Well, it's not really the President; he just signs the laws. Congress can pass whatever law they damn well please, constitutional or otherwise. The strength/weakness of judicial checks are such that the S.C. can only review laws, and only when a legitimate case is brought before it. The effect is that it can take years (although it can be much quicker) for an unconstitutional law to be struck down. Further multiply that with the difficulty in bringing a suit against the government to court at all, and the Constitution is more of a "rough guideline" of congressional power.
Executive orders are another problem, but it's unlikely (though possible) that a national ID card system would be enacted by executive order.
Right, because TV never takes a cue from reality, and fact and fiction never overlap or coincide. It's impossible that the largest annually televised event in the world would be a target, because it's so obvious. We should be securing pee wee league games instead.
Also, as I said in another post, it's doubtful the technology was developed exclusively for the Super Bowl, but rather it's a publicity opportunity for the companies/government to showcase new technology. Whether it's effective or not is another thing.
Actually, he implied that terrorists aren't just going to give up because there's security there. Either that, or he presented his terrorists in the wrong (satirical/comical) context, rather than conveying their plan as a legitimate option.
Sort of like "I know burgalars are just going to come in through the windows, so I don't lock my doors." Other sentiments along those lines include:
"There's no point patching XP; any real hacker will just discover a new exploit." "Why bathe? I'm just going to get dirty again!" "No point saving this money when I'm just going to spend it eventually anyway!"
I mean really, when you get down to it, the only thing police do is clean up after crimes; they almost never prevent them. We could save tons of money if we just abolished law enforcement.
It's impossible to prevent every eventuality, but if you can reasonably implement measures to stop or deter most of the obvious ones, there's no reason not to. Conversely, it doesn't make sense to pour resources into preventing unlikely attacks. Should we set up a grid underground to prevent someone from tunneling in? Equip the stadium with rotary blades in case it needs to make a quick getaway? With finite resources, you have to apply them toward preventing the most obvious scenarios, and then work your way toward less the less likely/feasible options. And unless security is priceless to you, you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns. The whole reason people are upset about the PATRIOT Act, NSA spying, etc. is because they believe it's too high of a price to pay for security. But apparently you disagree.
Well, the end of the article suggests that they actually use four cameras:
"If George Lucas had four cameras on her when he shot it, I could take them and present a real-world image of her right now," Fischbach said.
They may only project the images from two at a time because it's probably harder to look at an object when you can see both sides of it, because it's harder than it sounds to make light opaque.
Right. As you may have heard, there was a little incident about, oh, 4 and a half years ago, and ever since it's been mass hysteria. That's probably why he chose to use the word "perpetuate" rather than "instigate," although it could also just be a happy coincidence.
Hmm.. could it be because they have pat-downs for those?
Or because they're concerned about the threat associated with a vehicle strapped with enough explosives to take out and/or destabilize a large part of a stadium?
What's interesting is that this satellite was built by the cadets at the USAF Academy. The satellite is going to be studying the effects of space plasma. It appears NASA & the shuttle are not the only ways for the government to launch satellites anymore.
Those bonds allow geckos to climb walls and hang from a pane of glass. Carbon nanotubes are about 200 times more sticky than the geckos foot hairs, and their semiconducting nature is being exploited to make memory chips. The coming chips cant walk up walls..."
I, for one, can't wait to get home and see if all my files have been deleted. I've been running low on disk space, but I've been too lazy to delete old data myself. Thanks, Kama Sutra! You saved the day.
Personally, I don't play games because of plots, or the lack thereof. I hate watching cutscenes, and games that don't let me skip them are high on my shitlist. (I'm looking at you B&W/B&W2). If I wanted passive entertainment, I'd turn on the TV. Conversely, if there were little minigames between the acts of a movie or TV show which I had to complete in order to watch the next part, I'd be equally displeased.
I guess there are people who do enjoy cutscenes, and likewise I don't expect them to disappear. But if they did, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
If spam could be eliminated look at how much bandwidth would be saved.
How much?
Spam is a large problem for e-mail servers specifically, with some estimates attributing it to 90% of all e-mail, but how does that compare to internet traffic overall? I couldn't find any empirical data, but anecdotally I get maybe 1MB of spam a heavy day. Meanwhile my torrent traffic is pretty steady outbound at ~4GB/day, and I'd say probably 2GB/day outbound. Further (but still anecdotally), most people I know use web-based e-mail, which means they're probably not reading (and thus not transferring) a large portion of that spam.
Slashdot Mirror
Just give it a couple of weeks and the goldfish will turn the water tea-colored on its own.
Well, it's not really the President; he just signs the laws. Congress can pass whatever law they damn well please, constitutional or otherwise. The strength/weakness of judicial checks are such that the S.C. can only review laws, and only when a legitimate case is brought before it. The effect is that it can take years (although it can be much quicker) for an unconstitutional law to be struck down. Further multiply that with the difficulty in bringing a suit against the government to court at all, and the Constitution is more of a "rough guideline" of congressional power.
Executive orders are another problem, but it's unlikely (though possible) that a national ID card system would be enacted by executive order.
Right, because TV never takes a cue from reality, and fact and fiction never overlap or coincide. It's impossible that the largest annually televised event in the world would be a target, because it's so obvious. We should be securing pee wee league games instead.
Also, as I said in another post, it's doubtful the technology was developed exclusively for the Super Bowl, but rather it's a publicity opportunity for the companies/government to showcase new technology. Whether it's effective or not is another thing.
Actually, he implied that terrorists aren't just going to give up because there's security there. Either that, or he presented his terrorists in the wrong (satirical/comical) context, rather than conveying their plan as a legitimate option.
Sort of like "I know burgalars are just going to come in through the windows, so I don't lock my doors." Other sentiments along those lines include:
"There's no point patching XP; any real hacker will just discover a new exploit."
"Why bathe? I'm just going to get dirty again!"
"No point saving this money when I'm just going to spend it eventually anyway!"
I mean really, when you get down to it, the only thing police do is clean up after crimes; they almost never prevent them. We could save tons of money if we just abolished law enforcement.
It's impossible to prevent every eventuality, but if you can reasonably implement measures to stop or deter most of the obvious ones, there's no reason not to. Conversely, it doesn't make sense to pour resources into preventing unlikely attacks. Should we set up a grid underground to prevent someone from tunneling in? Equip the stadium with rotary blades in case it needs to make a quick getaway? With finite resources, you have to apply them toward preventing the most obvious scenarios, and then work your way toward less the less likely/feasible options. And unless security is priceless to you, you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns. The whole reason people are upset about the PATRIOT Act, NSA spying, etc. is because they believe it's too high of a price to pay for security. But apparently you disagree.
Well, the end of the article suggests that they actually use four cameras:
"If George Lucas had four cameras on her when he shot it, I could take them and present a real-world image of her right now," Fischbach said.
They may only project the images from two at a time because it's probably harder to look at an object when you can see both sides of it, because it's harder than it sounds to make light opaque.
Right. As you may have heard, there was a little incident about, oh, 4 and a half years ago, and ever since it's been mass hysteria. That's probably why he chose to use the word "perpetuate" rather than "instigate," although it could also just be a happy coincidence.
Hmm.. could it be because they have pat-downs for those?
Or because they're concerned about the threat associated with a vehicle strapped with enough explosives to take out and/or destabilize a large part of a stadium?
I give up, which is it?
Man, you're making me hungry AND making me decide between chicken or beef. Aw hell, I'll just eat both. Chicken & beef fajitas, here I come!
Might as well ask if I'm worried about people getting involved in space.
Alright then. Are you worried about people getting involved in space?
What's interesting is that this satellite was built by the cadets at the USAF Academy. The satellite is going to be studying the effects of space plasma. It appears NASA & the shuttle are not the only ways for the government to launch satellites anymore.
:: government as :: kitchens
cadets
feet
The merits of if a cinematic and/or story detract from a game experience is rather mute..."
Merits sure is quiet!
Ahh.. the old "bore them to death" routine. And all this time I thought it was just a metaphor.
Marines can talk?!?
Midichlorians, duh.
Sources maintain that the release date is unchanged.
Those bonds allow geckos to climb walls and hang from a pane of glass. Carbon nanotubes are about 200 times more sticky than the geckos foot hairs, and their semiconducting nature is being exploited to make memory chips. The coming chips cant walk up walls..."
Then forget it.
Do, or do not. There is no try.
I, for one, can't wait to get home and see if all my files have been deleted. I've been running low on disk space, but I've been too lazy to delete old data myself. Thanks, Kama Sutra! You saved the day.
Well, the sign should be on the case covering the button. The button itself should read "Press me to play fun games and/or look at hott pix."
Personally, I don't play games because of plots, or the lack thereof. I hate watching cutscenes, and games that don't let me skip them are high on my shitlist. (I'm looking at you B&W/B&W2). If I wanted passive entertainment, I'd turn on the TV. Conversely, if there were little minigames between the acts of a movie or TV show which I had to complete in order to watch the next part, I'd be equally displeased.
I guess there are people who do enjoy cutscenes, and likewise I don't expect them to disappear. But if they did, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
I'm going to put pretty graphics on my front lawn to see if people actually throw money at them. You could be on to something here...
Oops.. 4GB/day outbound, 2GB/day inbound
If spam could be eliminated look at how much bandwidth would be saved.
How much?
Spam is a large problem for e-mail servers specifically, with some estimates attributing it to 90% of all e-mail, but how does that compare to internet traffic overall? I couldn't find any empirical data, but anecdotally I get maybe 1MB of spam a heavy day. Meanwhile my torrent traffic is pretty steady outbound at ~4GB/day, and I'd say probably 2GB/day outbound. Further (but still anecdotally), most people I know use web-based e-mail, which means they're probably not reading (and thus not transferring) a large portion of that spam.
"A++++++++++, great raider. Would group with him again."
"Perfect, now hand over the Scimitar of the Wolf, or my whole guild will give you retaliatory feedback."