Not a big deal. When people say something that may be ambiguous, and the context doesn't resolve it, they'll just add more context. So, our martian explorer could say "Moon" when it's obvious what moon he's talking about, or switch to "Phobos" when there could be a chance of misinterpretation. People do this all the time.
But why in God's name would you not answer the question?
Plausible deniability. If the government accuses me of not censoring what they think is inappropriate material, I can deny ever having seen the option.
Then let me rephrase my question to "why are they required to ask ?" What, exactly, is the benefit for the subscriber compared to the benefit for the government ? How would the subscriber benefit any less from this filter, if it was off by default, and you can voluntarily go to your ISP setup page, and check the option to enable the filter ?
How is not hijacking HTTP any worse than doing it once ? My ISP just sends me an e-mail if they want to tell me something, or a real letter if they think it's important enough. Where's the need to mess with everybody's HTTP connection ?
All we ask is to not shove the fact you're doing these things in our faces.. Such as.. we believe homosexuality is a sin, but we don't give a damn what you do in the privacy of your bedroom.
How about showing normal signs of affection in public ? Do you have different rules in mind for homo/heterosexual couples ?
Why do they even have to ask ? They could just as well announce that the filtering service is available, and point you to the ISP settings page where you can turn it on.
Since only 4% of the voters decided to enable the filtering themselves, that's an awfully small basis for imposing this kind of stuff on the other 96%.
I've used their CC3000, or at least tried to use it, but it's the most horrible product I've ever used. There isn't even real documentation for it. Just a half finished wiki page that has question marks in some places where they don't even know themselves what the proper parameters are.
Flesh eating bacteria were also doing fine before humans came along, so next time one starts eating on your leg, we'll just respect it as a person, and leave it there.
We have plenty of areas on Earth that are perfect for solar panels. For instance, in the southwest of the US, there is a lot of sunny desert area that would be perfect. It is true that the solar panels in space would perform better, but how are you going to get the power from space to California ? And how much does it cost to launch the solar panels, compared to just setting them up in the desert. For the same price, putting the panels here on Earth is a clear winner.
And for the rest of the raw materials in space, it just takes too much. First you have to launch a rocket to go to them, extract them, and send them to Earth. Then you have the problem how to land them safely. And for what ? If you're willing to spend that much energy, you can go after low grade ores on Earth, which we have more than enough.
We have the technology to colonize Mars now. To make it economical, colonization should be a one-way pioneering trip. Nobody comes back, ever
How much supplies do you need for the first group of people to stay alive until the second group comes, or until more supplies come ? What's the total mass you need to land softly ? What design of lander can do that ?
You have it backwards. There's nothing more useless than putting humans on cold, dead rocks. At least the telescope makes beautiful pictures, and the rovers do a ton of cool science.
Diseases, war and asteroid strikes are very unlikely to kill everybody, and you can make the odds even better buy building some underground shelters. That is, if you cared enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a big deal. When people say something that may be ambiguous, and the context doesn't resolve it, they'll just add more context. So, our martian explorer could say "Moon" when it's obvious what moon he's talking about, or switch to "Phobos" when there could be a chance of misinterpretation. People do this all the time.
We already have names for other stars and planets, and it's not causing any confusion.
A society with just good guys isn't evolutionary stable, so yes, there must be bad guys or genetic manipulation.
Are there going to be enough lens flares to capture the audience though ?
But why in God's name would you not answer the question?
Plausible deniability. If the government accuses me of not censoring what they think is inappropriate material, I can deny ever having seen the option.
Then let me rephrase my question to "why are they required to ask ?" What, exactly, is the benefit for the subscriber compared to the benefit for the government ? How would the subscriber benefit any less from this filter, if it was off by default, and you can voluntarily go to your ISP setup page, and check the option to enable the filter ?
The chips could be optimized in such a way that they don't work (well) on a removable module.
How is not hijacking HTTP any worse than doing it once ? My ISP just sends me an e-mail if they want to tell me something, or a real letter if they think it's important enough. Where's the need to mess with everybody's HTTP connection ?
All we ask is to not shove the fact you're doing these things in our faces.. Such as.. we believe homosexuality is a sin, but we don't give a damn what you do in the privacy of your bedroom.
How about showing normal signs of affection in public ? Do you have different rules in mind for homo/heterosexual couples ?
Why do they even have to ask ? They could just as well announce that the filtering service is available, and point you to the ISP settings page where you can turn it on.
Since only 4% of the voters decided to enable the filtering themselves, that's an awfully small basis for imposing this kind of stuff on the other 96%.
Taking a sleeping tablet to bed doesn't have the same effect apparently.
I've used their CC3000, or at least tried to use it, but it's the most horrible product I've ever used. There isn't even real documentation for it. Just a half finished wiki page that has question marks in some places where they don't even know themselves what the proper parameters are.
Flesh eating bacteria were also doing fine before humans came along, so next time one starts eating on your leg, we'll just respect it as a person, and leave it there.
After 9/11, people aren't going to let anybody take over a plane, even if they're carrying a gun.
Who says they're going to fire the gun ? Most gun carrying folks in the US rarely fire it in public.
you really think it's OK to take a gun onto an airplane
Not much worse than taking a gun to a shopping mall or movie theater, actually.
Then they should offer the autonomous driving option before adding the touchscreen, no ?
We have plenty of areas on Earth that are perfect for solar panels. For instance, in the southwest of the US, there is a lot of sunny desert area that would be perfect. It is true that the solar panels in space would perform better, but how are you going to get the power from space to California ? And how much does it cost to launch the solar panels, compared to just setting them up in the desert. For the same price, putting the panels here on Earth is a clear winner. And for the rest of the raw materials in space, it just takes too much. First you have to launch a rocket to go to them, extract them, and send them to Earth. Then you have the problem how to land them safely. And for what ? If you're willing to spend that much energy, you can go after low grade ores on Earth, which we have more than enough.
Space *needs* nothing of the kind. There's nothing out that could provide a decent return on the huge investments required.
We have the technology to colonize Mars now. To make it economical, colonization should be a one-way pioneering trip. Nobody comes back, ever
How much supplies do you need for the first group of people to stay alive until the second group comes, or until more supplies come ? What's the total mass you need to land softly ? What design of lander can do that ?
We have the technology to colonize Mars now
No we don't. Not even close.
Greatest among them is to safeguard the species from any catestrophic impacts on Earth they would extinguish us
No matter what happens, Earth is a safer place to be.
NASA also does a bunch of good stuff with Earth observing satellites.
You have it backwards. There's nothing more useless than putting humans on cold, dead rocks. At least the telescope makes beautiful pictures, and the rovers do a ton of cool science.
Diseases, war and asteroid strikes are very unlikely to kill everybody, and you can make the odds even better buy building some underground shelters. That is, if you cared enough.