You would need ridiculous numbers of turbines just to slow down the breeze in a general area a little bit, so that area might be a little warmer locally because cooler air isn't pushing through, or warmer air, or something.
But net effect on Earth remains the same. All the electricity the turbine generates, which gets converted to heat in the atmosphere eventually, save a touch from light bulbs into space, is just returning it there.
Dear intigence agencies. A panopticon may make your job easier, but it also makes the dictator's life easier. As such, it is someihing we the free people of the world, deny you, the government. With no such tool existent, it cannot be abused, as it inevitably will.
Well guess what. Presidents clobber previous ones' big projects all the time, including previous plans to go to Mars and back to the moon. Obama clobbered the giant rocket that would have taken over for the space shuttle, to save money, and let the Russians ferry us around for some years.
Then it turned out they were still Rooskies.
Now the child of that rocket is back on the fast track, golly.
See, clearing out the previous guy's stuff lets you simultaneously save money and deny him his Kennedy moment coming to fruition. Win win!
So when your fitness band tells you you have run a 4-minute mile — don't believe it.
I think you mean "So when your iWatch tells you you've walked 17 yards today between the fridge, front door to accept pizza, and da toity, don't you believe it."
This kind of thing was something deliberately over-engineered because the phone company didn't wanna deal with it after putting it in your house. See, when you pay for it monthly, they can't charge a repair fee.
> Microsoft...is trying to convince everyone Windows 10 is a bright up-and-comer.
Well, that's better than Windows 8, where Microsoft was trying to convince everyone it was a 12 year old with unusually large breasts.
"this attack crosses the crucial line between research and endangering innocent users." Since many of the 'endangered users' were then charged with various crimes, are they innocent?
If a student doctor treats a patient with a gunshot wound, they are still obligated to report the wound to the police. Is the student not learning, and if so, is that materially any different than what the Tor researchers were doing? The gunshot victim may be innocent, or may have been taking part in a crime, but that doesn't change the doctor's obligation.
Or if a Law Enforcement student is participating in a community event and witnesses a crime, we don't raise a red flag if they apprehend the suspect.
The circumstances all seem pretty similar to me.
These are really in the larger context of disallowing government the tools of tyrrany. Government is forbidden from warrantless searching to prevent them from rooting around looking for things to charge political challengers with. Yes, even legitimate criminal charges. Putin, Chavez, there are contemporary examples where this is occuring. And political science has for centuries been aware that the more defined crimes, the easier it is for government to have a hook on which to hang pulling you over, thus having several ready reasons to hamper anybody who irritates those in power.
And don't say it doesn't happen here. When SJP announced a downgrade to government bonds, the government announced an inquiry into them to see if they were violating anything. Hemming and hawwing ensued.
A tool that breaks into things is not unconstitutional. Using it without a warrant is.
While the contents of unencrypted networks might properly be considered something The People cannot reasonably expect privacy in, encrypted networks The People definitely expect to be secure in, especially without a warrant. This would include not just the latest stuff, but older stuff like basic HTTPS and password transfers.
Someone noticed government had first dibs on your income and could tax it. And therefore you should think of it as government's money, and that it lets you keep some.
This was not a cynical libertarian view, but rather a socialist's rah rah rah! attitude.
This survives today in the meme that government reducing taxes for a particular industry is "subsidizing" them, taking away The People's money and "giving" it to a company.
While the wisdom of any particular tax break is up for debate, and political, and, let's face it, the exact reason people go into power, so they can hand these out, it is important to keep in mind refusing to take someone's money does not mean it is your money
There was a case soon after 9/11 where one of those lawyers who defends the indefensible, in this case a terrorist, was jailed. The government listened in on the conversation (which would queer a criminal case but not a war prisoner perhaps) and found out the associate she was letting talk to the prisoner was actually another terrorist and they were swapping terrorist info. So she (the lawyer) got in trouble.
You just can't listen in without messing up the case. If you are prepared to do so...
Disallowing prisoners from voting is one thing I disagree with. While you do, and should, give up many freedoms going to prison, because you have shown you cannot live peacefully with others when you have them, voting is not one you should give up.
It is a check on government to prevent a situation where power gets out of control. This is not just of theoretical concern -- imagine if people in jail on marijuana charges could vote.
Those airline employees recorded Michael Jackson's conversations with his lawyer seated next to him on a flight, and were planning to sell it off. The judge was ready to start breaking arms to keep it silenced.
You can't even crack open protected conversations after the guy dies, the SC has ruled, because even that may drive a fear of talking honestly with your lawyer about your situation.
Have you considered a thing like the Bill of Rights? And not wattered down versions, so common in modern countries, that offer escape clauses "if the government really really really wants to". As we see in the US with warrantless spying, even that may not be enough, but it is a start. Then you can call out taxes as a line item, as speech.
The problem is that getting a warrant is little more than a check box on a form -- "Make sure you get one before firing up spy software!" There is no technological barrier to not having one, nor uncorruptible logging of access that can be regularly reviewed later by judges and elected officials. So there is no stopping illegal political spying, the real source of the need for warrants.
What you describe are wbat are effectively "general warrants", also specifically outlawed by the Constitution, which allow the King to filch around your papers until he finds something he can nail an uppity person with.
Of course in this case, there is a warrant, and one of idiotically massive size.
This will go by the wayside eventually as Internet does not care or require 30 (or 60) minute episodes. This will only happen for Internet shows for now if the producers feel there may be some 30 minute TV presentation later. Syndication in some far away land, if nothing else.
I want to binge on shows. Right now Netflix is consuming decades of production in one decade or less. I have 3-watched all of Buffy and House, Family Guy and American Dad more than I can count, Angel, Sherlock, entire seasons go by in a few days. I didn't watch Walking Dead until season 5 last year, and I caught up in less than two weeks on Netflix, with season 4 I watched on the pre season 5 marathon opener, thanks DVR.
It is a golden age for old stuff, but that will run out, and back to waiting for more...via binge. It does suck inhaling it all in a week or two, then having to wait a year, but there you go.
I watch Adult Swim, and then only the Fox stuff, and South Park on Comedy Central. SciFi does nothing for me; I would prefer a channel with old Saturday Afternoon black and white sf and monster movies from the 1950s.
Not a bad idea. I was going to say that the only thing an interactive ad guarantees is me randomly clicking feedback stuff. 'Full attention'. Good luck with that. Advertisers have earned the wrath of pretty much everyone now by being forceful and greedy. Basically they act like we owe them something and they're wrong.
They need to be meek and humble for about a decade to start to get some level of trust back--maybe.
I have 0 desire to "interact" with an ad, and would rather alt-tab to a different window while 5 ads play in the background. Some now detect this and pause ads, so now I have to alt tab back briefly to get the ad to start.
Sites that force me to intetact, or always pause the ad if background, I simply leave. For that matter most of the time on CNN.com I click a little video piece, see a 30s ad fire up, and just close the tab. A little fun thing ain't worth a big ad.
Slashdot Mirror
You would need ridiculous numbers of turbines just to slow down the breeze in a general area a little bit, so that area might be a little warmer locally because cooler air isn't pushing through, or warmer air, or something.
But net effect on Earth remains the same. All the electricity the turbine generates, which gets converted to heat in the atmosphere eventually, save a touch from light bulbs into space, is just returning it there.
As long as they don't lie, they have a right to speech. Already they cram in warnings and side effects.
and why intelligence agencies haven't done anything about them, if they're so easy to find.
One likes to think they are finding and tracking whoever logs in to them, and sorting the hot air people from the real networked folks.
Dear intigence agencies. A panopticon may make your job easier, but it also makes the dictator's life easier. As such, it is someihing we the free people of the world, deny you, the government. With no such tool existent, it cannot be abused, as it inevitably will.
> NASA would be doomed
Well guess what. Presidents clobber previous ones' big projects all the time, including previous plans to go to Mars and back to the moon. Obama clobbered the giant rocket that would have taken over for the space shuttle, to save money, and let the Russians ferry us around for some years.
Then it turned out they were still Rooskies.
Now the child of that rocket is back on the fast track, golly.
See, clearing out the previous guy's stuff lets you simultaneously save money and deny him his Kennedy moment coming to fruition. Win win!
Well apparently both made the exact same error, for completely different reasons. So redundandy didn't help.
Really, though, why don't modern large planes all weigh themselves?
So Hillary and Bernie are quantum entagled AND faced with imminent Pauli Exclusion Principle issues!
Feel better now?
So when your fitness band tells you you have run a 4-minute mile — don't believe it.
I think you mean "So when your iWatch tells you you've walked 17 yards today between the fridge, front door to accept pizza, and da toity, don't you believe it."
This is Sashdot.
This kind of thing was something deliberately over-engineered because the phone company didn't wanna deal with it after putting it in your house. See, when you pay for it monthly, they can't charge a repair fee.
> Microsoft...is trying to convince everyone Windows 10 is a bright up-and-comer.
Well, that's better than Windows 8, where Microsoft was trying to convince everyone it was a 12 year old with unusually large breasts.
Nor is it friendly to people coming up from the bottom of nothingness, as many immigrants do.
"this attack crosses the crucial line between research and endangering innocent users." Since many of the 'endangered users' were then charged with various crimes, are they innocent?
If a student doctor treats a patient with a gunshot wound, they are still obligated to report the wound to the police. Is the student not learning, and if so, is that materially any different than what the Tor researchers were doing? The gunshot victim may be innocent, or may have been taking part in a crime, but that doesn't change the doctor's obligation.
Or if a Law Enforcement student is participating in a community event and witnesses a crime, we don't raise a red flag if they apprehend the suspect.
The circumstances all seem pretty similar to me.
These are really in the larger context of disallowing government the tools of tyrrany. Government is forbidden from warrantless searching to prevent them from rooting around looking for things to charge political challengers with. Yes, even legitimate criminal charges. Putin, Chavez, there are contemporary examples where this is occuring. And political science has for centuries been aware that the more defined crimes, the easier it is for government to have a hook on which to hang pulling you over, thus having several ready reasons to hamper anybody who irritates those in power.
And don't say it doesn't happen here. When SJP announced a downgrade to government bonds, the government announced an inquiry into them to see if they were violating anything. Hemming and hawwing ensued.
A tool that breaks into things is not unconstitutional. Using it without a warrant is.
While the contents of unencrypted networks might properly be considered something The People cannot reasonably expect privacy in, encrypted networks The People definitely expect to be secure in, especially without a warrant. This would include not just the latest stuff, but older stuff like basic HTTPS and password transfers.
Nelson, refusing on Tuesdays to take Bart's lunch, does not mean on Tuesdays Bart eats Nelson's lunch by grace of a gift from Nelson.
Someone noticed government had first dibs on your income and could tax it. And therefore you should think of it as government's money, and that it lets you keep some.
This was not a cynical libertarian view, but rather a socialist's rah rah rah! attitude.
This survives today in the meme that government reducing taxes for a particular industry is "subsidizing" them, taking away The People's money and "giving" it to a company.
While the wisdom of any particular tax break is up for debate, and political, and, let's face it, the exact reason people go into power, so they can hand these out, it is important to keep in mind refusing to take someone's money does not mean it is your money
There was a case soon after 9/11 where one of those lawyers who defends the indefensible, in this case a terrorist, was jailed. The government listened in on the conversation (which would queer a criminal case but not a war prisoner perhaps) and found out the associate she was letting talk to the prisoner was actually another terrorist and they were swapping terrorist info. So she (the lawyer) got in trouble.
You just can't listen in without messing up the case. If you are prepared to do so...
Disallowing prisoners from voting is one thing I disagree with. While you do, and should, give up many freedoms going to prison, because you have shown you cannot live peacefully with others when you have them, voting is not one you should give up.
It is a check on government to prevent a situation where power gets out of control. This is not just of theoretical concern -- imagine if people in jail on marijuana charges could vote.
Those airline employees recorded Michael Jackson's conversations with his lawyer seated next to him on a flight, and were planning to sell it off. The judge was ready to start breaking arms to keep it silenced.
You can't even crack open protected conversations after the guy dies, the SC has ruled, because even that may drive a fear of talking honestly with your lawyer about your situation.
Have you considered a thing like the Bill of Rights? And not wattered down versions, so common in modern countries, that offer escape clauses "if the government really really really wants to". As we see in the US with warrantless spying, even that may not be enough, but it is a start. Then you can call out taxes as a line item, as speech.
The problem is that getting a warrant is little more than a check box on a form -- "Make sure you get one before firing up spy software!" There is no technological barrier to not having one, nor uncorruptible logging of access that can be regularly reviewed later by judges and elected officials. So there is no stopping illegal political spying, the real source of the need for warrants.
What you describe are wbat are effectively "general warrants", also specifically outlawed by the Constitution, which allow the King to filch around your papers until he finds something he can nail an uppity person with.
Of course in this case, there is a warrant, and one of idiotically massive size.
How can a state allow recall of a senator when term limits on senators were ruled unconstitutional?
TV shows are now 23 minutes long.
This will go by the wayside eventually as Internet does not care or require 30 (or 60) minute episodes. This will only happen for Internet shows for now if the producers feel there may be some 30 minute TV presentation later. Syndication in some far away land, if nothing else.
I want to binge on shows. Right now Netflix is consuming decades of production in one decade or less. I have 3-watched all of Buffy and House, Family Guy and American Dad more than I can count, Angel, Sherlock, entire seasons go by in a few days. I didn't watch Walking Dead until season 5 last year, and I caught up in less than two weeks on Netflix, with season 4 I watched on the pre season 5 marathon opener, thanks DVR.
It is a golden age for old stuff, but that will run out, and back to waiting for more...via binge. It does suck inhaling it all in a week or two, then having to wait a year, but there you go.
I watch Adult Swim, and then only the Fox stuff, and South Park on Comedy Central. SciFi does nothing for me; I would prefer a channel with old Saturday Afternoon black and white sf and monster movies from the 1950s.
Not a bad idea. I was going to say that the only thing an interactive ad guarantees is me randomly clicking feedback stuff. 'Full attention'. Good luck with that. Advertisers have earned the wrath of pretty much everyone now by being forceful and greedy. Basically they act like we owe them something and they're wrong.
They need to be meek and humble for about a decade to start to get some level of trust back--maybe.
I have 0 desire to "interact" with an ad, and would rather alt-tab to a different window while 5 ads play in the background. Some now detect this and pause ads, so now I have to alt tab back briefly to get the ad to start.
Sites that force me to intetact, or always pause the ad if background, I simply leave. For that matter most of the time on CNN.com I click a little video piece, see a 30s ad fire up, and just close the tab. A little fun thing ain't worth a big ad.
Is this part of the anti fat shaming movement?