Can anyone explain what threat someone who has been searched and has no weapons pose on a US flight today? The cockpit doors are locked, the passengers are ready to overwhelm anyone who tries anything, and there is probably an air marshall with a gun on board.
There's the threat. As long as there is a weapon on board (the gun you just mentioned), there is a chance that someone will ill intent could get ahold of it and use it.
Before I get modded as a troll, please think about this for a minute. Is a 60 year old white female EXACTLY AS LIKELY to be a suicide bomber looking to blow up a few American White Devils as a 24 year old Saudi Arabian of Palistinean lineage? Do you really think so?
It's not the RACE that is the relevent factor. It's the RELIGION.
Race is physical. Religion is ideological. Which seems to you a more rational motivation for action?
Isn't "We should be able to find a way to get this code to run on another type of system" fairly obvious to any imbedded-system developer? Emulators alongside cross-compilers being primary methods of testing these things before they end up in firmware.
Nope. That would put boys and girls together, which is just what he's trying to avoid.
If you can keep get rid of social and physical contact, cloistered with their own "safe" computers, you can turn every kid into a hideous prude like Michael Powell.
They don't make the decision to start a war, never have and never will.
Just because somebody tells you to kill someone, doesn't mean you have to. Just like just because someone tells you to go burn down some noncombatants houses, doesn't mean you have to (yes, that means you, Senator Kerry).
Howard should try to get onto XM or Sirrius(sp), he could be free of FCC restraint and those two need something of that caliber to bring more subscribers. I'd seriously consider it if I could get Stern.
Odd, isn't it, this backwards notion that the free, public airwaves, SHOULD be censored, and only those upper class who can afford to pay a premium for private content should be allowed uncensored media?
But the additional overhead of maintaining a custom channel delivery database,
Um... they ALREADY manage pay-per-view movies and events, and premium channels like HBO and Showtime. They've got this infrastructure in place. They've got these digital boxes which can handle the channel ordering, de-scrambling, and billing. Adding more additional channels to the mix is not going to add much overhead.
We'd all like a la carte cable/satalite but it'll never happen. As pointed out in many other parts of this threat, how many of you out there watch more than 10 to 15% of the channels you get? Without providers FORCING channels on consumers, a LARGE majority would never ask for those channels and the channels would sink
You're going under the assumption that everyone would watch the SAME 10-15% of channels. I never watched ESPN, MTV, some supposedly popular/expensive channels. I can't be the only one.
Have you forgotten the whole super bowl half-time fiasco with Janet Jackson? She flashes her boob for 1/2 a second and 100,000's of parents complain the next day.
Yes, gosh, it's terrible for a young child to see a boob.
But it could be worse.
Imagine if the child were to...say...suck milk from the boob? Put his or her little mouth all over the nipple?
It's just obscene. The child would never recover. Might as well kill the kid and start all over again.
What happened to the rights of parents to protect their children?
It's only protecting your children when there is A DANGER. Children have bodies. Dangly bits are perfectly normal parts of bodies. Teaching kids that their own bodies are obscene or bad, that it could harm others to catch a glimse of such things... THAT is truly dangerous.
Now, what I would *really* like to see is an exploding dye packet, like the ones the banks slip into the stolen money during robberies. Slide it in and close the cover. When the thief opens the lid for the first time...BAM...all of a sudden he looks like one of those blue guys in the Pentium ads.
And your laptop is also blue. The result being, even if you do manage to get your laptop back, you STILL need to buy a new one!
The POINT of a laptop is that it is portable; that you can bring it with you wherever you go. Isn't it your desktop that is more likely to be stolen while you are away than the laptop right there in your messenger bag?
It's just bad business sense more than anything else. Who is the potential customer? How many people are heading to, say, slashdot or nytimes.com to read the news or such, make a typo, get one of these sites, and say "oh, this looks good! i think i'll get out my credit card and subscribe to this!"
Of course not! You're going to just close the window and try again to type in the site you wanted to go to in the first place.
If you wanted porn, it's easy enough to find yourself. Even if you were the type to pay for it, would you really go to the source with in-your-face pop-up advertising? Jeesh.
I wouldn't make it illegal, but I can't see ANY possible financial benefits for porn sites to justify this practice.
Slashdot Mirror
...getting an awful lot of applause for something that Microsoft had in 1998
0.001% -- The band, Counting Crows. They can divvy it up however they want between themselves.
Please don't give ANY money to Counting Crows. They'll just make more "music". It's torture!
They are only suing people that share files, not people downloading files.
You're forgetting that most P2P applications are collaborative. If you're downloading, you're also sharing.
I'm both ashamed and proud that I had to search to find out what A/S/L means.
American Sign Language.
Can anyone explain what threat someone who has been searched and has no weapons pose on a US flight today? The cockpit doors are locked, the passengers are ready to overwhelm anyone who tries anything, and there is probably an air marshall with a gun on board.
There's the threat. As long as there is a weapon on board (the gun you just mentioned), there is a chance that someone will ill intent could get ahold of it and use it.
Before I get modded as a troll, please think about this for a minute. Is a 60 year old white female EXACTLY AS LIKELY to be a suicide bomber looking to blow up a few American White Devils as a 24 year old Saudi Arabian of Palistinean lineage? Do you really think so?
It's not the RACE that is the relevent factor. It's the RELIGION.
Race is physical. Religion is ideological. Which seems to you a more rational motivation for action?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
*cough*Blair Witch Project*cough* ...along with the Navidson Record.
Isn't "We should be able to find a way to get this code to run on another type of system" fairly obvious to any imbedded-system developer? Emulators alongside cross-compilers being primary methods of testing these things before they end up in firmware.
Great! Now there's only 25 letters I have to teach my kids.
Pretty much all the major non-military sims out there would work for you.
MS Flight Simulator
MS Train Simulator
The most violent you can get is crashing, but even so, nobody gets hurt. You see, that's the whole point of simulation!
Nope. That would put boys and girls together, which is just what he's trying to avoid.
If you can keep get rid of social and physical contact, cloistered with their own "safe" computers, you can turn every kid into a hideous prude like Michael Powell.
They don't make the decision to start a war, never have and never will.
Just because somebody tells you to kill someone, doesn't mean you have to. Just like just because someone tells you to go burn down some noncombatants houses, doesn't mean you have to (yes, that means you, Senator Kerry).
Just film it yourself. Buy a digital video camera, get lots of footage, and edit a demo tape.
And watch out for ghosted signals. This is, after all, the Ham (sandwich) Project.
If you can somehow present your radio trip as a home-remodeling extravaganza, The Learning Channel might be willing to send over a crew.
(Anyone else remember when their output actually involved "learning?" Must have been sometime back when MTV actually showed "music".)
violation of the ethics rules
Their job is to invade other countries, and murder people. They have ethics?
Howard should try to get onto XM or Sirrius(sp), he could be free of FCC restraint and those two need something of that caliber to bring more subscribers. I'd seriously consider it if I could get Stern.
Odd, isn't it, this backwards notion that the free, public airwaves, SHOULD be censored, and only those upper class who can afford to pay a premium for private content should be allowed uncensored media?
But the additional overhead of maintaining a custom channel delivery database,
Um... they ALREADY manage pay-per-view movies and events, and premium channels like HBO and Showtime. They've got this infrastructure in place. They've got these digital boxes which can handle the channel ordering, de-scrambling, and billing. Adding more additional channels to the mix is not going to add much overhead.
We'd all like a la carte cable/satalite but it'll never happen. As pointed out in many other parts of this threat, how many of you out there watch more than 10 to 15% of the channels you get? Without providers FORCING channels on consumers, a LARGE majority would never ask for those channels and the channels would sink
You're going under the assumption that everyone would watch the SAME 10-15% of channels. I never watched ESPN, MTV, some supposedly popular/expensive channels. I can't be the only one.
in some instances, all the ballots are making the Democrat party candidate the default nominee
uhh...it's a party primary. they're ALL democratic party candidates.
...except for the missing apostrophe in "New twenties were the lion [sic] share of the bills in his wallet." where it does belong.
Have you forgotten the whole super bowl half-time fiasco with Janet Jackson? She flashes her boob for 1/2 a second and 100,000's of parents complain the next day.
Yes, gosh, it's terrible for a young child to see a boob.
But it could be worse.
Imagine if the child were to...say...suck milk from the boob? Put his or her little mouth all over the nipple?
It's just obscene. The child would never recover. Might as well kill the kid and start all over again.
What happened to the rights of parents to protect their children?
It's only protecting your children when there is A DANGER. Children have bodies. Dangly bits are perfectly normal parts of bodies. Teaching kids that their own bodies are obscene or bad, that it could harm others to catch a glimse of such things... THAT is truly dangerous.
Now, what I would *really* like to see is an exploding dye packet, like the ones the banks slip into the stolen money during robberies. Slide it in and close the cover. When the thief opens the lid for the first time...BAM...all of a sudden he looks like one of those blue guys in the Pentium ads.
And your laptop is also blue. The result being, even if you do manage to get your laptop back, you STILL need to buy a new one!
The POINT of a laptop is that it is portable; that you can bring it with you wherever you go.
Isn't it your desktop that is more likely to be stolen while you are away than the laptop right there in your messenger bag?
It's just bad business sense more than anything else. Who is the potential customer? How many people are heading to, say, slashdot or nytimes.com to read the news or such, make a typo, get one of these sites, and say "oh, this looks good! i think i'll get out my credit card and subscribe to this!"
Of course not! You're going to just close the window and try again to type in the site you wanted to go to in the first place.
If you wanted porn, it's easy enough to find yourself. Even if you were the type to pay for it, would you really go to the source with in-your-face pop-up advertising? Jeesh.
I wouldn't make it illegal, but I can't see ANY possible financial benefits for porn sites to justify this practice.