To be fair, the red line does stop at Brookland/CUA and Rhode Island which are pretty bad neighborhood, although certainly not as bad as some of the neighborhoods around Anacostia..
So, it could be the case that if you start at Silver Spring, life expectancy does drop 2 years at every stop (Takoma Park, Fort Totten, Brookland/CUA, Rhode Island) until you get to downtown proper.
So I shouldn't just hook up one tabletj's HDMI out to the television. Rather I should hook one up for every member of the family leading to a veritable hydra of devices attached to 50 foot cables all over the living room. If that's the sort of thing that the/typical//. commenter is wont to do, I don't think that I'm in the pool of typical/. commenters.
Moreover, you didn't address the multi-tasking concern. How many tablets have the horsepower to spit out streamed HD video/and/ browse the web at the same time?
Don't believe me? Go look the OED entry for "out" as a transitive verb. Look at the historical section. Notice the entries spanning from the 14th century up through to the present day.
The word "out" has been documented as being used as a transitive verb since the 14th century. Moreover, it is a derivative of a Middle English word (owte) which is derived from an Old English word (utian) which is also well documented as being used as a transitive verb.
It's oldest meaning as a verb? To reveal something previously hidden.
So "outing" someone is only a very slight adaption of a very old usage.
Good grief, what do they teach kids at the university these days?!
I don't know about your setup but if I connected my tablet to my TV, I'd have a hard time using my tablet as a remote while sitting on my couch.
Not to mention the whole multi-tasking issue. How many tablets have the horsepower to display HD streaming content to the TV while browsing the web? Or, if one of my kids is playing angry birds on the tablet, I have to interupt everytime I want to change the channel.
It has been in documented use in the English language since the 14th century and most probably was in use prior to that because "out" is the equivalent of in Old English utian which was often used as a transitive verb.
The problem with saying that is ever since the US Constitution was adopted, the US has had a big-F Federalist government. So whatever trade happened over 200 years ago.
In most of the world, federalism is a political idea where a relatively weak central government helps a federation of more or less independent states govern themselves. Many of the Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, etc.) were federalists of this sort but generally referred to themselves as Republicans or as Anti-federalists.
During early American period advocates of a strong federal government (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington -by the end of his second term anyway, etc.) adopted the name Federalists to descrbe themselves. So in the US, use of the word 'Federalism' tends to mean the opposite of what it does in other contexts.
For a great read, look up the July 29, 1792 letter from George Washington to Alexander Hamilton in which Washington recounts the complaints he's heard from Republicans against the Federalists. The complaints are largely identical to Tea Party complaints of today right down to having problems with a strong central bank, exercise of executive power, and onerous taxes. Mind, you, Washington wasn't the one/making/ these complaints. Rather, he was itemizing them in order to find out how Hamilton would respond to them. Most likely they came straight from Thomas Jefferson.
The way you say that you want what the Federalists wanted and then put Jefferson and Madison in the camp of the Federalists cracks me up. While Madison was a Federalist early on (and helped Hamilton write the Federalists Papers), by the time the Constiitution was ratified, he was was agreeing with Jefferson on almost every issue and staunchly opposed the Federalists. The root of this dispute was largely over the centralization of the government. The Federalists favored a strong federal government. The anti-Federalist groups (like the Republicans that later formed into the Demoratic-Republican clubs which are not to be confused with the party of Lincoln) thought that a strong central government was doomed to end in tyrrany. The anti-Federalists lost that battle with the ratification of the US Constitution. They lost it again during Washington's presidency. By the time Jefferson was elected president, Federalist doctrine was so par for the course, that you'd be hard pressed to show the difference between his term and what the Federalists supported.
The Anti-federalists lost again in the US Civil War. The so-called states' rights movement was really just a replay of the same old debate, except with guns and bayonets instead of broadsides and pamphlets. Lincon's Republican Party put a strong union headed by a powerful centralized government at the center of their platform.
1. I think you mean to say that no one has/publicly/ proven that Iran has a military nuclear program. Many intelligence agencies have argued that they do have a military program but refuse to make the evidence public for security reasons. That alone doesn't raise my dander much. But what has been publicly demonstrated is that Iran is not in compliance with its obligations under the NPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty) which is quite odd if they don't have a miliary program.
(Also, their construction of power plants is really neither here nor there to whether or not they have a nuclear weapons program. They could be pursuing both. Evidence of one isn't evidence of the lack of the other because the programs are not mutually exclusive..)
2. I think you're alone on #2. Aside from the fact that Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and consequently a military program would mean that they are in even greater non-compliance than is presently known to be the case, pretty much the entire world thinks that developing new nuclear military capability is a bad idea. Only three nations (Israel, India, and Pakistan) have not signed the NPT and only one nation (North Korea) has withdrawn.
Afghanistan would get turned into a sea of glass. The US wouldn't even have to use nukes to do it either.
So long as Afghanistan has a rational self interest, they will not use their nukes on the US, or anyone else for that matter. If they used them on India, which is far more likely than using them on the US, India would retaliate in kind and China would not be very happy about an actual nuclear agressor in its back yard. For most countries, pre-emptively using nukes is a no-win proposition.
Which leaves non-state actors. For a group like al-Qaeda, using a nuke would make sense. Which is, putatively, why Pakistan turns a blind eye to US excursions into its territory. Sure, they howl and squeal about territorial sovereignty, but as long as they keep getting US aid for no longer progating nuclear technology across the globe, all they will do is howl and squeal.
But infection via sneakernet is a completely other vector than coming into contact with previously infected machines. I was responding to someone who was positing such a scenario.
Of course, the same answer is appropriate to the sneakernet vector. Stuxnet successfully penetrated the existing network because someone was lazy. One might conjecture that Iran would develop a protocol to avoid such situations in the future.
First, the stalemate vis a vis N. Korea and the US would exist even if N. Korea didn't have nukes. N. Korea could shell Seoul into oblivion before the US troops in the DMZ could move to dend Seoul. The stalemate in N. Korea exists because N. Korea has sunk practically its entire GDP into its military and has amassed it on the border, effectively holding S. Korea hostage.
Second, as far as Pakistan goes, both India and Pakistan are only nominally US allies. Either bombing the other in retaliation for US actions would be moronic. And, if Pak tried it, India is perfectly capable of retaliating in kind. India had nukes prior to Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan's nuke program is almost entirely in response to India's program. The US has little to do with it.
Now, it is possible that a destabilized Pakistan might pre-emptively strike against India. But that threat exists on a completely different plane than Pakistani responses to the US.
Pakistan's nuclear arsenal most likely consists of warheads with yields comparable to Fat Man and Little Boy. It's delivery systems are most likely limited to those that can deliver these warheads to their immediate neighbors. The intention of the arsenal isn't to deter a super-power that sits on the other side of the world but to deter India.
N. Korea basically has a hostage situtation, it has a large enough conventional military force to do real, significant, and lasting damage to S. Korea quickly enough that the US could only retaliate in kind rather than to halt the assault.
Do not hook up centrifuges that are suspected of ever having been infected to the new centrifuges, the networks the new centrifugres are hooked up to, or any equipment that in any way touches the new centrifuges.
As Google+ gets more popular, the stream will grow more and more inane. But, what's awesome, is G+ doesn't call people in your circles 'friends' so there isn't the emotional baggage associated with not being someone's friend. Moreover, you don't advertise your circles. You could add someone and then drop them and they would only see that you've added them. Moreover, they can add you without you adding them.
Those attributes will go a long way towards keeping my stream of a higher quality than is possible on Facebook.
[Clarke] recalled that EM Forster, in a 1909 short story The Machine Stops, "pictured our remote descendants as living in isolated cells, scarcely ever leaving them, but being able to establish instant TV contact with anyone, anywhere else on Earth." Are we there yet?
There is quite a bit of research that has been done on this subject. Search your favorite academic database for studies on "cognitive dissonance" or "dissonance theory."
A common experiment is to hold a survey to provide feedback on two different objects. As a reward, people who take the survey are allowed to choose one of the products. Then they are brought back in later to do a follow up. Typically, the product that was originally chosen as the reward gets rated higher and the product that was not chosen gets rated lower regardless of which product was selected. If one product was actually superior to the other, one would not expect such a result.
Note that this says nothing about the reasons for having made a choice. It could be that in many occasions people do select products because they are a better choice to start with. But this phenomenon occurs whether or not that is the case.
The public school district we lived in back in Ohio exclusively used Windows machines. We moved to Maryland three years ago. Again, the school district exclusively uses Windows. Both of my daughters have complained about this until I finally convinced them that Office on the Mac was compatible with Office on Windows.
That said, my eldest is going off to college in the fall. The university she will attend (St. John's) requires the purchase of a laptop. Students have a choice of being provided a Windows machine for "free" or ponying up $400 more for a Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
In the same way the router that sits in most living rooms is called a "cable modem."
It's not technically accurate, but most people know what it means.
It only gets confusing when discussing philosophical issues conflate the definition used in one realm for the definition used in another realm.
To be fair, the red line does stop at Brookland/CUA and Rhode Island which are pretty bad neighborhood, although certainly not as bad as some of the neighborhoods around Anacostia..
So, it could be the case that if you start at Silver Spring, life expectancy does drop 2 years at every stop (Takoma Park, Fort Totten, Brookland/CUA, Rhode Island) until you get to downtown proper.
If you are capable of consuming 50 eight ounce cups of coffee in less than an hour, you might be able to ingest an LD-50 dose.
Spread those cups out over five hours and there is no danger to speak of.
Plutonium doesn't work that way.
So I shouldn't just hook up one tabletj's HDMI out to the television. Rather I should hook one up for every member of the family leading to a veritable hydra of devices attached to 50 foot cables all over the living room. If that's the sort of thing that the /typical/ /. commenter is wont to do, I don't think that I'm in the pool of typical /. commenters.
Moreover, you didn't address the multi-tasking concern. How many tablets have the horsepower to spit out streamed HD video /and/ browse the web at the same time?
Ultracrepidasts "know" that "out" is not a verb.
Don't believe me? Go look the OED entry for "out" as a transitive verb. Look at the historical section. Notice the entries spanning from the 14th century up through to the present day.
The word "out" has been documented as being used as a transitive verb since the 14th century. Moreover, it is a derivative of a Middle English word (owte) which is derived from an Old English word (utian) which is also well documented as being used as a transitive verb.
It's oldest meaning as a verb? To reveal something previously hidden.
So "outing" someone is only a very slight adaption of a very old usage.
Good grief, what do they teach kids at the university these days?!
I don't know about your setup but if I connected my tablet to my TV, I'd have a hard time using my tablet as a remote while sitting on my couch.
Not to mention the whole multi-tasking issue. How many tablets have the horsepower to display HD streaming content to the TV while browsing the web? Or, if one of my kids is playing angry birds on the tablet, I have to interupt everytime I want to change the channel.
It has been in documented use in the English language since the 14th century and most probably was in use prior to that because "out" is the equivalent of in Old English utian which was often used as a transitive verb.
The problem with saying that is ever since the US Constitution was adopted, the US has had a big-F Federalist government. So whatever trade happened over 200 years ago.
In most of the world, federalism is a political idea where a relatively weak central government helps a federation of more or less independent states govern themselves. Many of the Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, etc.) were federalists of this sort but generally referred to themselves as Republicans or as Anti-federalists.
During early American period advocates of a strong federal government (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington -by the end of his second term anyway, etc.) adopted the name Federalists to descrbe themselves. So in the US, use of the word 'Federalism' tends to mean the opposite of what it does in other contexts.
For a great read, look up the July 29, 1792 letter from George Washington to Alexander Hamilton in which Washington recounts the complaints he's heard from Republicans against the Federalists. The complaints are largely identical to Tea Party complaints of today right down to having problems with a strong central bank, exercise of executive power, and onerous taxes. Mind, you, Washington wasn't the one /making/ these complaints. Rather, he was itemizing them in order to find out how Hamilton would respond to them. Most likely they came straight from Thomas Jefferson.
The way you say that you want what the Federalists wanted and then put Jefferson and Madison in the camp of the Federalists cracks me up. While Madison was a Federalist early on (and helped Hamilton write the Federalists Papers), by the time the Constiitution was ratified, he was was agreeing with Jefferson on almost every issue and staunchly opposed the Federalists. The root of this dispute was largely over the centralization of the government. The Federalists favored a strong federal government. The anti-Federalist groups (like the Republicans that later formed into the Demoratic-Republican clubs which are not to be confused with the party of Lincoln) thought that a strong central government was doomed to end in tyrrany. The anti-Federalists lost that battle with the ratification of the US Constitution. They lost it again during Washington's presidency. By the time Jefferson was elected president, Federalist doctrine was so par for the course, that you'd be hard pressed to show the difference between his term and what the Federalists supported.
The Anti-federalists lost again in the US Civil War. The so-called states' rights movement was really just a replay of the same old debate, except with guns and bayonets instead of broadsides and pamphlets. Lincon's Republican Party put a strong union headed by a powerful centralized government at the center of their platform.
They will not give voice of their plan to cleanse entire regions of dissenters on national television.
1. I think you mean to say that no one has /publicly/ proven that Iran has a military nuclear program. Many intelligence agencies have argued that they do have a military program but refuse to make the evidence public for security reasons. That alone doesn't raise my dander much. But what has been publicly demonstrated is that Iran is not in compliance with its obligations under the NPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty) which is quite odd if they don't have a miliary program.
(Also, their construction of power plants is really neither here nor there to whether or not they have a nuclear weapons program. They could be pursuing both. Evidence of one isn't evidence of the lack of the other because the programs are not mutually exclusive..)
2. I think you're alone on #2. Aside from the fact that Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and consequently a military program would mean that they are in even greater non-compliance than is presently known to be the case, pretty much the entire world thinks that developing new nuclear military capability is a bad idea. Only three nations (Israel, India, and Pakistan) have not signed the NPT and only one nation (North Korea) has withdrawn.
Afghanistan would get turned into a sea of glass. The US wouldn't even have to use nukes to do it either.
So long as Afghanistan has a rational self interest, they will not use their nukes on the US, or anyone else for that matter. If they used them on India, which is far more likely than using them on the US, India would retaliate in kind and China would not be very happy about an actual nuclear agressor in its back yard. For most countries, pre-emptively using nukes is a no-win proposition.
Which leaves non-state actors. For a group like al-Qaeda, using a nuke would make sense. Which is, putatively, why Pakistan turns a blind eye to US excursions into its territory. Sure, they howl and squeal about territorial sovereignty, but as long as they keep getting US aid for no longer progating nuclear technology across the globe, all they will do is howl and squeal.
But infection via sneakernet is a completely other vector than coming into contact with previously infected machines. I was responding to someone who was positing such a scenario.
Of course, the same answer is appropriate to the sneakernet vector. Stuxnet successfully penetrated the existing network because someone was lazy. One might conjecture that Iran would develop a protocol to avoid such situations in the future.
First, the stalemate vis a vis N. Korea and the US would exist even if N. Korea didn't have nukes. N. Korea could shell Seoul into oblivion before the US troops in the DMZ could move to dend Seoul. The stalemate in N. Korea exists because N. Korea has sunk practically its entire GDP into its military and has amassed it on the border, effectively holding S. Korea hostage.
Second, as far as Pakistan goes, both India and Pakistan are only nominally US allies. Either bombing the other in retaliation for US actions would be moronic. And, if Pak tried it, India is perfectly capable of retaliating in kind. India had nukes prior to Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan's nuke program is almost entirely in response to India's program. The US has little to do with it.
Now, it is possible that a destabilized Pakistan might pre-emptively strike against India. But that threat exists on a completely different plane than Pakistani responses to the US.
Pakistan's nuclear arsenal most likely consists of warheads with yields comparable to Fat Man and Little Boy. It's delivery systems are most likely limited to those that can deliver these warheads to their immediate neighbors. The intention of the arsenal isn't to deter a super-power that sits on the other side of the world but to deter India.
The US could bomb Pakistan at will and not face any consequences it does not already face. What's Pakistan going to do, promulgate information on how to build nuclear warheads to foes of the US? Or maybe they might fund beligerents who are actively in state of war against the US?
N. Korea basically has a hostage situtation, it has a large enough conventional military force to do real, significant, and lasting damage to S. Korea quickly enough that the US could only retaliate in kind rather than to halt the assault.
Do not hook up centrifuges that are suspected of ever having been infected to the new centrifuges, the networks the new centrifugres are hooked up to, or any equipment that in any way touches the new centrifuges.
As Google+ gets more popular, the stream will grow more and more inane. But, what's awesome, is G+ doesn't call people in your circles 'friends' so there isn't the emotional baggage associated with not being someone's friend. Moreover, you don't advertise your circles. You could add someone and then drop them and they would only see that you've added them. Moreover, they can add you without you adding them.
Those attributes will go a long way towards keeping my stream of a higher quality than is possible on Facebook.
For example, in the Internet Search segment, Google has a better ranking than Bing even though Google is more well known than Bing.
FTFA:
Sounds close enough to me.
There is quite a bit of research that has been done on this subject. Search your favorite academic database for studies on "cognitive dissonance" or "dissonance theory."
A common experiment is to hold a survey to provide feedback on two different objects. As a reward, people who take the survey are allowed to choose one of the products. Then they are brought back in later to do a follow up. Typically, the product that was originally chosen as the reward gets rated higher and the product that was not chosen gets rated lower regardless of which product was selected. If one product was actually superior to the other, one would not expect such a result.
Note that this says nothing about the reasons for having made a choice. It could be that in many occasions people do select products because they are a better choice to start with. But this phenomenon occurs whether or not that is the case.
The public school district we lived in back in Ohio exclusively used Windows machines. We moved to Maryland three years ago. Again, the school district exclusively uses Windows. Both of my daughters have complained about this until I finally convinced them that Office on the Mac was compatible with Office on Windows.
That said, my eldest is going off to college in the fall. The university she will attend (St. John's) requires the purchase of a laptop. Students have a choice of being provided a Windows machine for "free" or ponying up $400 more for a Mac.
The Apple Store isn't the only game in town for buying Mac service agreements.