Not to point out the obvious, but you are saying that:
1) The police review board can *say* that the officers were talking about an informant, and suppress releasing the video of a police shooting.
2) The police can begin talking about informants *on purpose* as they drive up to a crime scene, so that a video of them shooting someone can be suppressed.
That's what you're saying - right?
We have a federal policy with classified information that's just about what you said; ie - the government can classify anything without a detailed reason.
How do you identify people who can be trusted not to reveal confidential information that, if revealed, may cost someone their lives?
I don't have an opinion at the moment, but would like to be more informed of the situation.
Just exactly how can first-person video of what a cop sees cost someone their life if revealed?
Also, can you comment on how *likely* that scenario would be?
Being able to monitor police actions is a very real benefit to society with huge value. We can determine whether the policeman is lying, whether the plaintiff is lying, whether the department's investigation is honest, and whether - as a whole - we should modify existing procedures based on irrefutable evidence.
We need to balance the value to society with the privacy of the individual.
We never had quality journalism in the first place. People look at history through rose colored glasses, yet journalists have been lying to the people for years.
Maybe... and then again, maybe not.
Consider 60 minutes: a news journal that's gone on since 1968. They post interesting in-depth fluff pieces as filler, punctuated by the occasional investigative journalism. I think the model there is to use the fluff pieces to support the investigations.
Then there's a couple of notable cases of investigative journalism, such as the pentagon papers or watergate.
Then there's things like "Last Week Tonight", which attempts to be a comedy show, but appears to have high journalistic standards. Also "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart".
I see it more as a flawed business model. When the purpose of your paper is to sell ads, then you cater to what will sell those ads. You have to fill the column-inches even if there's not enough news to go around that day.
The 60 minutes model - interesting fluff pieces used to support a handful of important stories - might be a better fit for news reporting.
Or perhaps the model of "Last Week Tonight", which has 35 episodes a year, of 1/2 hour each.
Do you cite Newton or Euler when you solve an integral in your paper? Actually you are required to do that for every single math task in a math test in university. So I really wonder where you have studied that you think otherwise.
Apropos of nothing, when you took your test, who did you attribute when you used integration by parts?
You might mention "step 3 follows from Jenson's inequality" or other reference, but in general one doesn't attribute the step as much as explain the step.
You're confused. Identifying the reason behind each step is distinctly different from attribution.
Perhaps it's because I'm an academic and my use of Stack Exchange relates to my research projects, but I'm having a hard time understanding why people would object to citing the source of a snippet of code.
I take the opposite position - I wonder why people even bother with attributions for little scraps of paper, half-formed ideas, and answers to questions.
For one thing, if it's on StackExchange it's common knowledge. Do you cite Newton or Euler when you solve an integral in your paper?
Secondy, StackExchange doesn't cite *their* scraps of code. That 6 lines of code that connect to the SQL server - it's just information from the manual that the reader could have gotten for themselves. Does StackExchange cite the manual?
Thirdly, it generates fear and doubt in the minds of pointy-haired bosses, thinking that an external license reference will dilute the software value. Possibly require the company to publish the code for anyone else to copy. (Whether this is true is irrelevant - it's the perception of many people.)
Fourthly, the attribution is extra administrivia and work that adds nothing to the code. It has to be ignored and skipped over by everyone who reads or maintains the code in the future, it goes into backups and changelogs. It's litter for programs.
Fifthly, there's no possible way that value or esteem can attach to the writer. Having some sort of value or utility is the reason that rational beings do things, so why should anyone bother doing something that could not possibly reward the writer?
Perhaps it's because I've read too many papers that are a thicket of cryptic citations referencing everyone else's work, but with very little to add. For example, see Crumbum and Whoodle (1985), but Finnaster and Welsch (1992) take a counter position that might throw more light on the subject.
For a relatively complete overview of the theory and reasoning behind citations, see Finbum.
Interestingly, the John Brennan hacking had nothing to do with Brennan or any sort of security breach.
Essentially, the hackers did a social hack on AOL (John Brennan's ISP) .
Brennan had nothing to do with it, had used good security practices, and only his personal stuff was made public.
I'm not sure what the fuss is about either. Yeah, personal E-mails and some slightly private information might be made public, and there's some political hay to be made from doxing the high-priority target, but it's really not their fault at all.
(Unlike a certain Secretary of State, who had an aide E-mail summaries of classified documents to an outside server.)
The BATF is old and outdated, whose duties should properly be broken up and parcelled out to more relevant federal agencies (FDA, FBI, and so on).
Consequently, every couple of years they look for a big flashy bust that will put them in the news to justify their budget.
And so in recent years the BATF has given us Ruby Ridge massacre, the siege at Waco, the "fast and furious" scandal (where the BATF gave guns to the Mexican drug cartels, said guns were later used to kill a US border patrol agent), amd so on and so on.
So that's the situation. A worthless pack of screw-ups looking to justify their budget every couple of years.
Look for some clueless McDonald's owner to get caught illegally dumping grease, and paraded in front of the cameras for a few months.
The BATF is a stupid, worthless department(*) that was moved from the Treasury department to the Justice department as part of the Homeland Security act.
(*) Here's a quote from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.):
“The ATF is a scandal-ridden, largely duplicative agency that lacks a clear mission. Its 'Framework' is an affront to the Second Amendment and yet another reason why Congress should pass the ATF Elimination Act,"
I think the NSA is doing what NSA needs to do. That being said, if they forcefully compel a company to allow backdoor into products, the government should be prepared accept all subsequent financial liability (that is, bail out the company) that would likely arise as a result of the would-be PR disaster. No private company should stick their neck out for the government.
Are you nuts?
An entrepreneur with an idea starts a business, builds it over the course of many years, has a sizeable value and clientelle and personal integrity and a duty to stockholders.
The NSA compels him to put a backdoor in his product, so that if it's found out he loses credibility, his business loses value, clients (especially international ones) flee to other products, stockholders lose value, and in all probability workers lose jobs...
And you think this is OK because the government will bail him out?
Bail out what?
The company might very well be irrecoverable, and in any event the owner might want the company more than its monetary book value (because he likes running the business, or because he wants to leave something to his kids), and the government isn't known for paying book value on eminent domain seisures.
In addition, knowing that the NSA does this to one company, customers abroad assume that they have done this to many others, and avoid American products in general. Our economy takes a big hit, people are unemployed and miserable, the government has less tax money to do things, and we're less safe because of it.
Your position has no rational logic. Are you insane?
Anyone who is *actually biased* uses descriptive language that picks out one side or the other.
Therefore, any descriptive language that picks one side or the other necessarily means the writer is actually biased.
And this is why we can't talk about inequalities or differences, online or in person. Whenever someone tries to point out differences they are labelled as racist, or sexist, or whatever.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion about any of these issues.
(It's called the fallacy of the reversed conditional, and it's used to lock down discussion in many places. It's an easy win for one side, just call the other side "sexist" and take offense.)
The problem is your constitution's second amendment.
Instead of working an end run around what is meant to be a fundamental right to bear arms, what you should actually be discussing is how you amend the constitution. The framers of that document put in place specific mechanisms recognizing the need may arise to do so in the future.
It's that pesky democracy thing: "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".
A sizeable portion of Americans actually want to own guns, so it's impossible for the rest of the population to take their guns away.
That "rest of the population" is quite loud and vocal, and uses every psychological trick in the book to ratchet back this right, but in the final analysis there are simply too many people who want them.
I think "the rest of the population" should just shut up and sit down. Unless they can come up with non-misleading statistics that show that banning guns would make life better, they should just go with the scientific evidence.
I've been following their progress from the beginning, and they're already having an effect on local politics.
A number of free staters are already a member of the NH house. They managed to get the law banning switchblades repealed. This made sense, because virtually no one gets injured by switchblades, and there's lots of situations where being able to open a knife one-handed is really useful (such as EMS and rock climbing).
They were just shy of legalizing marijuana in the last round (2 votes short of an override of the Governor's veto), they made it legal to inform juries of their right to nullification, and they've reduced the budget.
(On jury nullification: at least one person was acquitted on cannibus charges by unanimous jury vote.)
All in all, they're really having an effect. I can't wait to see what happens when the entire 20,000 get here.
It's all bullshit. Those on the right hype it as an unconstitutional overreach. Obama hypes it as a significant change which will help close the "gun show loophole."
I think you're missing the point.
The point you're trying to make will be lost on just about everyone. He's not adding much (if anything), but it will be seen by people as "the president can make up new gun laws".
The net result will be to set a precedent in the minds of most Americans that the president can make up whatever laws he wants when it applies to guns.
I see they haven't been to Baen's Bar or Library site - the snippets posted 2-3 times a week for upcoming books (which basically ends up being the first third of the book) and the Free Library (consolidates the snippets to an easier to read format - look - there's a "buy here" button). If they shoot for a patent, there's plenty of prior art.
This, in spades.
I've read so many Baen books, entire series I'd have never even considered, many of them endless serials but interesting nonetheless.
This happens because I can read the first one or two books in a series and see if they're any good, then I go out and get others or the rest of the series.
Same with Charles Stross and his Laundry series.
And as Eric Flint (one Baen Books' authors) points out, when he started putting his older works up on the Baen site for free, the sales of these older works actually went up!
There's no need for all the technology, or "milking the cow", or maximizing profit potential, or monetizing the customers' data. Just make a good product and your customers will be happy and loyal.
Also during that time, GM made vehicles with faulty ignition switches which killed over a hundred people, vigorously denied doing so, quietly fixed the problem, and back-edited the documentation to show that it was fixed all along.
Today, GM has enough spare cash to invest in other companies.
Oh, and also today we have an article on the front page about improving school performance by fighting poverty, and the comments are all responses to people who want to eliminate handouts to the poor.
This is the news and state of the world presented to us on the first working day of the new year.
That we've done something before is an absolutely terrible argument. We had slavery for much of our history.
Finally! A rational response!
Your point is well taken, and I agree that past mistakes shouldn't be an argument for future actions.
The problem is "that's not what America is about" is a fine argument, but it's not applied anywhere else.
The elites don't use that argument when addressing massive surveillance, the patriot act, secret lists, national security letters, parallel construction, or the president ordering the death of an American by secret law.
The argument ("that's not what America is about") would have weight if we actually used it to counter more extreme and severe abuses.
It's not a well-thought-out and rational argument. It's simply "try this, see if ti works" 'kind of argument.
He has no chance of being elected, and he knows that.
Reality disagrees... but please, keep saying stuff about Trump. It only helps.
I am aware that polls this early are largely meaningless, but let's look at some numbers outside of context.
He's got about 40% of the Republican vote at the moment. Let's assume that figure holds across the party so that, for example, if Cruz bows out 40% of those supporters move to Trump. That gives him 40% + (40% x 60%) = 64% of the Republican vote, using back-of-the-envelope estimates.
No one bothered to check with Democratic voters until recently, but Trump has stronger support from Democrats than he does from Republicans!
Astonishing!
If *those* numbers are accurate, he could get elected right now.
And all of this is ignoring any context. For example:
a) The investigation into Hillary could conclude, bringing charges against her b) Hillary could have a medical issue (campaigning is stressful, she's had medical problems, Trump hasn't) c) US could have another domestic terrorist attack d) Trump has not made campaign ads - he's spent about a million, compared to Jeb's 32 million.
And finally, Trump will get elected simply because no one opposes his position in any rational way - it's all namecalling and derision.
Don't believe me? Find a rational argument as to why a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't a common-sense response to an immediate threat.
You can't do it. The only response, so far as I can find, is to cast aspersions on the person asking that question. Terms like bigot, predjudiced, racist, and extremist are used. Also outright lies such as "it's unconstitutional" (no, it's not), "it's impossible to tell who's a Muslim" (no, it's not), "that's not what America is about" (we've done it before), and so on.
Then tell me why enforcing immigration law is a bad move (instead of amnesty, which is what the administration was quietly floating), why simplifying the tax code is a bad move, why having strong treaty negotiation is a bad move, and why replacing Obamacare with something better would be a bad move.
As near as I can tell, early November was the tipping point where you could have stopped Donald Trump. Someone could have stepped up and addressed his policies, and in that act presented as a strong leader. By now it's probably too late.
Oh, and let's not forget that the lead Democratic candidate has accomplished nothing in her career, and the democratic runner-up is a Socialist. A SOCIALIST!
Please.
Donald may not win the election, but saying he has no chance is entirely without merit.
[...] ruling by the National Labor Relations Board about your right to record conversations at work.
Can anyone remember when laws were made by elected officials?
It seems like nowadays some federal agency steps in and declares that they're the governing authority on something, that their decisions are law, and everyone should obey.
That doesn't seem to mesh with what we were taught in school.
One big disadvantage of solar power is that it only works some of the time. The intermittent nature of both solar and wind is a serious problem.
Hypothetically speaking, suppose one could build an automated factory that makes solar panels.
It doesn't even need to be completely automated, it could have a few humans running around repairing machines and doing administrative tasks, but let's suppose that the human intervention is minimal(*).
Such a factory could conceivably run on solar power, which means that over time the factory would make enough panels to generate twice the amount of power it needs to make solar panels.
So we could then build a 2nd panel factory.
And in another same amount of time the 2 factories would make enough panels to generate twice the power again, so we could build two more factories, making four in total.
This process is exponential, with a specific doubling life. When you have enough power, you can start repurposing the newly-created power to other factories to make stuff needed by the rest of the world. Fixing Nitrogen into fertilizer, polymerizing CO2 and water into long-chain hydrocarbons, turning imported Bauxite into refined Aluminum, as well as exporting solar panels. (Water is available near the ocean shores, and underground in the desert.)
Extrapolating this trend, it's possible to have a largely automated system that generates all the solar panels, fertilizer, and Aluminum needed by the rest of the world, in a self-sustaining way, and for the indefinite future.
The major obstacle to this is the petty politics of a so-called "intelligent" species.
(*) Using silicon from sand as a feedstock, and importing other trace materials such as Indium for ITO coatings.
The many people who have contributed to making chess engines as strong as they are are not receiving enough credit for their spectacular achievements.
Let's bring this discussion back to the original point.
A chess playing program would have a difficult time learning checkers, yet the human can learn chess, checkers, poker, GoMoku, and any number of other games.
As far as anyone can tell, the human brain has no circuitry which is specific to chess, or any of the other games. It learns how to solve games and puzzles, with no a'priori knowledge of the rules or format.
Who in the field is working on this? Where can the interested student go to learn more about *strong* AI?
Ignore the specifics of chess, it was only chosen as a familiar example for most readers.
I repeat: ignore the specifics of chess, it was only chosen as an example.
Current AI research seems to be about heuristics - solving specific problems which, although the solutions may have wide application, don't seem to embody intelligence.
The standard AI solution for chess, for example, calls for the engineer to learn how to play chess, then turn his mind's eye inward to see the steps he uses to play chess, then codify those steps as a program. Most AI programs seem to develop that way.
The intelligence stays in the mind of the engineer, and the program becomes a clockwork pattern of fixed steps.
Is anyone in the field actually working on strong AI? Who's papers would you recommend reading to learn more about strong AI?
Assuming that the study results are accurate and significant, how does one actually *use* the information? How does it inform further research, how do physicians and/or psychiatrists use the information for diagnosis or treatment, what sort of "ruler" does this study build and what does it measure?
In what way can this information be used to improve the human condition?
There are thousands of soft-science generalizations like this, none of which is useful in any meaningful way.
Social scientists are playing an elaborate game of "make believe".
Not sure I want anything made of this material in my house or vehicle.
(I just had to look it up. Damn my OCD!)
According to the Wikipedia article on Magnesium rims, the bulk metal is difficult to ignite. This mirrors my own experience - it's hard to ignite a strip of magnesium for a chemistry demonstration.
(From the article: Mag rims are no longer made, not because they're dangerous, but because they tend to pit and crack and need constant polishing.)
It seems likely the extra 14% would make the alloy less combustible than raw Magnesium. If you're already on fire hot enough to ignite the bulk material, it's probably hot enough to ignite all the other combustible things in your house, such as the wood frame.
I have a policy that my customers pay me on time. Unfortunately I tend to get strung along for 90 days. Since my policy doesn't have the force of regulation I tend to have to suck it up.
I hate this type of post.
It's defeatist and dispiriting to the reader. By advocating no action ("suck it up"), it supports and encourages loss of freedom, authoritative control, and hopelessness.
It's also uncreative - there's *lots* of things we could do, both as a group and individually, to try to change the situation.
You don't have the will to fight, so go drown your despair in drink. Don't being down everyone else as well.
The OP took the trouble to file suit against the TSA. Looking at his website, he might be a rare case of a lawyer doing an open source 'kind of thing.
I haven't seen a lot of this type of "open source good for the community" from the legal profession. I'm not saying that there's *none*, but it's very rare compared to the number of lawyers around.
Engineers are pretty generous with their time. There's a ton of open source software and designs for hardware, people answering questions, things you can make and modify and use.
A lot of lawyers I talk to claim to be unemployed or under-employed. Looking through the myriad number of social abuses we come across at Slashdot, I've always wondered why some of them don't put their spare time into fixing some of our problems using the court system. If it's their own time and they are otherwise unemployed, it wouldn't be very expensive.
They'd also get a big boost of popularity (and business) from having defended a rights issue. When the police decided unilaterally that recording them was illegal, it took an incident to take it to court, and not a pair of lawyers who had set up a situation, with proper witnesses and affadavits.
Anyway, this guy appears to be doing some legal things in the manner of open source.
Every time Musk says something positive about Tesla in a public forum, the stock jumps higher, usually in the $12 to $15 range. Then slowly goes down again over the subsequent 2 weeks.
Look to see a big jump around Monday, after everyone has done with the holidays and logs into their stock accounts over the weekend.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to point out the obvious, but you are saying that:
1) The police review board can *say* that the officers were talking about an informant, and suppress releasing the video of a police shooting.
2) The police can begin talking about informants *on purpose* as they drive up to a crime scene, so that a video of them shooting someone can be suppressed.
That's what you're saying - right?
We have a federal policy with classified information that's just about what you said; ie - the government can classify anything without a detailed reason.
How has that worked out for us?
How do you identify people who can be trusted not to reveal confidential information that, if revealed, may cost someone their lives?
I don't have an opinion at the moment, but would like to be more informed of the situation.
Just exactly how can first-person video of what a cop sees cost someone their life if revealed?
Also, can you comment on how *likely* that scenario would be?
Being able to monitor police actions is a very real benefit to society with huge value. We can determine whether the policeman is lying, whether the plaintiff is lying, whether the department's investigation is honest, and whether - as a whole - we should modify existing procedures based on irrefutable evidence.
We need to balance the value to society with the privacy of the individual.
We never had quality journalism in the first place. People look at history through rose colored glasses, yet journalists have been lying to the people for years.
Maybe... and then again, maybe not.
Consider 60 minutes: a news journal that's gone on since 1968. They post interesting in-depth fluff pieces as filler, punctuated by the occasional investigative journalism. I think the model there is to use the fluff pieces to support the investigations.
Then there's a couple of notable cases of investigative journalism, such as the pentagon papers or watergate.
Then there's things like "Last Week Tonight", which attempts to be a comedy show, but appears to have high journalistic standards. Also "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart".
I see it more as a flawed business model. When the purpose of your paper is to sell ads, then you cater to what will sell those ads. You have to fill the column-inches even if there's not enough news to go around that day.
The 60 minutes model - interesting fluff pieces used to support a handful of important stories - might be a better fit for news reporting.
Or perhaps the model of "Last Week Tonight", which has 35 episodes a year, of 1/2 hour each.
Do you cite Newton or Euler when you solve an integral in your paper?
Actually you are required to do that for every single math task in a math test in university.
So I really wonder where you have studied that you think otherwise.
Apropos of nothing, when you took your test, who did you attribute when you used integration by parts?
You might mention "step 3 follows from Jenson's inequality" or other reference, but in general one doesn't attribute the step as much as explain the step.
You're confused. Identifying the reason behind each step is distinctly different from attribution.
Perhaps it's because I'm an academic and my use of Stack Exchange relates to my research projects, but I'm having a hard time understanding why people would object to citing the source of a snippet of code.
I take the opposite position - I wonder why people even bother with attributions for little scraps of paper, half-formed ideas, and answers to questions.
For one thing, if it's on StackExchange it's common knowledge. Do you cite Newton or Euler when you solve an integral in your paper?
Secondy, StackExchange doesn't cite *their* scraps of code. That 6 lines of code that connect to the SQL server - it's just information from the manual that the reader could have gotten for themselves. Does StackExchange cite the manual?
Thirdly, it generates fear and doubt in the minds of pointy-haired bosses, thinking that an external license reference will dilute the software value. Possibly require the company to publish the code for anyone else to copy. (Whether this is true is irrelevant - it's the perception of many people.)
Fourthly, the attribution is extra administrivia and work that adds nothing to the code. It has to be ignored and skipped over by everyone who reads or maintains the code in the future, it goes into backups and changelogs. It's litter for programs.
Fifthly, there's no possible way that value or esteem can attach to the writer. Having some sort of value or utility is the reason that rational beings do things, so why should anyone bother doing something that could not possibly reward the writer?
Perhaps it's because I've read too many papers that are a thicket of cryptic citations referencing everyone else's work, but with very little to add. For example, see Crumbum and Whoodle (1985), but Finnaster and Welsch (1992) take a counter position that might throw more light on the subject.
For a relatively complete overview of the theory and reasoning behind citations, see Finbum.
Interestingly, the John Brennan hacking had nothing to do with Brennan or any sort of security breach.
Essentially, the hackers did a social hack on AOL (John Brennan's ISP) .
Brennan had nothing to do with it, had used good security practices, and only his personal stuff was made public.
I'm not sure what the fuss is about either. Yeah, personal E-mails and some slightly private information might be made public, and there's some political hay to be made from doxing the high-priority target, but it's really not their fault at all.
(Unlike a certain Secretary of State, who had an aide E-mail summaries of classified documents to an outside server.)
Here's how it actually works.
The BATF is old and outdated, whose duties should properly be broken up and parcelled out to more relevant federal agencies (FDA, FBI, and so on).
Consequently, every couple of years they look for a big flashy bust that will put them in the news to justify their budget.
And so in recent years the BATF has given us Ruby Ridge massacre, the siege at Waco, the "fast and furious" scandal (where the BATF gave guns to the Mexican drug cartels, said guns were later used to kill a US border patrol agent), amd so on and so on.
So that's the situation. A worthless pack of screw-ups looking to justify their budget every couple of years.
Look for some clueless McDonald's owner to get caught illegally dumping grease, and paraded in front of the cameras for a few months.
The BATF is a stupid, worthless department(*) that was moved from the Treasury department to the Justice department as part of the Homeland Security act.
(*) Here's a quote from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.):
“The ATF is a scandal-ridden, largely duplicative agency that lacks a clear mission. Its 'Framework' is an affront to the Second Amendment and yet another reason why Congress should pass the ATF Elimination Act,"
I think the NSA is doing what NSA needs to do. That being said, if they forcefully compel a company to allow backdoor into products, the government should be prepared accept all subsequent financial liability (that is, bail out the company) that would likely arise as a result of the would-be PR disaster. No private company should stick their neck out for the government.
Are you nuts?
An entrepreneur with an idea starts a business, builds it over the course of many years, has a sizeable value and clientelle and personal integrity and a duty to stockholders.
The NSA compels him to put a backdoor in his product, so that if it's found out he loses credibility, his business loses value, clients (especially international ones) flee to other products, stockholders lose value, and in all probability workers lose jobs...
And you think this is OK because the government will bail him out?
Bail out what?
The company might very well be irrecoverable, and in any event the owner might want the company more than its monetary book value (because he likes running the business, or because he wants to leave something to his kids), and the government isn't known for paying book value on eminent domain seisures.
In addition, knowing that the NSA does this to one company, customers abroad assume that they have done this to many others, and avoid American products in general. Our economy takes a big hit, people are unemployed and miserable, the government has less tax money to do things, and we're less safe because of it.
Your position has no rational logic. Are you insane?
And this, dear readers, is why we can't talk about mental illness online. Or gender differences. Or racial differences. Or religious differences.
Anyone who is *actually biased* uses descriptive language that picks out one side or the other.
Therefore, any descriptive language that picks one side or the other necessarily means the writer is actually biased.
And this is why we can't talk about inequalities or differences, online or in person. Whenever someone tries to point out differences they are labelled as racist, or sexist, or whatever.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion about any of these issues.
(It's called the fallacy of the reversed conditional, and it's used to lock down discussion in many places. It's an easy win for one side, just call the other side "sexist" and take offense.)
The problem is your constitution's second amendment.
Instead of working an end run around what is meant to be a fundamental right to bear arms, what you should actually be discussing is how you amend the constitution. The framers of that document put in place specific mechanisms recognizing the need may arise to do so in the future.
It's that pesky democracy thing: "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".
A sizeable portion of Americans actually want to own guns, so it's impossible for the rest of the population to take their guns away.
That "rest of the population" is quite loud and vocal, and uses every psychological trick in the book to ratchet back this right, but in the final analysis there are simply too many people who want them.
I think "the rest of the population" should just shut up and sit down. Unless they can come up with non-misleading statistics that show that banning guns would make life better, they should just go with the scientific evidence.
I've been following their progress from the beginning, and they're already having an effect on local politics.
A number of free staters are already a member of the NH house. They managed to get the law banning switchblades repealed. This made sense, because virtually no one gets injured by switchblades, and there's lots of situations where being able to open a knife one-handed is really useful (such as EMS and rock climbing).
They were just shy of legalizing marijuana in the last round (2 votes short of an override of the Governor's veto), they made it legal to inform juries of their right to nullification, and they've reduced the budget.
(On jury nullification: at least one person was acquitted on cannibus charges by unanimous jury vote.)
All in all, they're really having an effect. I can't wait to see what happens when the entire 20,000 get here.
It's all bullshit. Those on the right hype it as an unconstitutional overreach. Obama hypes it as a significant change which will help close the "gun show loophole."
I think you're missing the point.
The point you're trying to make will be lost on just about everyone. He's not adding much (if anything), but it will be seen by people as "the president can make up new gun laws".
The net result will be to set a precedent in the minds of most Americans that the president can make up whatever laws he wants when it applies to guns.
I see they haven't been to Baen's Bar or Library site - the snippets posted 2-3 times a week for upcoming books (which basically ends up being the first third of the book) and the Free Library (consolidates the snippets to an easier to read format - look - there's a "buy here" button). If they shoot for a patent, there's plenty of prior art.
This, in spades.
I've read so many Baen books, entire series I'd have never even considered, many of them endless serials but interesting nonetheless.
This happens because I can read the first one or two books in a series and see if they're any good, then I go out and get others or the rest of the series.
Same with Charles Stross and his Laundry series.
And as Eric Flint (one Baen Books' authors) points out, when he started putting his older works up on the Baen site for free, the sales of these older works actually went up!
There's no need for all the technology, or "milking the cow", or maximizing profit potential, or monetizing the customers' data. Just make a good product and your customers will be happy and loyal.
Okay, let me see if I remember things properly, and in the right order.
GM was headed into bankruptcy, but the US government bailed them out because they were too big to fail.
Over the next couple of years, the government lost 11 billion dollars on the deal, money that all the rest of us taxpayers have to make up.
During that same time, GM made 22.6 billion dollars..
Also during that time, GM made vehicles with faulty ignition switches which killed over a hundred people, vigorously denied doing so, quietly fixed the problem, and back-edited the documentation to show that it was fixed all along.
Today, GM has enough spare cash to invest in other companies.
Oh, and also today we have an article on the front page about improving school performance by fighting poverty, and the comments are all responses to people who want to eliminate handouts to the poor.
This is the news and state of the world presented to us on the first working day of the new year.
That we've done something before is an absolutely terrible argument. We had slavery for much of our history.
Finally! A rational response!
Your point is well taken, and I agree that past mistakes shouldn't be an argument for future actions.
The problem is "that's not what America is about" is a fine argument, but it's not applied anywhere else.
The elites don't use that argument when addressing massive surveillance, the patriot act, secret lists, national security letters, parallel construction, or the president ordering the death of an American by secret law.
The argument ("that's not what America is about") would have weight if we actually used it to counter more extreme and severe abuses.
It's not a well-thought-out and rational argument. It's simply "try this, see if ti works" 'kind of argument.
He has no chance of being elected, and he knows that.
Reality disagrees... but please, keep saying stuff about Trump. It only helps.
I am aware that polls this early are largely meaningless, but let's look at some numbers outside of context.
He's got about 40% of the Republican vote at the moment. Let's assume that figure holds across the party so that, for example, if Cruz bows out 40% of those supporters move to Trump. That gives him 40% + (40% x 60%) = 64% of the Republican vote, using back-of-the-envelope estimates.
No one bothered to check with Democratic voters until recently, but Trump has stronger support from Democrats than he does from Republicans!
Astonishing!
If *those* numbers are accurate, he could get elected right now.
And all of this is ignoring any context. For example:
a) The investigation into Hillary could conclude, bringing charges against her
b) Hillary could have a medical issue (campaigning is stressful, she's had medical problems, Trump hasn't)
c) US could have another domestic terrorist attack
d) Trump has not made campaign ads - he's spent about a million, compared to Jeb's 32 million.
And finally, Trump will get elected simply because no one opposes his position in any rational way - it's all namecalling and derision.
Don't believe me? Find a rational argument as to why a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't a common-sense response to an immediate threat.
You can't do it. The only response, so far as I can find, is to cast aspersions on the person asking that question. Terms like bigot, predjudiced, racist, and extremist are used. Also outright lies such as "it's unconstitutional" (no, it's not), "it's impossible to tell who's a Muslim" (no, it's not), "that's not what America is about" (we've done it before), and so on.
Then tell me why enforcing immigration law is a bad move (instead of amnesty, which is what the administration was quietly floating), why simplifying the tax code is a bad move, why having strong treaty negotiation is a bad move, and why replacing Obamacare with something better would be a bad move.
As near as I can tell, early November was the tipping point where you could have stopped Donald Trump. Someone could have stepped up and addressed his policies, and in that act presented as a strong leader. By now it's probably too late.
Oh, and let's not forget that the lead Democratic candidate has accomplished nothing in her career, and the democratic runner-up is a Socialist. A SOCIALIST!
Please.
Donald may not win the election, but saying he has no chance is entirely without merit.
Trump is running the most successful false-flag operation in the history of American politics.
He's also running one of the most successful campaigns this season.
I just read an article where the polls show that Bernie would have a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.
The Republicans don't want Trump as their candidate, and the Democrats don't want Bernie.
We could very easily have an election where no one wants *either* candidate!
This is turning out to be a most hilarious election season.
[...] ruling by the National Labor Relations Board about your right to record conversations at work.
Can anyone remember when laws were made by elected officials?
It seems like nowadays some federal agency steps in and declares that they're the governing authority on something, that their decisions are law, and everyone should obey.
That doesn't seem to mesh with what we were taught in school.
Aren't our lawmakers elected?
One big disadvantage of solar power is that it only works some of the time. The intermittent nature of both solar and wind is a serious problem.
Hypothetically speaking, suppose one could build an automated factory that makes solar panels.
It doesn't even need to be completely automated, it could have a few humans running around repairing machines and doing administrative tasks, but let's suppose that the human intervention is minimal(*).
Such a factory could conceivably run on solar power, which means that over time the factory would make enough panels to generate twice the amount of power it needs to make solar panels.
So we could then build a 2nd panel factory.
And in another same amount of time the 2 factories would make enough panels to generate twice the power again, so we could build two more factories, making four in total.
This process is exponential, with a specific doubling life. When you have enough power, you can start repurposing the newly-created power to other factories to make stuff needed by the rest of the world. Fixing Nitrogen into fertilizer, polymerizing CO2 and water into long-chain hydrocarbons, turning imported Bauxite into refined Aluminum, as well as exporting solar panels. (Water is available near the ocean shores, and underground in the desert.)
Extrapolating this trend, it's possible to have a largely automated system that generates all the solar panels, fertilizer, and Aluminum needed by the rest of the world, in a self-sustaining way, and for the indefinite future.
The major obstacle to this is the petty politics of a so-called "intelligent" species.
(*) Using silicon from sand as a feedstock, and importing other trace materials such as Indium for ITO coatings.
The many people who have contributed to making chess engines as strong as they are are not receiving enough credit for their spectacular achievements.
Let's bring this discussion back to the original point.
A chess playing program would have a difficult time learning checkers, yet the human can learn chess, checkers, poker, GoMoku, and any number of other games.
As far as anyone can tell, the human brain has no circuitry which is specific to chess, or any of the other games. It learns how to solve games and puzzles, with no a'priori knowledge of the rules or format.
Who in the field is working on this? Where can the interested student go to learn more about *strong* AI?
Ignore the specifics of chess, it was only chosen as a familiar example for most readers.
I repeat: ignore the specifics of chess, it was only chosen as an example.
Current AI research seems to be about heuristics - solving specific problems which, although the solutions may have wide application, don't seem to embody intelligence.
The standard AI solution for chess, for example, calls for the engineer to learn how to play chess, then turn his mind's eye inward to see the steps he uses to play chess, then codify those steps as a program. Most AI programs seem to develop that way.
The intelligence stays in the mind of the engineer, and the program becomes a clockwork pattern of fixed steps.
Is anyone in the field actually working on strong AI? Who's papers would you recommend reading to learn more about strong AI?
How is this information useful?
Assuming that the study results are accurate and significant, how does one actually *use* the information? How does it inform further research, how do physicians and/or psychiatrists use the information for diagnosis or treatment, what sort of "ruler" does this study build and what does it measure?
In what way can this information be used to improve the human condition?
There are thousands of soft-science generalizations like this, none of which is useful in any meaningful way.
Social scientists are playing an elaborate game of "make believe".
The metal is mostly (86%) magnesium
Not sure I want anything made of this material in my house or vehicle.
(I just had to look it up. Damn my OCD!)
According to the Wikipedia article on Magnesium rims, the bulk metal is difficult to ignite. This mirrors my own experience - it's hard to ignite a strip of magnesium for a chemistry demonstration.
(From the article: Mag rims are no longer made, not because they're dangerous, but because they tend to pit and crack and need constant polishing.)
It seems likely the extra 14% would make the alloy less combustible than raw Magnesium. If you're already on fire hot enough to ignite the bulk material, it's probably hot enough to ignite all the other combustible things in your house, such as the wood frame.
I have a policy that my customers pay me on time. Unfortunately I tend to get strung along for 90 days. Since my policy doesn't have the force of regulation I tend to have to suck it up.
I hate this type of post.
It's defeatist and dispiriting to the reader. By advocating no action ("suck it up"), it supports and encourages loss of freedom, authoritative control, and hopelessness.
It's also uncreative - there's *lots* of things we could do, both as a group and individually, to try to change the situation.
You don't have the will to fight, so go drown your despair in drink. Don't being down everyone else as well.
The OP took the trouble to file suit against the TSA. Looking at his website, he might be a rare case of a lawyer doing an open source 'kind of thing.
I haven't seen a lot of this type of "open source good for the community" from the legal profession. I'm not saying that there's *none*, but it's very rare compared to the number of lawyers around.
Engineers are pretty generous with their time. There's a ton of open source software and designs for hardware, people answering questions, things you can make and modify and use.
A lot of lawyers I talk to claim to be unemployed or under-employed. Looking through the myriad number of social abuses we come across at Slashdot, I've always wondered why some of them don't put their spare time into fixing some of our problems using the court system. If it's their own time and they are otherwise unemployed, it wouldn't be very expensive.
They'd also get a big boost of popularity (and business) from having defended a rights issue. When the police decided unilaterally that recording them was illegal, it took an incident to take it to court, and not a pair of lawyers who had set up a situation, with proper witnesses and affadavits.
Anyway, this guy appears to be doing some legal things in the manner of open source.
Cut him some slack, OK?
Time to purchase some Tesla stock.
Every time Musk says something positive about Tesla in a public forum, the stock jumps higher, usually in the $12 to $15 range. Then slowly goes down again over the subsequent 2 weeks.
Look to see a big jump around Monday, after everyone has done with the holidays and logs into their stock accounts over the weekend.
Just 'sayin...