On the other hand, all this "security" does force bad people to work a little harder to bypass it. And that extra work means more chances to foil plots before they hatch. Someone mentioned the possibility of combining many small containers of liquid explosive into a larger bomb. Which would probably work if they all made it through. But it would require several conspirators instead of a single one, leading to several more ways for the plan to fall apart, hopefully before it even got to the airport.
The question is not whether it's worse than standing next to a bunch of bananas. The question is whether it's worse than an alternative source of energy. Assuming the demand for power stays constant (and it's certainly not going down), shutting down a nuclear power plant requires additional power to be generated elsewhere.
Clearly, a nuclear power plant is less safe than an open field. But is it worse than a coal plant, or a natural gas plant, or the equivalent solar or windmill farm? And by what metrics are we measuring 'safety'? How do you compare the (fairly unlikely) danger of a radiation leak at a nuclear plant to the effects of toxic rain, deforestation, and other byproducts of coal?
I'm want to believe you, Mr Random Person on the Internet, because what you say strengthens my own position, but in the interest of lording my superiority over those other myth-believing heathens, can you direct me to some documentation that supports this claim?
I think a more realistic plan would be to seed suitable planets with bacteria and just let evolution take care of the rest. Simpler lifeforms are much more resilient to extremes of temperature and atmosphere and are suitable for cryogenic storage for the long journeys. Animals higher up the evolutionary chain are too closely adapted to Earth to survive elsewhere really.
Exactly. Right now, it'd be really hard to send 'humanity' out to colonize the galaxy. However, if we simply want to preserve 'life' (or 'life as we know it'), it should be technologically feasible to load up a bunch of probes with really simple micro-organisms and send them out to seed nearby solar systems. Perhaps not today, but in the near future.
No, but you're missing the point. If you're quoting Shakespeare, you would do the following
"To be or not to be..." --Hamlet, Hamlet by William Shakespeare
and not
"To be or not to be..." --Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
The first identifies it as a line said by a fictional character, and includes the actual author. The second places the fictional character of Hamlet in a non-fictional context.
For the people that obviously didn't read the article, here's some additional context:
--- Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized. ---
As much as the OP would like you to think so, these states don't have a law saying it's illegal to video the police. In fact, reading that last sentence would probably lead a reasonable person to conclude that in 11 or those 12 states, recording the police in public would be legal.
No. One more time. Please pay attention this time.
The alternative is to make your movies available for convenient download for a reasonable price. If people can get your movie conveniently and cheaply the vast majority won't bother to 'pirate'
Bullshit.
Offer it in 1080p DRM free for $10 and people will pirate it because it's not $5. Offer it for $5 and people will complain that it's not $1. Offer it for $1 and you might as well just upload it to bittorrent sites yourself because you're not going to be able to recoup the cost of servers and bandwidth.
People who pirate movies want free stuff. As long as a free version is available, that's what they're going to take.
If a reputable scientist came out with a strongly researched paper saying that "hey, maybe this global warming thing won't be quite so bad", you know what I'd say?
"Stonking great!"
Contrary to what a lot of the anti-AGW crowd thinks, people in the AGW crowd aren't actually pleased by climate change. We don't want climate-inspired regulations because we have some weird regulation fetish. We want changes because we're actually worried that bad things are going to happen in our lifetimes if we don't change our behavior. We're not going to be sad if the bad things don't happen.
Who buys movies anymore? That's what Netflix is for.
Personally, I bought a blu-ray player because the picture and sound quality are both noticeably better than DVD. It's not like I have dozens of hours invested in producing homemade films that I'm worried I might not be able to play at a later date.
But I ALREADY paid sales tax on those stamps. What right does the state think it has to tax the sale AGAIN? THIS is what I really have a problem with.
I don't know about other states, but in MA, you count any sales tax paid as a credit against the use tax. So if you purchase something in New York and pay sales tax, you don't have to pay use tax on it when you bring it home. If you purchase something online from Dell and pay sales tax, you don't have to pay use tax when you use it at home. If you purchase something from Amazon (which doesn't charge sales tax), you are obligated to pay use tax on it.
No, this isn't democracy. This is a bunch of people deciding something and going ahead with it whether or not anyone else agrees with them. It's no more a democratic than a lynch mob. Sorry, I'm not going to support a system that forces people into hiding just because a bunch of bullies don't agree with what they said.
That said, I don't see what's wrong with it and how you can make general scalping illegal and yet still permit Joe Schmo to sell a couple of spare gig tickets if some of his mates can't make it on the day?
It's generally legal to resell tickets at close to face value (IANAL, YMMV). So as long as Joe doesn't significantly mark up his tickets that he sells to his mates, he's OK. The legallity gets called into question when he attempts to sell $40 tickets for $150 because everyone wants to see the Red Sox and the game is sold out.
Not entirely. The amount you draw out of SS is proportional to the income you had while you were contributing, so their $1 income (for SS purposes) will result in smaller SS checks when they retire. How small, I couldn't tell you.
Evolution doesn't "figure out" anything. Random changes happen, if they help the creature produce more offspring they become more prevalent in the population, otherwise they don't.
Apparently "external testicles" was randomly selected before "high temp sperm". The "external testicles" concept apparently works well enough that there isn't enough selective pressure for "high temp sperm" to produce an advantage.
Interesting. Of all the "skeptics" I've read, you're one of the few I've seen that actually looks at the data and produces a convincing argument based on it. I wish more people (on both sides) would forgo the name calling and just present rational arguments. Have you done more research into how those adjustments were created, or looked at other areas where the stations were more dense?
It would really be pretty cool if AGW, and GW in general turned out to not be happening.
"If he says that global warming is so bad that he wants taxes and regulation, he could be sincere, but might be using the global warming as an excuse, since he wants those things anyway."
Is this how conservatives actually think? That liberals *want* taxes and regulation, and health care, environmentalism, etc are just excuses to achieve those things? Interesting. Have you considered the possibility that liberals might see increased taxes and regulation as a beneficial trade-off in order to achieve things that are important to them?
From the statistics you posted for the enlisted forces:
73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree 16.2 percent have an associate’s degree or equivalent semester hours 4.7 percent have a bachelor’s degree
I gotta say, reading that makes me think John Kerry might have been right after all. That's an awful lot of college kids that didn't finish college.
The Honduran President's term was not up. It's not up until January. He was trying to organize a vote on a constitutional referendum to allow him to run for a second term, which would likely have failed anyway. Yes, he was doing something illegal. But so was Nixon, and I don't remember the army ousting him.
To single out President Obama for his condemning of the coup is pretty disingenuous, considering pretty much every country in the region, and the UN, said the same thing.
Just because both candidates would have done the same thing on this issue doesn't mean that they weren't different on other issues. If my choices are "crap, crap, and bacon" or "crap, crap, and ice cream" I'm going to choose based on whether I prefer bacon or ice cream.
The thing about minorities is that, well, they are in the minority. They can shout all they want, but if at least a few of the majority don't sit up and pay attention, nothing is going to change, no matter how much shouting they do.
And what makes you so sure that they aren't upset, anyway?
Re:I guess this also precludes 'Smear the Queer'?
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 1
Oh no, you weren't alone.
We often called it by a less poetic, more literal name, though: "Kill the Man With the Ball"
I have to say, that seems like some decent FACTUAL reporting.
(1) They state that the verification page was present due to USERS ratings. (2) The point out that the verification page has been removed.
And from this, they conclude that they were being intentionally censored by YouTube. So either they're incredibly stupid, or they're intentionally ignoring these same facts in order to write a propoganda piece.
When studies are published ("Windows has Lower Cost of Ownership than Linux", for example), people instantly look at where the money to fund the study came from, in order to ascertain bias. Why shouldn't we do the same for our news?
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, all this "security" does force bad people to work a little harder to bypass it. And that extra work means more chances to foil plots before they hatch. Someone mentioned the possibility of combining many small containers of liquid explosive into a larger bomb. Which would probably work if they all made it through. But it would require several conspirators instead of a single one, leading to several more ways for the plan to fall apart, hopefully before it even got to the airport.
The question is not whether it's worse than standing next to a bunch of bananas. The question is whether it's worse than an alternative source of energy. Assuming the demand for power stays constant (and it's certainly not going down), shutting down a nuclear power plant requires additional power to be generated elsewhere.
Clearly, a nuclear power plant is less safe than an open field. But is it worse than a coal plant, or a natural gas plant, or the equivalent solar or windmill farm? And by what metrics are we measuring 'safety'? How do you compare the (fairly unlikely) danger of a radiation leak at a nuclear plant to the effects of toxic rain, deforestation, and other byproducts of coal?
I'm want to believe you, Mr Random Person on the Internet, because what you say strengthens my own position, but in the interest of lording my superiority over those other myth-believing heathens, can you direct me to some documentation that supports this claim?
I think a more realistic plan would be to seed suitable planets with bacteria and just let evolution take care of the rest. Simpler lifeforms are much more resilient to extremes of temperature and atmosphere and are suitable for cryogenic storage for the long journeys. Animals higher up the evolutionary chain are too closely adapted to Earth to survive elsewhere really.
Exactly. Right now, it'd be really hard to send 'humanity' out to colonize the galaxy. However, if we simply want to preserve 'life' (or 'life as we know it'), it should be technologically feasible to load up a bunch of probes with really simple micro-organisms and send them out to seed nearby solar systems. Perhaps not today, but in the near future.
That actually sounds pretty nifty. I haven't been inside my semi-local B&N in quite a while, but I might check it out next time I'm in the area.
No, but you're missing the point. If you're quoting Shakespeare, you would do the following
"To be or not to be..." --Hamlet, Hamlet by William Shakespeare
and not
"To be or not to be..." --Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
The first identifies it as a line said by a fictional character, and includes the actual author. The second places the fictional character of Hamlet in a non-fictional context.
For the people that obviously didn't read the article, here's some additional context:
---
Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.
---
As much as the OP would like you to think so, these states don't have a law saying it's illegal to video the police. In fact, reading that last sentence would probably lead a reasonable person to conclude that in 11 or those 12 states, recording the police in public would be legal.
No. One more time. Please pay attention this time.
The alternative is to make your movies available for convenient download for a reasonable price.
If people can get your movie conveniently and cheaply the vast majority won't bother to 'pirate'
Bullshit.
Offer it in 1080p DRM free for $10 and people will pirate it because it's not $5. Offer it for $5 and people will complain that it's not $1. Offer it for $1 and you might as well just upload it to bittorrent sites yourself because you're not going to be able to recoup the cost of servers and bandwidth.
People who pirate movies want free stuff. As long as a free version is available, that's what they're going to take.
If a reputable scientist came out with a strongly researched paper saying that "hey, maybe this global warming thing won't be quite so bad", you know what I'd say?
"Stonking great!"
Contrary to what a lot of the anti-AGW crowd thinks, people in the AGW crowd aren't actually pleased by climate change. We don't want climate-inspired regulations because we have some weird regulation fetish. We want changes because we're actually worried that bad things are going to happen in our lifetimes if we don't change our behavior. We're not going to be sad if the bad things don't happen.
Who buys movies anymore? That's what Netflix is for.
Personally, I bought a blu-ray player because the picture and sound quality are both noticeably better than DVD. It's not like I have dozens of hours invested in producing homemade films that I'm worried I might not be able to play at a later date.
But I ALREADY paid sales tax on those stamps. What right does the state think it has to tax the sale AGAIN? THIS is what I really have a problem with.
I don't know about other states, but in MA, you count any sales tax paid as a credit against the use tax. So if you purchase something in New York and pay sales tax, you don't have to pay use tax on it when you bring it home. If you purchase something online from Dell and pay sales tax, you don't have to pay use tax when you use it at home. If you purchase something from Amazon (which doesn't charge sales tax), you are obligated to pay use tax on it.
No, this isn't democracy. This is a bunch of people deciding something and going ahead with it whether or not anyone else agrees with them. It's no more a democratic than a lynch mob. Sorry, I'm not going to support a system that forces people into hiding just because a bunch of bullies don't agree with what they said.
That said, I don't see what's wrong with it and how you can make general scalping illegal and yet still permit Joe Schmo to sell a couple of spare gig tickets if some of his mates can't make it on the day?
It's generally legal to resell tickets at close to face value (IANAL, YMMV). So as long as Joe doesn't significantly mark up his tickets that he sells to his mates, he's OK. The legallity gets called into question when he attempts to sell $40 tickets for $150 because everyone wants to see the Red Sox and the game is sold out.
Not entirely. The amount you draw out of SS is proportional to the income you had while you were contributing, so their $1 income (for SS purposes) will result in smaller SS checks when they retire. How small, I couldn't tell you.
Evolution doesn't "figure out" anything. Random changes happen, if they help the creature produce more offspring they become more prevalent in the population, otherwise they don't.
Apparently "external testicles" was randomly selected before "high temp sperm". The "external testicles" concept apparently works well enough that there isn't enough selective pressure for "high temp sperm" to produce an advantage.
That's certainly a possibility. I was under the assumption that you didn't get your college money until you finished your enlistment period.
Interesting. Of all the "skeptics" I've read, you're one of the few I've seen that actually looks at the data and produces a convincing argument based on it. I wish more people (on both sides) would forgo the name calling and just present rational arguments. Have you done more research into how those adjustments were created, or looked at other areas where the stations were more dense?
It would really be pretty cool if AGW, and GW in general turned out to not be happening.
"If he says that global warming is so bad that he wants taxes and regulation, he could be sincere, but might be using the global warming as an excuse, since he wants those things anyway."
Is this how conservatives actually think? That liberals *want* taxes and regulation, and health care, environmentalism, etc are just excuses to achieve those things? Interesting. Have you considered the possibility that liberals might see increased taxes and regulation as a beneficial trade-off in order to achieve things that are important to them?
From the statistics you posted for the enlisted forces:
73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree
16.2 percent have an associate’s degree or equivalent semester hours
4.7 percent have a bachelor’s degree
I gotta say, reading that makes me think John Kerry might have been right after all. That's an awful lot of college kids that didn't finish college.
Let's get some facts straight here...
The Honduran President's term was not up. It's not up until January. He was trying to organize a vote on a constitutional referendum to allow him to run for a second term, which would likely have failed anyway. Yes, he was doing something illegal. But so was Nixon, and I don't remember the army ousting him.
To single out President Obama for his condemning of the coup is pretty disingenuous, considering pretty much every country in the region, and the UN, said the same thing.
Just because both candidates would have done the same thing on this issue doesn't mean that they weren't different on other issues. If my choices are "crap, crap, and bacon" or "crap, crap, and ice cream" I'm going to choose based on whether I prefer bacon or ice cream.
this seems to the perfect thread in which to do the same.
The thing about minorities is that, well, they are in the minority. They can shout all they want, but if at least a few of the majority don't sit up and pay attention, nothing is going to change, no matter how much shouting they do.
And what makes you so sure that they aren't upset, anyway?
Oh no, you weren't alone.
We often called it by a less poetic, more literal name, though: "Kill the Man With the Ball"
I have to say, that seems like some decent FACTUAL reporting.
(1) They state that the verification page was present due to USERS ratings.
(2) The point out that the verification page has been removed.
And from this, they conclude that they were being intentionally censored by YouTube. So either they're incredibly stupid, or they're intentionally ignoring these same facts in order to write a propoganda piece.
When studies are published ("Windows has Lower Cost of Ownership than Linux", for example), people instantly look at where the money to fund the study came from, in order to ascertain bias. Why shouldn't we do the same for our news?