Why does this stop at ISPs? Maybe your local branch library could get in on this action and get some data mining money from their usage.
Maybe your bank should get in on this too. Everything you purchase with your card can be pretty valuable information for market research.
Maybe we should all just have mandated computer chips installed in our brains that allows the Feds to sell thought mining to marketers so they can better pillage our wallets. Just think of it. "Wow, I can't believe this is so cheap, I would have paid more." - And now you will. Maybe conservatives hell bent on getting rid of tax revenue could finally get their wish with this mandate. Life will be abysmal in every way, but no taxes so hurray!
I personally think there needs to be a very upfront mandatory message from any company collecting data on you for revenue purposes. This message needs to be very visible and they should have to publicly divulge how much their users are worth based on the data they collect.
In a lot of ways the folks here (myself included) that have been around since the early days of the net are partly to blame. Companies tried hard to cash in hard on ridiculously intrusive ads to keep their website afloat which most of us have blocked since it was possible. They tried subscription services that ultimately lead to their demise as the value to the consumer was lower than the cost of upkeep. Which ultimately brings us to now where they eventually realized they could sell their user data to stay afloat and their users would for the most part, be none the wiser. I have no idea how this mess could be fixed outside of legislating the problem away. But how do you define who can and who cannot collect data? That is very challenging to put in legal words that will not greatly upset the current internet environment we know. Maybe we need new backend solutions, subsidies and such, to lower the cost of some of the most publicly beneficial websites. But doing so would be difficult without folks screaming that we were about to nationalize youtube or wikipedia. The situation just sucks...
IoT toaser: Dave, you forgot to pay the monthly subscription for your device. I hope you will be delighted to know that there is a free service available to continue use of your device which only limits you to one minute of toasting every three hours.
IoT Refrigerator: Dave, my internet connection was lost earlier today so I shut down. I took the liberty to reorder everything that has perished inside, in duplicate quantities.
IoT Garage Door Opener: Dave, your account has been flagged as unpaid as it was due 2 hours previous to now. This change in payment policy took effect 4 hours 19 minutes previous to now. Dave, I understand you would like to park your car in the garage today. However, I'm afraid I can't allow that Dave. It is urgent you pay this balance, Dave. I also must suggest you not attempt parking your vehicle on the street as you do not have a parking permit and I will be forced to notify the authorities.
I don't give a rats ass about people who choose to pirate their video content or anything else digital for that matter. But if you stand to profit from a box using free software as your main interface and additionally profiting from the non-free content said interface was implemented to access, then fuck you.
Speculation: Non-removable batteries have become standard to keep people from being able to actually completely shut off their device. Likely they receive a small subsidy from a publicly funded agency for purposes.
For a forum with a likely higher than average percentage of folks with an understanding of game theory, I'm always a bit surprised how narrow the reality is to some folks. Tech is literally the application side to science research folks. This isn't hard.
I wish they would alleviate some of this now. Its completely within the realm of current technology and probably wouldnt be all that expensive to implement. Just start implementing a localized wireless network for cars that broadcasts the speed of your car and if you are suddenly breaking, and don't put any bullshit remote controllable crap in there, just data broadcasting. Now when a far 100 feet in front of you suddenly starts to slow down because of a car in front of that person driving slowly, your car can suggest a speed at which to drive to avoid having to stop. Maybe put this shit into stop lights as well. Of course, abuse would need to be mitigated by police by restricting them from using this signal to issue tickets and require that they independently obtain a measured speed to issue a ticket. They could also just fix the damn speed limit situation for most places.
I get that these companies don't want to be associated with the message of these videos and that is a completely legitimate concern. No company wants to be accused of promoting race hating or anything of the sort (unless you're Hobby Lobby/Chic-Fil-A). But realistically, these videos are most likely rarely watched by people outside of the group interested in the content and who follow similar lines of thought. These people, no matter how badly some would wish them gone, still exist in this world and still buy products too. From a marketing perspective, it seems silly to undercut yourself. Just put a statement at the bottom of each of your ads that states, "This ad is independent of the video you are watching and is in no way an endorsement of the content you are watching." Thought they had this figured out with TV already...
1) Use a decent browser with a legitimate ad-blocker
2) Contact the common content makers that your kid watches, and ask them to title their videos with throwing in a little extreme verbiage, "How Nazis Helped and Trains for Childen, a Thomas video"
This is a very good idea. Does receiving a violation nullify your ability to claim the credit? I can see it being argued both ways. I'm just curious your opinion on the matter since it was suggested you had given this a lot of thought.
Haha, you got me. That is quite clearly exactly what I meant!/s
Populism is not without flaws. Tyranny of the majority is a very serious problem and much has been done to try and quell that problem. However, tyranny of the powerful minority is also a significant problem. The broad scope of things is that there needs to be a balance between the two and right now, the scale is heavily tipped in favor of the powerful minority. For the last couple of decades, the US government has worked to make things better for the powerful minority, leaving the commoner majority the table scrap wedge issues that only serve to show that they did at least one thing beneficial for you.
That needs to change and balance needs to be restored where the US government is being beneficial to most everyone. In doing so, some harsh realities may be faced by the powerful minority. This will likely include items such as having to pay more taxes which reflects upon how much more they utilize and benefit from the economy and infrastructure of the US. Intentionally ineffective regulations may be replaced with new versions that make it difficult to pollute the environment we all share, or new privacy restrictions that make it illegal for an ISP to retain any of your data or other companies to use your data to profit without proper compensation.
A hundred years ago, people were regularly exploited and thrown out as trash after they were injured or killed while on the job. Wise people saw this as a problem and sought ways to correct that problem and it brought forward a much more powerful country. People like to say the aftermath of WWII is what brought the US out of the depression. What they forget is that the US was already well on its way, fast tracking out of the depression before it even entered WWII. The laws and regulations passed in the decade before were what made it possible to even consider entering the war in the first place. A struggling country would never have the ability to produce enough supplies for such an event. If you need further proof of this, just look at the countries that fell so easily early in WWII, all struggling countries, trying to deal with the problems caused by the depression.
Currently, we're on a march back in time against all these policies that were enormously beneficial. It brings to mind the famously wise quote from George Santatana:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
We are in for hard times if your line of thought is to be the norm.
This is a great example of a hyperbolic bullshit comment.
Don't bother relating anything from the ideals of Sanders to the suggested "semi-feudal system". That would make it too obvious that you know jack shit.
Progressivism as an ideology is quite populist. Populism is where the majority takes the reigns and says, "no, we're not going to do it that way, we're going to do it our way because it provides the most benefit to us, the majority." Trump is suggested to be a populist because his supporters see him as a dramatic departure from the norm (he isn't), politician to business man. Sanders on the other hand, holds ideals that support pushing for more individual rights and taking away some of the power and authority currently held by the ultra-rich and mega corporations. How in the hell is taking power away from the people that are supposed to become the nobility in this aftermath of feudalism by progressive trends, if the progressive philosophy made them far less powerful?
And if you do, well you've already fucked yourself by being stupid as fuck and society doesn't need that stupidity in it.
Are you unaware that half half of the population is less intelligent than the other half? Are you suggesting that since the more intelligent half of the population is more knowledgeable and probably less likely to make poor decisions, that the less intelligent half should be exploited due to their lack of knowledge in the matter?
Oh but I'm sure you are so much better than all those stupid fucks on the bottom half. You made it clear in the above. All those stupid fucks can continue to make poor decisions and hurt themselves and hurt others because who gives a fuck about them. Hope they don't make a poor decision that hurts you though. That would be tragic. Poetic justice on their part, but tragic.
And they're using zip ties? And they don't melt? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the suggestion that I would instantly burn walking into this room but I'm fairly sure zip ties burn at a lower temperature than I do.
It publicly forces Apple into a corner where they are aiding and abetting crime by paying the ransom, so no ransom can be paid.
That's not how ransom works. Any time there is a ransom request, the victim is allowed to pay it if the outcome is likely to be more desirable than not paying it. Where did you get the idea that paying a ransom was illegal? Happens all the time.
In my mind, Charon shouldn't be considered a satellite to Pluto since the centre of orbit is outside of Pluto. Neither are "Moon", both are "Planet".
Difference of opinions here I guess but the definition I offered clarifies that the object to be considered a planet in any sort of clustered central orbiting system, has to be the most prominent body in that orbit. That would make Pluto the planet, and Charon the moon. Charon is about half the size of Pluto, so there is a significant difference on the gravitational influence of each celestial body as well.
The Earths moon is roughly a quarter size of our planet and in many respects, we share similarities to the Pluto-Charon system. I would argue that the Earth-Moon system is also a binary system too. However, the most prominent body of influence should retain the most prominent hierarchical name. Hence, the Earth is a planet, Luna is a moon, Pluto is a planet, and Charon is a moon.
binary planets or sibling planets when multiple bodies of sufficient size occupy an orbit.
The Saturn moon Titan, is larger than planet Mercury and yet I've never heard anyone demand that Mercury be demoted or that Titan be promoted. One object will always take prominence, having the most mass in a system, even if the next largest object is somewhat close in size as well; it would still be a moon. I would argue the Earth-Moon system is very similar in its binary nature to Pluto-Charon, though at differing levels. No one is demanding that the Moon be called a planet.
As for your example of bays, your logic is faulty. Both can be bays in that circumstance, just like two objects can be moons of the same system, to which both bays are a part of a larger system known as Puget Sound.
(Planet name) A (n): an object in orbit around a star, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, but that has not reached critical mass to achieve stellar fusion, and is the second-most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood.
-It would be most common to find the second largest object in a system following the discovery of the largest object. Hence we follow naming conventions already in use for exoplanets. In this circumstance, (Planet name) A is a child object to (Planet name), or more simply, a moon.
Anyone still using Chrome should have long since resolved to using a mostly featureless browser. If you are looking for features, you probably should be looking more at using Palemoon or another browser maintained by another small group. Once a browser seems to hit critical appeal, features start getting stripped out because your grandparents might fuck something up.
Reddit hasn't been special for several years now. Right after Reddit realized they could capitalize on selling power to astroturfing marketing groups, things went down hill pretty quick and in a fairly noticeable way if you paid attention. Moderation increased dramatically, many of the popular subreddits were taken over and comments got a lot "funnier", "punnier" or in general more facebook-like. Now, the latter could be a result of the mass appeal of reddit reaching a critical point, but it honestly happened altogether too quickly to be entirely organic.
As little as four years ago, I could sit for an entire day reading comments on both popular and smaller subreddits finding very interesting information and stories from all walks of life. I hardly even go to reddit these days as its entirely intolerable on a large swath of subreddits, large or small. If a subreddit reaches a certain point in subscribers, seems to often be around 5,000 people, administrators make contact with the subreddit owner and suggest adding moderators. And they'll even make suggestions on who to add (convenient right?). These new moderators seemingly have endless time to moderate the sub as well. Reddit works in a quite tightly controlled manner that is not at all obvious to most users.
I've been a slashdotter since the early early days. This site has its own issues but for the most part, its always been worth coming back to. Digg, now reddit, off to the big ol' cyber junkyard. Hopefully another similar site (that isn't Voat) can take the place of reddit. The problem is, they get most of their funding on the backend from places like Strafor and marketers who mine the comments for useful information that they can sell to other people. Unless it really implodes like Digg in a grand fashion, I don't see them disappearing completely until another site is already there to take its place.
We need a simple law that clarifies this point. Out law the use of the words 'buy' or 'sell' when dealing with a license
I disagree. We need to revise copyright law and adopt more of a copyleft law system. Copyrights do exist for a very necessary reason. If you are willing to invest time and money in making and delivering a product that people want, by all means, you should have a certain right to make back that investment and profit on your product. Nonetheless, copyrights should have a certain timelimit that runs out within a generation unless significant innovation by the copyright holder can be shown to retain that copyright; and no remastering every couple of years does not count.
A society is strong when people are able to act freely in their innovation and creativity. Locking everything down assures that only a few are allowed to rise to the top, which is why they like it that way.
" I'm a wealthy individual in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Why is everyone always whining about being poor or wanting to do things cheaply? Gosh! "
I'm all for adding modifiers but we have to think broadly yet precisely when defining what exactly makes a 'planet', a 'planet'. What is the cutoff in such a definition? I mean you can say its when they reach a certain circumference or when they reach hydrostatic equilibrium but then whats the upper limit? White dwarfs are certainly stars but can be close in size to the Earth. Just going by size makes it difficult to not define it simply as a planet. Or are all stars planets as well in this scenario?
A planet is any object in orbit around a star, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, has not reached critical mass to achieve stellar fusion, and is the most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood. That definition is going to add a few more planets but not many.
The suggested definition from TFA is just as terribly obtuse as the 2006 definition. Even worse is the suggestion to change the word 'planet' to become an all encompassing term that now also means most smaller bodies as well (but not all). It makes things unnecessarily confusing. This just seems tantamount to two-year-old logic where one word now means everything.
And look, my suggested definition expands.
A moon is any object in orbit around a planet, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, and is the most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood.
A moonroid (haha maybe?) is any object in orbit around a planet, has not reached critical mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and is shares its orbit and neighborhood with other objects of similar mass.
An asteroid is any object in orbit around a star, has not reached critical mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and is shares its orbit and neighborhood with other objects of similar mass.
And so on. The hydrostatic equilibrium is critical to defining celestial bodies but it shouldn't be the only requirement to define a planet.
Why not just subject him to water boarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" techniques? At this point, what does it even matter? If we are so willing to break some of the most fundamental rights owned by our society, then what does the rest of it matter? You can argue day and night about whether there is still logic to the 2nd amendment; and lets be real, the logic falters when you exercise that right against a military as heavily funded as in the US. However, the existence of the 5th amendment is paramount to the freedom of our citizens.
Why stop at compelling an alleged criminal to stand as witness of information against themselves? Why not violate the rest of the amendment and just retry every single case that we thought should have gone another way. Hell, why even bother with costly trials at all? We can just go full Idiocracy right now and just decide if a person is guilty by appearance and conjecture alone.
Maybe we can avoid breaking the 5th amendment by violating the 4th instead and just require every person to subject themselves to a monthly screening of their house, vehicle and computer. Keys and Passwords would only be allowed to be administered by the state. Any time necessary, they state can perform an immediate screening of your property. Then no one has to stand as witness against themselves.
Lets take away the annoying 6th amendment too. No need for a speedy trial in cases like this. If an assailant is so clearly guilty, regardless of obtained evidence, then maybe its just 'good enough' that the person be locked away. Maybe we can allow police officers to act as jury as well. They surely know the law better than the commoner. Maybe that would ensure speedy trials instead.
Which brings us back to the 8th amendment and "enhanced interrogation" techniques in obtaining any necessary information that just can't quite be obtained in any other manner deemed reasonable by this modern governing style.
No matter what this person really did, the ultimate sacrifice is made by our entire society by breaking the fundamental rules that were set up to prevent this exact thing from happening. The bill of rights is far more important to the whole than this one trial, even if the accused is so accused accurately.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does this stop at ISPs? Maybe your local branch library could get in on this action and get some data mining money from their usage.
Maybe your bank should get in on this too. Everything you purchase with your card can be pretty valuable information for market research.
Maybe we should all just have mandated computer chips installed in our brains that allows the Feds to sell thought mining to marketers so they can better pillage our wallets. Just think of it. "Wow, I can't believe this is so cheap, I would have paid more." - And now you will. Maybe conservatives hell bent on getting rid of tax revenue could finally get their wish with this mandate. Life will be abysmal in every way, but no taxes so hurray!
I personally think there needs to be a very upfront mandatory message from any company collecting data on you for revenue purposes. This message needs to be very visible and they should have to publicly divulge how much their users are worth based on the data they collect.
In a lot of ways the folks here (myself included) that have been around since the early days of the net are partly to blame. Companies tried hard to cash in hard on ridiculously intrusive ads to keep their website afloat which most of us have blocked since it was possible. They tried subscription services that ultimately lead to their demise as the value to the consumer was lower than the cost of upkeep. Which ultimately brings us to now where they eventually realized they could sell their user data to stay afloat and their users would for the most part, be none the wiser. I have no idea how this mess could be fixed outside of legislating the problem away. But how do you define who can and who cannot collect data? That is very challenging to put in legal words that will not greatly upset the current internet environment we know. Maybe we need new backend solutions, subsidies and such, to lower the cost of some of the most publicly beneficial websites. But doing so would be difficult without folks screaming that we were about to nationalize youtube or wikipedia. The situation just sucks...
IoT toaser: Dave, you forgot to pay the monthly subscription for your device. I hope you will be delighted to know that there is a free service available to continue use of your device which only limits you to one minute of toasting every three hours.
IoT Refrigerator: Dave, my internet connection was lost earlier today so I shut down. I took the liberty to reorder everything that has perished inside, in duplicate quantities.
IoT Garage Door Opener: Dave, your account has been flagged as unpaid as it was due 2 hours previous to now. This change in payment policy took effect 4 hours 19 minutes previous to now. Dave, I understand you would like to park your car in the garage today. However, I'm afraid I can't allow that Dave. It is urgent you pay this balance, Dave. I also must suggest you not attempt parking your vehicle on the street as you do not have a parking permit and I will be forced to notify the authorities.
Why are we going down the road?
I don't give a rats ass about people who choose to pirate their video content or anything else digital for that matter. But if you stand to profit from a box using free software as your main interface and additionally profiting from the non-free content said interface was implemented to access, then fuck you.
Speculation: Non-removable batteries have become standard to keep people from being able to actually completely shut off their device. Likely they receive a small subsidy from a publicly funded agency for purposes.
For a forum with a likely higher than average percentage of folks with an understanding of game theory, I'm always a bit surprised how narrow the reality is to some folks. Tech is literally the application side to science research folks. This isn't hard.
And he was exactly right to say so. Cassini for instance, changed its inclination numerous times during its various missions.
I wish they would alleviate some of this now. Its completely within the realm of current technology and probably wouldnt be all that expensive to implement. Just start implementing a localized wireless network for cars that broadcasts the speed of your car and if you are suddenly breaking, and don't put any bullshit remote controllable crap in there, just data broadcasting. Now when a far 100 feet in front of you suddenly starts to slow down because of a car in front of that person driving slowly, your car can suggest a speed at which to drive to avoid having to stop. Maybe put this shit into stop lights as well. Of course, abuse would need to be mitigated by police by restricting them from using this signal to issue tickets and require that they independently obtain a measured speed to issue a ticket. They could also just fix the damn speed limit situation for most places.
I get that these companies don't want to be associated with the message of these videos and that is a completely legitimate concern. No company wants to be accused of promoting race hating or anything of the sort (unless you're Hobby Lobby/Chic-Fil-A). But realistically, these videos are most likely rarely watched by people outside of the group interested in the content and who follow similar lines of thought. These people, no matter how badly some would wish them gone, still exist in this world and still buy products too. From a marketing perspective, it seems silly to undercut yourself. Just put a statement at the bottom of each of your ads that states, "This ad is independent of the video you are watching and is in no way an endorsement of the content you are watching." Thought they had this figured out with TV already...
The way I see it, you have two options.
1) Use a decent browser with a legitimate ad-blocker
2) Contact the common content makers that your kid watches, and ask them to title their videos with throwing in a little extreme verbiage, "How Nazis Helped and Trains for Childen, a Thomas video"
This will surely turn things around for them. /s
This is a very good idea. Does receiving a violation nullify your ability to claim the credit? I can see it being argued both ways. I'm just curious your opinion on the matter since it was suggested you had given this a lot of thought.
Populism is not without flaws. Tyranny of the majority is a very serious problem and much has been done to try and quell that problem. However, tyranny of the powerful minority is also a significant problem. The broad scope of things is that there needs to be a balance between the two and right now, the scale is heavily tipped in favor of the powerful minority. For the last couple of decades, the US government has worked to make things better for the powerful minority, leaving the commoner majority the table scrap wedge issues that only serve to show that they did at least one thing beneficial for you.
That needs to change and balance needs to be restored where the US government is being beneficial to most everyone. In doing so, some harsh realities may be faced by the powerful minority. This will likely include items such as having to pay more taxes which reflects upon how much more they utilize and benefit from the economy and infrastructure of the US. Intentionally ineffective regulations may be replaced with new versions that make it difficult to pollute the environment we all share, or new privacy restrictions that make it illegal for an ISP to retain any of your data or other companies to use your data to profit without proper compensation.
A hundred years ago, people were regularly exploited and thrown out as trash after they were injured or killed while on the job. Wise people saw this as a problem and sought ways to correct that problem and it brought forward a much more powerful country. People like to say the aftermath of WWII is what brought the US out of the depression. What they forget is that the US was already well on its way, fast tracking out of the depression before it even entered WWII. The laws and regulations passed in the decade before were what made it possible to even consider entering the war in the first place. A struggling country would never have the ability to produce enough supplies for such an event. If you need further proof of this, just look at the countries that fell so easily early in WWII, all struggling countries, trying to deal with the problems caused by the depression.
Currently, we're on a march back in time against all these policies that were enormously beneficial. It brings to mind the famously wise quote from George Santatana:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
We are in for hard times if your line of thought is to be the norm.
This is a great example of a hyperbolic bullshit comment.
Don't bother relating anything from the ideals of Sanders to the suggested "semi-feudal system". That would make it too obvious that you know jack shit.
Progressivism as an ideology is quite populist. Populism is where the majority takes the reigns and says, "no, we're not going to do it that way, we're going to do it our way because it provides the most benefit to us, the majority." Trump is suggested to be a populist because his supporters see him as a dramatic departure from the norm (he isn't), politician to business man. Sanders on the other hand, holds ideals that support pushing for more individual rights and taking away some of the power and authority currently held by the ultra-rich and mega corporations. How in the hell is taking power away from the people that are supposed to become the nobility in this aftermath of feudalism by progressive trends, if the progressive philosophy made them far less powerful?
And if you do, well you've already fucked yourself by being stupid as fuck and society doesn't need that stupidity in it.
Are you unaware that half half of the population is less intelligent than the other half? Are you suggesting that since the more intelligent half of the population is more knowledgeable and probably less likely to make poor decisions, that the less intelligent half should be exploited due to their lack of knowledge in the matter?
Oh but I'm sure you are so much better than all those stupid fucks on the bottom half. You made it clear in the above. All those stupid fucks can continue to make poor decisions and hurt themselves and hurt others because who gives a fuck about them. Hope they don't make a poor decision that hurts you though. That would be tragic. Poetic justice on their part, but tragic.
And they're using zip ties? And they don't melt? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the suggestion that I would instantly burn walking into this room but I'm fairly sure zip ties burn at a lower temperature than I do.
It publicly forces Apple into a corner where they are aiding and abetting crime by paying the ransom, so no ransom can be paid.
That's not how ransom works. Any time there is a ransom request, the victim is allowed to pay it if the outcome is likely to be more desirable than not paying it. Where did you get the idea that paying a ransom was illegal? Happens all the time.
In my mind, Charon shouldn't be considered a satellite to Pluto since the centre of orbit is outside of Pluto. Neither are "Moon", both are "Planet".
Difference of opinions here I guess but the definition I offered clarifies that the object to be considered a planet in any sort of clustered central orbiting system, has to be the most prominent body in that orbit. That would make Pluto the planet, and Charon the moon. Charon is about half the size of Pluto, so there is a significant difference on the gravitational influence of each celestial body as well.
The Earths moon is roughly a quarter size of our planet and in many respects, we share similarities to the Pluto-Charon system. I would argue that the Earth-Moon system is also a binary system too. However, the most prominent body of influence should retain the most prominent hierarchical name. Hence, the Earth is a planet, Luna is a moon, Pluto is a planet, and Charon is a moon.
binary planets or sibling planets when multiple bodies of sufficient size occupy an orbit.
The Saturn moon Titan, is larger than planet Mercury and yet I've never heard anyone demand that Mercury be demoted or that Titan be promoted. One object will always take prominence, having the most mass in a system, even if the next largest object is somewhat close in size as well; it would still be a moon. I would argue the Earth-Moon system is very similar in its binary nature to Pluto-Charon, though at differing levels. No one is demanding that the Moon be called a planet.
As for your example of bays, your logic is faulty. Both can be bays in that circumstance, just like two objects can be moons of the same system, to which both bays are a part of a larger system known as Puget Sound. (Planet name) A (n): an object in orbit around a star, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, but that has not reached critical mass to achieve stellar fusion, and is the second-most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood.
-It would be most common to find the second largest object in a system following the discovery of the largest object. Hence we follow naming conventions already in use for exoplanets. In this circumstance, (Planet name) A is a child object to (Planet name), or more simply, a moon.
Anyone still using Chrome should have long since resolved to using a mostly featureless browser. If you are looking for features, you probably should be looking more at using Palemoon or another browser maintained by another small group. Once a browser seems to hit critical appeal, features start getting stripped out because your grandparents might fuck something up.
Reddit hasn't been special for several years now. Right after Reddit realized they could capitalize on selling power to astroturfing marketing groups, things went down hill pretty quick and in a fairly noticeable way if you paid attention. Moderation increased dramatically, many of the popular subreddits were taken over and comments got a lot "funnier", "punnier" or in general more facebook-like. Now, the latter could be a result of the mass appeal of reddit reaching a critical point, but it honestly happened altogether too quickly to be entirely organic.
As little as four years ago, I could sit for an entire day reading comments on both popular and smaller subreddits finding very interesting information and stories from all walks of life. I hardly even go to reddit these days as its entirely intolerable on a large swath of subreddits, large or small. If a subreddit reaches a certain point in subscribers, seems to often be around 5,000 people, administrators make contact with the subreddit owner and suggest adding moderators. And they'll even make suggestions on who to add (convenient right?). These new moderators seemingly have endless time to moderate the sub as well. Reddit works in a quite tightly controlled manner that is not at all obvious to most users.
I've been a slashdotter since the early early days. This site has its own issues but for the most part, its always been worth coming back to. Digg, now reddit, off to the big ol' cyber junkyard. Hopefully another similar site (that isn't Voat) can take the place of reddit. The problem is, they get most of their funding on the backend from places like Strafor and marketers who mine the comments for useful information that they can sell to other people. Unless it really implodes like Digg in a grand fashion, I don't see them disappearing completely until another site is already there to take its place.
We need a simple law that clarifies this point. Out law the use of the words 'buy' or 'sell' when dealing with a license
I disagree. We need to revise copyright law and adopt more of a copyleft law system. Copyrights do exist for a very necessary reason. If you are willing to invest time and money in making and delivering a product that people want, by all means, you should have a certain right to make back that investment and profit on your product. Nonetheless, copyrights should have a certain timelimit that runs out within a generation unless significant innovation by the copyright holder can be shown to retain that copyright; and no remastering every couple of years does not count.
A society is strong when people are able to act freely in their innovation and creativity. Locking everything down assures that only a few are allowed to rise to the top, which is why they like it that way.
" I'm a wealthy individual in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Why is everyone always whining about being poor or wanting to do things cheaply? Gosh! "
- AC
I'm all for adding modifiers but we have to think broadly yet precisely when defining what exactly makes a 'planet', a 'planet'. What is the cutoff in such a definition? I mean you can say its when they reach a certain circumference or when they reach hydrostatic equilibrium but then whats the upper limit? White dwarfs are certainly stars but can be close in size to the Earth. Just going by size makes it difficult to not define it simply as a planet. Or are all stars planets as well in this scenario?
A planet is any object in orbit around a star, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, has not reached critical mass to achieve stellar fusion, and is the most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood. That definition is going to add a few more planets but not many.
The suggested definition from TFA is just as terribly obtuse as the 2006 definition. Even worse is the suggestion to change the word 'planet' to become an all encompassing term that now also means most smaller bodies as well (but not all). It makes things unnecessarily confusing. This just seems tantamount to two-year-old logic where one word now means everything.
And look, my suggested definition expands.
A moon is any object in orbit around a planet, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, and is the most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood.
A moonroid (haha maybe?) is any object in orbit around a planet, has not reached critical mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and is shares its orbit and neighborhood with other objects of similar mass.
An asteroid is any object in orbit around a star, has not reached critical mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and is shares its orbit and neighborhood with other objects of similar mass.
And so on. The hydrostatic equilibrium is critical to defining celestial bodies but it shouldn't be the only requirement to define a planet.
Why not just subject him to water boarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" techniques? At this point, what does it even matter? If we are so willing to break some of the most fundamental rights owned by our society, then what does the rest of it matter? You can argue day and night about whether there is still logic to the 2nd amendment; and lets be real, the logic falters when you exercise that right against a military as heavily funded as in the US. However, the existence of the 5th amendment is paramount to the freedom of our citizens.
Why stop at compelling an alleged criminal to stand as witness of information against themselves? Why not violate the rest of the amendment and just retry every single case that we thought should have gone another way. Hell, why even bother with costly trials at all? We can just go full Idiocracy right now and just decide if a person is guilty by appearance and conjecture alone.
Maybe we can avoid breaking the 5th amendment by violating the 4th instead and just require every person to subject themselves to a monthly screening of their house, vehicle and computer. Keys and Passwords would only be allowed to be administered by the state. Any time necessary, they state can perform an immediate screening of your property. Then no one has to stand as witness against themselves.
Lets take away the annoying 6th amendment too. No need for a speedy trial in cases like this. If an assailant is so clearly guilty, regardless of obtained evidence, then maybe its just 'good enough' that the person be locked away. Maybe we can allow police officers to act as jury as well. They surely know the law better than the commoner. Maybe that would ensure speedy trials instead.
Which brings us back to the 8th amendment and "enhanced interrogation" techniques in obtaining any necessary information that just can't quite be obtained in any other manner deemed reasonable by this modern governing style.
No matter what this person really did, the ultimate sacrifice is made by our entire society by breaking the fundamental rules that were set up to prevent this exact thing from happening. The bill of rights is far more important to the whole than this one trial, even if the accused is so accused accurately.