ISTR from one of the initial TATP debunking articles that the proper procedure is essential to actually getting an explosion powerful enough to do significant damage to anything other than the poor shmuck trying to mix it. There's a big difference between a "foom" that will leave the person holding the test tube with less fingers, eyeballs and blood than they are comfortable with and a proper earth-shattering "kaboom" that will cause structural damage.
Except that they probably want to cause "in flight breakup" rather than simply damaging the plane. Of course if that "foom" means that the idiot survives they will probably wish they hadn't. Not only will they not have a good time for the rest of the flight the airline is likely to send them a bill for damage to the plane, costs of diverting the flight and any consequential costs of their plane/crewmembers not being where they should have been.
It's a money war, and unfortunately every forced copyright settlement is paying politicians for the sorts of laws that make extorting people so easy.
Maybe "they" will mess up sometime and buy a law which allows the "plebs" to extort "them". In which case they won't have time to pay politicans to do anything about repealing/altering the law in question.
Given the government's track record of ineptitude and maleficence - especially in the past eight years - the last thing a sane person wants is to put all of the nation's personal information into the exclusive hands of a single government entity.
Given the track record of many governments it won't stay "exclusive" for very long. It's only a matter of time before the entire database is on many laptops "stored" in plain view in many fools' cars. Or just left somewhere said fool probably shouldn't have been in the first place.
How many times are we going to read the same headline? "SCO is bankrupt," "SCO filed a report with the SEC declaring bankruptcy," "SCO doesn't believe they can survive this lawsuit." They're dead. This is old news.
I think you've got it completely backwards. Open Source is *not* about innovation, it's about building solid products. In general, the only thing truly innovative about Open Source software is the Open Source model itself.
Which isn't actually that innovative in the first place.
What is your authority for this absurd claim? You don't have any rights to something I create, with the exception of the rights that I transfer to you. Copyright law specifies which parts of the rights "bundle" are encapsulated by the sale of a copy. The first amendment does not give you any rights to the work of others, nor does it guide the actions of nongovernmental powers. You cannot raise a First Amendment defense to a license from a private entity.
The authority for copyright law to exist in the US is in the original text of the US Constitution. A subsequent ammendment can easily ammend those conditions. That is the meaning of the term "ammendment".
A couple of hundred people gathered in a church is a "public performance."
Especially since they're using it as an "outreach" to people who aren't regular church-goers. That makes it not only a public performance, but performance in return of expectation of a "good or valuable consideration".
If a church is "public" or "private" could well depend on exactly how it is run. There certainly are churchs which operate as "private members clubs".
A well designed enclosure would have prevented this. The zoo is at fault. There is no question there.
What kind of enclosure would you actually need to keep an enranged and adrenaline fueled tiger in though.
However, the guy wasn't innocent. The tiger may not have attacked if he was behaving differently. There is a risk when you tease a 350lb killing machine. I see the fact he was doing that as important.
The way all mammals respond to threats is known as "flight or flight". Predators are likely to tend towards the former. There are few things an adult tiger will run from.
Wanna bet the tiger would still be in its cage if these drunken idiots had decided NOT to shoot it with a slingshot?
If you are going to attack a large predator which both outmasses you and can run much faster than you then you really don't want to use a weapon which will simply annoy it.
The repeated mentioning of this guy taunting the animal irritates me, because it seems to imply it was his fault.
Maybe this would qualify him for a Darwin Award.
Sure, if I saw a guy taunting animals at the zoo I'd think he was a complete jerk. If it was really out of hand, I'd call security to arrest the guy. But it's not something he deserved to die for.
Taunting any large animal, especially a predator, is a very silly thing to do. Serious injury or death can result even if the animal in question is not usually agressive towards humans.
There's no redundancy because people do not demand it. Why is it that military communications don't ever fail like this? Simple, because the customer understands the importance of fault-free operation and is willing to pay for it.
Sometimes this is the case. But you also get the likes of soldiers borrowing phones from journalists because they work better than military radios.
Unless they are paying you to provide such a service.
Shouldn't the RIAA be held for wrongful prosecution or whatever it is, for bringing suit against the wrong person?
Since this is civil law it would be more a case of filing a counter suit against them.
Why aren't judges allowed to look upon all RIAA suits with some level of mistrust.
A judge is onto going to look at such a suit once one has actually been filed with a court. Quite possibly not until a hearing has actually been scheduled. Any threats to sue, "settlement requests", etc are not going to be seen by a judge unless the RIAA were to actually send them to a judge.
I'd love to be able to change the meanings of legally applicable terms to suit my preference), persistently telling us that "piracy" loses a magical $X billion from the economy every year, that it supports terrorism/drug dealers/the mafia/anyone else seen as "bad". Lies. More lies.
Whilst the loses undoubtedly is an outright lie the claim that piracy (where actual money changes hands) funds all sorts of bad things probably is true. Just that the amount of money involved is trivial compared with that from other sources, including that from governments. (Probably the biggest irony about the "war on terror" is that the governments which support it most also tend to be those who support most terrorism.)
In my view, the fundamentalists of every religion are the correct ones. The "moderates" are wrong, because they're picking and choosing which parts of their holy texts to believe in and follow, and are ignoring others.
IME the "fundies" are just as much into pick and choose. e.g. a Christian who makes a big fuss about homosexuals whilst being ok eating pork or wearing a cotton and polyester shirt.
I can't do that with religion; it's just stories written down by ancient people, which claim to be true, but have nothing else to support them.
In many cases religions actually have parts which are mutually exclusive. Thus if people didn't "pick and choose" they'd have to be insane:)
Incidentally, flying a plane into a building occurred to me when I was 7 or 8 (mid-eighties), but I cheated. Spoiler alert! It's the climax to Richard Bachman's (Steven King's) The Running Man (originally published 1982.) From what I hear, the same concept showed up in publication many times before the big day.
Dale Brown uses similar ideas in "Storming Heaven" and "Fatal Terrain". Dont forget the first episode of "The Lone Gunmen" where the traget is 2 WTC. Of course this being Hollywood disaster is averted (probably thanks to the 727 being a quite overpowered plane.)
For example, I thought of "hijack a plane and fly it into a large gathering of people" well before 2001, not because I had any desire to do so, but it was an answer to an interesting problem "what is the most damage I could cause given my current resources?"
Using a plane as a guided missile is most definitly not an original idea. Possibly the Japanese invented it in WWII, though it may well have been used earlier. I am aware of two books and one TV show predating September 2001 which used passenger airliners as improvised cruise missiles.
Because terrorists, of all types, are quite rare. Even when you have a very well organised terror campaign (something like the IRA rather than Al Quada conspiracy theories) you expect to have at most a few hundred people.
Don't you think that 'science, engineering and medicine' graduates is quite a wide range of people?
About the only thing more daft would be to claim that everyone who follows Islam (something like 15-20% of people) is a potential terrorist.
This study could just as well end up with the conclusion "arts students or those without higher education aren't motivated enough to be terrorists", or "would be terrorists that don't have scientific knowledge tend to blow themselves up before they can get anywhere in the world of terror".
Thing is that it isn't hard to find an example of people with medical qualifications who didn't have the ability to build a working bomb. As well as it being perfectly possible to make explosives knowing only high school level chemistry.
A bad system vs. a bad system. Except the paper ballot system is likely easily corrected by pulling the scanner machines out of the centralized location and placing them in the polling venues.
What happens if the machine and/or it's supply of electricity fails. All someone who wants to disrupt the election needs to do is switch the power off. If you want secure elections the first thing to do is to have ballots counted by people in as public a way as possible. The kind of machines which are useful here include video cameras.
If someone cannot take the time to devote a minimum amount of effort to fill out a ballot properly, perhaps they should not vote at all.
It's also perfectly possible that a voter would want to deliberatly fill out a ballot paper "incorrectly". Especially if options like "none of the above" are missing or the instructions state something like "pick 3 from this list of candidates", but the voter thinks somewhere between 0 and 2 of the candidates are fit for the job.
Slashdot Mirror
ISTR from one of the initial TATP debunking articles that the proper procedure is essential to actually getting an explosion powerful enough to do significant damage to anything other than the poor shmuck trying to mix it. There's a big difference between a "foom" that will leave the person holding the test tube with less fingers, eyeballs and blood than they are comfortable with and a proper earth-shattering "kaboom" that will cause structural damage.
Except that they probably want to cause "in flight breakup" rather than simply damaging the plane.
Of course if that "foom" means that the idiot survives they will probably wish they hadn't. Not only will they not have a good time for the rest of the flight the airline is likely to send them a bill for damage to the plane, costs of diverting the flight and any consequential costs of their plane/crewmembers not being where they should have been.
It's a money war, and unfortunately every forced copyright settlement is paying politicians for the sorts of laws that make extorting people so easy.
Maybe "they" will mess up sometime and buy a law which allows the "plebs" to extort "them". In which case they won't have time to pay politicans to do anything about repealing/altering the law in question.
Ever heard of IRC? Email? Smoke signals?
Letters, telephone, talking, etc, etc.
The government obviously needs to place surveillance cameras and microphones in every single room of very single building, and on every street.
Except for government buildings and police stations of course...
Given the government's track record of ineptitude and maleficence - especially in the past eight years - the last thing a sane person wants is to put all of the nation's personal information into the exclusive hands of a single government entity.
Given the track record of many governments it won't stay "exclusive" for very long. It's only a matter of time before the entire database is on many laptops "stored" in plain view in many fools' cars. Or just left somewhere said fool probably shouldn't have been in the first place.
How many times are we going to read the same headline? "SCO is bankrupt," "SCO filed a report with the SEC declaring bankruptcy," "SCO doesn't believe they can survive this lawsuit." They're dead. This is old news.
:)
How about "SCO to relocate to Sunnydale"
I think you've got it completely backwards. Open Source is *not* about innovation, it's about building solid products. In general, the only thing truly innovative about Open Source software is the Open Source model itself.
Which isn't actually that innovative in the first place.
What is your authority for this absurd claim? You don't have any rights to something I create, with the exception of the rights that I transfer to you. Copyright law specifies which parts of the rights "bundle" are encapsulated by the sale of a copy. The first amendment does not give you any rights to the work of others, nor does it guide the actions of nongovernmental powers. You cannot raise a First Amendment defense to a license from a private entity.
The authority for copyright law to exist in the US is in the original text of the US Constitution. A subsequent ammendment can easily ammend those conditions. That is the meaning of the term "ammendment".
A couple of hundred people gathered in a church is a "public performance."
Especially since they're using it as an "outreach" to people who aren't regular church-goers. That makes it not only a public performance, but performance in return of expectation of a "good or valuable consideration".
If a church is "public" or "private" could well depend on exactly how it is run. There certainly are churchs which operate as "private members clubs".
A well designed enclosure would have prevented this. The zoo is at fault. There is no question there.
What kind of enclosure would you actually need to keep an enranged and adrenaline fueled tiger in though.
However, the guy wasn't innocent. The tiger may not have attacked if he was behaving differently. There is a risk when you tease a 350lb killing machine. I see the fact he was doing that as important.
The way all mammals respond to threats is known as "flight or flight". Predators are likely to tend towards the former. There are few things an adult tiger will run from.
Wanna bet the tiger would still be in its cage if these drunken idiots had decided NOT to shoot it with a slingshot?
If you are going to attack a large predator which both outmasses you and can run much faster than you then you really don't want to use a weapon which will simply annoy it.
The repeated mentioning of this guy taunting the animal irritates me, because it seems to imply it was his fault.
Maybe this would qualify him for a Darwin Award.
Sure, if I saw a guy taunting animals at the zoo I'd think he was a complete jerk. If it was really out of hand, I'd call security to arrest the guy.
But it's not something he deserved to die for.
Taunting any large animal, especially a predator, is a very silly thing to do. Serious injury or death can result even if the animal in question is not usually agressive towards humans.
what the post-opening propaganda will be like if that day turns out to have sunny blue skies...
Especially if the trains are running on time too.
The term public servant really has nothing to do with serving the public but more to serving the job or state/federal/whatever office they hold.
Assuming tthey actually serve the interests of the office. As opposed to the interests of some lobby group or even just their own interests.
There's no redundancy because people do not demand it. Why is it that military communications don't ever fail like this? Simple, because the customer understands the importance of fault-free operation and is willing to pay for it.
Sometimes this is the case. But you also get the likes of soldiers borrowing phones from journalists because they work better than military radios.
Why should anyone tell them who anyone is?
Unless they are paying you to provide such a service.
Shouldn't the RIAA be held for wrongful prosecution or whatever it is, for bringing suit against the wrong person?
Since this is civil law it would be more a case of filing a counter suit against them.
Why aren't judges allowed to look upon all RIAA suits with some level of mistrust.
A judge is onto going to look at such a suit once one has actually been filed with a court. Quite possibly not until a hearing has actually been scheduled. Any threats to sue, "settlement requests", etc are not going to be seen by a judge unless the RIAA were to actually send them to a judge.
I'd love to be able to change the meanings of legally applicable terms to suit my preference), persistently telling us that "piracy" loses a magical $X billion from the economy every year, that it supports terrorism/drug dealers/the mafia/anyone else seen as "bad". Lies. More lies.
Whilst the loses undoubtedly is an outright lie the claim that piracy (where actual money changes hands) funds all sorts of bad things probably is true. Just that the amount of money involved is trivial compared with that from other sources, including that from governments. (Probably the biggest irony about the "war on terror" is that the governments which support it most also tend to be those who support most terrorism.)
In my view, the fundamentalists of every religion are the correct ones. The "moderates" are wrong, because they're picking and choosing which parts of their holy texts to believe in and follow, and are ignoring others.
:)
IME the "fundies" are just as much into pick and choose. e.g. a Christian who makes a big fuss about homosexuals whilst being ok eating pork or wearing a cotton and polyester shirt.
I can't do that with religion; it's just stories written down by ancient people, which claim to be true, but have nothing else to support them.
In many cases religions actually have parts which are mutually exclusive. Thus if people didn't "pick and choose" they'd have to be insane
Incidentally, flying a plane into a building occurred to me when I was 7 or 8 (mid-eighties), but I cheated. Spoiler alert! It's the climax to Richard Bachman's (Steven King's) The Running Man (originally published 1982.) From what I hear, the same concept showed up in publication many times before the big day.
Dale Brown uses similar ideas in "Storming Heaven" and "Fatal Terrain". Dont forget the first episode of "The Lone Gunmen" where the traget is 2 WTC. Of course this being Hollywood disaster is averted (probably thanks to the 727 being a quite overpowered plane.)
For example, I thought of "hijack a plane and fly it into a large gathering of people" well before 2001, not because I had any desire to do so, but it was an answer to an interesting problem "what is the most damage I could cause given my current resources?"
Using a plane as a guided missile is most definitly not an original idea. Possibly the Japanese invented it in WWII, though it may well have been used earlier.
I am aware of two books and one TV show predating September 2001 which used passenger airliners as improvised cruise missiles.
Then why isn't /. full of terrorists?
Because terrorists, of all types, are quite rare. Even when you have a very well organised terror campaign (something like the IRA rather than Al Quada conspiracy theories) you expect to have at most a few hundred people.
Don't you think that 'science, engineering and medicine' graduates is quite a wide range of people?
About the only thing more daft would be to claim that everyone who follows Islam (something like 15-20% of people) is a potential terrorist.
This study could just as well end up with the conclusion "arts students or those without higher education aren't motivated enough to be terrorists", or "would be terrorists that don't have scientific knowledge tend to blow themselves up before they can get anywhere in the world of terror".
Thing is that it isn't hard to find an example of people with medical qualifications who didn't have the ability to build a working bomb. As well as it being perfectly possible to make explosives knowing only high school level chemistry.
A bad system vs. a bad system. Except the paper ballot system is likely easily corrected by pulling the scanner machines out of the centralized location and placing them in the polling venues.
What happens if the machine and/or it's supply of electricity fails. All someone who wants to disrupt the election needs to do is switch the power off.
If you want secure elections the first thing to do is to have ballots counted by people in as public a way as possible. The kind of machines which are useful here include video cameras.
If someone cannot take the time to devote a minimum amount of effort to fill out a ballot properly, perhaps they should not vote at all.
It's also perfectly possible that a voter would want to deliberatly fill out a ballot paper "incorrectly". Especially if options like "none of the above" are missing or the instructions state something like "pick 3 from this list of candidates", but the voter thinks somewhere between 0 and 2 of the candidates are fit for the job.
I thought it said the magistrate suggested FIRING the attorneys.
Do they qualify as "carbon neutral" fuel though?