I'm not trying to troll; I really cannot understand why people are upset over a few dead birds. Nuclear kills fish. Coal kills everything. Nothing has a zero environmental impact. Is the benefit worth the cost? It seems like it is. Glass windows kill birds too. I'm not losing any sleep over it, except when they wake me up by flying into my windows.
I would be shocked if all of the copies of all of the emails have actually been deleted. I suspect it's actually a lie -- not that that's any better -- and that even if it's not, the drives weren't wiped to the extent necessary to scrub all of the data. I have no idea why the drives, and any possible backups, haven't been subpoenaed explicitly.
Whitewater, cattle futures, personal email server...
and she's not bat shit crazy
I would argue that anyone who wants to run for President isn't 100% sane, but I think we need someone a bit crazy to be honest.
Also, Hillary is for too many things that I'm against, especially with regards to national security and intellectual property. Both of those things needs to be dialed back, IMO, and it's going to take a "crazy" president to do it.
I find mechanical timepieces to be a higher mark of style. I think digital watches are, or will be, like cars. If Mistubishi made a car that looked like a Ferrari, people would just laugh. It's not the appearance; it's the brand that matters. But a traditional, mechanical watch is closer to jewelry. It can appear stylish without the brand mattering at all; without anyone who sees it even knowing the brand.
I'd wager that much of the irregularity comes from errors in vocal communication. The "telephone game" is the classic example -- a phrase almost never makes it further than 4 or 5 people before being modified. As people learn from people with imperfect memory and/or pronunciation, they will propagate those errors. Errors become accents, accents can become dialects, and new or evolved words may or may not make it back into the "trunk." For example, people tend to elide a lot in American english. "Gonna" has essentially become its own word, as a contraction of "going to." But a lot of people actually go even further and say "ommona" instead of "I am going to." It's basically four words contracted into one.
Perhaps with technology, it will be possible to have a single source of learning, so that people are not Nth degree removed from the original, reducing the ability for errors to propagate. But people make up words as well, and repurpose existing words. Emiggens. Fauxhawk. Sick. And it's rarely "cool" to follow a predetermined template for adding a new word. Eventually the new or alternative versions of words can make it back into the main or "standard" lexicon. It's very difficult (and a bit authoritarian) to prevent people from adding to language in "unapproved" ways. Ask L'Academie Francaise how well that's working for them these days.
End-to-end encryption, done properly, solves the problem of mass surveillance and, literally, provides "pretty good" privacy to end users. Not perfect privacy, but pretty good.
As far as I can tell from available evidence, it's just postponing death in either case. If you've found a way to prevent death, that would definitely be news.
Necessary? No. Planes have been technically capable of fully autonomous flight since the 90s. Pilots have remained in the cockpit for two reasons: unions, and consumer trust.
But the bigger question is this: Is there a technological solution to a social problem? The social problem is people wanting to harm others with as little effort as possible. Does remote or automated flight raise or lower that bar? From a physical security standpoint, not much has changed -- you *still* need to prevent physical access to the systems, because with physical access, all bets are off. But additionally, you also now need to provide cybersecurity for all aspects of the flight control, from the systems where automated software is coded, to (possibly) remote control locations, to the planes themselves. And imagine being able to control hundreds of planes at once instead of just one.
In my view, technology is not the answer to questions of air security. It may make sense for other reasons -- cost, optimal flight parameters, reliability -- and those reasons may well outweigh security, but it doesn't remove the need to trust. Whether you're trusting hardware engineers, software developers, technicians installing the hardware or firmware, or pilots. There may be ways to raise that level of trust, and that's worth looking at, but simply moving the goalpost doesn't remove trust from the equation.
Regardless of whether you view Snowden as a despicable traitor or an honorable whistleblower, it's worth a watch.
I didn't think so.
Oliver criticized Snowden for his complex descriptions of complex issues, and asserted that it's Snowden's job to make the facts easily digestible and relatable for the general public. It's not. In the first place, it's the media's job to do that. That is their raison d'etre. In the second place, distilling issues down to "dick pics" is part of the problem with the modern media. Why fuel that race to the bottom? Idiocracy was supposed to be satire, not prophecy.
You can actually discriminate on any characteristic you want, as long as it's not a protected class. Since sexual orientation is not yet a federally protected class, it was, and remains, legal to discriminate based on that in most states. That's the real problem. If and when sexual orientation is recognized as a protected class at the federal level, these laws will irrelevant.
you are still blaming the wrong people for the incidents. It's like blaming the explosion on the explosive.
Not every situation has someone who's 100% to blame, and someone who's 100% blameless. Our binary way of thinking is part of the problem. It's why we can't say that "muggers are a problem, but putting yourself in a position where you have a high chance of getting mugged is also problematic." Actually, that's not so controversial, but replace "mugging" with "rape" and watch the sparks fly.
Yes, the majority of the fault lies with the person who made the call. No one is saying otherwise. But police departments are not inanimate objects -- they are composed of people who make their own decisions as well. The militarization of police has been problematic, and maybe that's a temporary, transitional issue, or maybe it's a natural consequence of heading in the wrong direction.
Insurance companies won't struggle -- at least not any more than they do with anything else. They'll set rates close to manned vehicles, and then adjust them up or down as data becomes available and/or market forces dictate. They'll sue manufacturers for damages caused by their product just like they do with today's cars. Manufacturers will have to recall vehicles that show a pattern of incidents, just like they do with today's cars.
Time spent in a car isn't magically awesome just because you're not driving. If that were true, busses, taxis, and trains would have had the effect you describe already.
One thing is for sure -- I will be happy that everyone else is driving automated vehicles, but unhappy to be riding in one. It already annoys me riding in any form of automated transportation that prioritizes rider comfort over rate of travel, like elevators that accelerate at 0.001g up to a top speed of 3 in/sec. Life is short, just get me where I'm going as rapidly as possible without maiming or killing me.
Exactly. If he had used different skins, he probably would have been fine too, since games are not copyrightable on their own; only elements like the characters and the appearance.
being actually innocent of the crime isn't the courts job according to him.
It's generally not. The job of the court is to provide a fair trial, the job of the jury is to make the decision of guilt or innocence, and perfection at all costs is not a reasonable goal either. But please keep reading.
The discovery of new evidence clearly shows that a trial was not fair. It may have been fair at the time, but part of human progress is uncovering new truths, and our justice system should reflect that. DNA evidence has been an example of that -- people were convicted before it was testable, and exonerated afterward. But sometimes investigations are incomplete as well, and new evidence is honestly discovered, such as the Robert Durst handwriting and confession obtained during The Jinx.
On the other hand, allowing new evidence to result in a new trial incentivizes the willful withholding of evidence. Keep some evidence in your back pocket, and if you lose a trial, simply present it as new evidence and voila, retrial!
We need to come up with rules for new evidence to limit abuse, but the goal should still be to provide a fair trial, weighted toward keeping innocent people out of prison, but not at all costs.
the dismissal of broad-based learning, however, comes from a fundamental misreading of the facts â" and puts America on a dangerously narrow path for the future.
Nobody is seriously proposing that STEM come at the expense of broad-based learning, nor does it have to. That may be a possibility, but it's a completely separate discussion. Any STEM degree from almost any accredited university still has humanities and "soft" sciences as prerequisites. What we can say is that test scores indicate that we're not doing very well at teaching math and sciences compared to the rest of the industrialized world. We're actually doing a lot of things worse than the rest of the industrialized world. (Except self-esteem. We're #1 at that!)
For paper and plastics, that's true. Glass would be the best bet, since the melting or flash point of the coating(s) is almost certainly lower than that of glass, so it can easily be separated.
Yes there is. Competition. Absent collusion, someone will implement it in an attempt to gain or maintain market share. I'm not saying the free market is a panacea, but that's the incentive, and I suspect it's compelling enough in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares? They are birds.
I'm not trying to troll; I really cannot understand why people are upset over a few dead birds. Nuclear kills fish. Coal kills everything. Nothing has a zero environmental impact. Is the benefit worth the cost? It seems like it is. Glass windows kill birds too. I'm not losing any sleep over it, except when they wake me up by flying into my windows.
Why don't they have collectors on-site, even if it doesn't meet total demand? With 6 acres of space, it seems like a perfect opportunity.
I would be shocked if all of the copies of all of the emails have actually been deleted. I suspect it's actually a lie -- not that that's any better -- and that even if it's not, the drives weren't wiped to the extent necessary to scrub all of the data. I have no idea why the drives, and any possible backups, haven't been subpoenaed explicitly.
You already said he was a politician.
FTFY.
she isn't overly corrupt
Whitewater, cattle futures, personal email server...
and she's not bat shit crazy
I would argue that anyone who wants to run for President isn't 100% sane, but I think we need someone a bit crazy to be honest.
Also, Hillary is for too many things that I'm against, especially with regards to national security and intellectual property. Both of those things needs to be dialed back, IMO, and it's going to take a "crazy" president to do it.
I find mechanical timepieces to be a higher mark of style. I think digital watches are, or will be, like cars. If Mistubishi made a car that looked like a Ferrari, people would just laugh. It's not the appearance; it's the brand that matters. But a traditional, mechanical watch is closer to jewelry. It can appear stylish without the brand mattering at all; without anyone who sees it even knowing the brand.
I'd wager that much of the irregularity comes from errors in vocal communication. The "telephone game" is the classic example -- a phrase almost never makes it further than 4 or 5 people before being modified. As people learn from people with imperfect memory and/or pronunciation, they will propagate those errors. Errors become accents, accents can become dialects, and new or evolved words may or may not make it back into the "trunk." For example, people tend to elide a lot in American english. "Gonna" has essentially become its own word, as a contraction of "going to." But a lot of people actually go even further and say "ommona" instead of "I am going to." It's basically four words contracted into one.
Perhaps with technology, it will be possible to have a single source of learning, so that people are not Nth degree removed from the original, reducing the ability for errors to propagate. But people make up words as well, and repurpose existing words. Emiggens. Fauxhawk. Sick. And it's rarely "cool" to follow a predetermined template for adding a new word. Eventually the new or alternative versions of words can make it back into the main or "standard" lexicon. It's very difficult (and a bit authoritarian) to prevent people from adding to language in "unapproved" ways. Ask L'Academie Francaise how well that's working for them these days.
Damnit, Jim. Bones died years ago.
End-to-end encryption, done properly, solves the problem of mass surveillance and, literally, provides "pretty good" privacy to end users. Not perfect privacy, but pretty good.
As far as I can tell from available evidence, it's just postponing death in either case. If you've found a way to prevent death, that would definitely be news.
Necessary? No. Planes have been technically capable of fully autonomous flight since the 90s. Pilots have remained in the cockpit for two reasons: unions, and consumer trust.
But the bigger question is this: Is there a technological solution to a social problem? The social problem is people wanting to harm others with as little effort as possible. Does remote or automated flight raise or lower that bar? From a physical security standpoint, not much has changed -- you *still* need to prevent physical access to the systems, because with physical access, all bets are off. But additionally, you also now need to provide cybersecurity for all aspects of the flight control, from the systems where automated software is coded, to (possibly) remote control locations, to the planes themselves. And imagine being able to control hundreds of planes at once instead of just one.
In my view, technology is not the answer to questions of air security. It may make sense for other reasons -- cost, optimal flight parameters, reliability -- and those reasons may well outweigh security, but it doesn't remove the need to trust. Whether you're trusting hardware engineers, software developers, technicians installing the hardware or firmware, or pilots. There may be ways to raise that level of trust, and that's worth looking at, but simply moving the goalpost doesn't remove trust from the equation.
Regardless of whether you view Snowden as a despicable traitor or an honorable whistleblower, it's worth a watch.
I didn't think so.
Oliver criticized Snowden for his complex descriptions of complex issues, and asserted that it's Snowden's job to make the facts easily digestible and relatable for the general public. It's not. In the first place, it's the media's job to do that. That is their raison d'etre. In the second place, distilling issues down to "dick pics" is part of the problem with the modern media. Why fuel that race to the bottom? Idiocracy was supposed to be satire, not prophecy.
Weird, I don't see Hyundai on either of these lists.
http://www.consumerreports.org...
http://autos.jdpower.com/conte...
You can actually discriminate on any characteristic you want, as long as it's not a protected class. Since sexual orientation is not yet a federally protected class, it was, and remains, legal to discriminate based on that in most states. That's the real problem. If and when sexual orientation is recognized as a protected class at the federal level, these laws will irrelevant.
you are still blaming the wrong people for the incidents. It's like blaming the explosion on the explosive.
Not every situation has someone who's 100% to blame, and someone who's 100% blameless. Our binary way of thinking is part of the problem. It's why we can't say that "muggers are a problem, but putting yourself in a position where you have a high chance of getting mugged is also problematic." Actually, that's not so controversial, but replace "mugging" with "rape" and watch the sparks fly.
Yes, the majority of the fault lies with the person who made the call. No one is saying otherwise. But police departments are not inanimate objects -- they are composed of people who make their own decisions as well. The militarization of police has been problematic, and maybe that's a temporary, transitional issue, or maybe it's a natural consequence of heading in the wrong direction.
That's how they got cross platform for iOS and Android.
Insurance companies won't struggle -- at least not any more than they do with anything else. They'll set rates close to manned vehicles, and then adjust them up or down as data becomes available and/or market forces dictate. They'll sue manufacturers for damages caused by their product just like they do with today's cars. Manufacturers will have to recall vehicles that show a pattern of incidents, just like they do with today's cars.
Time spent in a car isn't magically awesome just because you're not driving. If that were true, busses, taxis, and trains would have had the effect you describe already.
One thing is for sure -- I will be happy that everyone else is driving automated vehicles, but unhappy to be riding in one. It already annoys me riding in any form of automated transportation that prioritizes rider comfort over rate of travel, like elevators that accelerate at 0.001g up to a top speed of 3 in/sec. Life is short, just get me where I'm going as rapidly as possible without maiming or killing me.
N/T
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...
Exactly. If he had used different skins, he probably would have been fine too, since games are not copyrightable on their own; only elements like the characters and the appearance.
It's generally not. The job of the court is to provide a fair trial, the job of the jury is to make the decision of guilt or innocence, and perfection at all costs is not a reasonable goal either. But please keep reading.
The discovery of new evidence clearly shows that a trial was not fair. It may have been fair at the time, but part of human progress is uncovering new truths, and our justice system should reflect that. DNA evidence has been an example of that -- people were convicted before it was testable, and exonerated afterward. But sometimes investigations are incomplete as well, and new evidence is honestly discovered, such as the Robert Durst handwriting and confession obtained during The Jinx.
On the other hand, allowing new evidence to result in a new trial incentivizes the willful withholding of evidence. Keep some evidence in your back pocket, and if you lose a trial, simply present it as new evidence and voila, retrial!
We need to come up with rules for new evidence to limit abuse, but the goal should still be to provide a fair trial, weighted toward keeping innocent people out of prison, but not at all costs.
Nobody is seriously proposing that STEM come at the expense of broad-based learning, nor does it have to. That may be a possibility, but it's a completely separate discussion. Any STEM degree from almost any accredited university still has humanities and "soft" sciences as prerequisites. What we can say is that test scores indicate that we're not doing very well at teaching math and sciences compared to the rest of the industrialized world. We're actually doing a lot of things worse than the rest of the industrialized world. (Except self-esteem. We're #1 at that!)
I literally cannot wait for that.
For paper and plastics, that's true. Glass would be the best bet, since the melting or flash point of the coating(s) is almost certainly lower than that of glass, so it can easily be separated.
Yes there is. Competition. Absent collusion, someone will implement it in an attempt to gain or maintain market share. I'm not saying the free market is a panacea, but that's the incentive, and I suspect it's compelling enough in this case.