Has there actually been any major war or conflict in which terrorism hasn't been used in place of costly head-on campaigns? Demoralization of the opposite side's citizenry and the invoking of fear in one's opponent's lower ranks is a standard tactic in every battle and war... especially if at least one side is low on bodies/resources.
We could do the same in the "War on Terror" if we wished. Hell, we just may be, but the public may not know about it.
However, I don't necessarily agree with the quote "They cost us billions in countermeasures." That shifts the purchasing responsibility onto a/tactic/ instead of a person who signs the supply and service requisitions. It is an active choice to spend any dollar as a response to terrorism. If those "countermeasures" are actually kick-backs or unethical methods of funding a friend's business, did terrorism cause that fraud? No. It's an action of man.
"So random poster, you seem to be suggesting that we're spending too much on fighting terrorism... is that what you're saying?"
No, not really. I think we're spending too much money NOT fighting terrorism. Or, to say it another way, I think we're spending too much money on things that will not rationally reduce the chance of anti-US terrorism.
"WTF?"
STFU and let me explain. We spend billions on creating pain and suffering. Terrorists recruit those who have been affected by (directly or indirectly) that pain and suffering. Suddenly there's more money and bodies for terrorism. So the US spends more money on creating pain and suffering... etc. You see the problem. Hearts and minds have not been won. Only hate and derision.
Direct investment in schools (secular AND religious), infrastructure, non-narcotic agricultural income sources, cultural heritage centers (years before Chase Credit and McDonalds, please) -- these are all ways to spend the money that will not increase the terrorist recruitment causes. Oh, and don't charge a dime for it. Make sure it's a gift. There's no use in doing good with the intent of reducing terrorism if the people are on the tab for all the "good" you're doing.
With stronger education, reinforced cultural roots, non-controversial sources of income, the people themselves will begin to take politics into their own hands. It's a ~40 year process, but that's how people change... one generation at a time.
But these aren't profitable ventures. War is much more profitable. Responding to terrorism, as the article shows, is much more profitable. And we value the economy over all other things in America, today.
The problem with simply linking to a site that's hosting an article is that file organization systems change and old articles are either archived (sometimes behind a paywall) or simply purged. If an article is particularly important to a cause (evidence of a particular opinion of a group of people in a specific area at a specific time), then it would seem that, for posterity sake, the article can at least be partially re-posted on another site with a link to the direct source.
It reminds of the the "out-of-print" book issue. Writer Bob writes a book. It's published and distributed. Demand for the book wanes, Bob dies, and the publisher pulps surplus stock. If someone wants to buy the book, s/he has to dig through used book stores or the like and, if the book is ever found, pay a premium for a book that is no longer in print. The reader just wants the content, not a collector's item... and yet it's not exactly legal to acquire the content without purchasing the rights from the publisher.
I set the PC under the coffee table, the projector on the coffee table on a small platform, and the screen ~7' away. It's effectively 40+ inches diagonal. The projection is dimmed by natural light, so if we want extra detail/contrast, we close the curtains.
"Horrible"? No. "Less Good"? Likely. "Is a discrete card worth the money?" Depends on what you want and what you have to spend.
Many people can't tell the difference without specific sound comparisons. Some still can't tell the difference. Many people don't think the monetary investment $20-$200 is worth the gains in sound and performance (off-loading work from an already burdened system, for example).
I used to use a Soundblaster Live Value! and then Audigy with my system. The Audigy made it through 2 motherboard upgrades. When I got a new prefab system on a deal. My intent with the system is to make a low-wattage gaming machine, so in my experimentation, I decided to see if I could notice any significant performance and sound quality difference with the new system's onboard sound. I didn't hear/see enough to make me re-open the case.
The Audigy stayed with my older power-hog of a rig when I handed it down to the GF.
I've been lucky to feel that sense of affect once before. It's definitely noticeable.
Of course, for every issue after that, you'll find reasons to justify why actions do not coincide with your suggestions. It's kinda like the development of a tradition involving the super bowl and a lucky pair of socks.
I know I have a better understanding of science & technology (through hobbies), law (by education), logic & fallacy (by education), and value my integrity more than the vast majority of the public. I love to see the process in action (even though I decided not to be part of it professionally).
I have, though, considered it an imaginary dream job to simply serve on juries day-in and day-out. Professional Juror! Critical thinking, creative solutions-- civil and criminal cases alike.
The cornerstone of the American judicial system would like to disagree. The courts have the final say... and for good reason. Your average Supreme Court Judge has greater wisdom, experience, and understanding of law in America than the whole of Congress.
That's a law that gives justification for seeking prosecution, but not one that gives the rights of skirting the requirements of due process, which comes earlier in the order of legal operations.
If you can prove that due process was ignored without sufficient reason, then you can nullify an attempt at prosecution or even a law altogether if the law oversteps legislative bounds (as the Website Shudown Bill does).
Luckily, there is hope in judicial review and that's that EXACT kind of wording that the courts love to smack down. The prosecution will show great potential for loss of revenue (requiring only a "rational basis" for skirting due process), but since a website is very easily argued to be a free speech, strict scrutiny of the legislation will be required and the prosecution will have to show:
1) a compelling gov't interest (nat'l security, many lives, etc.) 2) the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a stated goal (in this case, preventing IP-infringement) 3) the law is applied in the least restrictive means possible to achieve the compelling gov't interest.
The downside to this *elementary* understanding of constitutional law is that someone's (or many "ones"?) life and reputation have to be dragged through the mud by the application of this law and his/her legal representation has to have the moral fortitude to fight the law.
Where I'm at the syllabus is fully in the control of the professor/lecturer/instructor. Only in cases of final exams (which or pre-scheduled by the university) taking place during finals week does the prof/lect/instructor not have the right to change the date. As long as everyone's told in advance (email, class announcement), it's all good.
The prof could have used the same test term-to-term and while that would have violated policy, cheating under *any* circumstances is against the RULES. Such policies exist in hopes of preventing cheating, but the option to cheat is ALWAYS with the student. The cheating student is at fault. The professor shouldn't be surprised (if he is *actually* lazy with his exams), but he's still not at fault.
Just as any major shock to a system (biological, mechanical, electrical, social, spiritual) may destroy it if the system doesn't adapt to the stimulus.
I wonder what could be done to help "the internet" adapt to the massive bandwidth consumption that Netflix stimulates.... hmmmmm....
To watch a 3-D movie in the theaters, I would have to either:
1) Allow thin cardboard to slowly cut into my ears as they're placed over my eye-glasses and fit too tightly 2) Invest in custom over-glasses 3-D goggles... so it's not gonna happen any time soon.
Why limit the benefit to customer with iphones and ipods? Why not a 3.5mm and 2.5mm jack (much cheaper to install and replace) so that anyone with any MP3 player or cell phone media player can hook up?
Wheels that enable the desk to slide --- Two words: Bumper Cars Swivel seats --- Because it's just an excuse to fidget ****Better yet... NO MOVING PARTS**** Required specialist maintenance --- Because it won't be provided Real, non-particle board wood --- It's too expensive and warps. Any plastic aside from the seat and the chair back --- They're too easily carved, melted, bent, broken, etc. Arms/Wings --- Because they're always too sharp and not good for fat kids
The chair presented in the article is a triumph of design, but it won't work for anyone with any internal child. Yes, that means college students down to kindergartners. It's a Ferrari of desks when schools (ALL schools) look for steel-block engine trucks that require little maintenance beyond a wash and an oil from time to time.
They should have designed around the restrictions of the user instead of trying to redefine the user with design.
Slashdot Mirror
Has there actually been any major war or conflict in which terrorism hasn't been used in place of costly head-on campaigns? Demoralization of the opposite side's citizenry and the invoking of fear in one's opponent's lower ranks is a standard tactic in every battle and war... especially if at least one side is low on bodies/resources.
We could do the same in the "War on Terror" if we wished. Hell, we just may be, but the public may not know about it.
However, I don't necessarily agree with the quote "They cost us billions in countermeasures." That shifts the purchasing responsibility onto a /tactic/ instead of a person who signs the supply and service requisitions. It is an active choice to spend any dollar as a response to terrorism. If those "countermeasures" are actually kick-backs or unethical methods of funding a friend's business, did terrorism cause that fraud? No. It's an action of man.
"So random poster, you seem to be suggesting that we're spending too much on fighting terrorism... is that what you're saying?"
No, not really. I think we're spending too much money NOT fighting terrorism. Or, to say it another way, I think we're spending too much money on things that will not rationally reduce the chance of anti-US terrorism.
"WTF?"
STFU and let me explain. We spend billions on creating pain and suffering. Terrorists recruit those who have been affected by (directly or indirectly) that pain and suffering. Suddenly there's more money and bodies for terrorism. So the US spends more money on creating pain and suffering... etc. You see the problem. Hearts and minds have not been won. Only hate and derision.
Direct investment in schools (secular AND religious), infrastructure, non-narcotic agricultural income sources, cultural heritage centers (years before Chase Credit and McDonalds, please) -- these are all ways to spend the money that will not increase the terrorist recruitment causes. Oh, and don't charge a dime for it. Make sure it's a gift. There's no use in doing good with the intent of reducing terrorism if the people are on the tab for all the "good" you're doing.
With stronger education, reinforced cultural roots, non-controversial sources of income, the people themselves will begin to take politics into their own hands. It's a ~40 year process, but that's how people change... one generation at a time.
But these aren't profitable ventures. War is much more profitable. Responding to terrorism, as the article shows, is much more profitable. And we value the economy over all other things in America, today.
The problem with simply linking to a site that's hosting an article is that file organization systems change and old articles are either archived (sometimes behind a paywall) or simply purged. If an article is particularly important to a cause (evidence of a particular opinion of a group of people in a specific area at a specific time), then it would seem that, for posterity sake, the article can at least be partially re-posted on another site with a link to the direct source.
It reminds of the the "out-of-print" book issue. Writer Bob writes a book. It's published and distributed. Demand for the book wanes, Bob dies, and the publisher pulps surplus stock. If someone wants to buy the book, s/he has to dig through used book stores or the like and, if the book is ever found, pay a premium for a book that is no longer in print. The reader just wants the content, not a collector's item... and yet it's not exactly legal to acquire the content without purchasing the rights from the publisher.
So "8" mi/hr. ;)
Except "worse" implies something is already "bad".
Best
Better
Good
Less Good
No Change
Less Bad
Bad
Worse
Worst
If you won $53 million and the amount was suddenly reduced to $52.5 million, would you be "worse off" or "less well-off"?
I use a media center. A budget one. We don't need IMAX@Home. We're those people that don't see the value of HD. =P
Acer Aspire X1300-U1801A (onboard sound, onboard video) -- $250
Dell M109S SVGA (858 x 600) DLP projector -- ~$200
2.0 Speakers
Some $75 projector screen
I set the PC under the coffee table, the projector on the coffee table on a small platform, and the screen ~7' away. It's effectively 40+ inches diagonal. The projection is dimmed by natural light, so if we want extra detail/contrast, we close the curtains.
It's cheap. It's networked. It's earthquake safe. It's easily stored/transported.
"Horrible"? No.
"Less Good"? Likely.
"Is a discrete card worth the money?" Depends on what you want and what you have to spend.
Many people can't tell the difference without specific sound comparisons. Some still can't tell the difference.
Many people don't think the monetary investment $20-$200 is worth the gains in sound and performance (off-loading work from an already burdened system, for example).
I used to use a Soundblaster Live Value! and then Audigy with my system. The Audigy made it through 2 motherboard upgrades. When I got a new prefab system on a deal. My intent with the system is to make a low-wattage gaming machine, so in my experimentation, I decided to see if I could notice any significant performance and sound quality difference with the new system's onboard sound. I didn't hear/see enough to make me re-open the case.
The Audigy stayed with my older power-hog of a rig when I handed it down to the GF.
isn't this the outright manufacture of child porn?
You are being obtuse. Intent is 90% of the law.
Until it involves sex. Then, it's 100% about appearances and political grandstanding.
I've been lucky to feel that sense of affect once before. It's definitely noticeable.
Of course, for every issue after that, you'll find reasons to justify why actions do not coincide with your suggestions. It's kinda like the development of a tradition involving the super bowl and a lucky pair of socks.
Same here.
Ha! Never! I know *I* would be great... but I know few others that would be.
"As an evolved system that facilitates the propagation and security of the underlying principles of democracy, the Web needs to be defended."
I know I have a better understanding of science & technology (through hobbies), law (by education), logic & fallacy (by education), and value my integrity more than the vast majority of the public. I love to see the process in action (even though I decided not to be part of it professionally).
I have, though, considered it an imaginary dream job to simply serve on juries day-in and day-out. Professional Juror! Critical thinking, creative solutions-- civil and criminal cases alike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_oversight
The cornerstone of the American judicial system would like to disagree. The courts have the final say... and for good reason. Your average Supreme Court Judge has greater wisdom, experience, and understanding of law in America than the whole of Congress.
That's a law that gives justification for seeking prosecution, but not one that gives the rights of skirting the requirements of due process, which comes earlier in the order of legal operations.
If you can prove that due process was ignored without sufficient reason, then you can nullify an attempt at prosecution or even a law altogether if the law oversteps legislative bounds (as the Website Shudown Bill does).
Luckily, there is hope in judicial review and that's that EXACT kind of wording that the courts love to smack down. The prosecution will show great potential for loss of revenue (requiring only a "rational basis" for skirting due process), but since a website is very easily argued to be a free speech, strict scrutiny of the legislation will be required and the prosecution will have to show:
1) a compelling gov't interest (nat'l security, many lives, etc.)
2) the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a stated goal (in this case, preventing IP-infringement)
3) the law is applied in the least restrictive means possible to achieve the compelling gov't interest.
The downside to this *elementary* understanding of constitutional law is that someone's (or many "ones"?) life and reputation have to be dragged through the mud by the application of this law and his/her legal representation has to have the moral fortitude to fight the law.
Where I'm at the syllabus is fully in the control of the professor/lecturer/instructor. Only in cases of final exams (which or pre-scheduled by the university) taking place during finals week does the prof/lect/instructor not have the right to change the date. As long as everyone's told in advance (email, class announcement), it's all good.
The prof could have used the same test term-to-term and while that would have violated policy, cheating under *any* circumstances is against the RULES. Such policies exist in hopes of preventing cheating, but the option to cheat is ALWAYS with the student. The cheating student is at fault. The professor shouldn't be surprised (if he is *actually* lazy with his exams), but he's still not at fault.
All I want in a cell phone:
Phone
Clock
Alarm
Qwerty Keyboard Text Messager
Camera (nothing spectacular)
MP3 Player (simple, no non-sense UI)
Bluetooth
3.5mm jack
Minimalist UI
Put every other bit of effort and weight into battery life!
Really? I thought the problem was the virus-writers and the scammers. "PEBKAC" here is blaming the victim who was innocent enough to trust.
Don't forget to blame the next car-jacking victim who pulls over to help out someone who, on the outside, seems to have broken down.
But then the legal tacticians on the RIAA side will say, "See how few people are buying our music?! This is because of piracy!"
Just as any major shock to a system (biological, mechanical, electrical, social, spiritual) may destroy it if the system doesn't adapt to the stimulus.
I wonder what could be done to help "the internet" adapt to the massive bandwidth consumption that Netflix stimulates.... hmmmmm....
1) I have a big head
2) I wear eye glasses
To watch a 3-D movie in the theaters, I would have to either:
1) Allow thin cardboard to slowly cut into my ears as they're placed over my eye-glasses and fit too tightly ... so it's not gonna happen any time soon.
2) Invest in custom over-glasses 3-D goggles
Why limit the benefit to customer with iphones and ipods? Why not a 3.5mm and 2.5mm jack (much cheaper to install and replace) so that anyone with any MP3 player or cell phone media player can hook up?
For a classroom, here's things we can't have:
Wheels that enable the desk to slide --- Two words: Bumper Cars
Swivel seats --- Because it's just an excuse to fidget
****Better yet... NO MOVING PARTS****
Required specialist maintenance --- Because it won't be provided
Real, non-particle board wood --- It's too expensive and warps.
Any plastic aside from the seat and the chair back --- They're too easily carved, melted, bent, broken, etc.
Arms/Wings --- Because they're always too sharp and not good for fat kids
The chair presented in the article is a triumph of design, but it won't work for anyone with any internal child. Yes, that means college students down to kindergartners. It's a Ferrari of desks when schools (ALL schools) look for steel-block engine trucks that require little maintenance beyond a wash and an oil from time to time.
They should have designed around the restrictions of the user instead of trying to redefine the user with design.
I may implement this with my students and colleagues.