One of the weakest points in the Doctor Who movie was the notion that the Daleks would have anything we might call a criminal justice system.
But it would be interesting to see the Daleks in a marginal situation where they have to start co-operating with other races - hating every minute of it - and perhaps observing the Shadow Proclamation, with the Doctor and the Daleks each grudgingly respecting each other's legal rights, at least while others are watching.
What I see happening with the current season is not so much that the overall story is good or bad, but that the writers have raised the stakes and taken much bigger risks. There are unresolved mysteries going back a season and a half. That could mean that there is a very big dramatic payoff coming, or it could mean that the writers screwed up a season and a half ago and don't even realize it.
Cheating is not victimless. If an unsuitable candidate gets into medical school and later drops out, the education system will be out a huge amount of money, and if there are student loans which go into default, there will be even more money lost that might be difficult or impossible to recover. That's without even considering the opportunity cost for a better candidate who won't be admitted because the cheater took up a seat.
"female desire requires multiple stimuli... in quick succession."
No, it requires it dragged out for as long as possible, to demonstrate that the male has resources (including time) to spare. Hence the plots of romance novels/chick flicks typically revolve around pointless hesitation and inefficiency.
What this is showing is that religious imagery triggers the same areas of the brain as tribal-based loyalty between otherwise highly similar versions of the same product, not the other way around. (In the case of religion, the 'brand' is the set of metaphors for the identical features of human nature.)
Humans (at least children) are very much programmed to invent language, and there are documented examples of just that.
What the robots are doing is:
1) Very, very impressive and very, very cool, but
2) Still vastly different from what human language does, and perhaps not even on the right track with respect to the human language faculty. Humans use language to model reality and only then communicate (i.e. share their mental model), and humans can also model things without direct sensory perception (e.g. the predator hiding behind the bush) or even things which don't exist at all.
The terrorist presumably do not care about the US becoming totalitarian, but they are likely quite pleased in general with the US engaging in paranoid self-destructive behaviour which is, with rare exceptions, ineffective at impeding the terrorists' actual goals.
Specifically, the disgraceful and hypocritical double standard that Americans have about freedom and the effort they put into suppressing the freedom of others.
So why is it that Americans think that freedoms are theirs and no-one else's?
Not everything is a matter of what is or isn't legally enforceable. The injunction makes a statement that disclosing the information is unfair to the people already victimized by the situation and just plain wrong.
That's the judge's opinion and not an absolute truth, but coming from a professional judge representing the community at large who has first-hand information on the subject matter, people are on notice that they're anti-social jerks if they defy the order without some kind of compelling reason. Note: making the point that the technology can't be stopped is not a compelling reason.
This can vary enormously between employers. In some places, HR supports existing employees only, and their only connection with recruitment is that HR is where unsolicited resumes end up. In others, HR supports other departments by running the whole process of hiring new employees. And everything in between.
I find where HR can do a lot of harm in technology is that HR tries to hire people who will create the least amount of work for HR people, which means they are biased against people with any kind of creativity, which is exactly who you want to hire in a field such as programming.
One of the factors that often gets missed in these kinds of simulations is that fact that in the real world humans (and other social animals) don't know with absolute certainty how closely related other members of the species are to them, and therefore make estimates of actual and virtual kin relationships based on familiarity, appearance, demonstrations of shared customs, and in the case of humans even common ideology.
The problem with the Roswell folklore has always been that the story completely went away until the point in time when, coincidentally, the actual witnesses had died of old age.
"we had airliners for 30+ years before someone thought to use them as a weapon"...and was successful in the attempt.
Once upon a time there were hijackers who were refused a refuelling because they already had enough fuel for their alleged destination (Paris from North Africa) and the authorities saw through what they were trying.
The Bloc Quebecois stands for selling out to the Quebec separatists. The NDP stands for selling out to special interest groups. The Conservatives stand for selling out to the Americans. The Liberals stand for selling out to the Liberal Party.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the 'walk' aspect of the Walkman was too subtle for them?
That's how every central bank works. The ones creating private sector debt do so by choice.
"their relationship to the boundary line of the intersection"
How much more context do you need?
Obama is interested in *short-term* stability.
Actual democracy would be the key to long-term stability.
One of the weakest points in the Doctor Who movie was the notion that the Daleks would have anything we might call a criminal justice system.
But it would be interesting to see the Daleks in a marginal situation where they have to start co-operating with other races - hating every minute of it - and perhaps observing the Shadow Proclamation, with the Doctor and the Daleks each grudgingly respecting each other's legal rights, at least while others are watching.
What I see happening with the current season is not so much that the overall story is good or bad, but that the writers have raised the stakes and taken much bigger risks. There are unresolved mysteries going back a season and a half. That could mean that there is a very big dramatic payoff coming, or it could mean that the writers screwed up a season and a half ago and don't even realize it.
Cheating is not victimless. If an unsuitable candidate gets into medical school and later drops out, the education system will be out a huge amount of money, and if there are student loans which go into default, there will be even more money lost that might be difficult or impossible to recover. That's without even considering the opportunity cost for a better candidate who won't be admitted because the cheater took up a seat.
Campus security is not limited to criminal justice.
"female desire requires multiple stimuli... in quick succession."
No, it requires it dragged out for as long as possible, to demonstrate that the male has resources (including time) to spare. Hence the plots of romance novels/chick flicks typically revolve around pointless hesitation and inefficiency.
What this is showing is that religious imagery triggers the same areas of the brain as tribal-based loyalty between otherwise highly similar versions of the same product, not the other way around. (In the case of religion, the 'brand' is the set of metaphors for the identical features of human nature.)
Humans (at least children) are very much programmed to invent language, and there are documented examples of just that.
What the robots are doing is:
1) Very, very impressive and very, very cool, but
2) Still vastly different from what human language does, and perhaps not even on the right track with respect to the human language faculty. Humans use language to model reality and only then communicate (i.e. share their mental model), and humans can also model things without direct sensory perception (e.g. the predator hiding behind the bush) or even things which don't exist at all.
Of course it was paid back. The point of money-laundering is to destroy the paper trail of the larceny that had already happened.
The terrorist presumably do not care about the US becoming totalitarian, but they are likely quite pleased in general with the US engaging in paranoid self-destructive behaviour which is, with rare exceptions, ineffective at impeding the terrorists' actual goals.
"they hate us for our freedom" is actually true.
Specifically, the disgraceful and hypocritical double standard that Americans have about freedom and the effort they put into suppressing the freedom of others.
So why is it that Americans think that freedoms are theirs and no-one else's?
People are judged on their actions in a way that the tide is not.
Not everything is a matter of what is or isn't legally enforceable. The injunction makes a statement that disclosing the information is unfair to the people already victimized by the situation and just plain wrong.
That's the judge's opinion and not an absolute truth, but coming from a professional judge representing the community at large who has first-hand information on the subject matter, people are on notice that they're anti-social jerks if they defy the order without some kind of compelling reason. Note: making the point that the technology can't be stopped is not a compelling reason.
This can vary enormously between employers. In some places, HR supports existing employees only, and their only connection with recruitment is that HR is where unsolicited resumes end up. In others, HR supports other departments by running the whole process of hiring new employees. And everything in between.
I find where HR can do a lot of harm in technology is that HR tries to hire people who will create the least amount of work for HR people, which means they are biased against people with any kind of creativity, which is exactly who you want to hire in a field such as programming.
One of the factors that often gets missed in these kinds of simulations is that fact that in the real world humans (and other social animals) don't know with absolute certainty how closely related other members of the species are to them, and therefore make estimates of actual and virtual kin relationships based on familiarity, appearance, demonstrations of shared customs, and in the case of humans even common ideology.
I think it was the 'worshipping' part that was the objection.
"In fact, the only method certain to work."
That and nuking the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
"heavy BSM" makes me think "Bowling Spaghetti Monster", but I'm guessing it's actually some physicist jargon.
The problem with the Roswell folklore has always been that the story completely went away until the point in time when, coincidentally, the actual witnesses had died of old age.
"we had airliners for 30+ years before someone thought to use them as a weapon" ...and was successful in the attempt.
Once upon a time there were hijackers who were refused a refuelling because they already had enough fuel for their alleged destination (Paris from North Africa) and the authorities saw through what they were trying.
The Bloc Quebecois stands for selling out to the Quebec separatists.
The NDP stands for selling out to special interest groups.
The Conservatives stand for selling out to the Americans.
The Liberals stand for selling out to the Liberal Party.
It's really not a wholesale versus retail issue.
God is just as real as any other metaphor. What does that have to do with science?