I have to admit I'm baffled as to why that hasn't happened yet. If not on a plane, then on a train or a stadium, or a cafe.
The terrorists seem fixated on planes; when they do make attacks, that's where they generally go. If anything, they seem to think that blowing up a plane will get extra credit for having bypassed the TSA. But the TSA isn't even trying to protect a lot of soft targets, and I don't know why they don't try that more often.
I've got theories, but none of them are conclusive.
Taxes are taxes, and I doubt the Court is going to challenge that.
They may, however, decided that since the mandate isn't a tax, and it's only justified under the Commerce Clause, that we've been misinterpreting the Commerce Clause for a few decades. THAT would enable them to chuck... well, practically every piece of legislation for the last 50 years, including the Civil Rights Act.
> I doubt terrorists will waste their time attacking airplanes with bombs.
The terrorists ARE wasting their time attacking airplanes with bombs. They've had several attempts already (the Underwear Bomber, the Shoe Bomber).
Fortunately, these failed, in part because they were forced to take extreme measures to disguise their bombs. If these guys had walked on with a plain stick of dynamite, those planes would have come down.
I was keeping up with this a bit at the time, and as far as I could tell, there was a period where Kasparov seemed to have an absolutely unique ability to beat computers. At that point, the computers had already decimated everybody else, and it stopped being "computers vs humanity" but "computers vs Kasparov".
They finally cracked the Kasparov problem, but it had been over for everybody else, including the grandmasters, for at least a decade.
This is just telling you that you'd lose against Rybka. But then, unless you're a top grandmaster having a good day, you already knew that. Even then, if you decided to play King's Gambit, Rybka's letting you know in advance that you are not having a good day.
Right on the surface, the King's Gambit doesn't look like a very good idea for white, throwing away a well-placed pawn on your second move. Apparently this was considered a good idea for a long time, though I (a mediocre-at-best player) don't see how it could work.
As white, the only advice you need from this study is "Don't do it." As black, the advice appears to be "Take the pawn if offered. The best they can do at that point is a draw, and if they differ from that line at all, they lose."
Assuming you're a great player, of course. I'm sure that I'd still get massacred if a real player were to play the King's Gambit against me.
they would review or aide in writing for most papers
That would be "aid". "Aide" is a noun. You want the verb "aid".
I know I was in my early 20's before I understood the power of the semicolon; and it is awesome!
You don't use a conjunction with a semicolon. A conjunction is used with a comma to make a compound sentence. A semicolon takes two independent clauses, and with the conjunction, it makes the second clause a fragment.
Minor errors, of course. I wouldn't mention them in any other context.
Man, I miss Interleaf. 20 years after I first used it, there's still no layout tool that manages to do what it did. It's even more aggravating watching Word add pointless features release after release while failing to get right what Interleaf got right two decades ago.
The link is to a paranoid source (Infowars), citing a disreputable newspaper (The Daily Mail), citing (but not linking to) a press release, for a product which the abysmally sketchy article is available "within the next tax year". None of which even begins to mention its actual capabilities beyond the misrepresented data point of "scanning 36 million faces".
In other words, unless somebody has a link to something of value, the entire thing seems like fiction designed to give people something to be pleasantly outraged about on a Saturday afternoon.
And they're generally not going to be enforced over amounts on the order of a few thousand dollars. It costs the FBI more than a few thousand dollars to investigate.
We're talking more about "crowdvesting" than crowdsourcing. The bill is about when there's money involved.
Right now, it's possible to accept donations, but not to return profits. That seems counterintuitive, but people are more likely to give when they think there's a chance of getting money back, and that leads to opportunities for fraud.
The goal is to ensure that the "chance" you're taking is on the success or failure of the project, not whether the person pushing it is a fraud.
Because you don't always get a video game out of it: some Kickstarter projects just plain fail. That's to be expected; it's the joys of entrepreneurship, as long as they fail honestly.
The laws were put into place to discourage fraud. If you want to get people to invest in your project, you need to go through a formal prospectus. Otherwise, it's easy to promise people the moon and return nothing. It goes back to the founding of the SEC in the 1930s, and additional legislation passed since then.
The success stories for Kickstarter are inspiring, but the potential for ripoffs is enormous. You need to know just what it is you're buying into. The amount of money that can be lost to fraud is comparatively small, but it's still as much as $10,000, and a lot of people can't afford to lose that. Especially the ones most likely to make desperate, ill-informed choices when somebody promises them enormous returns.
In a perfect world they'd loosen the cable again to see if they can reproduce the same results, but I don't know if they can rustle up the funds for it. Some days, you just recognize that the bug is fixed, commit the code, and go home for the weekend.
Unfortunately, no. The neutrino oscillations tell us that mass must be present. That's the only way the mechanisms allow oscillations to happen at all. As long they can participate in mass interactions, they oscillate. But that's all we get out of it.
The NSA is located in Maryland. At the end of the shift, traffic is bad enough between there and Columbia to block up the Interstates. That includes not just the cryptoanalysts, but the vast support staff: IT, cafeteria workers, security, human resources, etc etc etc.
Who's in Bluffdale? Where is all that support staff going to come from, and what are they going to do with the rest of their lives? Although the NSA is on a military base, a lot of the work is done by civilians, and you can't just order them into the middle of nowhere the way you can with soldiers.
The trick is drawing the eyeballs to the advertisers. All this research is cost of revenue. Projects unrelated to search, like email and maps, generate vast numbers of eyeballs to the ads, which is what the advertisers are paying for.
That revenue is exceeding expenses by nearly $25 billion per year. Even if they could increase that by $16 billion more by killing the projects the authors recommend (and I've got no reason to believe that they grasp what attracts viewers to advertisements better than the Google executives do), they would go seeking other R&D projects in which to invest those immense profits.
It just means "do what needs to be done". There's no particular subtext to it, though I'm sure it's probably more common in some regional dialects than others.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reason you can't do that already with a smart phone. And somebody already faked that:
http://www.intomobile.com/2010/01/11/nude-it-iphone-app-uses-augmented-reality-to-show-your-friends-naked-not/
I've actually seen the reverse: augmented reality stuck on web cams to add silly hats and other things to people.
I have to admit I'm baffled as to why that hasn't happened yet. If not on a plane, then on a train or a stadium, or a cafe.
The terrorists seem fixated on planes; when they do make attacks, that's where they generally go. If anything, they seem to think that blowing up a plane will get extra credit for having bypassed the TSA. But the TSA isn't even trying to protect a lot of soft targets, and I don't know why they don't try that more often.
I've got theories, but none of them are conclusive.
Taxes are taxes, and I doubt the Court is going to challenge that.
They may, however, decided that since the mandate isn't a tax, and it's only justified under the Commerce Clause, that we've been misinterpreting the Commerce Clause for a few decades. THAT would enable them to chuck... well, practically every piece of legislation for the last 50 years, including the Civil Rights Act.
The way I think it will go is not at all the way I want it to go. I'll be stunned if I'm wrong, but I would place very large bets that I'm not.
> I doubt terrorists will waste their time attacking airplanes with bombs.
The terrorists ARE wasting their time attacking airplanes with bombs. They've had several attempts already (the Underwear Bomber, the Shoe Bomber).
Fortunately, these failed, in part because they were forced to take extreme measures to disguise their bombs. If these guys had walked on with a plain stick of dynamite, those planes would have come down.
I was keeping up with this a bit at the time, and as far as I could tell, there was a period where Kasparov seemed to have an absolutely unique ability to beat computers. At that point, the computers had already decimated everybody else, and it stopped being "computers vs humanity" but "computers vs Kasparov".
They finally cracked the Kasparov problem, but it had been over for everybody else, including the grandmasters, for at least a decade.
This is just telling you that you'd lose against Rybka. But then, unless you're a top grandmaster having a good day, you already knew that. Even then, if you decided to play King's Gambit, Rybka's letting you know in advance that you are not having a good day.
Right on the surface, the King's Gambit doesn't look like a very good idea for white, throwing away a well-placed pawn on your second move. Apparently this was considered a good idea for a long time, though I (a mediocre-at-best player) don't see how it could work.
As white, the only advice you need from this study is "Don't do it." As black, the advice appears to be "Take the pawn if offered. The best they can do at that point is a draw, and if they differ from that line at all, they lose."
Assuming you're a great player, of course. I'm sure that I'd still get massacred if a real player were to play the King's Gambit against me.
Man, that isn't half as funny as I thought it was when I wrote it :-(
they would review or aide in writing for most papers
That would be "aid". "Aide" is a noun. You want the verb "aid".
I know I was in my early 20's before I understood the power of the semicolon; and it is awesome!
You don't use a conjunction with a semicolon. A conjunction is used with a comma to make a compound sentence. A semicolon takes two independent clauses, and with the conjunction, it makes the second clause a fragment.
Minor errors, of course. I wouldn't mention them in any other context.
The photo in the article still looks like dark gray on light gray. It's kind of painfully obvious next to the black and white of my computer screen.
And as far as I can tell (though the press release doesn't mention it) the speed is still in the "e-books, not animation" stage.
Given that this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+and+Emperor+Palpatine
yields 16,000 results, I'm gonna go with "yes".
Man, I miss Interleaf. 20 years after I first used it, there's still no layout tool that manages to do what it did. It's even more aggravating watching Word add pointless features release after release while failing to get right what Interleaf got right two decades ago.
The link is to a paranoid source (Infowars), citing a disreputable newspaper (The Daily Mail), citing (but not linking to) a press release, for a product which the abysmally sketchy article is available "within the next tax year". None of which even begins to mention its actual capabilities beyond the misrepresented data point of "scanning 36 million faces".
In other words, unless somebody has a link to something of value, the entire thing seems like fiction designed to give people something to be pleasantly outraged about on a Saturday afternoon.
The video stores closed due to online competition. Every Blu-Ray you're likely to want (and vastly more) is available on Amazon.
I dunno if Netflix supports by-mail rental in Canada, though I don't see why not. It's the other reason all of the video stores closed.
And they're generally not going to be enforced over amounts on the order of a few thousand dollars. It costs the FBI more than a few thousand dollars to investigate.
We're talking more about "crowdvesting" than crowdsourcing. The bill is about when there's money involved.
Right now, it's possible to accept donations, but not to return profits. That seems counterintuitive, but people are more likely to give when they think there's a chance of getting money back, and that leads to opportunities for fraud.
The goal is to ensure that the "chance" you're taking is on the success or failure of the project, not whether the person pushing it is a fraud.
Because you don't always get a video game out of it: some Kickstarter projects just plain fail. That's to be expected; it's the joys of entrepreneurship, as long as they fail honestly.
The laws were put into place to discourage fraud. If you want to get people to invest in your project, you need to go through a formal prospectus. Otherwise, it's easy to promise people the moon and return nothing. It goes back to the founding of the SEC in the 1930s, and additional legislation passed since then.
The success stories for Kickstarter are inspiring, but the potential for ripoffs is enormous. You need to know just what it is you're buying into. The amount of money that can be lost to fraud is comparatively small, but it's still as much as $10,000, and a lot of people can't afford to lose that. Especially the ones most likely to make desperate, ill-informed choices when somebody promises them enormous returns.
We've already got suspicions in that regard as well, including a loose connector cable:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp
In a perfect world they'd loosen the cable again to see if they can reproduce the same results, but I don't know if they can rustle up the funds for it. Some days, you just recognize that the bug is fixed, commit the code, and go home for the weekend.
Unfortunately, no. The neutrino oscillations tell us that mass must be present. That's the only way the mechanisms allow oscillations to happen at all. As long they can participate in mass interactions, they oscillate. But that's all we get out of it.
That's a lot of space for just computers. But then, it's a big thing they're trying to do.
The NSA is located in Maryland. At the end of the shift, traffic is bad enough between there and Columbia to block up the Interstates. That includes not just the cryptoanalysts, but the vast support staff: IT, cafeteria workers, security, human resources, etc etc etc.
Who's in Bluffdale? Where is all that support staff going to come from, and what are they going to do with the rest of their lives? Although the NSA is on a military base, a lot of the work is done by civilians, and you can't just order them into the middle of nowhere the way you can with soldiers.
The trick is drawing the eyeballs to the advertisers. All this research is cost of revenue. Projects unrelated to search, like email and maps, generate vast numbers of eyeballs to the ads, which is what the advertisers are paying for.
That revenue is exceeding expenses by nearly $25 billion per year. Even if they could increase that by $16 billion more by killing the projects the authors recommend (and I've got no reason to believe that they grasp what attracts viewers to advertisements better than the Google executives do), they would go seeking other R&D projects in which to invest those immense profits.
It just means "do what needs to be done". There's no particular subtext to it, though I'm sure it's probably more common in some regional dialects than others.