No, but they are the price of access to the markets the consumers have protected politically.
If the free markets can not produce cheap commodities, then the risks inherent in free markets are of low utility to the general public, and there is therefore no reason to perpetuate them.
Difference being, FEMA was nowhere to be seen right after Katrina, while the Obama government was the first responder, here, and BP had to be dragged out of its hovel to see what it had done.
They didn't cap wells by blowing them up. They capped them by placing a valve over the pipe and bolting it in place.
The "blowing up" part was used to starve BURNING gushers of oxygen. And it doesn't always work.
This rig is no longer on fire, and detonating an explosive at the ocean floor is unlikely to do anything but shred the pipes, making it impossible to clamp them shut.
(Although, apropos of this, on Mythbusters this week (could be a rerun) they were trying to turn a propane grill tank into a bomb by standing it on top of another propane burner. When the tank finally burst, the expansion of the propane gas caused the burner to extinguish itself. Probably both the starvation from oxygen and the sudden evaporative cooling. They wanted a rocket. They got some pretty big chunks of shrapnel. What they didn't get was a huge fireball. Though if there'd been a source of sparks a few meters away, they would have rediscovered the fuel-air explosive, and probably blown chunks out of the little concrete shack they were standing in down the road.)
No, it's their insatiable thirst for profits that causes them to cut costs that would have them do it in a way that doesn't turn accidents into environmental disasters. If the motivation were indeed our thirst for oil, they would easily justify the safety mechanisms, knowing that they could make us pay for them without losing a bit of profit margin. Instead, they decide to raise the price AND lower the cost, and pocket the extra.
No, I'm pretty sure I said "don't drill in the ocean, unless you're going to use easily-available methods to ensure that if the rig sinks the pipes can be shut off at the ocean bottom".
BP apparently interpreted this as, "drill, but put a tinkertoy valve down there so as not to have to pay for something that works."
So no, I am not complicit in the oil spill.
Meanwhile, you were probably howling that we were driving up the cost of oil and interfering in private business and by extension socializing the economy by even requiring a safety mechanism of that sort.
So you, not I, are the one who is complicit in the oil spill.
Your verbal assurance at the store wasn't enough to give them proof you'd never sue, and as long as there was a chance you'd sue, there was a chance it would cost them a cartload more than the sum they were offering you.
I'm actually somewhat puzzled that they didn't have you sign a hold-harmless agreement after one of those phone calls. Though I'm also heartened that they didn't lead with a demand that you sign a hold-harmless before making the offers.
If both sides agree on a fact, they can "stipulate" to it, then the judge informs the jury as to what has been stipulated. Minutes, instead of days, and all the same force of evidence. Detail should be presented only where there's a question from either side.
So I'm not really sure what was happening in the case you were on.
Possibly the defense refused to stipulate hoping that during the trial the prosecution would leave holes, which the defense could then use either in the defense or in an appeal. Or maybe in the case of homicide the rules for those things are different (likely; homicide carries the death penalty in a lot of places, and that brings in a gigantic body of case law having to do with procedure and due process, because nobody likes to be hanged without exhausting every longshot appeal).
They should have two networks. One with security on it, and the other open to the Internet for all to use, with open wi-fi access.
Are they imposing this encryption on patients' computing devices as well? Do they even provide Internet access to patients? If they don't, they are pretty much acting like a prison rather than a hospital. The worst part of being in the hospital is being alone. BT, DT, and the depression from being cut off from most of my friends was much worse than the disease I had.
So if they don't already have a two-tiered security structure, but they're going through the effort of imposing full-lockdown security, they've put the cart before the horse.
Legally, yes. He should have followed the law, even if he had stupid bosses.
Your ethical exaggeration is unnecessary. When you actually read all of the facts of this case, if you ever get access to them, you will most likely discover that it wasn't close to a question of ethics. The vote was unanimous (after they threw the crazy person out).
No, it's about sending someone to prison over not giving up control of valuable government resources when relieved of authority over them. The fact that it can be reduced to "password" and "boss" doesn't reduce the need to apply that law forcefully.
If you don't get that, watch Dr. Strangelove again.
I don't recall ever being overwhelmed when disagreeing wtih the prevailing misconception. But then, I don't give a shit what people who are wrong think. And I think that's a right way to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Cheap commodities are not a right.
No, but they are the price of access to the markets the consumers have protected politically.
If the free markets can not produce cheap commodities, then the risks inherent in free markets are of low utility to the general public, and there is therefore no reason to perpetuate them.
Yes. As they accumulate over 3-4 years, they lead to 20 years of depression in Europe, and nuclear explosions in Japan.
Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Difference being, FEMA was nowhere to be seen right after Katrina, while the Obama government was the first responder, here, and BP had to be dragged out of its hovel to see what it had done.
I.e., Blanco was right, Jindal is wrong.
(bulging eyes)
Seriously?
You didn't even pay attention to that movie.
They didn't cap wells by blowing them up. They capped them by placing a valve over the pipe and bolting it in place.
The "blowing up" part was used to starve BURNING gushers of oxygen. And it doesn't always work.
This rig is no longer on fire, and detonating an explosive at the ocean floor is unlikely to do anything but shred the pipes, making it impossible to clamp them shut.
(Although, apropos of this, on Mythbusters this week (could be a rerun) they were trying to turn a propane grill tank into a bomb by standing it on top of another propane burner. When the tank finally burst, the expansion of the propane gas caused the burner to extinguish itself. Probably both the starvation from oxygen and the sudden evaporative cooling. They wanted a rocket. They got some pretty big chunks of shrapnel. What they didn't get was a huge fireball. Though if there'd been a source of sparks a few meters away, they would have rediscovered the fuel-air explosive, and probably blown chunks out of the little concrete shack they were standing in down the road.)
It's far more likely that the oil companies will take over the governments.
Check that. It's far more likely it has already happened.
Oil is an artificially supply-constrained commodity.
The price will move at the whim of the producers, and there isn't the tiniest bit of difference a consumer can make in it.
No, it's their insatiable thirst for profits that causes them to cut costs that would have them do it in a way that doesn't turn accidents into environmental disasters. If the motivation were indeed our thirst for oil, they would easily justify the safety mechanisms, knowing that they could make us pay for them without losing a bit of profit margin. Instead, they decide to raise the price AND lower the cost, and pocket the extra.
you're complicit in the oil spill
No, I'm pretty sure I said "don't drill in the ocean, unless you're going to use easily-available methods to ensure that if the rig sinks the pipes can be shut off at the ocean bottom".
BP apparently interpreted this as, "drill, but put a tinkertoy valve down there so as not to have to pay for something that works."
So no, I am not complicit in the oil spill.
Meanwhile, you were probably howling that we were driving up the cost of oil and interfering in private business and by extension socializing the economy by even requiring a safety mechanism of that sort.
So you, not I, are the one who is complicit in the oil spill.
If New Jersey weren't on the leeward coast of America, we'd have shut it down decades ago.
This is the only museum I have ever seen where they hide works, and only those that climb to the right places are rewarded with a glimpse.
Ever been geocaching?
Your verbal assurance at the store wasn't enough to give them proof you'd never sue, and as long as there was a chance you'd sue, there was a chance it would cost them a cartload more than the sum they were offering you.
I'm actually somewhat puzzled that they didn't have you sign a hold-harmless agreement after one of those phone calls. Though I'm also heartened that they didn't lead with a demand that you sign a hold-harmless before making the offers.
But...but computers are supposed to be perfect!
Your marklar is well marklar.
If both sides agree on a fact, they can "stipulate" to it, then the judge informs the jury as to what has been stipulated. Minutes, instead of days, and all the same force of evidence. Detail should be presented only where there's a question from either side.
So I'm not really sure what was happening in the case you were on.
Possibly the defense refused to stipulate hoping that during the trial the prosecution would leave holes, which the defense could then use either in the defense or in an appeal. Or maybe in the case of homicide the rules for those things are different (likely; homicide carries the death penalty in a lot of places, and that brings in a gigantic body of case law having to do with procedure and due process, because nobody likes to be hanged without exhausting every longshot appeal).
They should have two networks. One with security on it, and the other open to the Internet for all to use, with open wi-fi access.
Are they imposing this encryption on patients' computing devices as well? Do they even provide Internet access to patients? If they don't, they are pretty much acting like a prison rather than a hospital. The worst part of being in the hospital is being alone. BT, DT, and the depression from being cut off from most of my friends was much worse than the disease I had.
So if they don't already have a two-tiered security structure, but they're going through the effort of imposing full-lockdown security, they've put the cart before the horse.
There are advantages to being bipedal, hence why humans and birds are.
You get an 'F' in Evolution.
The correct answer is:
There are no disadvantages to being bipedal that were fatal to the first generation exhibiting the mutuation.
You got a $2 billion budget for that? Huh, sunshine?
yup. fluently.
and over 5,999,999 other forms of communication
Legally, yes. He should have followed the law, even if he had stupid bosses.
Your ethical exaggeration is unnecessary. When you actually read all of the facts of this case, if you ever get access to them, you will most likely discover that it wasn't close to a question of ethics. The vote was unanimous (after they threw the crazy person out).
Little petty tyrant wannabe. ...and the /.'ers who wannabe him...
They even tend to reject people from jury pools if they happen to have a relevant clue.
No. I've tried that one before. You can't be "too smart to be on the jury".
I've never taken a city's network hostage and then tried to flee the state.
Nobody but Terry Childs has.
That's why it's news.
No, it's about sending someone to prison over not giving up control of valuable government resources when relieved of authority over them. The fact that it can be reduced to "password" and "boss" doesn't reduce the need to apply that law forcefully.
If you don't get that, watch Dr. Strangelove again.
I don't recall ever being overwhelmed when disagreeing wtih the prevailing misconception. But then, I don't give a shit what people who are wrong think. And I think that's a right way to be.