We're saying that this ruling is bad public policy. It's wasteful, it is going to be a waste of government resources, and of law enforcement resources that should be out there catching real criminals.
Aren't the purveyors and consumers of child pornography real criminals? Upon conviction, do they serve hard time for their acts? In both cases, yes. (Or at least they should be!)
After the first flight of Buran, funding for the project was cut. Although the project wasn't officially canceled until 1993, much of the work was halted long before that date. There were two other Buran shuttles under construction. The second orbiter, "Ptichka" ("Little Bird" in Russian) was originally scheduled for completion in 1990. The third Buran was due in 1992. Neither was finished. In November 1995, the partially completed shuttles were dismantled at their production site. The manufacturing plant is scheduled to be converted for production of buses, syringes, and diapers.
Apparently, only one was constructed to completion. The other two, including Ptichka, were never completed and later dismantled.
Before you spout off and tell me to RTFA, please check facts first.
The first and only orbital launch of the shuttle Buran was at 3:00 GMT on November 15, 1988. The flight was unmanned, as the life support system had not been checked out and the CRT displays had no software installed. The vehicle was launched on the powerful Energiya booster into an 247 by 256 km orbit at 51.6 degrees inclination. The Buran orbited the Earth twice before firing its thrusters for reentry. The flight ended at 6:25 GMT when the vehicle touched down at Tyuratum. The Buran 1 mission was limited to 2 orbits due to computer memory limitations.
It was "test driven", one unmanned flight, for only two orbits.
1 1988Russian Space Shuttle, only 237,986 miles, fully loaded, power steering, power aerobrakes, 4 RD-0120 Rocket Engines, plus 4 boosters using a single single four-chamber RD-170 Kerosene/Liquid Oxygen Rocket Engine.
All those over a one-second headbutt? I wonder how many British children are exposed to professional wrestling? They'll see loads there.
But even on the other side, this is one of those things where ignorance is bliss. If this was never reported, no one would have complained, since one second is a trivial amount of footage.
I'd have to side with leaving the footage in. After all, there's much worse violence than a lousy head-butt.
It is inappropriate for the government to establish technical standards to be applied to digital media. The government is not a very good standards-developing body.
Absolutely. Why leave the technical specifications of standards to a group of people who largely do not have a clue to the technology involved?
I never understood why the government gets involved in these technical matters at all.
He is the guardian of roughly 45,000 employees' e-mail in-boxes, protecting against unsolicited commercial messages that are nearly doubling in number every five months--and costing an estimated $1 per piece in lost productivity.
This is the real cost of spam, sifting through tons of junk to find the authentic business e-mails, dleteing them and such.
It doesn't seem like much, especially to a small company, but to a large one it could be a problem. Using the example, even if each user got just one spam a day, that's $45,000 in lost productivity.
Slashdot Mirror
We're saying that this ruling is bad public policy. It's wasteful, it is going to be a waste of government resources, and of law enforcement resources that should be out there catching real criminals.
Aren't the purveyors and consumers of child pornography real criminals? Upon conviction, do they serve hard time for their acts? In both cases, yes. (Or at least they should be!)
I have real issues with this sort of thinking.
"South Bound Saurez", off of In Through The Out Door.
Ummmm...my link says "nasa.gov" on it.
Perhaps NASA knows a little more than that guy.
I did check my facts first. Why must you judge me?
Didn't read my link, eh?
After the first flight of Buran, funding for the project was cut. Although the project wasn't officially canceled until 1993, much of the work was halted long before that date. There were two other Buran shuttles under construction. The second orbiter, "Ptichka" ("Little Bird" in Russian) was originally scheduled for completion in 1990. The third Buran was due in 1992. Neither was finished. In November 1995, the partially completed shuttles were dismantled at their production site. The manufacturing plant is scheduled to be converted for production of buses, syringes, and diapers.
Apparently, only one was constructed to completion. The other two, including Ptichka, were never completed and later dismantled.
Before you spout off and tell me to RTFA, please check facts first.
Taken from the second link in my "ad":
The first and only orbital launch of the shuttle Buran was at 3:00 GMT on November 15, 1988. The flight was unmanned, as the life support system had not been checked out and the CRT displays had no software installed. The vehicle was launched on the powerful Energiya booster into an 247 by 256 km orbit at 51.6 degrees inclination. The Buran orbited the Earth twice before firing its thrusters for reentry. The flight ended at 6:25 GMT when the vehicle touched down at Tyuratum. The Buran 1 mission was limited to 2 orbits due to computer memory limitations.
It was "test driven", one unmanned flight, for only two orbits.
1 1988 Russian Space Shuttle, only 237,986 miles, fully loaded, power steering, power aerobrakes, 4 RD-0120 Rocket Engines, plus 4 boosters using a single single four-chamber RD-170 Kerosene/Liquid Oxygen Rocket Engine.
Priced to move at only $6 million! Buy yours now!
All those over a one-second headbutt? I wonder how many British children are exposed to professional wrestling? They'll see loads there.
But even on the other side, this is one of those things where ignorance is bliss. If this was never reported, no one would have complained, since one second is a trivial amount of footage.
I'd have to side with leaving the footage in. After all, there's much worse violence than a lousy head-butt.
It is inappropriate for the government to establish technical standards to be applied to digital media. The government is not a very good standards-developing body.
Absolutely. Why leave the technical specifications of standards to a group of people who largely do not have a clue to the technology involved?
I never understood why the government gets involved in these technical matters at all.
He is the guardian of roughly 45,000 employees' e-mail in-boxes, protecting against unsolicited commercial messages that are nearly doubling in number every five months--and costing an estimated $1 per piece in lost productivity.
This is the real cost of spam, sifting through tons of junk to find the authentic business e-mails, dleteing them and such.
It doesn't seem like much, especially to a small company, but to a large one it could be a problem. Using the example, even if each user got just one spam a day, that's $45,000 in lost productivity.