Beheadings are murder, plain and simple. If practiced by a state, it's a cruel and unusual punishment.
Images and videos of such an act should be banned, both from Facebook, YouTube and everywhere else for that matter. Also, the perpetrator(s) needs to be hunted down by Interpol or similar and punished for his/their crime.
Remember the 80 / 20 rule (actually closer to 90 / 10) - a few patients consume most of the resources. Limit those folks and you've saved quite a bit of money.
This is very true. With subsidized healthcare you will see that especially the poorest patients tend to consume 90% of the resources, mostly due to a combination of bad genetics and bad lifestyle choices, especially substance abuse. The US has been 'fixing' this by making healthcare financially unavailable to these people and thus let nature and Darwins Law take care of the rest. While it might eliminate the bad genetics, it will not eliminate those with a bad lifestyle, partially because the diseases stemming from this doesn't kill all that fast, partially because it is fixable and most will try to alter their lifestyle before it kills them.
Just make the vaccinations mandatory under law. If the parents hide the children or otherwise prevent the vaccinations, fine them. If that doesn't help, fine them severely. If that still doesn't work, remove the children for a period. If the situation happens again with another vaccination, go directly to removing the children again, this time permanently.
It's just like school. It's mandatory and if you try to keep the children at home or otherwise fail to send them to school - you will be punished and the kids will attend school, one way or another.
The rich didn't vote for ObamaCare to take money out of the pockets of poor people to put in their own.
The foolish voted for ObamaCare thinking the Government should rob Peter to pay for Paul's medical care. They didn't realize they were Peter.
When the rich get to keep their money, so does everyone else. When the rich have to take more money out of their pocket so does everyone else. The difference is that the rich won't miss the money but the poor will. That's why the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
Raising property taxes to pay for failing education system because you're a renter just makes it harder for you to move up to being a home owner. Meanwhile, the rich can afford the hike and will happily rent the home to you and raise the price to account for the rise in taxes.
"Blah, blah, blah, Taxation is theft. Helping people is hurting them. Trickle down, bigger pie . . blah, blah, blah . . . "
Why are you still here? Go Galt already and deprive us of your brilliance. That'll teach us a lesson! We're too stupid to understand your intellect, anyway. Your private island is calling you. You've got one, right? Go, while you've still got a chance!
That has to be one of the more stupid and useless answers I've seen here in a long time.
Taxation is indeed theft when you don't have almost full control over what the tax is used for. In a simple economy you can actually tell what the tax money is used for and thus question it, possibly at the ballot box. Today any major economy is so complex even the experts aren't sure about all the details, and most people would not agree as to how the majority of the tax money is spent, thus that most people are forced to pay for stuff they would never agree to pay for. That is the same as theft, more so than copyright infringement by the way.
The (in)famous "capitalist ratio" also applies when it comes to healthcare. Originally: "The richest control of the money" (the exact numbers vary), but here the inverse: "The poorest is responsible for of the use of the healthcare system". In other words - if the state starts paying for healthcare for the poorest, expect the load on the healthcare system to rise far more than you'd expect. The poorest quite often have many more lifestyle problems than the rich, especially substance abuse, smoking, drinking, bad food and generally bad attitude towards the recommendations from 'the authorities', resulting in more health issues.
Today half of us dream of punishing "those people" who live that way. We aspire to rent control, dream of moving to the city where big brother will tell us what kind of soda we can have with lunch.
Not to mention what size soda! - It is after all much healthier to drink two 0.5 liter drinks than one 1 liter drink...
Also, what's more likely. people with higher melanin levels are more violent, or laws written by the majority population are biased against the minority population.
The first statement for sure!
The laws doesn't mention skin color or race, nor any other attribute that be related to that, so if you think people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to be more violent before they break the law or something similar, you're crazy.
Basically, it might be some kind of bias that makes cops be more vigilant about certain ethnic groups, but the courts should be much more unbiased and they do convict a significantly higher percentage of especially blacks. Sure it could still be bias but given that gang activity tend to involve significantly more blacks directly or indirectly, plus the infatuation the hip-hop culture have with 'gangsta' mentality, I'd say almost all of these convictions are justified.
Now, as to WHY this is so is a completely different matter. As the off-balance is also found in other countries (including African) and among affluent population segments, there seems to be some genetic component to the issue. I have not been able to find any research into the criminal statistics of black children adopted into white families, but if the off-balance exists there as well, all other factors besides genetics can be ruled out.
I have taken digital pictures aboard planes for more than a decade. Nobody has ever asked me to stop or anything like that. And never was any interference mentioned by the crew. As someone said above, a non-broadcasting electronic device emits so little in the way of EM that it would take millions to even get anywhere near the guaranteed shielding abilities that all avionics are subject to, and then only if they all were placed right on top of the avionics. EM drops off with the distance cubed so just a few meters and we're taking billions of devices. Even if we could fit all those on a plane it would be irrelevant as the plane wouldn't be able to carry their weight. In other words: Not a problem. Never was. Never will be.
I suspect a wrong refresh rate killing a CRT is an urban myth. Even the cheapest monitors that supported power saving simply shut off if they encountered something they couldn't handle. *Maybe* it would have been possible in the early days of fixed refresh rates and resolutions but I'm still skeptical. Who would even sell something so easily damaged?
NEC? - Back when I when to school in the early 1980's we had a bunch of Rc702 Piccolo microcomputers (Z80-based, ran CP/M) and the attached CRT monitor was capable of 80x25 text and was basically a rebranded standard NEC extremely common at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hillebrandt_regnecentralen_rc700-piccolo.jpg). A friend and I was playing around with the CP/M provided and actually hacked it (disassembled, modified and recompiled) to be able to run two programs at once, plus we added a status line (line 26) showing some information (program in front, misc. lock status etc.) and a clock. Now the extra line was about all that could be added without damaging the monitor. Adding line 27 would make it sing and if you add more... Well... A technician from Regnecentralen was so convinced that their hardware could not easily be damaged by software that he entered into a bet about it, and a 7-byte program later he had a smoking and very dead monitor on his hands. There was NO safety limits to what it would accept. So yes, someone was selling something easily damaged.
The real life incident occurred in the 1970's. A technician realized that the rounding errors were money that could be stolen so he rewrote the rounding code so that everything from the sixth digit to the right of the decimal point were transferred to his account before the rounding operation that now essentially did nothing. This method left no trace and everything balanced out perfectly, except for one thing. Regular bank accounts were represented using a limited number of bits and the balance on his account managed to hit that limit causing an overrun which raised an alert and caused the bank to investigate where all that money came from, thus after some serious debugging revealing the scam. Had he only set up a business account this wouldn't have happened...
Today all rounding errors are tracked and accounted for so this is not possible anymore.
An adjustment of an hour can be a real annoyance, adjusting by a second is lost in the noise.
That's why good sysadmins run their systems on UTC, only converting to local time for display purposes. Daylight Savings Time (or summer Time) and its one hour jumps is a huge pain in the butt and people running cron according to local time have to handle jobs being skipped or jobs being run twice. Sure, using UTC the jobs are off by an hour during the summer but that really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Making sure they run and run only once is more important.
Alternatively - useful if you have jobs that need to run on a specific time - you can plan these to avoid placing them in the 02:00-03:00 window where the mess happens, and use local time. They they will run as scheduled even on the switch-over days.
Revoking pseudonymity retroactively can be dangerous.
A news forum here in Denmark decided to force everyone to use their real names, and as you registered with your real name they simply made a small change in the application so it showed your real name as author instead of the user-chosen username/pseudonym. This had the effect that old posts also suddenly were linked to real names, and those people with unique names were thus easy to track down physically.
Now, this happened around the time with the Muhammad Cartoon controversy, and we all know how crazy certain Muslim people are when it comes to 'insults' against their beloved prophet. Care to guess what happened? - Let's just say that visits by groups of baseball-bat wielding fanatics were involved. No deaths but that was mostly due to luck, not lack of trying. They took offense not only in the cartoons themselves but also that a few people commented on Muhammad's sexuality, specifically on the historical fact that he married a 6-year old (Aisha) and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old.
The forum is mostly dead now. They still force posters to use their real name and nobody dares say anything, knowing what had happened and what still could happen.
Actually it would make sense to have the users pay a one-time signup fee of $10-$15. That's over two years of 50 cents a month membership, minus the monthly administration. Should be both possible and a good idea.
For example, the issue I commented on was in response to someone saying that CDs existed in 1986. While this is true, they were still relatively expensive at the time- yuppies and audiophiles probably had one to play their copy of "Brothers in Arms" on, but Joe Average and his friends probably didn't. It would be another couple of years before they would start to take off in truly mass-market terms.
I got my first CD-player in 1984 (a Philips CD100 - http://www.audioscope.net/images/philipscd1005.jpg) - I was 18 at the time - and within a year my first shelf of CDs were filled. In 1986 I had around 150 CDs, including "Brothers In Arms" by the way. Today I have something like 5.500+ CDs, most of which has been ripped (FLAC) and I almost exclusively plays the rips only.
second, it sure looks like there are a lot of real instruments in this pic...
third, your use of the adverb "perhaps" signaled to me that you wern't at all sure if artist appearing on stage sans "real" instruments (altho i would argue in the 21st century a laptop is the ultimate musical instrument) was happening.
Edgar actually has a laptop with him in that picture! - Talk about going all the way - from pioneers making music with simple waveform generators and lots of patch cables in the early 1970's to the latest in tech!:)
Tangerine Dream made a lot of money in appearances with seldom a real instrument appearing on the stage.
Must be a recent thing?
In the old days (70's to early 80's) absolutely everything were live and they spent many hours setting up and tuning the old analogue synths so they could perform fluently despite the limitations of the primitive gear. They often performed with the lights off (only light came from from images projected onto the backdrop) and without a front sound man, mixing everything onstage as they went. The idea was to let the music grow organically and allow the audience to focus on the music, not the gear or the performers. Some of the early records were made the same way. It was only in the 1980's they started to separate things into songs which somehow became even more normal as they made more and more soundtracks.
It worked. To this day nobody has come close to recreating a similar organic flow in the world of electronic music. I'm writing this while listening to "Ricochet" from 1975. It consists of two long compositions mixed from taped recordings of the England and France portions of their autumn 1975 European Tour. The original recordings are hours of free flow improvisation sometimes going nowhere, sometimes ending in abrupt dead ends and restarts.
Here's an image also from the tour in 1975, specifically their appearance in Coventry Cathedral: http://sacvs.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/australian-tour-1975.gif I would say that there's a lot of gear in evidence! - So unless you define 'real instrument' as something Mozart would recognize, there's plenty of instruments on stage!
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
Brilliant, as most of the stuff Mencken said/wrote!
It's even easier than that... there are already weapons stashed past the TSA checkpoint. If boxcutters will do the trick, then why not chef's knives from the line of restaurants? How about cutting torches (if you can buy something flambe'd, there's a torch)?
How about steak knives already aboard the airplanes? - If the first class menu has steaks there will be real metal steak knives to go with it, and guess what? - Every single 9/11 hijacker had first class tickets in order to be seated near the cockpit...
So every time a web site or app starts showing ads, people stop using it? How is Google still in business? How is Slashdot still in business?
Ad-blockers? - They make the experience tolerable and allows the visitors to focus on the subject matter, not some noisy, bouncing, obscuring- or attention-grabbing ad for something nobody really needs.
Using good ad-blockers helps keep the Internet almost completely ad free, the way it should be.
They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?
Apple sold the pass, they are obliged to meet provide the product that has been paid for. Countries with consumer protection laws make this quite clear, Apple must either provide the product as described at the time of sale or a refund.
Apple should be suing the production company for its losses.
Exactly. They sold a "season pass", not a "half season pass" or similar. If the Apple expected the product they sold to be the complete season and it turned out to be only half a season, it's up to Apple to sue the producers for not delivering to them.
That's the way this works on every level of sale. You buy a product and if it turns out to be something else than what was promised and you paid for, you can either get a full or partial refund. If the seller refuses the refund you can sue, and if the seller can pay you have good odds at getting your refund then as the law is very clear on this.
Snowden has already leaked everything - to The Guardian among others. That's why they (British intelligence) were so keen on physically destroying harddrives on computers at The Guardian the other week. Not that it made any difference as all the leaked documents are stored in multiple locations all over the globe. The Guardian then leak stuff slowly as they take great care in removing details that may bring people in danger or similar.
They clearly don't appreciate that the US can hurt them without putting any human into their reach. If they do succeed in disabling or destroying a drone, all they get is hardware. No hostage. No video opportunity for a nice beheading. No propaganda victory.
Serves them right!
After all, they are evil death cult followers hell-bent on killing women and children for reasons so insane it's out of this world, and any blow we can deal them is both justified and well deserved.
Terrorists have by their inhumane actions denounced their human rights and should be treated accordingly. They use bombs to target only random innocent people and that is so evil it's hard to comprehend, so getting targeted by drones even when hiding their cowardly asses behind their women and children is completely fair in every way.
I know people of sane mind and body, that are preparing by stocking up on canned goods. And it's the American government that they're scared of,
No you don't.
Even if you're crazy enough to imagine the feds are out to get you stocking up canned goods cannot be regarded as a sane response.
So those people aren't "of sane mind and body".
So... preparing for a civil war or armed uprising against the growing tyranny of the federal government is an insane response?
It doesn't matter if you're part of the uprising itself or just a bystander - it's quite obvious that the current path (towards a fascistic police state) will end very badly with some form of violent revolution. There's too many that still believes in the original idea behind the United States, too many weapons, too many "Occupy" supporters and too many crazies for it to end in any other way.
No, preparing for the inevitable is a very sane response.
Slashdot Mirror
Beheadings are murder, plain and simple. If practiced by a state, it's a cruel and unusual punishment.
Images and videos of such an act should be banned, both from Facebook, YouTube and everywhere else for that matter. Also, the perpetrator(s) needs to be hunted down by Interpol or similar and punished for his/their crime.
Why is there even a discussion about this?
Remember the 80 / 20 rule (actually closer to 90 / 10) - a few patients consume most of the resources. Limit those folks and you've saved quite a bit of money.
This is very true. With subsidized healthcare you will see that especially the poorest patients tend to consume 90% of the resources, mostly due to a combination of bad genetics and bad lifestyle choices, especially substance abuse. The US has been 'fixing' this by making healthcare financially unavailable to these people and thus let nature and Darwins Law take care of the rest. While it might eliminate the bad genetics, it will not eliminate those with a bad lifestyle, partially because the diseases stemming from this doesn't kill all that fast, partially because it is fixable and most will try to alter their lifestyle before it kills them.
Just make the vaccinations mandatory under law. If the parents hide the children or otherwise prevent the vaccinations, fine them. If that doesn't help, fine them severely. If that still doesn't work, remove the children for a period. If the situation happens again with another vaccination, go directly to removing the children again, this time permanently.
It's just like school. It's mandatory and if you try to keep the children at home or otherwise fail to send them to school - you will be punished and the kids will attend school, one way or another.
The rich didn't vote for ObamaCare to take money out of the pockets of poor people to put in their own.
The foolish voted for ObamaCare thinking the Government should rob Peter to pay for Paul's medical care. They didn't realize they were Peter.
When the rich get to keep their money, so does everyone else. When the rich have to take more money out of their pocket so does everyone else. The difference is that the rich won't miss the money but the poor will. That's why the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
Raising property taxes to pay for failing education system because you're a renter just makes it harder for you to move up to being a home owner. Meanwhile, the rich can afford the hike and will happily rent the home to you and raise the price to account for the rise in taxes.
"Blah, blah, blah, Taxation is theft. Helping people is hurting them. Trickle down, bigger pie . . blah, blah, blah . . . "
Why are you still here? Go Galt already and deprive us of your brilliance. That'll teach us a lesson! We're too stupid to understand your intellect, anyway. Your private island is calling you. You've got one, right? Go, while you've still got a chance!
That has to be one of the more stupid and useless answers I've seen here in a long time.
Taxation is indeed theft when you don't have almost full control over what the tax is used for. In a simple economy you can actually tell what the tax money is used for and thus question it, possibly at the ballot box. Today any major economy is so complex even the experts aren't sure about all the details, and most people would not agree as to how the majority of the tax money is spent, thus that most people are forced to pay for stuff they would never agree to pay for. That is the same as theft, more so than copyright infringement by the way.
The (in)famous "capitalist ratio" also applies when it comes to healthcare. Originally: "The richest control of the money" (the exact numbers vary), but here the inverse: "The poorest is responsible for of the use of the healthcare system". In other words - if the state starts paying for healthcare for the poorest, expect the load on the healthcare system to rise far more than you'd expect. The poorest quite often have many more lifestyle problems than the rich, especially substance abuse, smoking, drinking, bad food and generally bad attitude towards the recommendations from 'the authorities', resulting in more health issues.
Today half of us dream of punishing "those people" who live that way. We aspire to rent control, dream of moving to the city where big brother will tell us what kind of soda we can have with lunch.
Not to mention what size soda! - It is after all much healthier to drink two 0.5 liter drinks than one 1 liter drink...
The crime problem exists because people CHOOSE to COMMIT CRIMES.
This is so true! - Almost all crime is committed out of greed, not need.
Also, what's more likely. people with higher melanin levels are more violent, or laws written
by the majority population are biased against the minority population.
The first statement for sure!
The laws doesn't mention skin color or race, nor any other attribute that be related to that, so if you think people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to be more violent before they break the law or something similar, you're crazy.
Basically, it might be some kind of bias that makes cops be more vigilant about certain ethnic groups, but the courts should be much more unbiased and they do convict a significantly higher percentage of especially blacks. Sure it could still be bias but given that gang activity tend to involve significantly more blacks directly or indirectly, plus the infatuation the hip-hop culture have with 'gangsta' mentality, I'd say almost all of these convictions are justified.
Now, as to WHY this is so is a completely different matter. As the off-balance is also found in other countries (including African) and among affluent population segments, there seems to be some genetic component to the issue. I have not been able to find any research into the criminal statistics of black children adopted into white families, but if the off-balance exists there as well, all other factors besides genetics can be ruled out.
http://metarand.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Fire.jpg
I have taken digital pictures aboard planes for more than a decade. Nobody has ever asked me to stop or anything like that. And never was any interference mentioned by the crew. As someone said above, a non-broadcasting electronic device emits so little in the way of EM that it would take millions to even get anywhere near the guaranteed shielding abilities that all avionics are subject to, and then only if they all were placed right on top of the avionics. EM drops off with the distance cubed so just a few meters and we're taking billions of devices. Even if we could fit all those on a plane it would be irrelevant as the plane wouldn't be able to carry their weight. In other words: Not a problem. Never was. Never will be.
I suspect a wrong refresh rate killing a CRT is an urban myth. Even the cheapest monitors that supported power saving simply shut off if they encountered something they couldn't handle. *Maybe* it would have been possible in the early days of fixed refresh rates and resolutions but I'm still skeptical. Who would even sell something so easily damaged?
NEC? - Back when I when to school in the early 1980's we had a bunch of Rc702 Piccolo microcomputers (Z80-based, ran CP/M) and the attached CRT monitor was capable of 80x25 text and was basically a rebranded standard NEC extremely common at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hillebrandt_regnecentralen_rc700-piccolo.jpg). A friend and I was playing around with the CP/M provided and actually hacked it (disassembled, modified and recompiled) to be able to run two programs at once, plus we added a status line (line 26) showing some information (program in front, misc. lock status etc.) and a clock. Now the extra line was about all that could be added without damaging the monitor. Adding line 27 would make it sing and if you add more... Well... A technician from Regnecentralen was so convinced that their hardware could not easily be damaged by software that he entered into a bet about it, and a 7-byte program later he had a smoking and very dead monitor on his hands. There was NO safety limits to what it would accept. So yes, someone was selling something easily damaged.
The real life incident occurred in the 1970's. A technician realized that the rounding errors were money that could be stolen so he rewrote the rounding code so that everything from the sixth digit to the right of the decimal point were transferred to his account before the rounding operation that now essentially did nothing. This method left no trace and everything balanced out perfectly, except for one thing. Regular bank accounts were represented using a limited number of bits and the balance on his account managed to hit that limit causing an overrun which raised an alert and caused the bank to investigate where all that money came from, thus after some serious debugging revealing the scam. Had he only set up a business account this wouldn't have happened...
Today all rounding errors are tracked and accounted for so this is not possible anymore.
An adjustment of an hour can be a real annoyance, adjusting by a second is lost in the noise.
That's why good sysadmins run their systems on UTC, only converting to local time for display purposes. Daylight Savings Time (or summer Time) and its one hour jumps is a huge pain in the butt and people running cron according to local time have to handle jobs being skipped or jobs being run twice. Sure, using UTC the jobs are off by an hour during the summer but that really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Making sure they run and run only once is more important.
Alternatively - useful if you have jobs that need to run on a specific time - you can plan these to avoid placing them in the 02:00-03:00 window where the mess happens, and use local time. They they will run as scheduled even on the switch-over days.
Revoking pseudonymity retroactively can be dangerous.
A news forum here in Denmark decided to force everyone to use their real names, and as you registered with your real name they simply made a small change in the application so it showed your real name as author instead of the user-chosen username/pseudonym. This had the effect that old posts also suddenly were linked to real names, and those people with unique names were thus easy to track down physically.
Now, this happened around the time with the Muhammad Cartoon controversy, and we all know how crazy certain Muslim people are when it comes to 'insults' against their beloved prophet. Care to guess what happened? - Let's just say that visits by groups of baseball-bat wielding fanatics were involved. No deaths but that was mostly due to luck, not lack of trying. They took offense not only in the cartoons themselves but also that a few people commented on Muhammad's sexuality, specifically on the historical fact that he married a 6-year old (Aisha) and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old.
The forum is mostly dead now. They still force posters to use their real name and nobody dares say anything, knowing what had happened and what still could happen.
Actually it would make sense to have the users pay a one-time signup fee of $10-$15. That's over two years of 50 cents a month membership, minus the monthly administration. Should be both possible and a good idea.
And also they must not have looked up the Streisand Effect.
Now this news story is "stuck there" on the interwebs for people to laugh at them about forever.
The Stressand Effect is from 2003... They wouldn't know about it in 1986... ;)
For example, the issue I commented on was in response to someone saying that CDs existed in 1986. While this is true, they were still relatively expensive at the time- yuppies and audiophiles probably had one to play their copy of "Brothers in Arms" on, but Joe Average and his friends probably didn't. It would be another couple of years before they would start to take off in truly mass-market terms.
I got my first CD-player in 1984 (a Philips CD100 - http://www.audioscope.net/images/philipscd1005.jpg) - I was 18 at the time - and within a year my first shelf of CDs were filled. In 1986 I had around 150 CDs, including "Brothers In Arms" by the way. Today I have something like 5.500+ CDs, most of which has been ripped (FLAC) and I almost exclusively plays the rips only.
first, i was born in 1965...
second, it sure looks like there are a lot of real instruments in this pic...
third, your use of the adverb "perhaps" signaled to me that you wern't at all sure if artist appearing on stage sans "real" instruments (altho i would argue in the 21st century a laptop is the ultimate musical instrument) was happening.
Edgar actually has a laptop with him in that picture! - Talk about going all the way - from pioneers making music with simple waveform generators and lots of patch cables in the early 1970's to the latest in tech! :)
Tangerine Dream made a lot of money in appearances with seldom a real instrument appearing on the stage.
Must be a recent thing?
In the old days (70's to early 80's) absolutely everything were live and they spent many hours setting up and tuning the old analogue synths so they could perform fluently despite the limitations of the primitive gear. They often performed with the lights off (only light came from from images projected onto the backdrop) and without a front sound man, mixing everything onstage as they went. The idea was to let the music grow organically and allow the audience to focus on the music, not the gear or the performers. Some of the early records were made the same way. It was only in the 1980's they started to separate things into songs which somehow became even more normal as they made more and more soundtracks.
It worked. To this day nobody has come close to recreating a similar organic flow in the world of electronic music. I'm writing this while listening to "Ricochet" from 1975. It consists of two long compositions mixed from taped recordings of the England and France portions of their autumn 1975 European Tour. The original recordings are hours of free flow improvisation sometimes going nowhere, sometimes ending in abrupt dead ends and restarts.
Here's an image also from the tour in 1975, specifically their appearance in Coventry Cathedral: http://sacvs.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/australian-tour-1975.gif
I would say that there's a lot of gear in evidence! - So unless you define 'real instrument' as something Mozart would recognize, there's plenty of instruments on stage!
Here's a modern picture: http://cdn.synthtopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/edgar-froese-tangerine-dream.jpg
Again lots of gear and even some regular drums in evidence.
In other words: I call bullsh*t on your comment about no 'real instruments' on stage.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
Brilliant, as most of the stuff Mencken said/wrote!
It's even easier than that... there are already weapons stashed past the TSA checkpoint. If boxcutters will do the trick, then why not chef's knives from the line of restaurants? How about cutting torches (if you can buy something flambe'd, there's a torch)?
How about steak knives already aboard the airplanes? - If the first class menu has steaks there will be real metal steak knives to go with it, and guess what? - Every single 9/11 hijacker had first class tickets in order to be seated near the cockpit...
So every time a web site or app starts showing ads, people stop using it? How is Google still in business? How is Slashdot still in business?
Ad-blockers? - They make the experience tolerable and allows the visitors to focus on the subject matter, not some noisy, bouncing, obscuring- or attention-grabbing ad for something nobody really needs.
Using good ad-blockers helps keep the Internet almost completely ad free, the way it should be.
They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?
Apple sold the pass, they are obliged to meet provide the product that has been paid for. Countries with consumer protection laws make this quite clear, Apple must either provide the product as described at the time of sale or a refund.
Apple should be suing the production company for its losses.
Exactly. They sold a "season pass", not a "half season pass" or similar. If the Apple expected the product they sold to be the complete season and it turned out to be only half a season, it's up to Apple to sue the producers for not delivering to them.
That's the way this works on every level of sale. You buy a product and if it turns out to be something else than what was promised and you paid for, you can either get a full or partial refund. If the seller refuses the refund you can sue, and if the seller can pay you have good odds at getting your refund then as the law is very clear on this.
Snowden has already leaked everything - to The Guardian among others. That's why they (British intelligence) were so keen on physically destroying harddrives on computers at The Guardian the other week. Not that it made any difference as all the leaked documents are stored in multiple locations all over the globe. The Guardian then leak stuff slowly as they take great care in removing details that may bring people in danger or similar.
They clearly don't appreciate that the US can hurt them without putting any human into their reach. If they do succeed in disabling or destroying a drone, all they get is hardware. No hostage. No video opportunity for a nice beheading. No propaganda victory.
Serves them right!
After all, they are evil death cult followers hell-bent on killing women and children for reasons so insane it's out of this world, and any blow we can deal them is both justified and well deserved.
Terrorists have by their inhumane actions denounced their human rights and should be treated accordingly. They use bombs to target only random innocent people and that is so evil it's hard to comprehend, so getting targeted by drones even when hiding their cowardly asses behind their women and children is completely fair in every way.
I know people of sane mind and body, that are preparing by stocking up on canned goods. And it's the American government that they're scared of,
No you don't.
Even if you're crazy enough to imagine the feds are out to get you stocking up canned goods cannot be regarded as a sane response.
So those people aren't "of sane mind and body".
So... preparing for a civil war or armed uprising against the growing tyranny of the federal government is an insane response?
It doesn't matter if you're part of the uprising itself or just a bystander - it's quite obvious that the current path (towards a fascistic police state) will end very badly with some form of violent revolution. There's too many that still believes in the original idea behind the United States, too many weapons, too many "Occupy" supporters and too many crazies for it to end in any other way.
No, preparing for the inevitable is a very sane response.