In the US, people can freely cross borders between states. That's why Chicago has such terrible gun violence despite having strict(er) gun laws than neighboring states/cities.
Then why does Texas have so much less? Or New Hampshire?
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
Hackaday did a recent article about a clock prop that was cut from the movie.
Also, we've basically got video phones now, although it's clunky and more difficult to use than a phone call was back then.
(Back in the 50's and 60's, you could dial a number and be connected to the other phone in about 2 seconds. It would ring and they'd pick up, or not if they weren't home, and the audio was clear and crisp, you could make out other people talking in the background, and hear sounds from their environment. Fast forward to today, and see how difficult it is to use Skype to call your grandparents.)
which were borrowed heavily from for the famous Alien soundtrack.
* Alien - Release Date May 25, 1979 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(film))
* 2001: A Space Odyssey - Release Date April 3, 1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film))
Yes, it is clear that 2001: A Space Odyssey borrowed music/soundtrack from Alien. After all, S. Kubrick had already perfected time travel (it is shown in the end of the movie).
The OP wrote "borrowed from for...", meaning that musical constructs were borrowed from 2001 for the Alien soundtrack.
I saw the movie in it's theatrical release, and it was unwatchable even back then.
Unless you read the book, much of the movie simply doesn't seem connected - more like a random series of events. It wasn't obvious that the monolith *caused* the monkeys to become smart, it wasn't obvious what the connection with the moon monolith was, and it was completely non-obvious what was going on with a psychedelic light show cutting back-and-forth to a human iris. (David Bowman's apotheosis.)
What remained was a few scenes of breathtaking visual scope, which were admittedly very well done for the time, no action, and almost no plot.
People thought at the time that Kubrick's movie-making days had ended, that he no longer had the ability to make movies that people would want to see.
Check out the wording in the supposed "interview".
Who uses the phrase "aligned with the truth" in conversation? Or "glib" in the meaning of insincere and shallow... in conversation?
That quote looks less like an interview response, and more like a carefully crafted press release.
Other phrases and uncommon construction abound, such as "I don't at all think...", I could expect that in written text that was edited and corrected, but not casually said. "And therefore, as with a lot of media..." is also weird.
Furthermore, the president himself doesn't really have any real positions with the exception that he's great and wants praise.
So you're saying that he didn't make his position clear about immigration before the election? Or after the election? You're saying he didn't sit down with Pelosi and Schumer to try to work out a deal? You're saying he didn't send a 70-point immigration wish-list to congress right before the Omnibus bill?
That's pretty hilarious.
While he may say he wants skilled workers, the truth is that he's working toward isolationism because that is what his extremist political base wants.
You're making shit up. The truth is... you're making shit up.
This is a standard liberal practice - just make shit up about the other side and then say how bad that shit is.
If you're so against what Trump is doing, tell us what we *should* be doing!
What is the Liberal position on immigration, and how will that position benefit America?
Tell you what. If I'm murdered and the cops think there might be something on my phone that would tell them who murdered me, I'm cool with them using my finger to unlock it.
Apropos of nothing, are you cool with them having an incentive for shooting you rather than taking you in, in order to get at your information?
What I find amusing about this whole thing is that the Trump campaign never used the data, because they didn't trust it.
The Trump campaign never used the psychographic data at the heart of a whistleblower who once worked to help acquire the data's reporting -- principally because it was relatively new and of suspect quality and value.
So Facebook giving all that data to the Trump campaign had no effect on the election whatsoever.
All this outrage and calls for regulation and boycotting - because it was Trump of course - over something that Trump didn't use.
I don't care who y'are - that's funny right thare!
I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.
It might not be his fault.
Note that some school textbooks show the amendment rewritten to promote that view.
I have to wonder, with this and all the one-sided bans and anti-right policies, if we really are at the start of a civil war.
Seriously - why do these companies think they need to direct our thoughts and actions into "acceptable" channels?
There's an interesting set of "public forum" lawsuits that discuss this. Especially this one from CA.
Basically, if a system becomes the equivalent of the town bulletin board, then freedom of speech must be enforced.
(I recall a man suing a mall for taking down his (otherwise legal) posts on *their* builletin board. They claimed that their board was private property, and could decide what was allowed. He claimed that the mall replaced the supermarket which used to be there, and the mall bulletin-board now became the public forum that used to be the supermarket bulletin-board.)
I think the dividing line would have to be public access. If you *pay* someone to write (for example) articles for your paper, then you can control what they write and choose to publish or not. If you *let anyone* post commentary or opinions, then first amendment must be enforced.
(Oh and if you disagree, can you please show why companies don't need to enforce freedom of speech, while bakeries must make custom gay wedding cakes when they don't want to? They're both 1st amendment issues.)
The NYT ran a story about how [Trump's CIA pick] Gina Haspel had a role in torture during her admin of a Thailand black site.
That was later shown to be completely false (Haspel took over months after the tortures had ended). Pro Publica printed a retraction of their story, but the NYT did not.
For comparison, Infowars is widely decried (*) as fake news for publishing the "Spirit Cooking" article, which is completely accurate in all its claims.
Now congress-people are falling over themselves saying they will block Haspel's appointment to the CIA.
What are the chances that these congressmen get their information from the NYT, are well-meaning, and yet misinformed?
(*) That exact article is listed as an example of fake news in at least one scientific study of fake news! It's also debunked as "false" on Snopes.com
Here's an article from NYT discussing Obama's use of facebook data during his 2012 campaign.
The campaign’s exhaustive use of Facebook triggered the site’s internal safeguards. “It was more like we blew through an alarm that their engineers hadn’t planned for or knew about,” said St. Clair, who had been working at a small firm in Chicago and joined the campaign at the suggestion of a friend. “They’d sigh and say, ‘You can do this as long as you stop doing it on Nov. 7.’ ”
Also, this quote from [Obama’s former director for media analytics] Carol Davidsen:
[Facebook] came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.
Amazing how Obama can target voters using facebook data and it's lauded as smart and effective.
Trump targets voters and facebook doesn't care before the election(*), but now months later it's an obscene violation of peoples' privacy.
Were any laws broken? If it's illegal to hire non-citizens to do campaign research, how does the Hillary campaign paying Christopher Steele get a pass?
Is this just a company whinging about a violation of their TOS, after the fact, while ignoring hundreds of other companies who do the same thing?
What exactly is the alleged infraction here?
(*) Facebook was informed of the "breach" many months before the election, and literally didn't care.
A lot of times the Wikipedia website is more clear and direct than the web site of whichever product I want to find out about.
I see a reference to the "Widget" product and want to find out more about it. The Widget.com website shows train tracks leading into the distance and the text "It's a new synergy of productivity" or some such.
The Wikipedia page for "Widget" is direct and explicit on the first line: Widget is a software package that does *this*...
Readers had to prove they read a story before they were able to comment on it
This would end Slashdot as we know it!!
But in a good way.
As an additional suggestion, people would only be able to post as AC if they got every question wrong... AKA "Hot Take" mode.
This would also get rid of a lot of automatic posts (bots), comment spam such as the "gay naggers" thing, and automatic gainsaying.
It would also slow down the insulters and auto-dissers by making them take a few moments to read the story. As a bonus, those people would become more informed over time.
I don't know if slashdot is interested in improving the site (whipslash has said that they maintain this site for other goals than popularity), and there may be other considerations such as "no money available", but it would sure make for a nice experiment.
Due to the algorithm, Trump's total engagement dropped by about half, while the engagements of left-wing people such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren stayed largely the same.
I don't mind healthy competition between political viewpoints, but why does "oops, we're having some trouble with the algorithm" always seem to be in favor of the left?
While TFA did point out, "US", it seems rather pointless because the demand, and thus the generation, and thus the pollution is occurring overseas.Just because it's not here doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It's like you cleaned up your back yard by throwing all the trash over the fence. Coming soon, we will be bitching at our neighbors about all the trash in their yard.
So before the Enviro's celebrate, they should consider that they have successfully pushed the pollution into countries that are ill equipped to handle it from regulatory and societal standpoints, yet the US and other western countries are still benefiting from it.
This is a *very* interesting development, for the following reason:
All modern theories of economics ("schools of thought" as they are called) assume infinite demand, either by infinitely increasing population or infinitely increasing demands per person, or both.
So for example, theory has it that you can double your sales income if you double your sales outlets - by opening stores in other states, for instance. Problem with this is that the world is finite and eventually you reach diminishing returns. Many companies found this out the hard way when they started selling through WalMart - once your jeans (or pickles) are sold at Walmart, you're done. You can no longer increase sales *at all*.
We know that population begins to level off and decline when countries become modernized, and now it looks like demand itself has a fixed upper limit.
If consumption is fixed, then lots of macro economic theory is simply incorrect. If efficiency per-worker reaches a level where half the available workers can fulfill the demands of the population, what do you do with the other half that can't find work?
It's these sorts of observations and extrapolations that lead people to think of possible solutions like reduced-hours work week (for the same pay), or UBI.
This was actually the worst ruling the private sector could get. Now it is explicit that a corporation cannot rely on its employees to in any way report errors or criminal activity by other employees to get in front of an SEC violation. Think that through for a moment. There is now a disincentive for internal reporting. If I was an owner or board member of any kind of financial institution, I would be pissed! Why it's bad for workers seems obvious.
This cuts both ways.
An employee cannot leave a company and *say* that the company is in violation, they have to back it up with actual charges.
There's been too many "guilt by accusation" cases recently, and while many accused admitted to the crime, some did not.
Take for example [White House Aide] Rob Porter accused of domestic abuse, which he denies. His wife posted a photo of herself with a black eye to the newspapers, but didn't go to the police. A black eye should be a slam-dunk for domestic abuse and restraining order and yet... she didn't do that at the time with photographic evidence?
Take also for example Senator Al Franken, who used to be a professional comedian and was accused of making women feel "uncomfortable", but whose image was clearly a staged comedic incident completely in line with what many other comedians do. And making someone "feel uncomfortable" is not the same as assault, battery, or rape.
A third example is Judge Roy Moore: after the election, his accusers seem to have vanished like footprints in the sand.
We shouldn't have "mere accusations" lead us to pronounce someone guilty, because if we do that the process will be abused.
This ruling is completely responsible, because it can respond to abuse with false report charges.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US, people can freely cross borders between states. That's why Chicago has such terrible gun violence despite having strict(er) gun laws than neighboring states/cities.
Then why does Texas have so much less? Or New Hampshire?
Link above was mangled, here's the real link:
Feinstein quotes
Didn't California ban active shooters in the state?
Nope.
According to Diane Feinstein:
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
Hackaday did a recent article about a clock prop that was cut from the movie.
Also, we've basically got video phones now, although it's clunky and more difficult to use than a phone call was back then.
(Back in the 50's and 60's, you could dial a number and be connected to the other phone in about 2 seconds. It would ring and they'd pick up, or not if they weren't home, and the audio was clear and crisp, you could make out other people talking in the background, and hear sounds from their environment. Fast forward to today, and see how difficult it is to use Skype to call your grandparents.)
which were borrowed heavily from for the famous Alien soundtrack.
* Alien - Release Date May 25, 1979 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(film))
* 2001: A Space Odyssey - Release Date April 3, 1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film))
Yes, it is clear that 2001: A Space Odyssey borrowed music/soundtrack from Alien. After all, S. Kubrick had already perfected time travel (it is shown in the end of the movie).
The OP wrote "borrowed from for...", meaning that musical constructs were borrowed from 2001 for the Alien soundtrack.
I saw the movie in it's theatrical release, and it was unwatchable even back then.
Unless you read the book, much of the movie simply doesn't seem connected - more like a random series of events. It wasn't obvious that the monolith *caused* the monkeys to become smart, it wasn't obvious what the connection with the moon monolith was, and it was completely non-obvious what was going on with a psychedelic light show cutting back-and-forth to a human iris. (David Bowman's apotheosis.)
What remained was a few scenes of breathtaking visual scope, which were admittedly very well done for the time, no action, and almost no plot.
People thought at the time that Kubrick's movie-making days had ended, that he no longer had the ability to make movies that people would want to see.
Check out the wording in the supposed "interview".
Who uses the phrase "aligned with the truth" in conversation? Or "glib" in the meaning of insincere and shallow... in conversation?
That quote looks less like an interview response, and more like a carefully crafted press release.
Other phrases and uncommon construction abound, such as "I don't at all think...", I could expect that in written text that was edited and corrected, but not casually said. "And therefore, as with a lot of media..." is also weird.
Does he really talk like that?
Great post! A clear point shored up by verifiable facts, a clean suggestion of policy, and reference to a working example.
I would mod that up in a heartbeat - please continue to post on slashdot, we need more people like you!
Furthermore, the president himself doesn't really have any real positions with the exception that he's great and wants praise.
So you're saying that he didn't make his position clear about immigration before the election? Or after the election? You're saying he didn't sit down with Pelosi and Schumer to try to work out a deal? You're saying he didn't send a 70-point immigration wish-list to congress right before the Omnibus bill?
That's pretty hilarious.
While he may say he wants skilled workers, the truth is that he's working toward isolationism because that is what his extremist political base wants.
You're making shit up. The truth is... you're making shit up.
This is a standard liberal practice - just make shit up about the other side and then say how bad that shit is.
If you're so against what Trump is doing, tell us what we *should* be doing!
What is the Liberal position on immigration, and how will that position benefit America?
Tell you what. If I'm murdered and the cops think there might be something on my phone that would tell them who murdered me, I'm cool with them using my finger to unlock it.
Apropos of nothing, are you cool with them having an incentive for shooting you rather than taking you in, in order to get at your information?
What I find amusing about this whole thing is that the Trump campaign never used the data, because they didn't trust it.
The Trump campaign never used the psychographic data at the heart of a whistleblower who once worked to help acquire the data's reporting -- principally because it was relatively new and of suspect quality and value.
So Facebook giving all that data to the Trump campaign had no effect on the election whatsoever.
All this outrage and calls for regulation and boycotting - because it was Trump of course - over something that Trump didn't use.
I don't care who y'are - that's funny right thare!
I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.
It might not be his fault.
Note that some school textbooks show the amendment rewritten to promote that view.
I have to wonder, with this and all the one-sided bans and anti-right policies, if we really are at the start of a civil war.
And just today, Gab TV went online.
Seriously - why do these companies think they need to direct our thoughts and actions into "acceptable" channels?
There's an interesting set of "public forum" lawsuits that discuss this. Especially this one from CA.
Basically, if a system becomes the equivalent of the town bulletin board, then freedom of speech must be enforced.
(I recall a man suing a mall for taking down his (otherwise legal) posts on *their* builletin board. They claimed that their board was private property, and could decide what was allowed. He claimed that the mall replaced the supermarket which used to be there, and the mall bulletin-board now became the public forum that used to be the supermarket bulletin-board.)
I think the dividing line would have to be public access. If you *pay* someone to write (for example) articles for your paper, then you can control what they write and choose to publish or not. If you *let anyone* post commentary or opinions, then first amendment must be enforced.
(Oh and if you disagree, can you please show why companies don't need to enforce freedom of speech, while bakeries must make custom gay wedding cakes when they don't want to? They're both 1st amendment issues.)
Interesting.
The NYT ran a story about how [Trump's CIA pick] Gina Haspel had a role in torture during her admin of a Thailand black site.
That was later shown to be completely false (Haspel took over months after the tortures had ended). Pro Publica printed a retraction of their story, but the NYT did not.
For comparison, Infowars is widely decried (*) as fake news for publishing the "Spirit Cooking" article, which is completely accurate in all its claims.
Now congress-people are falling over themselves saying they will block Haspel's appointment to the CIA.
What are the chances that these congressmen get their information from the NYT, are well-meaning, and yet misinformed?
(*) That exact article is listed as an example of fake news in at least one scientific study of fake news! It's also debunked as "false" on Snopes.com
Here's an article from NYT discussing Obama's use of facebook data during his 2012 campaign.
The campaign’s exhaustive use of Facebook triggered the site’s internal safeguards. “It was more like we blew through an alarm that their engineers hadn’t planned for or knew about,” said St. Clair, who had been working at a small firm in Chicago and joined the campaign at the suggestion of a friend. “They’d sigh and say, ‘You can do this as long as you stop doing it on Nov. 7.’ ”
Also, this quote from [Obama’s former director for media analytics] Carol Davidsen:
[Facebook] came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.
Amazing how Obama can target voters using facebook data and it's lauded as smart and effective.
Trump targets voters and facebook doesn't care before the election(*), but now months later it's an obscene violation of peoples' privacy.
Were any laws broken? If it's illegal to hire non-citizens to do campaign research, how does the Hillary campaign paying Christopher Steele get a pass?
Is this just a company whinging about a violation of their TOS, after the fact, while ignoring hundreds of other companies who do the same thing?
What exactly is the alleged infraction here?
(*) Facebook was informed of the "breach" many months before the election, and literally didn't care.
A lot of times the Wikipedia website is more clear and direct than the web site of whichever product I want to find out about.
I see a reference to the "Widget" product and want to find out more about it. The Widget.com website shows train tracks leading into the distance and the text "It's a new synergy of productivity" or some such.
The Wikipedia page for "Widget" is direct and explicit on the first line: Widget is a software package that does *this*...
Readers had to prove they read a story before they were able to comment on it
This would end Slashdot as we know it!!
But in a good way.
As an additional suggestion, people would only be able to post as AC if they got every question wrong... AKA "Hot Take" mode.
This would also get rid of a lot of automatic posts (bots), comment spam such as the "gay naggers" thing, and automatic gainsaying.
It would also slow down the insulters and auto-dissers by making them take a few moments to read the story. As a bonus, those people would become more informed over time.
I don't know if slashdot is interested in improving the site (whipslash has said that they maintain this site for other goals than popularity), and there may be other considerations such as "no money available", but it would sure make for a nice experiment.
Thank you for the post!
It's been a long time since I've seen a Slashdot post that was informative and not critically partisan.
Whether your conclusion is right or wrong makes no difference - that can be discussed. It was a great post.
Ignoring (or otherwise eliminating) the experts and science is pretty much standard operating procedure for this administration.
How do you feel about the science of economics? Has the administration been ignoring that as well?
Your AR-15 doesn't have a full auto mode.
You can modify an AR-15 to be full auto, but it's tricky and probably won't work. The AR-15 tends to jam when fired at full-auto rates.
Also, such modifications are illegal.
What you *can* do is modify a liberal so that they know what they're talking about when it comes to guns.
That's also tricky and probably won't work, but it's not illegal.
Facebook rolled out its new algorithm in January.
Due to the algorithm, Trump's total engagement dropped by about half, while the engagements of left-wing people such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren stayed largely the same.
I don't mind healthy competition between political viewpoints, but why does "oops, we're having some trouble with the algorithm" always seem to be in favor of the left?
Informally, it's already here. I don't know where Trump people are finding jobs these days. I don't know anybody who hires them.
In America, obviously. Check out the economy.
...but in developing countries.
While TFA did point out, "US", it seems rather pointless because the demand, and thus the generation, and thus the pollution is occurring overseas.Just because it's not here doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It's like you cleaned up your back yard by throwing all the trash over the fence. Coming soon, we will be bitching at our neighbors about all the trash in their yard.
So before the Enviro's celebrate, they should consider that they have successfully pushed the pollution into countries that are ill equipped to handle it from regulatory and societal standpoints, yet the US and other western countries are still benefiting from it.
This is a *very* interesting development, for the following reason:
All modern theories of economics ("schools of thought" as they are called) assume infinite demand, either by infinitely increasing population or infinitely increasing demands per person, or both.
So for example, theory has it that you can double your sales income if you double your sales outlets - by opening stores in other states, for instance. Problem with this is that the world is finite and eventually you reach diminishing returns. Many companies found this out the hard way when they started selling through WalMart - once your jeans (or pickles) are sold at Walmart, you're done. You can no longer increase sales *at all*.
We know that population begins to level off and decline when countries become modernized, and now it looks like demand itself has a fixed upper limit.
If consumption is fixed, then lots of macro economic theory is simply incorrect. If efficiency per-worker reaches a level where half the available workers can fulfill the demands of the population, what do you do with the other half that can't find work?
It's these sorts of observations and extrapolations that lead people to think of possible solutions like reduced-hours work week (for the same pay), or UBI.
This was actually the worst ruling the private sector could get. Now it is explicit that a corporation cannot rely on its employees to in any way report errors or criminal activity by other employees to get in front of an SEC violation. Think that through for a moment. There is now a disincentive for internal reporting. If I was an owner or board member of any kind of financial institution, I would be pissed! Why it's bad for workers seems obvious.
This cuts both ways.
An employee cannot leave a company and *say* that the company is in violation, they have to back it up with actual charges.
There's been too many "guilt by accusation" cases recently, and while many accused admitted to the crime, some did not.
Take for example [White House Aide] Rob Porter accused of domestic abuse, which he denies. His wife posted a photo of herself with a black eye to the newspapers, but didn't go to the police. A black eye should be a slam-dunk for domestic abuse and restraining order and yet... she didn't do that at the time with photographic evidence?
Take also for example Senator Al Franken, who used to be a professional comedian and was accused of making women feel "uncomfortable", but whose image was clearly a staged comedic incident completely in line with what many other comedians do. And making someone "feel uncomfortable" is not the same as assault, battery, or rape.
A third example is Judge Roy Moore: after the election, his accusers seem to have vanished like footprints in the sand.
We shouldn't have "mere accusations" lead us to pronounce someone guilty, because if we do that the process will be abused.
This ruling is completely responsible, because it can respond to abuse with false report charges.