proving that civility is a foreign concept to you. So I assume logic and reason are, as well.
Two examples of terrorism, the rest are common criminals. And note that I never said "all young Muslim men are terrorists", and not even "all terrorists are young Muslim men", just that "the overwhelming majority of terrorists are you Muslim men." Citing two instances of other terrorists, one from a group which isn't nearly as active as it once was and the other is pretty much inactive now, does nothing to counter that assertion. For every one instance of a terrorist action performed by someone other than a young Muslim man, there are at least 10 others perpetrated by young Muslim men. You simply can't ignore the level of violence associated with that group, it's just too large.
To answer the question, how do you profile that? That's a complicated answer, and I'll admit I don't have a ready answer for it. It's too important to just give a flippant answer, because there are so many variables in play and so much at stake. For a start, though, the US should consider and debate the usefulness of including religion on passports, as other countries do. It offends our sense of freedom of religion, I know, but aside from allowing profiling, it also serves a useful and, dare I say, kind purpose: appropriate rites for the dead. As a Catholic with a traditionally Protestant last name, I'd like to be sure I receive the correct death rites, should I die in a foreign land where no one knows me from Adam.
Yes they are, they've said it many times. That's why they refer to us as "Crusaders".
Go read a book on Arab culture and Islam.