No, the Korean War was essentially a proxy war between China & USSR and the US. In fact, China had fully planned to invade Taiwan at the time, but had to cancel it and shift all of those troops to bail out North Korea before they disappeared entirely. If it hadn't been for the UN action in Korea, China/USSR/NK probably would have dominated a large part of Asia in the cold war...
No, *observations* are based on facts (e.g. he described an anecdote in the interview, he was at a new ski resort, NK citizens are some of the most oppressed in the world and just went through a horrible famine, and he didn't mention anything about this or the massive numbers of NK human rights violations even though it was a big controversy during Rodman's trip).
*Opinions* can be based on bias or cynicism. Though in this case the metaphor of workers being injured while the elites play is such a great metaphor for the NK class hypocrisy it mostly just wrote itself.
DPRK is more like a Nazi Germany who never tried to invade Poland and just focused on running Germany. The DPRKs atrocities are in the past, they're still doing massive horrible repression, but they've purged all the people they want to purge so the sense of urgency is gone.
They did try. Ever hear of the Korean War? The difference is they were smacked down for it before they could get very far. It would be like the rest of the world coming in and smacking down Germany as soon as they thought about annexing Austria.
In a similar way, medical scientists study the effects of people's habits, for example, what happens to people who smoke, who run, who work in coal mines, who eat only vegetables, etc. etc.
Except it *is* unethical if the scientists know that the activity is harmful, they might be able to help, and they lie or don't mention the risks (see, Tuskegee Experiment). Or at least if it happened in the past and they feel like they need to use the data, to state disagreement/disgust with how it was collected (see, Axis WWII human experimentation).
But this guy hasn't made any statements against the practices of the North Korean government because he doesn't want to lose his access. And THAT is as good as condoning it (actually, it's pretty much the definition of condoning it).
There was an entire anecdote attempting to describe how nice the citizens were by risking their lives to prevent him from flying off of a cliff while he was having fun sledding. But of course he completely misses the irony that he and the rest of the North Korean elite were enjoying a newly build *ski resort* (quite literally "trampling" the workers in the process) while a significant portion of the population is near-starving, and any citizen who points that fact out is sent to a forced labor camp. If that isn't a perfect metaphor for the North Korean situation I don't know what is.
And of course he makes no mention whatsoever of Kim Jong Un or any of this colossal waste of the little resources NK has because he doesn't want to jeopardize his future fun...
If someone interviewing you for a typical tech job (who you are likely to eventually work with at the company) intentionally tries to make you angry in an interview, that seems to be a pretty big red flag right there.
I remember an interview at eBay once where the "lead architect" of the group was a total dick (the other 3-4 people I talked with were fine). When the HR guy asked me at the end of the interviews how it went, I just told him "it doesn't really matter, because I'm pretty sure I could never work with X, so this is pretty much as far as we need to go." Didn't hurt that the work sounded horribly boring...
It's a LOT more rare than you state. But there have been a few cases in the US in the last century that are possible/likely.
How about this to make overzealous prosecuters/judges think: if a person is executed but later found to be innocent, than the prosecutor/judge/jury who tried/sentenced him are themselves guilty of murder (or even just felony manslaughter). So, you better be DAMN well sure of yourself before you advocate for killing another human being.
Speeding the appeals process will result in more innocent people being executed (ie. murdered). RIght now the process is very expensive and drawn out, but dozens of innocent people have been released before being killed, and (as far as we know) only a few likely executed.
What's your acceptable cost not to kill an innocent person?
The financial argument is bogus, since it costs MUCH more to imprison, handle appeals for decades, and then kill a death row inmate than just imprisoning him for life.
Of course, if you just got it over with quickly and didn't bother with all of the automatic appeals it would be a lot cheaper. But that process is the reason dozens of wrongfully convicted inmates were not also wrongfully executed, and there are only a few known cases in the US in the last century where it's possible/likely that an innocent person was executed. What's it worth not to murder an innocent person? Most non-sociopaths would say a LOT.
Seriously, did NO ONE ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE? You are like the 10th person saying the same thing that was not only answered by TFA, it was the whole point of this exercise.
They used to do exactly what you guys were saying, and use the same drugs that are used in general anesthesia. But for whatever reason US companies willing to sell them to prisons don't make them and the European countries that do have banned the sale. So they tried something they could get, and there you go...
I think part of the problem of deterrence is that capital punishment in the US is only for crimes that are so heinous the no one in their right minds would do it in the first place (and even then usually only with special circumstances and years/decades of appeals). If people were executed for less serious crimes I would imagine it would be a very strong deterrent. Would someone still steal a car or shoplift if they knew they'd be executed if caught? Probably not as often...
Not saying I'd like to live in that society, but it *would* be a much more effective deterrent.
Yeah, that was the whole point of why they had to change the drugs:
The new drugs were used because European-based manufacturers banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions — among them, Danish-based Lundbeck, which manufactures pentobarbital (pentobarbital being the "general anesthetic in general surgeries").
An old post on that exact topic was even referenced in TFA, but to provide it again
Honestly, I don't see why they just don't go back to the good ol' guillotine. Certainly much quicker and more humane than 10 minutes of gasping. And if it's not "perfectly humane"? Well, neither was the rape and murder of a 22 year old woman.
That's all pure marketing speak. Netflix can't even do 1080p video at any reasonable quality, so what makes you think they will be a "leading provider" of 4k?
And have you actually *done* any A/B comparisons of 1080p vs 4k on various content at common viewing distances? And more so have you seen 1080p w/ standard vs. HDR color ranges? It BLOWS AWAY 4k resolution for most content. Especially since at the average 10' distance of most home TVs you'd need to have something 80" or more to even notice a difference from 4k.
The manufacturers are pushing 4k like they pushed 3D - because it was cheap to implement and easy to explain. But if you really want better quality, you want HDR color depth, which unfortunately for the CE companies is harder to build and explain to relatively clueless consumers...
Yes, they are. The simulators can have the same HUD as the real thing. That, and the HUD is designed specifically to be used in the few situations it's actually needed on a plane (mostly on approach and landing). A HUD *designed* for a car that just shows the speed, etc, would be fine, and exists in some models. One that shows you your friends' latest Facebooks posts and your dinner shopping list is NOT.
And to be honest, a commercial airline pilot is lucky (or unlucky, really) to have to make more than a few quick decisions in his entire CAREER. And that's for someone with thousands of hours of required training for one task. On the other hand, the average driver has to do it multiple times a day, and the minimum requirements for a drivers license (in the US, at least) are terrifyingly low.
Right now, there is NO advantage to WebM or VP8 over h.264. The only reason to choose it is purely philosophical, especially since it's inferiority.
No, if you want to push an open standard, you go to prove its superiority. Why do you think Google has basically abandoned VP8 (which is a crap unimplementable standard) and pushing hard for VP9? Because the next-generation codec war has just begun. And it's between h.265 and VP9.
h.264 war is lost - there is too much entrenched.
This is probably the best point I have seen so far.
H.264 hardware support has been in most SoCs (system on a chip) built into set tops and mobile devices in the last 6+ years. The fight for this generation is in fact over.
H.265 is already planned to go into 2015 devices (TVs and BD players) in order to support upcoming features like 4k and HDR - but, there is still a chance to get VP9, etc in there. And the savings, even if $1 per unit, would be enough to get companies like Google (Chromecast) or Roku (which doesn't support Dolby Digital because they don't want to pay the license fee) very interested. And in the end if a hardware manufacturer sells enough devices, the streaming services will do what it takes (including transcoding to other formats) to support them.
What are they issuing warrants on, if no one has been charged with a crime? That in itself is a Constitutional violation.
No, it's not. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires someone be charged with a crime to issue a warrant. It just requires probable cause and the place/thing s to be searched or seized.
I don't think most people here necessarily disagree with your outrage, but none of your points have had any significant basis in Constitutional law so far. Less emotion and more logic required to win over this crowd:)
And before you mention probably cause again the real issue is NOT that there is no probable cause or that there are specifics mentioned in the warrant - you can't argue that because that's the whole point, it's classified, so of course you have no idea what they contain. And THAT, in fact, IS the real issue: no one except the FISA court can even debate the Constitutionality of the warrants since they are the only ones who get to see them. And unfortunately there is nothing in the Constitution that says the warrants have to be public, so right now it's all up to the procedure/policy of those who issue the warrants (the Executive branch) and those who grant them.
Then again - we the people can modify the Constitution with enough support if people *really* care, we should change it rather than just debating things that aren't currently in it...
I don't think "enjoying" is something they can easily determined in honeybees or birds. They basically hypothesized that choices can be made based on future availability rather than just current state (i.e. "wow, animals can think!").
Or to put it in your terms: even if you didn't particularly like Twinkies, you may have hoarded them right before Hostess went bankrupt since you didn't know if you'd ever get another chance.
There probably are no examples. But his point that Corporations don't exist in a free market is still valid.
No, it's really not. You guys need to brush up on your economics if you are going to keep throwing around "free market" as an *economic term*. A free market economy means basic supply and demand are controlled by the market, not regulated by a government. It has nothing to do with corporations per se, which were created as a form of limited *liability*.
And that friend pays no taxes on income or acquiring the equipment or raw materials to make the pots? (or I should say, is not required to pay taxes but tax evasion with the risk of fines or prison is still not a true "free market")
Oh, and someone literally just sends "cash" on craigslist? Bullshit. Probably Paypal or a check/money order/etc. Which are all also regulated in some way.
Slashdot Mirror
The Korean War was essentially a civil war.
No, the Korean War was essentially a proxy war between China & USSR and the US. In fact, China had fully planned to invade Taiwan at the time, but had to cancel it and shift all of those troops to bail out North Korea before they disappeared entirely. If it hadn't been for the UN action in Korea, China/USSR/NK probably would have dominated a large part of Asia in the cold war...
I'm also trying to understand exactly when "selling dolphins to theme parks" became a traditional local Japanese custom in the first place...
No, *observations* are based on facts (e.g. he described an anecdote in the interview, he was at a new ski resort, NK citizens are some of the most oppressed in the world and just went through a horrible famine, and he didn't mention anything about this or the massive numbers of NK human rights violations even though it was a big controversy during Rodman's trip).
*Opinions* can be based on bias or cynicism. Though in this case the metaphor of workers being injured while the elites play is such a great metaphor for the NK class hypocrisy it mostly just wrote itself.
DPRK is more like a Nazi Germany who never tried to invade Poland and just focused on running Germany. The DPRKs atrocities are in the past, they're still doing massive horrible repression, but they've purged all the people they want to purge so the sense of urgency is gone.
They did try. Ever hear of the Korean War? The difference is they were smacked down for it before they could get very far. It would be like the rest of the world coming in and smacking down Germany as soon as they thought about annexing Austria.
And to claim DPRK atrocities are "in the past" is ridiculous http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/north-korea
In a similar way, medical scientists study the effects of people's habits, for example, what happens to people who smoke, who run, who work in coal mines, who eat only vegetables, etc. etc.
Except it *is* unethical if the scientists know that the activity is harmful, they might be able to help, and they lie or don't mention the risks (see, Tuskegee Experiment). Or at least if it happened in the past and they feel like they need to use the data, to state disagreement/disgust with how it was collected (see, Axis WWII human experimentation).
But this guy hasn't made any statements against the practices of the North Korean government because he doesn't want to lose his access. And THAT is as good as condoning it (actually, it's pretty much the definition of condoning it).
I read the whole thing, and it absolutely does.
There was an entire anecdote attempting to describe how nice the citizens were by risking their lives to prevent him from flying off of a cliff while he was having fun sledding. But of course he completely misses the irony that he and the rest of the North Korean elite were enjoying a newly build *ski resort* (quite literally "trampling" the workers in the process) while a significant portion of the population is near-starving, and any citizen who points that fact out is sent to a forced labor camp. If that isn't a perfect metaphor for the North Korean situation I don't know what is.
And of course he makes no mention whatsoever of Kim Jong Un or any of this colossal waste of the little resources NK has because he doesn't want to jeopardize his future fun...
If someone interviewing you for a typical tech job (who you are likely to eventually work with at the company) intentionally tries to make you angry in an interview, that seems to be a pretty big red flag right there.
I remember an interview at eBay once where the "lead architect" of the group was a total dick (the other 3-4 people I talked with were fine). When the HR guy asked me at the end of the interviews how it went, I just told him "it doesn't really matter, because I'm pretty sure I could never work with X, so this is pretty much as far as we need to go." Didn't hurt that the work sounded horribly boring...
It's a LOT more rare than you state. But there have been a few cases in the US in the last century that are possible/likely.
How about this to make overzealous prosecuters/judges think: if a person is executed but later found to be innocent, than the prosecutor/judge/jury who tried/sentenced him are themselves guilty of murder (or even just felony manslaughter). So, you better be DAMN well sure of yourself before you advocate for killing another human being.
Speeding the appeals process will result in more innocent people being executed (ie. murdered). RIght now the process is very expensive and drawn out, but dozens of innocent people have been released before being killed, and (as far as we know) only a few likely executed.
What's your acceptable cost not to kill an innocent person?
The financial argument is bogus, since it costs MUCH more to imprison, handle appeals for decades, and then kill a death row inmate than just imprisoning him for life.
Of course, if you just got it over with quickly and didn't bother with all of the automatic appeals it would be a lot cheaper. But that process is the reason dozens of wrongfully convicted inmates were not also wrongfully executed, and there are only a few known cases in the US in the last century where it's possible/likely that an innocent person was executed. What's it worth not to murder an innocent person? Most non-sociopaths would say a LOT.
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?
Seriously, did NO ONE ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE? You are like the 10th person saying the same thing that was not only answered by TFA, it was the whole point of this exercise.
They used to do exactly what you guys were saying, and use the same drugs that are used in general anesthesia. But for whatever reason US companies willing to sell them to prisons don't make them and the European countries that do have banned the sale. So they tried something they could get, and there you go...
I think part of the problem of deterrence is that capital punishment in the US is only for crimes that are so heinous the no one in their right minds would do it in the first place (and even then usually only with special circumstances and years/decades of appeals). If people were executed for less serious crimes I would imagine it would be a very strong deterrent. Would someone still steal a car or shoplift if they knew they'd be executed if caught? Probably not as often...
Not saying I'd like to live in that society, but it *would* be a much more effective deterrent.
Yeah, that was the whole point of why they had to change the drugs:
The new drugs were used because European-based manufacturers banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions — among them, Danish-based Lundbeck, which manufactures pentobarbital (pentobarbital being the "general anesthetic in general surgeries").
An old post on that exact topic was even referenced in TFA, but to provide it again
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/10/25/1223203/us-executions-threaten-supply-of-anaesthetic-used-for-surgical-procedures
Honestly, I don't see why they just don't go back to the good ol' guillotine. Certainly much quicker and more humane than 10 minutes of gasping. And if it's not "perfectly humane"? Well, neither was the rape and murder of a 22 year old woman.
And often not even much on the chip - for a decent implementation it's mostly microcode running on the same hardware...
That's all pure marketing speak. Netflix can't even do 1080p video at any reasonable quality, so what makes you think they will be a "leading provider" of 4k?
And have you actually *done* any A/B comparisons of 1080p vs 4k on various content at common viewing distances? And more so have you seen 1080p w/ standard vs. HDR color ranges? It BLOWS AWAY 4k resolution for most content. Especially since at the average 10' distance of most home TVs you'd need to have something 80" or more to even notice a difference from 4k.
The manufacturers are pushing 4k like they pushed 3D - because it was cheap to implement and easy to explain. But if you really want better quality, you want HDR color depth, which unfortunately for the CE companies is harder to build and explain to relatively clueless consumers...
Yes, they are. The simulators can have the same HUD as the real thing. That, and the HUD is designed specifically to be used in the few situations it's actually needed on a plane (mostly on approach and landing). A HUD *designed* for a car that just shows the speed, etc, would be fine, and exists in some models. One that shows you your friends' latest Facebooks posts and your dinner shopping list is NOT.
And to be honest, a commercial airline pilot is lucky (or unlucky, really) to have to make more than a few quick decisions in his entire CAREER. And that's for someone with thousands of hours of required training for one task. On the other hand, the average driver has to do it multiple times a day, and the minimum requirements for a drivers license (in the US, at least) are terrifyingly low.
If your name isn't "Sarah Connor", you are not defending the future.
Right now, there is NO advantage to WebM or VP8 over h.264. The only reason to choose it is purely philosophical, especially since it's inferiority.
No, if you want to push an open standard, you go to prove its superiority. Why do you think Google has basically abandoned VP8 (which is a crap unimplementable standard) and pushing hard for VP9? Because the next-generation codec war has just begun. And it's between h.265 and VP9.
h.264 war is lost - there is too much entrenched.
This is probably the best point I have seen so far.
H.264 hardware support has been in most SoCs (system on a chip) built into set tops and mobile devices in the last 6+ years. The fight for this generation is in fact over.
H.265 is already planned to go into 2015 devices (TVs and BD players) in order to support upcoming features like 4k and HDR - but, there is still a chance to get VP9, etc in there. And the savings, even if $1 per unit, would be enough to get companies like Google (Chromecast) or Roku (which doesn't support Dolby Digital because they don't want to pay the license fee) very interested. And in the end if a hardware manufacturer sells enough devices, the streaming services will do what it takes (including transcoding to other formats) to support them.
Can't resist.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/519/368/cb9.jpg
What are they issuing warrants on, if no one has been charged with a crime? That in itself is a Constitutional violation.
No, it's not. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires someone be charged with a crime to issue a warrant. It just requires probable cause and the place/thing s to be searched or seized.
I don't think most people here necessarily disagree with your outrage, but none of your points have had any significant basis in Constitutional law so far. Less emotion and more logic required to win over this crowd :)
And before you mention probably cause again the real issue is NOT that there is no probable cause or that there are specifics mentioned in the warrant - you can't argue that because that's the whole point, it's classified, so of course you have no idea what they contain. And THAT, in fact, IS the real issue: no one except the FISA court can even debate the Constitutionality of the warrants since they are the only ones who get to see them. And unfortunately there is nothing in the Constitution that says the warrants have to be public, so right now it's all up to the procedure/policy of those who issue the warrants (the Executive branch) and those who grant them.
Then again - we the people can modify the Constitution with enough support if people *really* care, we should change it rather than just debating things that aren't currently in it...
Actually, that's an even worse example. Supply and demand is highly regulated by the de-facto government, ie. local warlords and extremist groups...
I don't think "enjoying" is something they can easily determined in honeybees or birds. They basically hypothesized that choices can be made based on future availability rather than just current state (i.e. "wow, animals can think!").
Or to put it in your terms: even if you didn't particularly like Twinkies, you may have hoarded them right before Hostess went bankrupt since you didn't know if you'd ever get another chance.
There probably are no examples. But his point that Corporations don't exist in a free market is still valid.
No, it's really not. You guys need to brush up on your economics if you are going to keep throwing around "free market" as an *economic term*. A free market economy means basic supply and demand are controlled by the market, not regulated by a government. It has nothing to do with corporations per se, which were created as a form of limited *liability*.
And that friend pays no taxes on income or acquiring the equipment or raw materials to make the pots? (or I should say, is not required to pay taxes but tax evasion with the risk of fines or prison is still not a true "free market")
Oh, and someone literally just sends "cash" on craigslist? Bullshit. Probably Paypal or a check/money order/etc. Which are all also regulated in some way.