If you actually own the property (don't have a mortgage)...
It's funny that you don't consider property taxes as an indicator of the state owning your property but you do consider a mortgage as an indicator of a bank owning your property.
Even if you have a mortgage, you are still the actual owner of your property. The bank's only claim to your property is as collateral to secure the loan in the event of your failure to pay it back (plus any other contractually established claims such as your continued maintenance of the property to prevent the devaluation of the security).
Nope, that's not my argument at all. But, if it makes you feel better about letting your government get away with conspiring against your best interests while whining on the internet about the big old US empire being mean, then feel free to interpret it that way. It's a little silly that you complain about the double standards of others while blaming other governments for the same thing that your government does.
You lack imagination if you can't come up with such a scenario and you lack experience in communicating with humans if you can't parse a little hyperbole.
Luckily, there's still time to develop in these areas as you grow up. I think I hear your mom calling you to dinner.
Do you look in your mirror, see him coming, and then change lanes in front of him anyway, knowing that you're going to obstruct the flow of traffic in that lane? If you planned your own maneuver better, could you have passed the truck in peace without causing anybody else to significantly slow down or having to deal with irate assholes? Because I drive a little over the speed limit and am regularly cut off by people deciding that they need to change lanes RIGHT NOW!!, when it means that I have to slam on by brakes to avoid rear-ending them.
Following the speed limit is not an excuse to break other laws, like "keep right/left except to pass" or obstructing the flow of traffic. Being antisocial and passive aggressive in traffic isn't morally superior to being that irate asshole.
In California, notably, you can be in the left lane all day long.
That's super helpful to know. I was wondering why traffic got so much worse as the number of people moving here from CA increased.
There used to be fairly good conformance to the "keep right except to pass" laws (even without the posted signs), but now the left lane is pretty much always packed bumper-to-bumper while the right-most lanes are empty. People enter the highway and immediately move to the far left lane, even if there's nobody in front of them and they're moving slower than the people currently in that lane.
Traffic, predictably, crawls now. I guess that makes the newly arrived feel more at home?
This is a classic example of American double-standards.
This isn't even remotely an issue unique to the US and has been an issue throughout the world for much longer than the US has existed. Focusing your ire on the US here only allows your own government to get away with not fulfilling its duties.
Your own government is supposed to be representing you in this matter, just like Americans (should) expect the US government to not abuse them or allow them to be abused by the governments of other countries. There are a variety of means for governments to protect their citizens, from diplomatic to military. Your government is not standing up for you and may even be cooperating in these attacks against you. Quit whining about other governments and get your own to step up.
Does the proposed rule actually absolve the company of liability if the child lies?
How does the EU handle things like statutory rape and minors entering into contracts? In the US, the minor lying about their age isn't necessarily a valid defense.
If the child claims to be 16 and posts selfies of their clearly-not-16yo self or discusses age-revealing things, can the site claim that it's not liable? The fact that the posted information is probably being actively mined makes it even less likely that the site can claim ignorance of the child's lie.
The analogy doesn't work for the bridge because the wind kept a steady speed; it's as if you're continuously pushing the swing, which, obviously, does not create an oscillation.
The wind kept a steady speed, but the force of the wind felt by the bridge did indeed oscillate as the bridge twisted (the surface area exposed to the wind changed with time). Just like you were standing behind the swing the entire time, but the force felt by the swing changed with time.
The moving wind was the source of the energy imparted on the oscillating bridge system, but the coupling of the wind to the bridge was not constant. Attributing this entirely to anti-dampening would imply that the force felt by the bridge was constant.
The OP's cousin should probably just accept the risk that some unauthorized third party could in theory be watching the video data, Concentrate on making sure a third party can't Control or Disable the camera (What is really important!), understand that risk, and mitigate it by placing the cameras where they will meet security objectives without a huge risk to privacy objectives.
This is great advice and is the approach that I took. I've tried very hard to design the system so that it can't be accessed by unauthorized parties, but there's no way that I'm going to operate as if the feeds are truly secure. To that end, there aren't cameras monitoring private spaces.
Not to mention the complete creep factor involved in having security cameras monitoring the living spaces of your home. The WAF of that idea is so low that I wouldn't think of proposing it, even if I wasn't totally creeped out by it myself.
Enzymes are rate-limited and have multiple systems of feedback, inhibition, and activation. I mean, it's all CO2 and H2O once your enzymes are done with it, so anything that combusts must be exactly the same, right?
It's not that people are too stupid, it's that using "sugar" in the purely chemical sense is not all that helpful. "Sugar" isn't even a terribly defined term but is typically limited to soluble mono- or disaccharide.
By your definition, cellulose (indigestible plant matter, eg wood) is "sugar". The FDA does not count cellulose, which is commonly added to foods, as a sugar, so it's clearly not as straightforward as you make it sound.
If you tried to define sugar as a molecule made of saccharide subunits, then you'd have to include chitin (the shells of insects and sea creatures) among others.
Impact factor is determined from the number of citations to a journal's articles, so a journal that hasn't published anything has no definable impact factor. It's not zero or low, it's undefined and referencing it is meaningless.
I would expect that a journal that let people publish observations without requiring an accompanying narrative could acquire a decent number of citations, even if the overall impact factor is low. Demonstrating impact through the proxy of a journal's impact factor is just lazy accounting by management types. It's easy enough to count actual citations to a publication to determine an author's impact (even if it can be gamed). Most of the papers that I actually read and cite are not in the ultra-high-impact journals. Most of a fantastically high impact researcher's publications are going to be in a field's bread and butter journal.
In my experience, tautologies have a tendency of being true.
If you redefine "tautology" to mean "something that has a tendency of being true", then yes: "tautologies have a tendency of being true." In reality, tautologies carry no information at all and are completely meaningless.
Anyway, it's not really on most of them to fix it. It's on us in the west, and those in the far east to develop clean energy so that it is cheaper than coal anyway, at which point they will switch to it. We are already well on the way, we just need to speed the process up.
I apologize for being indelicate, but that line of thinking is complete bullshit. The people of India and the Far East are not some sort of subhuman animals who can't be held accountable for their actions and it's not on the West to take responsibility for fixing everybody else's problems. I absolutely abhor PC finger-wagging, but that is some of the most bigoted tripe I've read today, even if it was couched in platitudes for our Western saviors.
The FBI has refused to detail publicly the kinds of private data it believes it can obtain with an NSL.
The truly troubling part is not the specifics of what they collect, but the fact that they think that they should operate with no accountability to the citizenry. A government operating on secret interpretations of laws is entirely at odds with a democratic system.
Thanks for the link. I'm interested in checking out the underlying sources, and they claim to already have taken "research performed by" vs "research funded by" into account. I'm aware of many private funding sources in academia, but the grants are typically small and few (though massive and almost eternal grants from HHMI and the like may make up for much of that).
I wasn't aware that so much research was funded by the private sector and I'll honestly still be a bit suspicious of the numbers until I really look at it. I wonder what is necessary to claim that an amount "funded research" and what the likely cases of misrepresenting this may be (eg. "market research").
That's a nice theory, but it doesn't work that way in practice. Countries that finance most or all their research through public funding are dismal places for researchers. People either leave or they don't really push themselves.
Which countries are you thinking of? Most research (all basic research and most applied research) in the US is publicly funded and people are flocking here to do research. Our research output is also incredibly high. Looking around the world, you have that exactly backward.
You can improve things a bit by enabling "Increase contrast" in the Accessibility Preferences. Apparently not being able to discern nearly identical levels of gray is a disability now.
Or maybe they're getting tips from domestic and foreign intelligence agencies and not just from innocuous tippers who won't testify. But if you want to trust them implicitly, then go right ahead.
You have far too much faith in the system. The DEA outright admitted to using parallel construction (One DEA official had told Reuters: "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day. It's decades old, a bedrock concept.") and no cases were reopened or even scrutinized.
If somebody at a little local PD does some sleazy illegal stuff, people may go to jail. When whole branches of the federal government start doing illegal stuff in an organized manner, it becomes the de facto law of the land. "Well, when the government does it, that means that it is not illegal." By definition, right?
Chinese, and even the Egyptian hieroglyphics, isn't logographic in the same sense that emoji is. A purely logographic system is impractical, which is why there are none in use today.
It's a horridly inefficient and vague way to communicate any but the most superficial concepts. How would you even select the relevant five icons from the increasing number of pages of emoji?
That's the myth, but the Puritans were persecuting people for their religious beliefs long before they were essentially exiled from England. Their beef from the beginning was that the Church of England was too tolerant of other religions, specifically Catholicism.
Amazon's app store doesn't run as a system application and can't do much of anything without explicit user permission. Google's app store is tied in with Google Play Services and runs as a system application that can do whatever it wants on your phone whenever it wants.
I just wish people would freaking pay attention at stop lights and watch for the light to change to green. It's almost always this excruciating ballet of watching the cars ahead of me "Oh, the light changed? *2 seconds to process before starting to accelerate" followed by the car behind them seeming to only realize it's time to go after their own two second pause. I'm hoping for network aware (or just aware!) autonomous cars that can all start rolling at the same time after a light change.
That drives me crazy, too. I think what's happening is that the first person is looking at the light (at intervals between looking at their phone) and everybody else is just looking at the car in front of them. Nobody takes any action toward moving until the car in front of them starts moving. It's fucking glacial and sometimes only a few cars make it through the intersection on each cycle.
I visited one place where every single car took the foot off the brakes when the light turned green and started moving (and spacing out) as a unit. It was beautiful and I wish I remembered where it was so that I could move there. I wonder if people there kept right except to pass, too...
Slashdot Mirror
If you actually own the property (don't have a mortgage)...
It's funny that you don't consider property taxes as an indicator of the state owning your property but you do consider a mortgage as an indicator of a bank owning your property.
Even if you have a mortgage, you are still the actual owner of your property. The bank's only claim to your property is as collateral to secure the loan in the event of your failure to pay it back (plus any other contractually established claims such as your continued maintenance of the property to prevent the devaluation of the security).
Nope, that's not my argument at all. But, if it makes you feel better about letting your government get away with conspiring against your best interests while whining on the internet about the big old US empire being mean, then feel free to interpret it that way. It's a little silly that you complain about the double standards of others while blaming other governments for the same thing that your government does.
You lack imagination if you can't come up with such a scenario and you lack experience in communicating with humans if you can't parse a little hyperbole.
Luckily, there's still time to develop in these areas as you grow up. I think I hear your mom calling you to dinner.
Do you look in your mirror, see him coming, and then change lanes in front of him anyway, knowing that you're going to obstruct the flow of traffic in that lane? If you planned your own maneuver better, could you have passed the truck in peace without causing anybody else to significantly slow down or having to deal with irate assholes? Because I drive a little over the speed limit and am regularly cut off by people deciding that they need to change lanes RIGHT NOW!!, when it means that I have to slam on by brakes to avoid rear-ending them.
Following the speed limit is not an excuse to break other laws, like "keep right/left except to pass" or obstructing the flow of traffic. Being antisocial and passive aggressive in traffic isn't morally superior to being that irate asshole.
In California, notably, you can be in the left lane all day long.
That's super helpful to know. I was wondering why traffic got so much worse as the number of people moving here from CA increased.
There used to be fairly good conformance to the "keep right except to pass" laws (even without the posted signs), but now the left lane is pretty much always packed bumper-to-bumper while the right-most lanes are empty. People enter the highway and immediately move to the far left lane, even if there's nobody in front of them and they're moving slower than the people currently in that lane.
Traffic, predictably, crawls now. I guess that makes the newly arrived feel more at home?
This is a classic example of American double-standards.
This isn't even remotely an issue unique to the US and has been an issue throughout the world for much longer than the US has existed. Focusing your ire on the US here only allows your own government to get away with not fulfilling its duties.
Your own government is supposed to be representing you in this matter, just like Americans (should) expect the US government to not abuse them or allow them to be abused by the governments of other countries. There are a variety of means for governments to protect their citizens, from diplomatic to military. Your government is not standing up for you and may even be cooperating in these attacks against you. Quit whining about other governments and get your own to step up.
Does the proposed rule actually absolve the company of liability if the child lies?
How does the EU handle things like statutory rape and minors entering into contracts? In the US, the minor lying about their age isn't necessarily a valid defense.
If the child claims to be 16 and posts selfies of their clearly-not-16yo self or discusses age-revealing things, can the site claim that it's not liable? The fact that the posted information is probably being actively mined makes it even less likely that the site can claim ignorance of the child's lie.
The analogy doesn't work for the bridge because the wind kept a steady speed; it's as if you're continuously pushing the swing, which, obviously, does not create an oscillation.
The wind kept a steady speed, but the force of the wind felt by the bridge did indeed oscillate as the bridge twisted (the surface area exposed to the wind changed with time). Just like you were standing behind the swing the entire time, but the force felt by the swing changed with time.
The moving wind was the source of the energy imparted on the oscillating bridge system, but the coupling of the wind to the bridge was not constant. Attributing this entirely to anti-dampening would imply that the force felt by the bridge was constant.
The OP's cousin should probably just accept the risk that some unauthorized third party could in theory be watching the video data, Concentrate on making sure a third party can't Control or Disable the camera (What is really important!), understand that risk, and mitigate it by placing the cameras where they will meet security objectives without a huge risk to privacy objectives.
This is great advice and is the approach that I took. I've tried very hard to design the system so that it can't be accessed by unauthorized parties, but there's no way that I'm going to operate as if the feeds are truly secure. To that end, there aren't cameras monitoring private spaces.
Not to mention the complete creep factor involved in having security cameras monitoring the living spaces of your home. The WAF of that idea is so low that I wouldn't think of proposing it, even if I wasn't totally creeped out by it myself.
I wouldn't trust my children to raise children, because children shouldn't even be having children!
Enzymes are rate-limited and have multiple systems of feedback, inhibition, and activation. I mean, it's all CO2 and H2O once your enzymes are done with it, so anything that combusts must be exactly the same, right?
It's not that people are too stupid, it's that using "sugar" in the purely chemical sense is not all that helpful. "Sugar" isn't even a terribly defined term but is typically limited to soluble mono- or disaccharide.
By your definition, cellulose (indigestible plant matter, eg wood) is "sugar". The FDA does not count cellulose, which is commonly added to foods, as a sugar, so it's clearly not as straightforward as you make it sound.
If you tried to define sugar as a molecule made of saccharide subunits, then you'd have to include chitin (the shells of insects and sea creatures) among others.
Impact factor is determined from the number of citations to a journal's articles, so a journal that hasn't published anything has no definable impact factor. It's not zero or low, it's undefined and referencing it is meaningless.
I would expect that a journal that let people publish observations without requiring an accompanying narrative could acquire a decent number of citations, even if the overall impact factor is low. Demonstrating impact through the proxy of a journal's impact factor is just lazy accounting by management types. It's easy enough to count actual citations to a publication to determine an author's impact (even if it can be gamed). Most of the papers that I actually read and cite are not in the ultra-high-impact journals. Most of a fantastically high impact researcher's publications are going to be in a field's bread and butter journal.
In my experience, tautologies have a tendency of being true.
If you redefine "tautology" to mean "something that has a tendency of being true", then yes: "tautologies have a tendency of being true." In reality, tautologies carry no information at all and are completely meaningless.
Anyway, it's not really on most of them to fix it. It's on us in the west, and those in the far east to develop clean energy so that it is cheaper than coal anyway, at which point they will switch to it. We are already well on the way, we just need to speed the process up.
I apologize for being indelicate, but that line of thinking is complete bullshit. The people of India and the Far East are not some sort of subhuman animals who can't be held accountable for their actions and it's not on the West to take responsibility for fixing everybody else's problems. I absolutely abhor PC finger-wagging, but that is some of the most bigoted tripe I've read today, even if it was couched in platitudes for our Western saviors.
The FBI has refused to detail publicly the kinds of private data it believes it can obtain with an NSL.
The truly troubling part is not the specifics of what they collect, but the fact that they think that they should operate with no accountability to the citizenry. A government operating on secret interpretations of laws is entirely at odds with a democratic system.
Thanks for the link. I'm interested in checking out the underlying sources, and they claim to already have taken "research performed by" vs "research funded by" into account. I'm aware of many private funding sources in academia, but the grants are typically small and few (though massive and almost eternal grants from HHMI and the like may make up for much of that).
I wasn't aware that so much research was funded by the private sector and I'll honestly still be a bit suspicious of the numbers until I really look at it. I wonder what is necessary to claim that an amount "funded research" and what the likely cases of misrepresenting this may be (eg. "market research").
That's a nice theory, but it doesn't work that way in practice. Countries that finance most or all their research through public funding are dismal places for researchers. People either leave or they don't really push themselves.
Which countries are you thinking of? Most research (all basic research and most applied research) in the US is publicly funded and people are flocking here to do research. Our research output is also incredibly high. Looking around the world, you have that exactly backward.
You can improve things a bit by enabling "Increase contrast" in the Accessibility Preferences. Apparently not being able to discern nearly identical levels of gray is a disability now.
Or maybe they're getting tips from domestic and foreign intelligence agencies and not just from innocuous tippers who won't testify. But if you want to trust them implicitly, then go right ahead.
You have far too much faith in the system. The DEA outright admitted to using parallel construction (One DEA official had told Reuters: "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day. It's decades old, a bedrock concept.") and no cases were reopened or even scrutinized.
If somebody at a little local PD does some sleazy illegal stuff, people may go to jail. When whole branches of the federal government start doing illegal stuff in an organized manner, it becomes the de facto law of the land. "Well, when the government does it, that means that it is not illegal." By definition, right?
Chinese, and even the Egyptian hieroglyphics, isn't logographic in the same sense that emoji is. A purely logographic system is impractical, which is why there are none in use today.
It's a horridly inefficient and vague way to communicate any but the most superficial concepts. How would you even select the relevant five icons from the increasing number of pages of emoji?
That's the myth, but the Puritans were persecuting people for their religious beliefs long before they were essentially exiled from England. Their beef from the beginning was that the Church of England was too tolerant of other religions, specifically Catholicism.
Amazon's app store doesn't run as a system application and can't do much of anything without explicit user permission. Google's app store is tied in with Google Play Services and runs as a system application that can do whatever it wants on your phone whenever it wants.
I just wish people would freaking pay attention at stop lights and watch for the light to change to green. It's almost always this excruciating ballet of watching the cars ahead of me "Oh, the light changed? *2 seconds to process before starting to accelerate" followed by the car behind them seeming to only realize it's time to go after their own two second pause. I'm hoping for network aware (or just aware!) autonomous cars that can all start rolling at the same time after a light change.
That drives me crazy, too. I think what's happening is that the first person is looking at the light (at intervals between looking at their phone) and everybody else is just looking at the car in front of them. Nobody takes any action toward moving until the car in front of them starts moving. It's fucking glacial and sometimes only a few cars make it through the intersection on each cycle.
I visited one place where every single car took the foot off the brakes when the light turned green and started moving (and spacing out) as a unit. It was beautiful and I wish I remembered where it was so that I could move there. I wonder if people there kept right except to pass, too...