Also, I want to know how they're going to distribute in a "nondiscriminatory" way. The U.N. Security Council nations or NATO or the country/ies supplying the nuclear material are/is going to demand some kind of say in running the fuelbank. There is no way to guarantee there'll be no politics or bias in deciding who will get to fuel distributed to them.
Initially I supported Anonymous. It seemed like they were actually a group that stood up to organizations that abused power.
However, it seems that some of the "members " of Anonymous have taken to abusing the power they themselves accumulated. Perhaps there are still people in that group who would rather crack FBI and intelligence company sites to upset their operations, but those divergent members who are using the Anonymous abilities and name to commit crimes against supporters are making Anonymous as a whole unlikeable.
if Ask/. was able to get some kind of expert in a relevant field for an Ask/. question and they add that person's input these comments. Probably keep the "expert comment" at the top of the comments. There are good questions posed to this section at times and reading something authoritative would be great.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
I had a similar first thought to this. It seems like a lot of equipment developed for "military" use is more along the lines of military/security, thus applicable for use by police forces. Beyond anti-aircraft or ballistic missiles, a lot of the tech seems to become police-issue. So where is the pro-democracy tech to keep police from abusing this stuff once they get their hands on it? Every time I see a "new military tool" I picture police using it to squash protesters.
I'm not sure how. You'd probably have to sue. Would the state secrets ruse be used to prevent the suit? If enough falsely accused people got together, maybe the ACLU would take the case?
Bumper sticker: "If you think college is expensive, try ignorance."
I agree that the cost has risen quite steeply. But I think a free-market person would argue that if the degree betters your chance of a higher income, then that shouldn't deter you. Of course, those people are probably done with the little debt they had when college was cheaper and are already rich. They don't realize what that debt is like, as you pointed out, crippling in some cases.
OTOH, the kids could try to be more reasonable about what is really necessary to get them through school. Don't need a new car or a lot of new clothes. My uni's library lends laptops and IPads (for only a few hours, but they are available). And I've always worked while in school. Not full-time, but close to that many hours for some stretches.
Further, I don't know if a college degree is really necessary for a lot of "decent jobs". I know this being a tech site, folks are thinking more from the perspective of high tech industries requiring a lot technical training, but there are other jobs that pay well enough without a lot of school. UPS driver, plumber, firefighter. Having said that, the future of our economy seems to be heading in one of two directions jobs-wise: really technical, well-paying jobs that do require a good deal of school of which there don't seem to be a lot of, or a lot of menial, service jobs that don't pay as well. There'll still be plumbers and firefighters, but I picture big plumbing conglomerates that hire plumbers as contractors who will get crap pay compared to what they used to get when they were independent/proprietors.
"... but millions of people fly every fucking day."
Just because most of those people don't complain doesn't mean that nothing has happened. They might be scared to complain. Or they may feel that complaining will get them nowhere at the least.
If cities and other governments want to increase income from fines, they should enforce litter laws. In Florida, the fines are between $50 and $500. The lower threshold for the fine is higher in Oklahoma. I see plenty of littering, especially stuff flying out of the beds of pickup trucks. No special equipment needed, just the dashboard-mounted camera that is already in place will provide the evidence.
Years ago, a UPS driver who was our "regular" guy told me that the drivers had to pay for scratches and damages to the trucks. That's one anecdote and I never verified it. So UPS already has been shafting their drivers.
I'll say up front, I don't know if the workers are striking because they don't have gold-trimmed toilet seats or their vacation benefits are being cut, but I don't really care. After seeing workers getting shafted in all sorts of industries, I'm quite happy to see at least one group of workers showing the middle finger to the execs.
Unfortunately, my family uses Verizon wireless, but I wasn't going to call customer service any time soon.
How can bitcoins be valued in $ if they're not tied to $? If you mined 500 bitcoins and they could buy a laptop now, but then they kept "going north" (relative to what?), would the vendor really sell you the same laptop for 400 bitcoins next month? Obviously, I don't know the whole bitcoin story, just what I glean from all the stories it keeps getting on/.
This plays well for the conspiratorial: the government is behind LulzSec. People get their panties in a bunch about LulzSec antics and the government looks like they're doing the right thing by increasing monitoring, restricting access, etc. Although I think the government might come up with a better false flag if it really wants to tighten the screws.
It's kind of odd to me that all the people who argue for security cameras say that they're taping what's "in the public already." In other words, you can't expect any privacy when you're in the park or on the road, etc. Yet, here it seems that the argument is that there is an expectation of the opposite. Which is it supposed to be? If it falls to the there being some kind of privacy after all, when will they start taking down all those surveillance cameras?
What's keeping the greedy and stupid from becoming tyrannical? Or becoming as tyrannical as Stallman might become. And if they're stupid, as opposed to Stallman being intelligent (which I'm inferring from what you wrote), they're going to be more easily manipulated. So then they're tyrannical and manipulated. And probably manipulated for the betterment of an oligarchy, since the oligarchs seem to have an easier time with access to power.
" 'Speech has to be free but movies cost money,' he [Jim Gianopulos of 20th Century Fox] said, adding that he hears plenty about the need for new business models but doesn't see any actual alternative business models that generate the cash to fund big-budget films."
I can't think of a big budget movie, at least recently, that was worth the budget. If this guy wants to be able to recoup his expenses and make a little profit, maybe he should start finding writers who don't need ridiculous budgets for crazy special effects with shitty stories.
Do zombies want to make more zombies? I thought they were satisfying a feeding urge and not a reproductive urge? Honestly, I don't keep up with zombie crap, so I don't know what the raison d'etre (how do you say "not to live" in French?") of zombies is? What do zombies hope to accomplish by turning everyone else into undead? They're no long able to reproduce, sexually, are they? Do they intend to remake society into something else? Of course, if they were doing it just for the feeding, I guess they'd just keep eating a victim, and that would curtail further zombiefication. Like I said, I don't know what all this crud is about.
I'm in the natural resources field and use Elsevier and Wiley far more than these publishers for source material, from what i can remember. There are others still. The subject publishers are big publishers, but I've been able to find plenty of material without using them.
To tie-in to the boycott idea, the faculty and researchers who are supplying the research that becomes the published material need to be observant of who they submit to for publication, IMHO.
If they're gonna make it legal to just search a business, I want them to start with the offices of execs in the financial industry. While they're at it, they should install taps on the phones and start monitoring them as well.
I could tweet that Obama had a major heart attack and Biden is now running things, even though it didn't happen. Are people going to spend time verifying that? If so, how is having to decide if Twitter is delivering legitimate news or not a useful service? If you're getting tweets from Washington Post or a creditable news source, then Twitter isn't doing anything that a smart phone or the tv doesn't already do.
I think if it's not meeting the criteria you just mentioned, it makes Twitter useless as a news source. That combined with point made by clang_jangle point to the fact that this article is polish for a turd.
if you think the source is reliable and expert enough to really give you news. Given that there was an article on the front page about how people find the news they want, I don't know if Twitter gets around that same problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I want to know how they're going to distribute in a "nondiscriminatory" way. The U.N. Security Council nations or NATO or the country/ies supplying the nuclear material are/is going to demand some kind of say in running the fuelbank. There is no way to guarantee there'll be no politics or bias in deciding who will get to fuel distributed to them.
ornithographic or orthographic?
Initially I supported Anonymous. It seemed like they were actually a group that stood up to organizations that abused power.
However, it seems that some of the "members " of Anonymous have taken to abusing the power they themselves accumulated. Perhaps there are still people in that group who would rather crack FBI and intelligence company sites to upset their operations, but those divergent members who are using the Anonymous abilities and name to commit crimes against supporters are making Anonymous as a whole unlikeable.
I'm looking forward to commercial SAMs.
if Ask /. was able to get some kind of expert in a relevant field for an Ask /. question and they add that person's input these comments. Probably keep the "expert comment" at the top of the comments. There are good questions posed to this section at times and reading something authoritative would be great.
I had a similar first thought to this. It seems like a lot of equipment developed for "military" use is more along the lines of military/security, thus applicable for use by police forces. Beyond anti-aircraft or ballistic missiles, a lot of the tech seems to become police-issue. So where is the pro-democracy tech to keep police from abusing this stuff once they get their hands on it? Every time I see a "new military tool" I picture police using it to squash protesters.
I'm not sure how. You'd probably have to sue. Would the state secrets ruse be used to prevent the suit? If enough falsely accused people got together, maybe the ACLU would take the case?
That's one reason. I know kids cheat regardless, but online items are so much easier to cheat on.
I took one online class. I didn't like it. I want the interaction you get in a classroom.
Bumper sticker:
"If you think college is expensive, try ignorance."
I agree that the cost has risen quite steeply. But I think a free-market person would argue that if the degree betters your chance of a higher income, then that shouldn't deter you. Of course, those people are probably done with the little debt they had when college was cheaper and are already rich. They don't realize what that debt is like, as you pointed out, crippling in some cases.
OTOH, the kids could try to be more reasonable about what is really necessary to get them through school. Don't need a new car or a lot of new clothes. My uni's library lends laptops and IPads (for only a few hours, but they are available). And I've always worked while in school. Not full-time, but close to that many hours for some stretches.
Further, I don't know if a college degree is really necessary for a lot of "decent jobs". I know this being a tech site, folks are thinking more from the perspective of high tech industries requiring a lot technical training, but there are other jobs that pay well enough without a lot of school. UPS driver, plumber, firefighter. Having said that, the future of our economy seems to be heading in one of two directions jobs-wise: really technical, well-paying jobs that do require a good deal of school of which there don't seem to be a lot of, or a lot of menial, service jobs that don't pay as well. There'll still be plumbers and firefighters, but I picture big plumbing conglomerates that hire plumbers as contractors who will get crap pay compared to what they used to get when they were independent/proprietors.
"... but millions of people fly every fucking day."
Just because most of those people don't complain doesn't mean that nothing has happened. They might be scared to complain. Or they may feel that complaining will get them nowhere at the least.
If cities and other governments want to increase income from fines, they should enforce litter laws. In Florida, the fines are between $50 and $500. The lower threshold for the fine is higher in Oklahoma. I see plenty of littering, especially stuff flying out of the beds of pickup trucks. No special equipment needed, just the dashboard-mounted camera that is already in place will provide the evidence.
Years ago, a UPS driver who was our "regular" guy told me that the drivers had to pay for scratches and damages to the trucks. That's one anecdote and I never verified it. So UPS already has been shafting their drivers.
I'll say up front, I don't know if the workers are striking because they don't have gold-trimmed toilet seats or their vacation benefits are being cut, but I don't really care. After seeing workers getting shafted in all sorts of industries, I'm quite happy to see at least one group of workers showing the middle finger to the execs.
Unfortunately, my family uses Verizon wireless, but I wasn't going to call customer service any time soon.
How can bitcoins be valued in $ if they're not tied to $? If you mined 500 bitcoins and they could buy a laptop now, but then they kept "going north" (relative to what?), would the vendor really sell you the same laptop for 400 bitcoins next month? Obviously, I don't know the whole bitcoin story, just what I glean from all the stories it keeps getting on /.
This plays well for the conspiratorial: the government is behind LulzSec. People get their panties in a bunch about LulzSec antics and the government looks like they're doing the right thing by increasing monitoring, restricting access, etc. Although I think the government might come up with a better false flag if it really wants to tighten the screws.
It's kind of odd to me that all the people who argue for security cameras say that they're taping what's "in the public already." In other words, you can't expect any privacy when you're in the park or on the road, etc. Yet, here it seems that the argument is that there is an expectation of the opposite. Which is it supposed to be? If it falls to the there being some kind of privacy after all, when will they start taking down all those surveillance cameras?
What's keeping the greedy and stupid from becoming tyrannical? Or becoming as tyrannical as Stallman might become. And if they're stupid, as opposed to Stallman being intelligent (which I'm inferring from what you wrote), they're going to be more easily manipulated. So then they're tyrannical and manipulated. And probably manipulated for the betterment of an oligarchy, since the oligarchs seem to have an easier time with access to power.
" 'Speech has to be free but movies cost money,' he [Jim Gianopulos of 20th Century Fox] said, adding that he hears plenty about the need for new business models but doesn't see any actual alternative business models that generate the cash to fund big-budget films."
I can't think of a big budget movie, at least recently, that was worth the budget. If this guy wants to be able to recoup his expenses and make a little profit, maybe he should start finding writers who don't need ridiculous budgets for crazy special effects with shitty stories.
Do zombies want to make more zombies? I thought they were satisfying a feeding urge and not a reproductive urge? Honestly, I don't keep up with zombie crap, so I don't know what the raison d'etre (how do you say "not to live" in French?") of zombies is? What do zombies hope to accomplish by turning everyone else into undead? They're no long able to reproduce, sexually, are they? Do they intend to remake society into something else? Of course, if they were doing it just for the feeding, I guess they'd just keep eating a victim, and that would curtail further zombiefication. Like I said, I don't know what all this crud is about.
I'm in the natural resources field and use Elsevier and Wiley far more than these publishers for source material, from what i can remember. There are others still. The subject publishers are big publishers, but I've been able to find plenty of material without using them.
To tie-in to the boycott idea, the faculty and researchers who are supplying the research that becomes the published material need to be observant of who they submit to for publication, IMHO.
If they're gonna make it legal to just search a business, I want them to start with the offices of execs in the financial industry. While they're at it, they should install taps on the phones and start monitoring them as well.
Is there a way to tell if one of these is attached to your vehicle? Something that detects the strong magnets used for attaching maybe?
I could tweet that Obama had a major heart attack and Biden is now running things, even though it didn't happen. Are people going to spend time verifying that? If so, how is having to decide if Twitter is delivering legitimate news or not a useful service? If you're getting tweets from Washington Post or a creditable news source, then Twitter isn't doing anything that a smart phone or the tv doesn't already do.
I think if it's not meeting the criteria you just mentioned, it makes Twitter useless as a news source. That combined with point made by clang_jangle point to the fact that this article is polish for a turd.
if you think the source is reliable and expert enough to really give you news. Given that there was an article on the front page about how people find the news they want, I don't know if Twitter gets around that same problem.