a senior editor and the magazine's chief executive were in London at the time of the attack.
They'll continue on, which is more than most people would have done in their situation. As for the fund, I would think that using some of google's money for this is a good thing (and maybe something they wouldn't have done voluntarily). Charlie Hebdo, like most papers, survives on advertising, and at least some advertisers are going to be relucttant (to say the least) to advertise with them given recent events. I doubt very much that they're "swimming in money."
I'm left wondering if the people behind the attacks will try to get some of their more brain-damaged followers to believe that google is now a legit target, even though google had no say in how these funds were to be used.
And kids aren't asking for them. Parents buy them for their kids because of the "Gee, I had one of these" nostalgia. They forget how boring they were after half an hour.
We've had 3d comic books, 3d tv, 3d computer displays, and who knows how much other "gimmicky crap." Nobody wants it. What's interesting is that sound, on the other hand, we DO want more than mono. Look at the popularity of 5.1 and 7.1 sound systems - they make a real difference watching a movie.
I don't need my phone to know what objects it's looking at by analyzing 3d photos. This can more easily be done right now for many uses just with existing bar codes and qr codes (visually handicapped people looking for a product).
A credible threat is only a credible threat - no force has been employed at that point.
That is just wrong. Threats are instead the usual way that force and coercion exerted on others manifests. Do this or we'll make bad things happen to you.
The "bad things" are the force. Threats are just attempts at gaining leverage.
The sound of a rotary TV tuner going "clunkclunkclunk" as you changed the channels - been replaced by "where's the darn remote?"
The sound of your parents saying "Don't change the channels so fast - you'll break it!".
The announcer saying "We'll be right back - don't touch that dial!"
What the hell is this? This is not news. Just put this crap in the polls, where questions belong.
t's interesting because we're seeing the mass obsolescence of both old, established devices (and their industries) and new stuff that's obsolete within a few years of its' introduction. With many newer laptops, you don't even get to hear the CD/DVD because there isn't one - they're going the way of floppies.
Bad science is what you get when you don't test your underlying assumptions. This test verifies that it happens, and quantifies where it happens. It's all part of dotting your i's and crossing you t's.
You'll see diesel equipment operating in mines and warehouses, specifically because the CO from gasoline engines will kill you in enclosed spaces. Same reason why Zambonis use propane to clean the ice in hockey arenas.
Try writing a death threat to someone... those are "just words on a note", but they cannot be viewed in isolation, and it would be negligent not to take action, unless it was obvious that nothing would come of it (like threats from morons to morons on twitter or facebook).
That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October). Maybe we should have elections EVERY year (like Italy)?
You wrote "absolutely no words that can justify the use of force." Not "engaging in speech."
But another counter-example - words on paper. A bank robber hands over a note saying he has a gun and will shoot if you don't fill up the bag. The teller fills up the bag while pushing the silent alarm. Cops come and shoot him. The written threat - words - justified the use of force.
My point is that it's easier to use a carrot than a stick. If anti-pollution controls can make them a profit, then you really only have to convince a few, and the others will hop on the bandwagon because of the financial incentive, rather than trying to work around the issue.
What's the problem with taking down the websites that they use for recruitment purposes? They're not using those websites as their internal communications systems.
That's the clincher that nobody will address. There are absolutely no words that can justify the use of force. We should have absolutely no tolerance for censorship.
That's the problem with absolutes - they're always flawed. Man with gun to your head says "I'm going to shoot you at the count of three. 1... 2..." You'd be hoping that someone would act on his words and take him out rather than wait until he puts a bullet to your head to prove it wasn't just words.
So the task at hand is to show how it can be profitable to be less polluting, the same as was done when businesses were complaining about new sulfur emission regulations, but then found they could sell the sulfur collected at a profit.
They had the subjects randomly exposed for 2 hours of filtered air or two hours of air contaminated by diesel fumes. Changes only happened when the subjects were exposed to diesel fumes. So basically, they controlled for everything except the fumes.
Slashdot Mirror
a senior editor and the magazine's chief executive were in London at the time of the attack.
They'll continue on, which is more than most people would have done in their situation. As for the fund, I would think that using some of google's money for this is a good thing (and maybe something they wouldn't have done voluntarily). Charlie Hebdo, like most papers, survives on advertising, and at least some advertisers are going to be relucttant (to say the least) to advertise with them given recent events. I doubt very much that they're "swimming in money."
I'm left wondering if the people behind the attacks will try to get some of their more brain-damaged followers to believe that google is now a legit target, even though google had no say in how these funds were to be used.
More like 75, and they're still around.
And kids aren't asking for them. Parents buy them for their kids because of the "Gee, I had one of these" nostalgia. They forget how boring they were after half an hour.
We've had 3d comic books, 3d tv, 3d computer displays, and who knows how much other "gimmicky crap." Nobody wants it. What's interesting is that sound, on the other hand, we DO want more than mono. Look at the popularity of 5.1 and 7.1 sound systems - they make a real difference watching a movie.
I don't need my phone to know what objects it's looking at by analyzing 3d photos. This can more easily be done right now for many uses just with existing bar codes and qr codes (visually handicapped people looking for a product).
A credible threat is only a credible threat - no force has been employed at that point.
That is just wrong. Threats are instead the usual way that force and coercion exerted on others manifests. Do this or we'll make bad things happen to you.
The "bad things" are the force. Threats are just attempts at gaining leverage.
The sound of a rotary TV tuner going "clunkclunkclunk" as you changed the channels - been replaced by "where's the darn remote?"
The sound of your parents saying "Don't change the channels so fast - you'll break it!".
The announcer saying "We'll be right back - don't touch that dial!"
What the hell is this? This is not news. Just put this crap in the polls, where questions belong.
t's interesting because we're seeing the mass obsolescence of both old, established devices (and their industries) and new stuff that's obsolete within a few years of its' introduction. With many newer laptops, you don't even get to hear the CD/DVD because there isn't one - they're going the way of floppies.
Remember all those home movies on Super 8 film? And the smell of the film burning when it got jammed?
The sound of one of the neighbors using a foot-powered sewing machine (not a foot switch - foot powered).
The sound of metal trash cans (too) early in the morning.
The sound of a VHS machine loading or ejecting a tape.
A wind-up clock going tick-tick-tick
Everything associated with an 8-track player.
"Breaker breaker" from the CB craze.
Any campaign promise from an honest politician (or for that matter anything from an honest politician)
Bad science is what you get when you don't test your underlying assumptions. This test verifies that it happens, and quantifies where it happens. It's all part of dotting your i's and crossing you t's.
It's fraud, but someone has to step forward and file a criminal complaint before anything can be done.
A credible threat is only a credible threat - no force has been employed at that point.
You'll see diesel equipment operating in mines and warehouses, specifically because the CO from gasoline engines will kill you in enclosed spaces. Same reason why Zambonis use propane to clean the ice in hockey arenas.
Try writing a death threat to someone ... those are "just words on a note", but they cannot be viewed in isolation, and it would be negligent not to take action, unless it was obvious that nothing would come of it (like threats from morons to morons on twitter or facebook).
That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October). Maybe we should have elections EVERY year (like Italy)?
Gasoline engines have higher levels of carbon monoxide than diesel or propane engines. You don't want your test subjects dying on you, right?
Ha ha. They justify the police's use of force.
But another counter-example - words on paper. A bank robber hands over a note saying he has a gun and will shoot if you don't fill up the bag. The teller fills up the bag while pushing the silent alarm. Cops come and shoot him. The written threat - words - justified the use of force.
No, we should show the bully that it's in his self-interest. Better than trying to beat it in them with a stick.
My point is that it's easier to use a carrot than a stick. If anti-pollution controls can make them a profit, then you really only have to convince a few, and the others will hop on the bandwagon because of the financial incentive, rather than trying to work around the issue.
What's the problem with taking down the websites that they use for recruitment purposes? They're not using those websites as their internal communications systems.
Life is over-rated, but seeing as it's the only game in town ...
That's the clincher that nobody will address. There are absolutely no words that can justify the use of force. We should have absolutely no tolerance for censorship.
That's the problem with absolutes - they're always flawed. Man with gun to your head says "I'm going to shoot you at the count of three. 1 ... 2 ..." You'd be hoping that someone would act on his words and take him out rather than wait until he puts a bullet to your head to prove it wasn't just words.
They use the internet to recruit people in other countries.
So the task at hand is to show how it can be profitable to be less polluting, the same as was done when businesses were complaining about new sulfur emission regulations, but then found they could sell the sulfur collected at a profit.
They had the subjects randomly exposed for 2 hours of filtered air or two hours of air contaminated by diesel fumes. Changes only happened when the subjects were exposed to diesel fumes. So basically, they controlled for everything except the fumes.