First off, assuming that "If someone works as a thief, he knows other thieves" is a very, very large assumption. Most thieves are either opportunistic (unnattended laptop = free laptop!) and/or desperate (laptop = food/drugs/alcohol). Most criminals don't have some sort of underground orgonisation where they can all go to and chat about tactics and such. The thief will (hopefully) know who buys stolen goods, but of course any one will buy stolen goods if you don't let on that it's stolen.
Second off, 50 large != $50.
Lastly, there likely was at most three people in the "chain of custody." The person who did the actual theft (drug addict looking for easy money), the buyer/seller (bought used goods, sells out of back of pickup truck), and the person who turned in the data. The first and second people could very well be the same person, but not terribly likely. Now if any of these three people had indeed been an ID thief then you must assume that that person was a very, very bright ID thief. Not only had he recovered the data without leaving any forensic evidence, but he also turned in the laptop to the FBI so that everone assumes that the data was not stolen.
I may be a bit naive, but that's a lot of assumptions to take about a stolen laptop. Laptops get stolen all the time, but they don't usually contain information of hundreds of thousands of veterans, so why would a thief (or even an ID thief) assume they would to the point of not touching the hard drive at all. If any person had truly been an ID thief, wouldn't it be safe to assume that before the news of the stolen laptop even hit the shelves they would have already looked for data, probably while not being as careful? A truly industrious ID thief would just buy hard drives off of eBay and recover data from them. Nobody is looking for them, and hardly anyone seems capable of thoroughly cleaning them before sale.
I agree fully. I don't condone the kid's actions, I definately don't feel a suspension would help the true problem.
A friend of mine in eighth grade sent a threatening letter to president@whitehouse.gov as a joke. The same day a fellow from the FBI (or the secret service, it was a long time ago, I wasn't there at the time, and I really no longer remember) came to the school, asked who was using a certain computer at a certain time, found my friend, and gave him a good stern talking-to about threats, pranks, and such much like you would get if you prank called 911. However, the school in it's infinite wisdom banished him from lunch hour (he had to eat alone in a empty room) and computer class for the rest of the year (again, he spent the hour alone in an empty classroom). So all throughout high school (and still to this day) many people know him only as "that kid who threatened to kill Clinton."
My friend had learned his lesson just fine from the response from the feds, so why did the school have to impart such a grand, and rather debasing, punishment? Mostly for personal pride I feel. That way, if asked, they could say that they were "tough on crime" and "tough on delinquents." Believe me, my friend was no delinquent before that, only after. Coincidence? I . Think . Not.
Oh yeah? At MCRD San Diego my bronchitis got mis-diagnosed as sports induced asthma (which I hear is extremely rare). By the time they filed me out of service it had cleared up almost completely but because of the asthma diagnosis (combined with my new-found loathing of the Navy) I couldn't (or rather didn't) re-enlist. I agree though. After 3 "doctors" looked at my, as they put it, unusual methancholine challenge results they threw their hands up and said asthma! It's always asthma! That's why we tested for asthma!
Feeding the hungry and starving of the world was never about having enough food, it has always been, and always will be, getting the food to the right people. I'd like to see one person in America that is starving not due to their own pride or their parents pride, but due to lack of food at the soup kitchen. Homeless people in this country rarely die of hunger but rather of exposure to the elements, violence, drugs, and disease. In America there is more than enough food. Other countries are an entirely different problem. Some have problems with getting the food to the people due to lack of security for food distributors (Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, et al), and others lack the logistics to find and feed all the hungry (India, China, many African countries) due to the size and ruralness of poorer areas, and others still have the same problem as the United States.
If the United States were to decide to grow enough food for all the hungry in the entire world (and we could for at least staple foods, we've got plenty of empty farms due to subsidies, etc), then all of the food (not far) beyond what we already distribute would rot in a warehouse waiting to dispursed. It's a sad state of affairs yes, and it's unfortunate that fixing the problems isn't a higher priority for the government or the people, but that's just the way it is.
Also, it takes more than just water and sunshine to make a plant, and with every bit of produce sold off a little bit more of the needed nutrients go with it. By not growing food on a plot of land every year it allows the soil to be revitalized every few years, allowing more food to be grown in the long term.
You seem to be a rather angry person. Perhaps you just relax for a little while. Perhaps take some of this fine, liberal, jamaican who-hash. It'll take the edge right off...
Having written both of my state seneators several times, and my representative even more, I can say that this pretty much par. Any politician willing to write down his stance on paper is crazy. What if they change their position later on? What if the position they stated is not in line with yours? Once an opinion has been expressed publicly it is very hard to take it back. The fact is that yes, they all have a stance that they will likely stick to (unless outside influences pressure them, like lobbyists, majority/minority whip, or many many many contistuents say otherwise) but no one is likely to know that stance is until it's either a campaign issue or they just voted.
This is the way politics work. You, the voter, get really only one chance to make a concrete difference, and that's when you voted them in. After that you need serious influence to make a difference. It is possible (especially in an election year) to make a difference by threatening (covertly or overtly) to vote for "the other guy." Of course, as they say, the squeeky wheel gets the grease. If enough people squeek about a certain issue there is not one politician in the country who would ignore the issue (they still might stick to their guns, but at least they'll go public about their opinion).
I agree with all of that wholeheartedl with the exception of "if you witness a felony taking place, you have to report it."
I don't think that this is at all a reasonable request to make. I'm pretty sure that there are "failure to report" laws, but I'm earnestly against any type of law that forces me to act or think in a certain way. Let's take speeding for example. I don't think there should be a limit to how fast I drive. If I cause an accident (either directly or indirectly), then you have every right to put me in jail for the rest of my life, but as long as long I'm not causing harm to someone else or someone's property I should be innocent of any crime (side note: what's the poing of living if you can't have fun?).
I agree wholeheartedly that child molestation and street racing should be punished radically differently. However, if you read many of the great sci-fi classics on thought crime (1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc) they'll explain my argument much better. The problem is the same as going after drug users instead of drug dealers and makers. If you stamp out one drug user, you've stamped out one drug user, but if you stamp out one dealer you can (in theory at least) stop the drug usage of dozens of people. The problem is that there is (and you can check your local sex offender database for proof) a lot more people convicted of merely possessing child pornography than there are of people making it, buying it, or molesting children in general. These people, although perverted by nature, are not necessarily causing harm to others.
If you think the point of the penal system is to protect people from eachother, then thought crime is useless. If you think the poing is to protect people from themselves, then thought crime is your only tool.
I wasn't trying to offer a solution. I was merely stating that without purchasing illegal media, what makes it illegal other than the thoughts it provokes?
So now, according to you, merely seeing a snuff film, or other illegal content, would be a crime? I aggree that if the person bought the video, they would be culpable, but just seeing it?
What else? If I watch videos of illegal street racing on Google Videos am I responsible for the racer's actions? No. I'm merely witnessing a crime. If I were to purchase a video of the race at a car show I'm now actively supporting the actions of the people who made the video, and potentially the people who starred in it.
The same thing goes for any "taboo" or illegal content. The idea that someone can be prosecuted for witnessing a crime is preposterous. The fact that we do prosecute these people (and according to the news and your local sex offender database, it happens a little too often for my comfort) is just horrendous. The idea is now the same as if I were to witness a murder, and be offended, I'd be fine, but if I were to watch a video tape of the murder to get my jollies I'm now a criminal. We can't throw people in jail because of what goes on inside their heads. If they act out any of these thoughts in real life, or in any other way support a crime, they're guilty, but as long as it stays in their head, they should be innocent.
Exactly what is your statement based on? Most people who receive Nobel Prizes receive them dozens of years after the the research (or whatever) that got them the prize was conducted. The Nobel Prize is about recognition, not some sort of sweepstakes type of thing.
The kind of people who win a Nobel Prize are the exact kind of people who would never just "live the easy life" on the cash. I don't think many use the money to further their research; they usually continue utilizing the same grant money they originally used to fund their research. From personal experience, grant money is usually much larger and easier to get than Nobel Prize mulah.
The problem lies not in an emotional tie to an irrational belief, but rather a minor irrationality with openness. To the creationist believer, they have a perfectly logical argument that God created species to be as they are. In fact, it is a perfectly logical argument if you accept all of the axioms; one of which, is the acknowledgement of a being that supersedes any counterarguments by its mere existance. Because their faith relies in believing in a God, and usually a certain means by which that God created everything, they often see any other means of creation as an affront unto their God. This inability to accept, or even acknowledge, any contradictory theories is often seen as a being extremely closed-minded. In reality, most creationists are not closed minded, and do indeed believe most of the facts (dependendant on their particular faith) given to them about evolution. If anything, I've seen more closed-minded beliefs by those who fall on the side of evolution. Ones belief in a God, and anothers belief in a world without a God are exactly as rational and irrational as eachother.
An emotional response to the argument of evolution vs. creationism is by no means monopolized by creationists. I have personally witnessed rather extreme (and rather loud) responses by both sides of the field. Arguing with your tail rather than your head can get you into a lot of trouble, no matter which side of the coin you're on.
For full disclosure purposes: No, I don't believe in creationism, and yes I think that modern evolutionary theory is extremely sound. I have no belief either way on the existance of a God. One day I'll die, and on that day, when I'm either struck down to hell or merely stop existing, I'll find out or not respectively. I really just think the debate over ID and evolution stopped being a debate by both sides a long time ago. I think we should all talk about something much less likely to stir up strange and powerful emotions: abortion, gay marraige, immigration, etc.
I hate to be one of those kinda peops, but please look to the AC for insight.
Evolution's validity doesn't, and definitely shouldn't in the media, rely upon finding a fossil for every single step in the multi billion year process. At the rate we're going, in a million years they'll be digging me up and calling me "the missing link."
Your sig, while perhaps being factually correct, is extremely misleading.
High risk in medical terminology means a statistically significant risk higher than average. This means that 1 in 6 babies have a risk that is outside the margin of error. Most likely this means that 1 in 6 babies have a 1 percent chance of brain damage. So roughly 0.16 percent of babies actually have some form of brain damage that can be attributed to coal pollution.
I do agree that 1 out of every 600 babies damaged by pollution is a lot and that that number should be reduced to 0, but please don't try to spread misinformation. Give actual facts, not vague percents of percentages.
It's true that I'm a bit of a Nintendo fanboy, but I own, and play pretty continuously, a PS2 and PS1 (don't use the console that much anymore, just the games).
The reason I singled out Sony is because Microsoft already fulfilled their obligation to pushing the boundaries of "next generation" with the combination of Xbox Live and Xbox Arcade. Until Sony shows some real results they are falling further and further behind.
Nintendo isn't necessarily in the same boat because they aren't just copying Microsoft; they are trying to define what "next generation" really means. Here's a clue: 1st gen consoles were one or two players and 2d graphics. 2nd gen consoles had 3d graphics. 4th gen (which really includes the original Xbox) have online capabilities. This leaves us the question of what will define the 5th generation? Since 4th gen catches up with everything a PC can do the 5th generation needs to pass it. I'm not talking about processing power et al (although better is always welcomed with open arms), but rather interactivity. The Nintendo DS gives us a clue as to what 5th generation can be like. If it's not glaringly obvious that new game genres will be defined by a new gaming device, it's not truly next generation. Will the Revolution's new controller give us this? Perhaps. The jury's still out on that one. Will the Revolution's downloadable back catalogue of not just 1 or 2 consoles, but at least 5 give us that? Probably not. These represent an evolution from the previous generation, yes, but not in such a way as to define an entirely new generation.
It's entirely possible that the next revolutionary step for consoles is not only not this current "next generation," but rather several generations away. If the console itself doesn't entirely redifine what a game console is, then it's not next gen.
The real question, is why bother with getting both the Xbox 360 and the PS3? Almost every major game made right now is being released for multiple consoles anyway.
This, of course, is really bad for sony with it's apparently much higher price, lateness to the game, and DRM shenanigans. The only way for the PS3 to come out a winner is because of anti-microsoft mentalities, sony fanboyism, or a really killer exclusive title. One of the big reasons Sony came to the forefront of consoles is because it effectively stole the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest franchises away from Nintendo. Unless they can invent a breakthrough franchise a-la GTA or Halo that will be exclusive to them, they're essentially dead in the water.
Nintendo, on the other hand, has essentially re-invented the console for the Revolution. Not only is the controller revolutionary, but also the game distribution and game compatability platforms. The idea that I can buy one console, play both new games and old games, and not even have to go to the store to buy many of the games is going to put both the Xbox 360 and PS3 to shame. Because of this Nintendo doesn't compete directly with Sony or Microsoft.
Nintendo has more exclusive franchises, more backwards compatability, and will cost less. Even when you compare the 360 and PS3 directly Nintendo comes out ahead. Screw polygon count and cpu speed; give me my Revolution.
Perhaps you misunderstood the definition of "pork."
You seem to be trying to do things legitemately. This is not pork fundage, just fundage. If you get funding after talking to your local senator or representative, then it becomes porcine in nature. It's really all about handshaking and golf trips.
A case could be made for the squeeky wheel deserving its oil, but I have to say that the proper routes (such as the NSF, and other grant-giving organisations) seem perfectly capable of properly oiling the right wheels, not just the squeekiest ones.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, assuming that "If someone works as a thief, he knows other thieves" is a very, very large assumption. Most thieves are either opportunistic (unnattended laptop = free laptop!) and/or desperate (laptop = food/drugs/alcohol). Most criminals don't have some sort of underground orgonisation where they can all go to and chat about tactics and such. The thief will (hopefully) know who buys stolen goods, but of course any one will buy stolen goods if you don't let on that it's stolen.
Second off, 50 large != $50.
Lastly, there likely was at most three people in the "chain of custody." The person who did the actual theft (drug addict looking for easy money), the buyer/seller (bought used goods, sells out of back of pickup truck), and the person who turned in the data. The first and second people could very well be the same person, but not terribly likely. Now if any of these three people had indeed been an ID thief then you must assume that that person was a very, very bright ID thief. Not only had he recovered the data without leaving any forensic evidence, but he also turned in the laptop to the FBI so that everone assumes that the data was not stolen.
I may be a bit naive, but that's a lot of assumptions to take about a stolen laptop. Laptops get stolen all the time, but they don't usually contain information of hundreds of thousands of veterans, so why would a thief (or even an ID thief) assume they would to the point of not touching the hard drive at all. If any person had truly been an ID thief, wouldn't it be safe to assume that before the news of the stolen laptop even hit the shelves they would have already looked for data, probably while not being as careful? A truly industrious ID thief would just buy hard drives off of eBay and recover data from them. Nobody is looking for them, and hardly anyone seems capable of thoroughly cleaning them before sale.
A friend of mine in eighth grade sent a threatening letter to president@whitehouse.gov as a joke. The same day a fellow from the FBI (or the secret service, it was a long time ago, I wasn't there at the time, and I really no longer remember) came to the school, asked who was using a certain computer at a certain time, found my friend, and gave him a good stern talking-to about threats, pranks, and such much like you would get if you prank called 911. However, the school in it's infinite wisdom banished him from lunch hour (he had to eat alone in a empty room) and computer class for the rest of the year (again, he spent the hour alone in an empty classroom). So all throughout high school (and still to this day) many people know him only as "that kid who threatened to kill Clinton."
My friend had learned his lesson just fine from the response from the feds, so why did the school have to impart such a grand, and rather debasing, punishment? Mostly for personal pride I feel. That way, if asked, they could say that they were "tough on crime" and "tough on delinquents." Believe me, my friend was no delinquent before that, only after. Coincidence? I . Think . Not.
I know I do! I've got two dents in my front license plates from one!
Bastards.
If the United States were to decide to grow enough food for all the hungry in the entire world (and we could for at least staple foods, we've got plenty of empty farms due to subsidies, etc), then all of the food (not far) beyond what we already distribute would rot in a warehouse waiting to dispursed. It's a sad state of affairs yes, and it's unfortunate that fixing the problems isn't a higher priority for the government or the people, but that's just the way it is.
Also, it takes more than just water and sunshine to make a plant, and with every bit of produce sold off a little bit more of the needed nutrients go with it. By not growing food on a plot of land every year it allows the soil to be revitalized every few years, allowing more food to be grown in the long term.
If your text editor is typing out ^H instead of doing backspaces, quit, then on the console type "stty erase ^H"
To make the change permanent, add in the stty erase line into your .bash_profile file in your home directory.
Of course you realize, WYSIWYG text editor is an oxymoron.
You seem to be a rather angry person. Perhaps you just relax for a little while. Perhaps take some of this fine, liberal, jamaican who-hash. It'll take the edge right off...
This is the way politics work. You, the voter, get really only one chance to make a concrete difference, and that's when you voted them in. After that you need serious influence to make a difference. It is possible (especially in an election year) to make a difference by threatening (covertly or overtly) to vote for "the other guy." Of course, as they say, the squeeky wheel gets the grease. If enough people squeek about a certain issue there is not one politician in the country who would ignore the issue (they still might stick to their guns, but at least they'll go public about their opinion).
Nope. I'm fresh out of mod points. Better luck next time.
No you won't, and I quote, "innovation."
I don't think that this is at all a reasonable request to make. I'm pretty sure that there are "failure to report" laws, but I'm earnestly against any type of law that forces me to act or think in a certain way. Let's take speeding for example. I don't think there should be a limit to how fast I drive. If I cause an accident (either directly or indirectly), then you have every right to put me in jail for the rest of my life, but as long as long I'm not causing harm to someone else or someone's property I should be innocent of any crime (side note: what's the poing of living if you can't have fun?).
I prefer 3 Muskateers to Crunch.
If you think the point of the penal system is to protect people from eachother, then thought crime is useless. If you think the poing is to protect people from themselves, then thought crime is your only tool.
I wasn't trying to offer a solution. I was merely stating that without purchasing illegal media, what makes it illegal other than the thoughts it provokes?
What else? If I watch videos of illegal street racing on Google Videos am I responsible for the racer's actions? No. I'm merely witnessing a crime. If I were to purchase a video of the race at a car show I'm now actively supporting the actions of the people who made the video, and potentially the people who starred in it.
The same thing goes for any "taboo" or illegal content. The idea that someone can be prosecuted for witnessing a crime is preposterous. The fact that we do prosecute these people (and according to the news and your local sex offender database, it happens a little too often for my comfort) is just horrendous. The idea is now the same as if I were to witness a murder, and be offended, I'd be fine, but if I were to watch a video tape of the murder to get my jollies I'm now a criminal. We can't throw people in jail because of what goes on inside their heads. If they act out any of these thoughts in real life, or in any other way support a crime, they're guilty, but as long as it stays in their head, they should be innocent.
The kind of people who win a Nobel Prize are the exact kind of people who would never just "live the easy life" on the cash. I don't think many use the money to further their research; they usually continue utilizing the same grant money they originally used to fund their research. From personal experience, grant money is usually much larger and easier to get than Nobel Prize mulah.
An emotional response to the argument of evolution vs. creationism is by no means monopolized by creationists. I have personally witnessed rather extreme (and rather loud) responses by both sides of the field. Arguing with your tail rather than your head can get you into a lot of trouble, no matter which side of the coin you're on.
For full disclosure purposes: No, I don't believe in creationism, and yes I think that modern evolutionary theory is extremely sound. I have no belief either way on the existance of a God. One day I'll die, and on that day, when I'm either struck down to hell or merely stop existing, I'll find out or not respectively. I really just think the debate over ID and evolution stopped being a debate by both sides a long time ago. I think we should all talk about something much less likely to stir up strange and powerful emotions: abortion, gay marraige, immigration, etc.
And I think you're sexy.
However, I think that you should get out of your junker and buy my car. That way I can follow in your footsteps and live within my means.
Evolution's validity doesn't, and definitely shouldn't in the media, rely upon finding a fossil for every single step in the multi billion year process. At the rate we're going, in a million years they'll be digging me up and calling me "the missing link."
High risk in medical terminology means a statistically significant risk higher than average. This means that 1 in 6 babies have a risk that is outside the margin of error. Most likely this means that 1 in 6 babies have a 1 percent chance of brain damage. So roughly 0.16 percent of babies actually have some form of brain damage that can be attributed to coal pollution.
I do agree that 1 out of every 600 babies damaged by pollution is a lot and that that number should be reduced to 0, but please don't try to spread misinformation. Give actual facts, not vague percents of percentages.
The reason I singled out Sony is because Microsoft already fulfilled their obligation to pushing the boundaries of "next generation" with the combination of Xbox Live and Xbox Arcade. Until Sony shows some real results they are falling further and further behind.
Nintendo isn't necessarily in the same boat because they aren't just copying Microsoft; they are trying to define what "next generation" really means. Here's a clue: 1st gen consoles were one or two players and 2d graphics. 2nd gen consoles had 3d graphics. 4th gen (which really includes the original Xbox) have online capabilities. This leaves us the question of what will define the 5th generation? Since 4th gen catches up with everything a PC can do the 5th generation needs to pass it. I'm not talking about processing power et al (although better is always welcomed with open arms), but rather interactivity. The Nintendo DS gives us a clue as to what 5th generation can be like. If it's not glaringly obvious that new game genres will be defined by a new gaming device, it's not truly next generation. Will the Revolution's new controller give us this? Perhaps. The jury's still out on that one. Will the Revolution's downloadable back catalogue of not just 1 or 2 consoles, but at least 5 give us that? Probably not. These represent an evolution from the previous generation, yes, but not in such a way as to define an entirely new generation.
It's entirely possible that the next revolutionary step for consoles is not only not this current "next generation," but rather several generations away. If the console itself doesn't entirely redifine what a game console is, then it's not next gen.
This, of course, is really bad for sony with it's apparently much higher price, lateness to the game, and DRM shenanigans. The only way for the PS3 to come out a winner is because of anti-microsoft mentalities, sony fanboyism, or a really killer exclusive title. One of the big reasons Sony came to the forefront of consoles is because it effectively stole the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest franchises away from Nintendo. Unless they can invent a breakthrough franchise a-la GTA or Halo that will be exclusive to them, they're essentially dead in the water.
Nintendo, on the other hand, has essentially re-invented the console for the Revolution. Not only is the controller revolutionary, but also the game distribution and game compatability platforms. The idea that I can buy one console, play both new games and old games, and not even have to go to the store to buy many of the games is going to put both the Xbox 360 and PS3 to shame. Because of this Nintendo doesn't compete directly with Sony or Microsoft.
Nintendo has more exclusive franchises, more backwards compatability, and will cost less. Even when you compare the 360 and PS3 directly Nintendo comes out ahead. Screw polygon count and cpu speed; give me my Revolution.
If I get just one of the next generation consoles, I'll still be a multi-console owner; I just need to buy the Revolution.
From what I hear, I'll probably be able to save on my heating bills too.
You seem to be trying to do things legitemately. This is not pork fundage, just fundage. If you get funding after talking to your local senator or representative, then it becomes porcine in nature. It's really all about handshaking and golf trips.
A case could be made for the squeeky wheel deserving its oil, but I have to say that the proper routes (such as the NSF, and other grant-giving organisations) seem perfectly capable of properly oiling the right wheels, not just the squeekiest ones.