And you prove you have absolutely no clue beyond a blind disdain for the libertarian movement with zero knowledge of what that actually pertains to. Like a blind person saying he hates green and likes blue.
Software X costs money. You are in possession of Software X. You didn't pay for Software X. You are guilty of theft. Period.
Physical tranfer of a good is an line of thought that is outdated in the context of virtual goods, yet being used by many slashdotters to excuse theft. It is theft. Period.
What's the ultimate goal? To be competitive. They may be kinda sorta communists, but they aren't stupid.
Over the past decade China added 3x as much interstate highway as exists in the entire United States. Theyre entire country is as well linked by high speed highway as the US, if not better. They saw how the movement of goods, service,a nd people, helps an economy grow, gives it room to grow, and linking the country quickly and efficiently is a big part of that. So they dd the same. And it's been a big part of their economic growth just like it was ours. plus it provided jobs for many thousands of people and companies during the construction.
This fiber requirement is similar. Internet is core infrastructure. And as economies grow, as data requirements grow, that infrastructure needs to grow too, just like asphalt highawys do.
Neutered? When people think of unions over here they tend to think of the Detroit autoworkers...you know, the guys who recieve in excess of 100-120k a year in non-wage compensation, on top of their normal pay. even the guy who just turns one nut on every car that goes past on the line. Or they think of the chicago teacher's union, where the ag salary is 78k a year. Meanwhile teachers around the rest of the country make do with between 33 and 38k a year.
Neutered? Not hardly.
but you are right when you say unions are different here. Here they dont exist to keep employers in line or protect rights (we have laws to do that). No, they exist to push political agendas and safeguard/extort excessive pay, beyond what the market would otherwise bear.
As in a "gun" (weapon) used in space, which is to me a MUCH more fascinating engineering and design problem. In space, inertia and recoil are a bitch.
Missles probably impractical because they rely on aerodynamic forces to steer (nozzle alone isnt enough to change course/ uses too much fuel), whch leaves us energy and projectile weapons. Turrets can't whip around. Anything kinetic needs to dissipate the recoil which will favor recoilless designs, but those have their own complexities (current designs still have -some- recoil, which while negligible on the surface would have a magnified effect in space). the classic problem of what to do with the heat buildup.
I honestly think space combat will favor a design that is the fusion of two "obsolete" technologies, that of battleship and bomber, though i'm thinking more medium/dive attac bomber. the battleship classic standard is that of dishing and taking damage; this translates to a large mass, and more mass has advantages for absorbing both recoil and heat. the bomber side from the concept of lobbing essentially dumb munitions (bombs or "depth" charges) on a calculated physics trajectory. Though the trouble there, is there no fluid medium to tranfer the energy, so the munition either absolutely must impact the target directly, or cast out a large amount of shrapnel (which would complicate the battlefield for the attacker too).
"It's been suggested that a single lone teacher, surrounded by a classroom of children should carry a weapon. As though thirty 12-year-old boys wouldn't be enticed by a gun, or wouldn't be able to subdue a 60 year-old grandmother of four, or that the teacher would use the gun to protect the gun from the children -- by what, shooting them as she would an intruder?"
Why would 30 12yo boys want to overpower a 60yo teacher for her gun? that would indicate far more problems in the character of said boys and school, such that they would have armed guards already. who says the gun would be on her person rather than in a lockbox? why does it have to be a 60yo? whya re you implying that all 60yo might be unfit to have a weapon? why this implausible scenario of the gun being sooo enticing the teacher has to shoot the kids to keep the gun fromt eh kids?
much like the other comments of "what if the teacher has a bad day"...
That one comment of yours indicates a lack of logical thought on your part. As best its specious. At worst, its completely moronic.
not the fame but the notoriety. the "i'll show them" "they won't forget this" type thought process. the act is a statement. the statement gets more power when we fixate on it for weeks or months.
weaken the statement, and they will tend to hurt fewer innocents. hopefully only blowing their own head off in the dark of their room, leaving everyone else alone.
The translation of the article is "lets use even more technology to remove even more personal responsibility from daily life". that never works out. it always ends up making the thing even more dangerous because people get complacent.
tasers/stun guns limited range and effectiveness irritants (mace/pepper spray) gas can be overcome for short periods, longer with preperation, also not immediately incapacitating, affect more than just the target
pretty much applies to the whole list. in short, bullets are very effective, very quick, both psychologically and physically. you cant train to get used to a bullet, and even a vest is gonna leave you with cracked ribs or exposed target areas.
you fail to grasp the difference between consequence of an action and purpose of an action.
in self defense, the purpose of shooting him isnt to kill him, it's to "stop" him. to render him harmless. whether he dies or not is immaterial. it's an important distinction in mindset, because once he is stopped, you can move onto the next target or threat, or the next step in the chain, (call cops, tend wounds, whatever).
its not that its bad or unreliable (and most of these techs that are decried as "bad" have reliability rates in the >98% range in terms of non killing the target)
it's that it's essentially very hard if not impossible to physically stop and restrain someone without some risks. ie, you cannot eliminate all the risks, without also eliminating the functionality of the device.
hell, even physically restraining someone by hand without hte use of a device carries the risk of injury to yourself or the target.
and ultimately that what people keep forgetting: in the choice of let the person continue their activity and possibly hurt others, let yourself get hurt, or hurt the person....hurting the person is the choice of least harm.
Let's say you're a 75 year old woman, weigh maybe 90 pounds. You live alone. you don't walk or sleep so good anymore. You live down town in a major city in the south. A 300 pound thug breaks into your home. By the way he's a convicted rapist.
What do you do? If you own a gun, you shoot him, just as my grandmother did a year ago.
Guns are for the weak? Yes, in the sense that they enable a frail old women like my grandmother to stand up to someone 3x her size, and survive. Nothing else would have enabled her to do that. Guns are for the fearful? Yes, in the sense that she was afraid of dying and did not desire to do so. Smart people never own guns? I guess you believe that there's a real world analogy to the charisma score in D&D talking your way out of harmful situations with someone intent on doing you bodily harm? Guns are more harmful than helpful? Only to the criminal that illegally entered her house in the middle of the night. What is she supposed to do, try to reason with him? Hope the cops can get there faster than he can cross the house?
A gun is the equaliser that allows a tiny old lady to defend herself against someone 3x her size. You are an absolute fool for saying what you did.
more to do with people putting them in their back pocket and then sitting (their fat arses) on it. and that seems to come frm a trend of mking the front pockets on pants progressively smaller and smaller, cue once again, businesses pinching pennies on important features. i dont need pants pockets that go to my knees...but someone sufficient to hold a modern phone or even my keys would be nice.
Oh please. They feel like cheap POS's because they ARE. printers are especially bad at this now, with hinges and trays breaking off exceptionally easily. cheap crappy injection molded plastic of the lowest grade. has nothing to do with perception becoming reality. it IS reality. thinkpads ARE going down this path, they are NOT as rugged as they used to be.
as opposed to the other grop that's a liberal pressure group pretending to be a medical organisation...which is perfectly allowed.
just saying...awful lot of double standards from folks labeling left and right on this site, and saying one is always ok and the other always not.
(And since we havent brought guns into it yet...when the AMA and other medical groups entered the gun control debate, calling it a "disease" and "public health issue" and calling for more gun control, some members of said organizations spoke out against their organisation taking a stance on the issue at all, and were then kicked out of said groups. some of those folks became the AAPS)
Basic "I dont wanna" i can totally understand. Military makes me get the flu shot every year. And every year, I get sick from it. Especially now that theyve switched to the nasal spray one; it's apparently "less dead" than the shot in the arm.
my thoughts exactly. the only group I know of as well is the christian scientists, and they dont just eschew immunizations, but ALL medicine. they believe, as a core tenet, that all sickness is caused by fear or a lack of faith, and by extension that medicine isnt real. thus i find it hard to believe these nurses would be part of that group.
Games that won't be released and/or will be delayed into next year or the year after:
the next piece of StarCraft 2 HalfLife 2: Episode 3 and/or HalfLife 3 Diablo 3: Expansion
Games that will be released: Medal of Honor 2013 Call of Duty 2013 Call of Duty Modern Warfare 4, 5, and 6 Call of Duty Spec Ops 3 Call of Duty Spinoff Number 6 2013 Madden 2013 NCAA Basketball 2013 FIFA Soccer 2013 Anything EA has ever made or bought 2013
Slashdot Mirror
And you prove you have absolutely no clue beyond a blind disdain for the libertarian movement with zero knowledge of what that actually pertains to.
Like a blind person saying he hates green and likes blue.
Pedantic? Maybe.
But still correct.
Technically.
The best kind.
Software X costs money.
You are in possession of Software X.
You didn't pay for Software X.
You are guilty of theft. Period.
Physical tranfer of a good is an line of thought that is outdated in the context of virtual goods, yet being used by many slashdotters to excuse theft.
It is theft. Period.
my first thought was a "heat laser". the perfect solution to heat dissipation in space....turn it into a weapon!
What's the ultimate goal? To be competitive.
They may be kinda sorta communists, but they aren't stupid.
Over the past decade China added 3x as much interstate highway as exists in the entire United States. Theyre entire country is as well linked by high speed highway as the US, if not better. They saw how the movement of goods, service,a nd people, helps an economy grow, gives it room to grow, and linking the country quickly and efficiently is a big part of that. So they dd the same. And it's been a big part of their economic growth just like it was ours. plus it provided jobs for many thousands of people and companies during the construction.
This fiber requirement is similar. Internet is core infrastructure. And as economies grow, as data requirements grow, that infrastructure needs to grow too, just like asphalt highawys do.
Neutered? When people think of unions over here they tend to think of the Detroit autoworkers...you know, the guys who recieve in excess of 100-120k a year in non-wage compensation, on top of their normal pay. even the guy who just turns one nut on every car that goes past on the line. Or they think of the chicago teacher's union, where the ag salary is 78k a year. Meanwhile teachers around the rest of the country make do with between 33 and 38k a year.
Neutered? Not hardly.
but you are right when you say unions are different here. Here they dont exist to keep employers in line or protect rights (we have laws to do that).
No, they exist to push political agendas and safeguard/extort excessive pay, beyond what the market would otherwise bear.
As in a "gun" (weapon) used in space, which is to me a MUCH more fascinating engineering and design problem. In space, inertia and recoil are a bitch.
Missles probably impractical because they rely on aerodynamic forces to steer (nozzle alone isnt enough to change course/ uses too much fuel), whch leaves us energy and projectile weapons. Turrets can't whip around. Anything kinetic needs to dissipate the recoil which will favor recoilless designs, but those have their own complexities (current designs still have -some- recoil, which while negligible on the surface would have a magnified effect in space). the classic problem of what to do with the heat buildup.
I honestly think space combat will favor a design that is the fusion of two "obsolete" technologies, that of battleship and bomber, though i'm thinking more medium/dive attac bomber. the battleship classic standard is that of dishing and taking damage; this translates to a large mass, and more mass has advantages for absorbing both recoil and heat. the bomber side from the concept of lobbing essentially dumb munitions (bombs or "depth" charges) on a calculated physics trajectory. Though the trouble there, is there no fluid medium to tranfer the energy, so the munition either absolutely must impact the target directly, or cast out a large amount of shrapnel (which would complicate the battlefield for the attacker too).
The list goes on. Fascinating.
"It's been suggested that a single lone teacher, surrounded by a classroom of children should carry a weapon. As though thirty 12-year-old boys wouldn't be enticed by a gun, or wouldn't be able to subdue a 60 year-old grandmother of four, or that the teacher would use the gun to protect the gun from the children -- by what, shooting them as she would an intruder?"
Why would 30 12yo boys want to overpower a 60yo teacher for her gun? that would indicate far more problems in the character of said boys and school, such that they would have armed guards already. who says the gun would be on her person rather than in a lockbox? why does it have to be a 60yo? whya re you implying that all 60yo might be unfit to have a weapon? why this implausible scenario of the gun being sooo enticing the teacher has to shoot the kids to keep the gun fromt eh kids?
much like the other comments of "what if the teacher has a bad day"...
That one comment of yours indicates a lack of logical thought on your part.
As best its specious.
At worst, its completely moronic.
yes but that is a whole nother can of worms we can loosely lump under corruption and theft.
not the fame but the notoriety. the "i'll show them" "they won't forget this" type thought process. the act is a statement. the statement gets more power when we fixate on it for weeks or months.
weaken the statement, and they will tend to hurt fewer innocents. hopefully only blowing their own head off in the dark of their room, leaving everyone else alone.
The translation of the article is "lets use even more technology to remove even more personal responsibility from daily life".
that never works out. it always ends up making the thing even more dangerous because people get complacent.
tasers/stun guns limited range and effectiveness
irritants (mace/pepper spray) gas can be overcome for short periods, longer with preperation, also not immediately incapacitating, affect more than just the target
pretty much applies to the whole list. in short, bullets are very effective, very quick, both psychologically and physically. you cant train to get used to a bullet, and even a vest is gonna leave you with cracked ribs or exposed target areas.
you fail to grasp the difference between consequence of an action and purpose of an action.
in self defense, the purpose of shooting him isnt to kill him, it's to "stop" him. to render him harmless.
whether he dies or not is immaterial.
it's an important distinction in mindset, because once he is stopped, you can move onto the next target or threat, or the next step in the chain, (call cops, tend wounds, whatever).
its not that its bad or unreliable (and most of these techs that are decried as "bad" have reliability rates in the >98% range in terms of non killing the target)
it's that it's essentially very hard if not impossible to physically stop and restrain someone without some risks.
ie, you cannot eliminate all the risks, without also eliminating the functionality of the device.
immobilizing foam.....can potentially suffocate
tasers/shockers.....cardiac arrest
beanbags....break bones
hell, even physically restraining someone by hand without hte use of a device carries the risk of injury to yourself or the target.
and ultimately that what people keep forgetting: in the choice of let the person continue their activity and possibly hurt others, let yourself get hurt, or hurt the person....hurting the person is the choice of least harm.
The only lack of intelligence is on your part.
Let's say you're a 75 year old woman, weigh maybe 90 pounds. You live alone. you don't walk or sleep so good anymore. You live down town in a major city in the south. A 300 pound thug breaks into your home. By the way he's a convicted rapist.
What do you do?
If you own a gun, you shoot him, just as my grandmother did a year ago.
Guns are for the weak? Yes, in the sense that they enable a frail old women like my grandmother to stand up to someone 3x her size, and survive. Nothing else would have enabled her to do that.
Guns are for the fearful? Yes, in the sense that she was afraid of dying and did not desire to do so.
Smart people never own guns? I guess you believe that there's a real world analogy to the charisma score in D&D talking your way out of harmful situations with someone intent on doing you bodily harm?
Guns are more harmful than helpful? Only to the criminal that illegally entered her house in the middle of the night. What is she supposed to do, try to reason with him? Hope the cops can get there faster than he can cross the house?
A gun is the equaliser that allows a tiny old lady to defend herself against someone 3x her size.
You are an absolute fool for saying what you did.
more to do with people putting them in their back pocket and then sitting (their fat arses) on it. and that seems to come frm a trend of mking the front pockets on pants progressively smaller and smaller, cue once again, businesses pinching pennies on important features. i dont need pants pockets that go to my knees...but someone sufficient to hold a modern phone or even my keys would be nice.
Oh please.
They feel like cheap POS's because they ARE. printers are especially bad at this now, with hinges and trays breaking off exceptionally easily. cheap crappy injection molded plastic of the lowest grade. has nothing to do with perception becoming reality. it IS reality. thinkpads ARE going down this path, they are NOT as rugged as they used to be.
i love how people bring that up even though it was never the definition of the unit.
as opposed to the other grop that's a liberal pressure group pretending to be a medical organisation...which is perfectly allowed.
just saying...awful lot of double standards from folks labeling left and right on this site, and saying one is always ok and the other always not.
(And since we havent brought guns into it yet...when the AMA and other medical groups entered the gun control debate, calling it a "disease" and "public health issue" and calling for more gun control, some members of said organizations spoke out against their organisation taking a stance on the issue at all, and were then kicked out of said groups. some of those folks became the AAPS)
flu shot is to smallpox vaccine as Edsel is to Ford motor company.
Harmless my ass. I get sick every. single. year. within 24 hours of recieving the flu shot.
Basic "I dont wanna" i can totally understand. Military makes me get the flu shot every year.
And every year, I get sick from it. Especially now that theyve switched to the nasal spray one; it's apparently "less dead" than the shot in the arm.
my thoughts exactly. the only group I know of as well is the christian scientists, and they dont just eschew immunizations, but ALL medicine. they believe, as a core tenet, that all sickness is caused by fear or a lack of faith, and by extension that medicine isnt real. thus i find it hard to believe these nurses would be part of that group.
Games that won't be released and/or will be delayed into next year or the year after:
the next piece of StarCraft 2
HalfLife 2: Episode 3 and/or HalfLife 3
Diablo 3: Expansion
Games that will be released:
Medal of Honor 2013
Call of Duty 2013
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 4, 5, and 6
Call of Duty Spec Ops 3
Call of Duty Spinoff Number 6 2013
Madden 2013
NCAA Basketball 2013
FIFA Soccer 2013
Anything EA has ever made or bought 2013
Because christianity isnt the predominant religion in europe at all. no theyre all in the US and the US only. no where else. in the world.