I thought the original intent of political correctness was to terrify military officers into obeying orders and never criticizing the administration for fear of imprisonment or death and that the term somehow got twisted into other uses.
They're not moving away from us faster than the speed of light exactly, rather, space is expanding in such a way that the light from some points will never reach other points unless space stops expanding.
We were talking about "the person who gave the most money to charity in the history of the world", which, in adjusted dollars, seems to be Rockefeller. In any case, I didn't say that Gates had anyone killed, I was simply pointing out a good example of how it's possible for someone to simultaneously donate a large amount to charity and also be self-serving.
Well, unless the universe does collapse someday, there should be parts of the universe that are being expanded away from us faster than the speed of light, which is also supposed to be the speed of gravity. We will never be able to observe those parts of the universe though.
Rockerfeller employed private armies who murdered striking workers and their supporters. There's a decent argument that he gave to charity for the same reason ancient kings had gigantic monuments erected to themselves.
But the door he went through was open for customers, not just employees. Maybe we should say that, instead of a store, it's a commercial venue like a museum or theme park, open for guided tours, but set up in such a way that just anyone can walk in. Or maybe trying to torture this into an analogy to actual, physical private property is a losing proposition.
Don't fall too much in love with booms. Let's not ignore that the other end of any such boom is a bust. Entire towns, or even cities can spring up and, perhaps within a decade, end up as ghost towns when the jobs vanish along with the resource. It also doesn't have anything to do with socialism vs capitalism. When a natural resource is exploited and people are needed to do the work, jobs are created regardless of what system you're working under.
Midnight deadlines have always required that the banks either accept or reject a transfer of funds by the deadline. They certainly will go after you for any large sum of money, but they're not supposed to make the mistake in the first place.
But it isn't. You might be able to argue that there are lots of doors, each intended for a different member of the public, but it's not the staff only door.
When you look at how law is actually practiced, all grandiose legal principles end up looking like myths. The reality of any large bank error in anyone's favor is and probably has always been that they will be intimidated into returning the money under threats of criminal charges and massive civil lawsuits. The view that banks take is that, if you make an error, you need to be punished for it with fees and, if they make an error, you need to be punished with fees, although they will be generous and waive the fees provided you don't require them to admit any fault.
In the US, it's traditionally supposed to be the bank's job and responsibility to make sure they don't make those kinds of errors. If they accidentally put $50,000 in your account and don't fix it by the midnight deadline, then it's supposed to be yours regardless of whether you think it was yours to begin with or if you know it's a bank error. It's all part of fiduciary responsibility. The bank isn't supposed to make mistakes. If they're making mistakes in people's favor, then they're surely making mistakes that harm people too.
Once upon a time, banks had a certain amount of time to catch and correct bank errors in your favor and, if they didn't do it before the deadline, the money was yours. The reasoning behind this should be obvious: the bank shouldn't be making those kinds of mistakes and, if they do, the losses should be theirs. We seem to have crept further and further away from that ideal. "Personal responsibility" is still strongly preached, but it only applies to peons. Large institutions are given almost infinite opportunity to correct their mistakes and forgiveness if they're unable to.
This demonstrates the problem with strict liability laws. In the scenario you're putting forward, delivering the money to the police is pretty absolute proof of benevolent intent, but the authorities seem to seldom see it that way. Let's say, instead of a bank vault, it's an ATM in a shady part of town and it malfunctions as you walk by and starts dispensing money. What will the honest person do in this situation? What will the dishonest person do? In that scenario, the honest realist knows that their best bet is to walk by and act like they've seen nothing and not even report it. The honest person who gathers the money and brings it to the authorities, or who even tries to contact the authorities may well face prosecution or at least suspicion.
If the door in question is the main entrance of a store with no signs posted restricting entry, then it's a little different from walking into a private residence.
Instead, he ran it for a week (or however long it took).
A week? For 114,000 e-mail addresses from the servers of a large company? Clearly there would have been more to each dump than just the 25 or so bytes for a single e-mail address, but it still seems like it shouldn't have taken more than an hour or so.
But think of what would happen if enough people actually did this... All the power plants and substations that would blow up as a large part of the electrical load abruptly vanished... All of the consumer electrical equipment damaged from the spikes. All the house fires. Hmmm, this actually may not be such a great idea.
Pre-Columbian North America had plenty of non-nomadic city dwellers with no need to drag anvils around with them after buffalo. The more likely explanation is that, compared to working with copper, working iron is hard with no immediately obvious benefit. Steel is great, but if you don't already know how to produce and work steel, all you end up with is brittle black iron that isn't any better than a chunk of rock. Even if you do know how to work it, you have to take care of it once you've produced it. It's the sort of thing that, unless you put in a lot of work and experimentation, looks a lot like a dead end.
"They" are an entity, composed of many individuals, many of whom may not care about any of that since they're on a salary or hourly wage while millions of dollars flow by, just out of reach. It's seems pretty obvious in this article that there was a casino insider providing access to the CCTV feed. The question is one of how common this is.
It's still a hidden cost to the product they're producing, however. In this case, the cost is on the back end when the supply runs out well before it otherwise would have.
I'm curious why that would be the case? I mean, maybe back in the days when spy satellites actually dropped film canisters back to Earth to be developed, but this is the 21st century. They're able to know with amazing accuracy and precision the position, rotation and direction of satellites or GPS wouldn't be possible in the first place. It's still hard to figure out from that exactly where the camera is pointing without independent corroboration, sure, except that these satellites don't have to act alone and they surely don't just take pictures. For one thing, they're surely used for signals intelligence as well. If they're doing that, anything stationary that's sending out any sort of signal can be triangulated, probably very accurately, and give a control point. That isn't really necessary though since these satellites are almost certainly equipped with RADAR and/or LIDAR. That should provide position information as good as, or better than, a ground based GPS receiver.
They get "free" oil (according to BP's accounting) gifted to them from the Alaskan and US governments (depending on where it comes out of the ground).
Let's not forget all that they're allowed to squander in pursuit of short-term profits. Take the fracking operations in North Dakota that glow as bright as a large city when seen from space due to all the gas they're flaring off. The waste of usable resources is tremendous, quite aside from the pollution.
Well, he certainly did distance himself from it. From what I can find, there wasn't much of a mea culpa in his refutations. He seems to be more prone to say that his mistake happened because he was "too clever by far" (not an exact quote, but it was something like that), or to vaguely imply that it was never really his theory, even though he wrote the book. I mean, it's not as if he didn't write _two_ books about it. One predicting what was going to happen when the planets aligned, then another book explaining that their prediction had come true, even though it appeared it happened. It turns out that the eruption of Mount St Helens, which happened before the alignment, was caused by it.
Now, this was 30 years ago, but it's still relevant when the same person is making extraordinary, poorly supported claims. Right now it's all just speculation, in any case. We're just going to have to wait until we can actually get real data on Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone.
I read the excerpts available for it from google books. From what I could see, the author doesn't believe in footnotes/endnotes/references/etc., but rather in making authoritative-sounding speculative statements. I'm not going to go out and read an entire book, which just doesn't impress me that much, just to find out the mystery of why a supernova must occur within 1 light year of a star within a 1 million year window in order for it to have any radioactive elements at its core. We're not just talking about a supernova triggering the initial formation of the sun, are we? In any case, it doesn't change the fact that a planet will have plenty of core heat for a very long time even without radioactive elements, especially if it's larger than Earth.
That being said, even civilian grade GPS is good enough to create a control point to update satellite based maps. There's not a doubt in my mind that the CIA has been doing so globally, using small (possibly military grade) handhelds to mark important points and then using that information to update more conventional maps. (Maps aren't just pretty pictures... there's a lot of data stored on them, but you need an accurate reference point to build the map around.)
Or they could just use their billions of dollars worth of satellites to do the same thing with even more precision or accuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the original intent of political correctness was to terrify military officers into obeying orders and never criticizing the administration for fear of imprisonment or death and that the term somehow got twisted into other uses.
They're not moving away from us faster than the speed of light exactly, rather, space is expanding in such a way that the light from some points will never reach other points unless space stops expanding.
We were talking about "the person who gave the most money to charity in the history of the world", which, in adjusted dollars, seems to be Rockefeller. In any case, I didn't say that Gates had anyone killed, I was simply pointing out a good example of how it's possible for someone to simultaneously donate a large amount to charity and also be self-serving.
Well, unless the universe does collapse someday, there should be parts of the universe that are being expanded away from us faster than the speed of light, which is also supposed to be the speed of gravity. We will never be able to observe those parts of the universe though.
Rockerfeller employed private armies who murdered striking workers and their supporters. There's a decent argument that he gave to charity for the same reason ancient kings had gigantic monuments erected to themselves.
But the door he went through was open for customers, not just employees. Maybe we should say that, instead of a store, it's a commercial venue like a museum or theme park, open for guided tours, but set up in such a way that just anyone can walk in. Or maybe trying to torture this into an analogy to actual, physical private property is a losing proposition.
An old-fashioned oil boom.
Don't fall too much in love with booms. Let's not ignore that the other end of any such boom is a bust. Entire towns, or even cities can spring up and, perhaps within a decade, end up as ghost towns when the jobs vanish along with the resource. It also doesn't have anything to do with socialism vs capitalism. When a natural resource is exploited and people are needed to do the work, jobs are created regardless of what system you're working under.
Midnight deadlines have always required that the banks either accept or reject a transfer of funds by the deadline. They certainly will go after you for any large sum of money, but they're not supposed to make the mistake in the first place.
But it isn't. You might be able to argue that there are lots of doors, each intended for a different member of the public, but it's not the staff only door.
I made no claim there except that, if it's analogous to a door, it's to the door of a business open to the public rather than a private residence.
When you look at how law is actually practiced, all grandiose legal principles end up looking like myths. The reality of any large bank error in anyone's favor is and probably has always been that they will be intimidated into returning the money under threats of criminal charges and massive civil lawsuits. The view that banks take is that, if you make an error, you need to be punished for it with fees and, if they make an error, you need to be punished with fees, although they will be generous and waive the fees provided you don't require them to admit any fault.
In the US, it's traditionally supposed to be the bank's job and responsibility to make sure they don't make those kinds of errors. If they accidentally put $50,000 in your account and don't fix it by the midnight deadline, then it's supposed to be yours regardless of whether you think it was yours to begin with or if you know it's a bank error. It's all part of fiduciary responsibility. The bank isn't supposed to make mistakes. If they're making mistakes in people's favor, then they're surely making mistakes that harm people too.
Naturally this has all eroded over time.
Once upon a time, banks had a certain amount of time to catch and correct bank errors in your favor and, if they didn't do it before the deadline, the money was yours. The reasoning behind this should be obvious: the bank shouldn't be making those kinds of mistakes and, if they do, the losses should be theirs. We seem to have crept further and further away from that ideal. "Personal responsibility" is still strongly preached, but it only applies to peons. Large institutions are given almost infinite opportunity to correct their mistakes and forgiveness if they're unable to.
This demonstrates the problem with strict liability laws. In the scenario you're putting forward, delivering the money to the police is pretty absolute proof of benevolent intent, but the authorities seem to seldom see it that way. Let's say, instead of a bank vault, it's an ATM in a shady part of town and it malfunctions as you walk by and starts dispensing money. What will the honest person do in this situation? What will the dishonest person do? In that scenario, the honest realist knows that their best bet is to walk by and act like they've seen nothing and not even report it. The honest person who gathers the money and brings it to the authorities, or who even tries to contact the authorities may well face prosecution or at least suspicion.
If the door in question is the main entrance of a store with no signs posted restricting entry, then it's a little different from walking into a private residence.
Instead, he ran it for a week (or however long it took).
A week? For 114,000 e-mail addresses from the servers of a large company? Clearly there would have been more to each dump than just the 25 or so bytes for a single e-mail address, but it still seems like it shouldn't have taken more than an hour or so.
But think of what would happen if enough people actually did this... All the power plants and substations that would blow up as a large part of the electrical load abruptly vanished... All of the consumer electrical equipment damaged from the spikes. All the house fires. Hmmm, this actually may not be such a great idea.
Pre-Columbian North America had plenty of non-nomadic city dwellers with no need to drag anvils around with them after buffalo. The more likely explanation is that, compared to working with copper, working iron is hard with no immediately obvious benefit. Steel is great, but if you don't already know how to produce and work steel, all you end up with is brittle black iron that isn't any better than a chunk of rock. Even if you do know how to work it, you have to take care of it once you've produced it. It's the sort of thing that, unless you put in a lot of work and experimentation, looks a lot like a dead end.
"They" are an entity, composed of many individuals, many of whom may not care about any of that since they're on a salary or hourly wage while millions of dollars flow by, just out of reach. It's seems pretty obvious in this article that there was a casino insider providing access to the CCTV feed. The question is one of how common this is.
It's still a hidden cost to the product they're producing, however. In this case, the cost is on the back end when the supply runs out well before it otherwise would have.
I'm curious why that would be the case? I mean, maybe back in the days when spy satellites actually dropped film canisters back to Earth to be developed, but this is the 21st century. They're able to know with amazing accuracy and precision the position, rotation and direction of satellites or GPS wouldn't be possible in the first place. It's still hard to figure out from that exactly where the camera is pointing without independent corroboration, sure, except that these satellites don't have to act alone and they surely don't just take pictures. For one thing, they're surely used for signals intelligence as well. If they're doing that, anything stationary that's sending out any sort of signal can be triangulated, probably very accurately, and give a control point. That isn't really necessary though since these satellites are almost certainly equipped with RADAR and/or LIDAR. That should provide position information as good as, or better than, a ground based GPS receiver.
They get "free" oil (according to BP's accounting) gifted to them from the Alaskan and US governments (depending on where it comes out of the ground).
Let's not forget all that they're allowed to squander in pursuit of short-term profits. Take the fracking operations in North Dakota that glow as bright as a large city when seen from space due to all the gas they're flaring off. The waste of usable resources is tremendous, quite aside from the pollution.
Well, he certainly did distance himself from it. From what I can find, there wasn't much of a mea culpa in his refutations. He seems to be more prone to say that his mistake happened because he was "too clever by far" (not an exact quote, but it was something like that), or to vaguely imply that it was never really his theory, even though he wrote the book. I mean, it's not as if he didn't write _two_ books about it. One predicting what was going to happen when the planets aligned, then another book explaining that their prediction had come true, even though it appeared it happened. It turns out that the eruption of Mount St Helens, which happened before the alignment, was caused by it.
Now, this was 30 years ago, but it's still relevant when the same person is making extraordinary, poorly supported claims. Right now it's all just speculation, in any case. We're just going to have to wait until we can actually get real data on Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone.
I read the excerpts available for it from google books. From what I could see, the author doesn't believe in footnotes/endnotes/references/etc., but rather in making authoritative-sounding speculative statements. I'm not going to go out and read an entire book, which just doesn't impress me that much, just to find out the mystery of why a supernova must occur within 1 light year of a star within a 1 million year window in order for it to have any radioactive elements at its core. We're not just talking about a supernova triggering the initial formation of the sun, are we? In any case, it doesn't change the fact that a planet will have plenty of core heat for a very long time even without radioactive elements, especially if it's larger than Earth.
That being said, even civilian grade GPS is good enough to create a control point to update satellite based maps. There's not a doubt in my mind that the CIA has been doing so globally, using small (possibly military grade) handhelds to mark important points and then using that information to update more conventional maps. (Maps aren't just pretty pictures... there's a lot of data stored on them, but you need an accurate reference point to build the map around.)
Or they could just use their billions of dollars worth of satellites to do the same thing with even more precision or accuracy.