They actually replaced an old tweet saying they had regained control of the account. Fox has also addressed the issue in mass media outlets Why haven't they addressed it on their account? Who knows.
How exactly is "a set of base regulations which prohibit known unsafe behavior" any different than what you are suggesting? e.g.
I, an inveterate libertarian, would be perfectly willing to have cockpit doors/locks required to pass forced-entry tests.
I suspect the difference lies with where you draw the line on what 'unsafe behavior' is worth prohibiting. That is a valid point of argument: what is that line. Stating that no regulation will result in a wonderland of 'choice' which affects no one but the chooser is fantasy.
Largely I agree with what the article concludes however, the statement:
Some might object that private firms will have incentives to cut corners on safety. It is a legitimate concern, but competitive mechanisms tend to weed this out. It is important to remember too that just because competitive markets might not provide the best of all conceivable worlds doesn’t mean that government intervention can.
is just crazy. Competitive markets have been shown, time and time again, that they will not implement safety measures unless they can profit from it (car companies through the 70s, power companies, coal mining companies, etc.). I, personally, do not want to live in a country that has planes falling out of the skys because all that happens when something like this happens is the company goes bankrupt and the government is left to pay for the disaster, I strongly suspect that I am in the majority on this. Having a set of base regulations which prohibit known unsafe behavior on the part of any industry should be considered the responsibility of any government. Living in a completely unregulated world is another phrase for anarchy.
Your statements are based on the belief that death is not desirable in all situations and exerting control over ones life is not reason enough to kill ones self. Again these are statements of belief. Please respect the beliefs of others who disagree with yours. As for your concerns of a slippery slope: every culture has laws against murder if people cannot be prosecuted under the existing laws for actions you deem improper then try and change the law but do not try and prohibit others from making an informed choice concerning their own life because you either disagree with them or believe it is wrong.
I am heading to the site of a new observatory (much higher energy) in Mexico this weekend. At a nominal elevation of 4100 m I hope we can get some images like those presented in the video. Seems like a great way to show people why building observatories in such hard to reach places is necessary.
Do you mean to imply that I belittled the article by providing the arXiv link? If so that was not my intent. arXiv provides the community with a repository of works from all journals in one convient (and free to access) location. That being said, the fact that it was accepted for publication is irrelevant to the discussion. The scientific article is fine and make reasonable claims, the popular article makes it sound like they solved a major mystery instead of confirming expectations with new data.
The summary and article are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The student did good work but did not 'find the missing mass' in the universe. Here is a link to the publicly accessible article on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0711
The abstract does not make any grandiose claims of finding the missing mass of the universe but instead states how the article presents properties of mass in filaments.
Interesting? Really? The changes to Chrome's UI do remove the URL bar but do not remove the URL field. When the user highlights the tab they see the URL field, when they don't they get more screen real estate for content. By and large this is a great UI design change. I don't need to see the huge URL telling me Nth directory the site I am visiting stores their HTML in (look at Slashdot do you type in the link to this story?). But good on you for making it sound like some nefarious plan between Google and oppressive regimes to not let people browse to non approved sites, don't let reality stand in your way.
Simply put no it does not explain consciousness. Quantum Field Theory(QFT) may explain all physical processes which go on in the universe but until we are able to make infinite observations (read never) it will not be predictive for emergent phenomenon (physical 'laws' which appear for large ensembles of particles). QFT is probabilistic when the question posed is looking for a deterministic answer, QFT can thus not provide such an answer.
He is saying that while he doesn't like the pro-lifers who may want to make the woman's death and how she is cared for into a show. I don't see why he would expect this in Britain (US ok but not Britain). The gag order is to stop people from harassing the family when they need to make decisions about how to care for their loved one NOT to protect some pro-lifers. So what is your point?
I believe that there is an error in your post. The shareholders pay capitol gains taxes on the money which passes to them. Capitol gains taxes are significantly lower than income taxes.
That being said I am all for the removal of BOTH corporate and capitol gains taxes in favor of income taxes alone. In general I think people are far less effective than corporations at lobbying for tax loop holes for themselves.
The reality of the situation is that imposing such a moratorium would have little to no effect on the significant problem we face and would ensure that we pay more over time to maintain infrastructure (letting something get to the point you must fix it costs more over time than just doing incremental repairs/improvements). The US must address the largest items within our budget: military spending and entitlement program, if it wants to have a long term balanced budget. The cumulative total of all the rest could be zeroed and there would still be a long term problem.
Sorry I can't find a better reference but the short answer is that your state still gets more money from the federal government for its roads than it pays.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/states-reaping-highway-money-putting-board-study-shows/
This is generally true and, generally, most discrepant when you are talking about small population state. That is small population states get more federal funds for their infrastructure than more populous states, per capita of course.
This is the State Capitol, a public building where average citizens of the state have business to do. Some of that business could very well be related to a pro-union agenda. If it is a resource only for the employees then it should be secured and rightly regulated. But regulating the websites based on political content by a State executive is basically EXACTLY what the first amendment was intended to prevent. You can fire them for not doing their job but you cannot limit their free speech.
I think you are missing a key adjective in your reading of the quote.
For the first time ever, we can watch solar activity in its full 3-dimensional glory
Emphasis mine. Previous 3-D images did not contain the full surface of the Sun as the two probes would have to be on opposite sides of the Sun to achieve such. They are now and thus there is no missing portion of the surface of the Sun. The page name also says it all:
First Ever STEREO Images of Entire Sun
I would also point out that the second link makes it clear that:
The mission observed the sun in 3-D for the first time in 2007.
Firstly, just because someone does something wrong themselves that is analogous to what they are criticizing others of doing does not give those they criticize justification for their actions. Secondly, there are differences between your examples and what is being done here: first and foremost Google is not claiming the content in those articles is theirs (as MS does since the search results are the ONLY content being discussed), they claim that the sorting of those data is theirs. Finally no one is claiming that what MS is doing should be illegal in this case but they are saying it is copying from Google (even if through an unknowing middle man). Google has built its empire by taking information on the web, sorting it, and displaying it in a relevant way to users (with relevant advertisements). All of your examples fall into this category.
I general I agree with what you say and your point make sense. However, your analogy is not apt. You do not catch anyone by locking a cockpit door, but the claim is that pat downs WILL/do. Thus asking the TSA to quantify the voracity of this statement seems very sensible as it is certainly quantifiable. If your point is that this will discourage people from taking any such action instead of stoping such action then I fail to see how where the end point of such a line of argument. If those in power assert that this stops terrorist acts and we blindly accept those assertions then we get what we deserve. But I would prefer to sacrifice a little safety on a plane for a great bit of personal freedom on the ground.
The scientific article does a reasonable job of making it clear that this result has a 0.5% probability of being produced entirely by background assuming that the systematics of the result are not playing evil games with you. While this result is interesting and it may, strictly speaking, "confirm evidence of 4th neutrino flavor" it only does so by being consistent with both a background fluctuation and some theories developed to describe a discrepancy similar to that seen in the data. It most certainly does not eliminate the standard model nor does it pick out any particular theory.
Apparently you didn't fly through Brazil shortly after the US started requiring those entering to give finger prints. Once the Brazilian boarder patrol people found out one was an American they would take them aside and get their finger prints. This consisted of using the old school stain your hand for a week ink for ALL fingers. They would then hold up the card, look at it intently and say something about the US requiring THEIR citizen to do this, then tear up the paper and throw it away. In the end though we still require finger prints to enter the US.
I think that the difference is that the constitution also makes no mention of organizations or corporations has have ANY rights. Allowing organizations to have enumerated rights may make sense but having the same rights as a real citizen is not reasonable as they cannot have the same consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you get the idea that Kevlar was developed by the military?
And composites do not appear to be developed by the US at all.
They actually replaced an old tweet saying they had regained control of the account. Fox has also addressed the issue in mass media outlets Why haven't they addressed it on their account? Who knows.
I suspect the difference lies with where you draw the line on what 'unsafe behavior' is worth prohibiting. That is a valid point of argument: what is that line. Stating that no regulation will result in a wonderland of 'choice' which affects no one but the chooser is fantasy.
is just crazy. Competitive markets have been shown, time and time again, that they will not implement safety measures unless they can profit from it (car companies through the 70s, power companies, coal mining companies, etc.). I, personally, do not want to live in a country that has planes falling out of the skys because all that happens when something like this happens is the company goes bankrupt and the government is left to pay for the disaster, I strongly suspect that I am in the majority on this. Having a set of base regulations which prohibit known unsafe behavior on the part of any industry should be considered the responsibility of any government. Living in a completely unregulated world is another phrase for anarchy.
Your statements are based on the belief that death is not desirable in all situations and exerting control over ones life is not reason enough to kill ones self. Again these are statements of belief. Please respect the beliefs of others who disagree with yours. As for your concerns of a slippery slope: every culture has laws against murder if people cannot be prosecuted under the existing laws for actions you deem improper then try and change the law but do not try and prohibit others from making an informed choice concerning their own life because you either disagree with them or believe it is wrong.
I am heading to the site of a new observatory (much higher energy) in Mexico this weekend. At a nominal elevation of 4100 m I hope we can get some images like those presented in the video. Seems like a great way to show people why building observatories in such hard to reach places is necessary.
Do you mean to imply that I belittled the article by providing the arXiv link? If so that was not my intent. arXiv provides the community with a repository of works from all journals in one convient (and free to access) location. That being said, the fact that it was accepted for publication is irrelevant to the discussion. The scientific article is fine and make reasonable claims, the popular article makes it sound like they solved a major mystery instead of confirming expectations with new data.
The summary and article are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The student did good work but did not 'find the missing mass' in the universe. Here is a link to the publicly accessible article on arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0711
The abstract does not make any grandiose claims of finding the missing mass of the universe but instead states how the article presents properties of mass in filaments.
Interesting? Really? The changes to Chrome's UI do remove the URL bar but do not remove the URL field. When the user highlights the tab they see the URL field, when they don't they get more screen real estate for content. By and large this is a great UI design change. I don't need to see the huge URL telling me Nth directory the site I am visiting stores their HTML in (look at Slashdot do you type in the link to this story?). But good on you for making it sound like some nefarious plan between Google and oppressive regimes to not let people browse to non approved sites, don't let reality stand in your way.
Simply put no it does not explain consciousness. Quantum Field Theory(QFT) may explain all physical processes which go on in the universe but until we are able to make infinite observations (read never) it will not be predictive for emergent phenomenon (physical 'laws' which appear for large ensembles of particles). QFT is probabilistic when the question posed is looking for a deterministic answer, QFT can thus not provide such an answer.
He is saying that while he doesn't like the pro-lifers who may want to make the woman's death and how she is cared for into a show. I don't see why he would expect this in Britain (US ok but not Britain). The gag order is to stop people from harassing the family when they need to make decisions about how to care for their loved one NOT to protect some pro-lifers. So what is your point?
I believe that there is an error in your post. The shareholders pay capitol gains taxes on the money which passes to them. Capitol gains taxes are significantly lower than income taxes.
That being said I am all for the removal of BOTH corporate and capitol gains taxes in favor of income taxes alone. In general I think people are far less effective than corporations at lobbying for tax loop holes for themselves.
The reality of the situation is that imposing such a moratorium would have little to no effect on the significant problem we face and would ensure that we pay more over time to maintain infrastructure (letting something get to the point you must fix it costs more over time than just doing incremental repairs/improvements). The US must address the largest items within our budget: military spending and entitlement program, if it wants to have a long term balanced budget. The cumulative total of all the rest could be zeroed and there would still be a long term problem.
Sorry I can't find a better reference but the short answer is that your state still gets more money from the federal government for its roads than it pays. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/states-reaping-highway-money-putting-board-study-shows/ This is generally true and, generally, most discrepant when you are talking about small population state. That is small population states get more federal funds for their infrastructure than more populous states, per capita of course.
How are you gleaning this from the link provided? The server software which Google Voice may be running, YATE, is not listed on the link you provided.
This is the State Capitol, a public building where average citizens of the state have business to do. Some of that business could very well be related to a pro-union agenda. If it is a resource only for the employees then it should be secured and rightly regulated. But regulating the websites based on political content by a State executive is basically EXACTLY what the first amendment was intended to prevent. You can fire them for not doing their job but you cannot limit their free speech.
You are aware that your emails are sent in plain text unless you only send email to people whose servers support an encrypted connection? Most do not.
Ever listen to a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Emphasis mine. Previous 3-D images did not contain the full surface of the Sun as the two probes would have to be on opposite sides of the Sun to achieve such. They are now and thus there is no missing portion of the surface of the Sun. The page name also says it all:
I would also point out that the second link makes it clear that:
Firstly, just because someone does something wrong themselves that is analogous to what they are criticizing others of doing does not give those they criticize justification for their actions. Secondly, there are differences between your examples and what is being done here: first and foremost Google is not claiming the content in those articles is theirs (as MS does since the search results are the ONLY content being discussed), they claim that the sorting of those data is theirs. Finally no one is claiming that what MS is doing should be illegal in this case but they are saying it is copying from Google (even if through an unknowing middle man). Google has built its empire by taking information on the web, sorting it, and displaying it in a relevant way to users (with relevant advertisements). All of your examples fall into this category.
As best I can tell that is exactly what a modern corporation was intended to do. They do not call it a limited liability corporation for no reason.
I general I agree with what you say and your point make sense. However, your analogy is not apt. You do not catch anyone by locking a cockpit door, but the claim is that pat downs WILL/do. Thus asking the TSA to quantify the voracity of this statement seems very sensible as it is certainly quantifiable. If your point is that this will discourage people from taking any such action instead of stoping such action then I fail to see how where the end point of such a line of argument. If those in power assert that this stops terrorist acts and we blindly accept those assertions then we get what we deserve. But I would prefer to sacrifice a little safety on a plane for a great bit of personal freedom on the ground.
The scientific article does a reasonable job of making it clear that this result has a 0.5% probability of being produced entirely by background assuming that the systematics of the result are not playing evil games with you. While this result is interesting and it may, strictly speaking, "confirm evidence of 4th neutrino flavor" it only does so by being consistent with both a background fluctuation and some theories developed to describe a discrepancy similar to that seen in the data. It most certainly does not eliminate the standard model nor does it pick out any particular theory.
Apparently you didn't fly through Brazil shortly after the US started requiring those entering to give finger prints. Once the Brazilian boarder patrol people found out one was an American they would take them aside and get their finger prints. This consisted of using the old school stain your hand for a week ink for ALL fingers. They would then hold up the card, look at it intently and say something about the US requiring THEIR citizen to do this, then tear up the paper and throw it away. In the end though we still require finger prints to enter the US.
I think that the difference is that the constitution also makes no mention of organizations or corporations has have ANY rights. Allowing organizations to have enumerated rights may make sense but having the same rights as a real citizen is not reasonable as they cannot have the same consequences.