is crime in the UK "out of control"? is there a "plague" of lawfulness? i don't know what the rates of crime are or how they're perceived there. these methods sound like something that would be employed by a desperate govt, trying to rein in something akin to a mass insurrection.
i suppose it's perceived as a more realistic representation of human behavior or society.
i know that i don't walk around all day long with a big smile on my face, like i'm worry-free and happy. i'm not trying to say all stories portray life as full rainbows, but i suppose if they don't have some kind of stressful issue involved, even if it's somewhat minor, they don't seem as real.
roads which i will never willingly follow to the UK. not that i was planning any trips overseas, but i don't think i'll ever consider going to the UK again. i enjoyed my one visit there years ago, but at this point, i don't know if i'd be able to get out, if they let me in.
if someone is in another country, it will be kind of hard to just walk over to a branch and meet up with them there.
maybe that's why those Middle Eastern networks (can't recall the name. something like '---hasa'), which feds couldn't stand because terrorist groups liked them, were effective. a phone call and someone spots the cash until it shows up for real.
i know it's hard to say what's "cheating" in this contest, but this sounds like the closest. are you really off-grid if there is a proxy there doing your basics for you? for example, i think of off-grid would mean that you don't have a phone or a way to communicate with someone else. but if you've got a secretary to screen your calls, that doesn't cut it for me.
on/. where some of the comments pointed out how people are being caged with Apple's plan to only allow iStore apps on their products. with the results of this particular fracas, it seems that the cage is also getting a strict perimeter established around it.
you probably got injured in sports because you didn't exercise regularly and thus weren't prepared for the sport. if not you, that happens to plenty of other people. so, no, it's not the sport. it's the lack of fitness that comes from sitting on the couch and then playing the sport.
it's disingenuous? how so? everyone, not least of all Google, knew of China's censorship. based on Google capabilities, it's possible they even assisted with it. i'm not aware of Google saying "yeh, we're sorry we're censoring the WWW in China." even if they did, i'd say their actions spoke pretty loudly, especially given their current policy.
why this is being referred to as a "censorship conflict". Google didn't care about censorship last year. conveniently enough, they get hacked by China, then they care.
online groups? Sarah Palin's Facebook followers? better off going to the circus.
E.L.F.? do they post their plans for world domination to their forums?
this is an appointee for Obama, but i have to wonder who actually proposed this person for Obama to nominate. someone left over from the Bush regime, like Gates? is he contracting work out to John Yoo? anyway, it's not like the C.I.A. or N.S.A. isn't already doing this.
battle of behemoths. question is, which arena's rule will they play by? IP6/DNS or $$ or diplomacy-guns? Google doesn't have the wherewithal for national might, but their tech could be equal to many countries'.
most studies seem to focus on cancer. this one looked at proteins or something (forgot the details and i just see this comment in my response window). while there appears to be no definitive result from the cancer studies, this one looks at health from a different perspective and does appear to have a defnitive result (until the next study). it seems to me something is happening. the inconsistency could be that it's a difficult effect to detect. i'm not screaming to stop using cells. in the big picture, a little cell phone defect is inconsequential. but if it's there, it's there. that's all i'm saying.
i wonder about a bigger question: does having a cell phone next to your head for a couple of hours per day affect your health? between studies saying that it does/not cause cancer and now this about effect on Alzheimer's, is it safe to say that having a phone to your head for X hours/day has some kind of effect? or have people accepted the fact that cells will somehow affect the brain or head, just not sure what the effect is?
i don't see the problem. to me, it's like the privacy argument: 'if you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy." that's what all those guilt-free people say, right? i think the same idea applies here.
has the average number of comments per article gone down in the last year or so? it kind of seems that way to me. i realize there are plenty of/. users, but i don't know how many folks are staying active here. i realize stuff like Facebook is drawing larger and larger crowds, so that could explain a drop in participation at/., i'm just curious if there is a measureable difference, not what the cause could be.
say a scientist finds irrefutable proof of man-made climate change and this man-made source will have the most impact on climate change and serious environmental hardships. do you think that the people who are skeptical of the change regardless should keep being skeptics? should those skeptics also try to oppose policy changes that are intended to directly address the man-made causes? at what point is it time to accept facts and move on or is the scientist working to "shut up" opposition?
Slashdot Mirror
is crime in the UK "out of control"? is there a "plague" of lawfulness? i don't know what the rates of crime are or how they're perceived there. these methods sound like something that would be employed by a desperate govt, trying to rein in something akin to a mass insurrection.
i suppose it's perceived as a more realistic representation of human behavior or society.
i know that i don't walk around all day long with a big smile on my face, like i'm worry-free and happy. i'm not trying to say all stories portray life as full rainbows, but i suppose if they don't have some kind of stressful issue involved, even if it's somewhat minor, they don't seem as real.
roads which i will never willingly follow to the UK. not that i was planning any trips overseas, but i don't think i'll ever consider going to the UK again. i enjoyed my one visit there years ago, but at this point, i don't know if i'd be able to get out, if they let me in.
sorry, you're right, hawala.
starting in 2018, British banks won't be using personal checks any more. if other countries' banks follow suit, checks won't be an option. that's not going to take effect for several years, but that policy is looming nonetheless.
if someone is in another country, it will be kind of hard to just walk over to a branch and meet up with them there.
maybe that's why those Middle Eastern networks (can't recall the name. something like '---hasa'), which feds couldn't stand because terrorist groups liked them, were effective. a phone call and someone spots the cash until it shows up for real.
i know it's hard to say what's "cheating" in this contest, but this sounds like the closest. are you really off-grid if there is a proxy there doing your basics for you?
for example, i think of off-grid would mean that you don't have a phone or a way to communicate with someone else. but if you've got a secretary to screen your calls, that doesn't cut it for me.
their results found 1.4% of study subject affected. you could probably find 1.4% of Internet addicted people are clergy. or moms. or happy.
on /. where some of the comments pointed out how people are being caged with Apple's plan to only allow iStore apps on their products. with the results of this particular fracas, it seems that the cage is also getting a strict perimeter established around it.
is there no limit to the police's (State's) powers in England?
that's just fucked up.
you probably got injured in sports because you didn't exercise regularly and thus weren't prepared for the sport. if not you, that happens to plenty of other people. so, no, it's not the sport. it's the lack of fitness that comes from sitting on the couch and then playing the sport.
since it just does searches, but what about scroogle?
it's disingenuous? how so? everyone, not least of all Google, knew of China's censorship. based on Google capabilities, it's possible they even assisted with it. i'm not aware of Google saying "yeh, we're sorry we're censoring the WWW in China." even if they did, i'd say their actions spoke pretty loudly, especially given their current policy.
why this is being referred to as a "censorship conflict". Google didn't care about censorship last year. conveniently enough, they get hacked by China, then they care.
online groups?
Sarah Palin's Facebook followers? better off going to the circus.
E.L.F.? do they post their plans for world domination to their forums?
this is an appointee for Obama, but i have to wonder who actually proposed this person for Obama to nominate. someone left over from the Bush regime, like Gates? is he contracting work out to John Yoo? anyway, it's not like the C.I.A. or N.S.A. isn't already doing this.
battle of behemoths. question is, which arena's rule will they play by? IP6/DNS or $$ or diplomacy-guns? Google doesn't have the wherewithal for national might, but their tech could be equal to many countries'.
most studies seem to focus on cancer. this one looked at proteins or something (forgot the details and i just see this comment in my response window). while there appears to be no definitive result from the cancer studies, this one looks at health from a different perspective and does appear to have a defnitive result (until the next study). it seems to me something is happening. the inconsistency could be that it's a difficult effect to detect.
i'm not screaming to stop using cells. in the big picture, a little cell phone defect is inconsequential. but if it's there, it's there. that's all i'm saying.
i wonder about a bigger question: does having a cell phone next to your head for a couple of hours per day affect your health? between studies saying that it does/not cause cancer and now this about effect on Alzheimer's, is it safe to say that having a phone to your head for X hours/day has some kind of effect? or have people accepted the fact that cells will somehow affect the brain or head, just not sure what the effect is?
some might say that the brutes are still in power.
"Take a fucking chance." [6:10]
... (and worrying) ...
what? me worry?
i don't see the problem. to me, it's like the privacy argument: 'if you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy." that's what all those guilt-free people say, right? i think the same idea applies here.
has the average number of comments per article gone down in the last year or so? it kind of seems that way to me. i realize there are plenty of /. users, but i don't know how many folks are staying active here. i realize stuff like Facebook is drawing larger and larger crowds, so that could explain a drop in participation at /., i'm just curious if there is a measureable difference, not what the cause could be.
say a scientist finds irrefutable proof of man-made climate change and this man-made source will have the most impact on climate change and serious environmental hardships. do you think that the people who are skeptical of the change regardless should keep being skeptics? should those skeptics also try to oppose policy changes that are intended to directly address the man-made causes? at what point is it time to accept facts and move on or is the scientist working to "shut up" opposition?
Obama and his change.
i voted for him. thought he'd better than Bush or McCain.
like what they did to indymedia?