Fascism must not be so bad then. I mean, Christians worship God, who they think is the strongest being in the Universe. Must be fascists, eh?
Libertarians worship liberty, because they believe that a totally free man is strong. I guess they are fascists too.
Ghandi thought that a free, totally non-violent man was strong. Fascist? You betcha.
And, in theory, if we had a system of governance that didn't worship strength, but still put people in Death Camps, you'd be ok with that, right? I mean, it's not perfect, but it's not fascist either.
Can he tell you how many millions of emails and documents are encrypted before one is protected? Because it would be nice if he met the same standards he holds others to -- it would be nice if anybody in computer security were held to the same cost/benefit standards as regular security. I used to have 16 different passwords at work, all requiring changes every 64 days, and I somehow doubt it was worth the trouble.
His examples are bunk anyway because he doesn't understand them. Deterrents work without working, that's the point. And the baby thing -- there's a big moral and societal difference between losing a sick kid to disease and having a healthy kid kidnapped. Otherwise, why imprison kidnappers but not doctors who treated patients who died?
Occasionally WoW will start working poorly for certain players over a certain ISP, for example Comcast.
Since WoW is such a widely used app Comcast has generally been very good about working with Blizzard to resolve these problems.
You kind of wonder if this sort of "special support" would be illegal under the new law -- after all, Comcast is probably not providing all games developers with similar support.
Many viewpoints that are portrayed as anti-science are nothing of the sort.
Many people, for example, accept global warming while at the same time relying on economic estimates that say guarding against global warming would be more expensive than dealing with it. For rejecting a "Manhattan Project" sized government response they are dubbed "anti-science" even though they accept the science.
Likewise, people that are opposed to stem-cell research on ethical grounds are called "anti-science". These people, again, do not doubt that the science they oppose is sound. They have moral objections that should be easier to understand than the science, but evidently aren't.
First of all, skill required to play MMORPG's is vastly underrated. The reason is simple : everyone plays so much that, on average, everybody is already very skilled. You simply couldn't throw an inexperienced WoW player into a serious raiding environment and expect them to succeed because they have gear/money/macros.
Secondly, Puzzle Pirates is a skill-based MMOG and there are still plenty of cheats and scams.
Anywhere that oppression reigns, any science that proves unpopular can find itself in the crosshairs, and a practitioner of that unpopular science can end up in jail or dead.
For example, scientists that challenge secular orthodoxy also find themselves persecuted. And I'm sure you'd find similar examples in other oppressive regimes. That science can thrive under oppressive regimes owes more to the usefulness of said science than the intellectual tolerance of those regimes.
As for considering opposition to genetic research as some sort of medieval clash between science and religion I would disagree. Science should not have the final word on morality -- scientists should be still subject to the general mores of society. Although progress is generally portrayed as the victory of science over religion, we would do well to remember Eugenics. Pre-WWII, eugenics was quite popular among scientists and quite unpopular among the religious. In this case (rightly, I believe) religion carried the day.
So if Google cooperates with the Chinese government to suppress 'dangerous' speech and (probably) to identify dissidents, that's perfectly ok.
But if they cooperate with the US Department of Homeland Security -- oh no! Look out freedom! Google is now evil!
One of these countries imprisons, tortures, and kills political dissidents. One has annexed a foreign country and has been promising to annex another for fifty years. One destroys "illegal" churches and forces abortions.
But thank goodness that Google is cooperating with the "Good" one.
But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity
Congress is fully capable of investigating the government, and the government (see Pat Fitzgerald) is even capable of investigating itself, when necessary.
It shouldn't be lost on people that the Woodward and Bernstein's source was not a Nixon insider, but an FBI guy. How exactly did the FBI get the information? Did they get a memo? Or is that, maybe, Nixon could have been deposed without any help from the media whatsoever?
if I spotted a problem that would surely doom my project
I'm not faulting the engineers. I'm just saying that if these predicted problems were really as some people painted them (inevitable), then engineers would surely share some of the blame for not communicating properly if it was not fixed.
I don't think they were seen by engineers as inevitable, so I don't think that engineers are necessarily to blame. But likewise, if the engineers didn't see a problem as inevitable, it's hard to lay all the blame at management's feet, as is the slashdot style.
I would guess that fixing every problem would eventually lead you to...
see a ten or possibly even hundred-fold increase in time and money (which means we would be hitting the moon about now) A lot of things we do now would have to be thrown away.
many projects wouldn't even get completed, because of risks that couldn't be fully eliminated. Not to mention that fixing things adds complexity, and complexity adds more problems.
It really bothers me to hear this, as an engineer. I hate listening to the media about stuff like this, because they have absolutely no knowledge of engineering methods, and they don't seem care.
Anyway, on a big scary program, here's how these sorts of problems are spotted :
Mid or low-level engineers spot potential problems
They then tell engineering leadership that they are worried about a particular problem.
Engineering leadership and/or management then (either informally or through a process called "risk managment") decides whether or not the problem should be addressed.
Step #3 is about as important as step #1, because you absolutely cannot fix every problem. There's neither the time, nor the money.
Something else to keep in mind : if I spotted a problem that would surely doom my project, and can't get engineering leadership/management to agree with me, I should share some of the blame.
I love how he tells us that the CIA was engaged in a coverup and then expects us to believe everything that comes after that.
To sum up : since you aren't hearing what you want to hear, people must be lying, right?
It's a widely known fact
It's a widely held misconception. There's not a single shred of evidence that the US trained or paid OBL. Which is why your wikipedia article has to rely on The Guardian to get that 'fact'.
In reality, everybody who would have known about the relationship denies it, even the (now retired) CIA guys that worked in afghanistan at the time. They have confirmed that they didn't want to give money to OBL, and he wouldn't have taken it anyway.
I think the draenei might just look very different from what we've previously seen of them (ala Klingons). I scanned the article and didn't notice the Actual Bliz Quote. My mistake.
Thing is, it ain't Draenei (as much as I would like it, they were my prediction).
There is a leaked video from the E3 floor (filmed during setup). And it shows a video playing on the show floor, with the new alliance race -- which was originally misidentified as Draenei but was really Erador.
Nobody predicted it, because the Erador are evil demons. These (alliance) Erador are somehow the wisps that killed Archimonde (an Erador himself) at the end of WCIII, or something like that.
Either that, or someone made a fake video showing a huge videoscreen showing faked in-game WoW cut-scenes.
That people constantly deluged with anti-war bullet points are then able to identify them in a survey. Media Outlets that were down on the war from the outset were essentially "Teaching To The Test".
No effort was made to quiz NPR-listeners about any facts that might have made the war seem justified. Facts that, of course, the Fox listeners are much more familiar with.
It's like getting a bunch of Math and History professors together, then giving them all a math test to see which group is smarter.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascism must not be so bad then. I mean, Christians worship God, who they think is the strongest being in the Universe. Must be fascists, eh?
Libertarians worship liberty, because they believe that a totally free man is strong. I guess they are fascists too.
Ghandi thought that a free, totally non-violent man was strong. Fascist? You betcha.
And, in theory, if we had a system of governance that didn't worship strength, but still put people in Death Camps, you'd be ok with that, right? I mean, it's not perfect, but it's not fascist either.
Can he tell you how many millions of emails and documents are encrypted before one is protected? Because it would be nice if he met the same standards he holds others to -- it would be nice if anybody in computer security were held to the same cost/benefit standards as regular security. I used to have 16 different passwords at work, all requiring changes every 64 days, and I somehow doubt it was worth the trouble.
His examples are bunk anyway because he doesn't understand them. Deterrents work without working, that's the point. And the baby thing -- there's a big moral and societal difference between losing a sick kid to disease and having a healthy kid kidnapped. Otherwise, why imprison kidnappers but not doctors who treated patients who died?
Occasionally WoW will start working poorly for certain players over a certain ISP, for example Comcast.
Since WoW is such a widely used app Comcast has generally been very good about working with Blizzard to resolve these problems.
You kind of wonder if this sort of "special support" would be illegal under the new law -- after all, Comcast is probably not providing all games developers with similar support.
Without coming down either side of this, how is banning a type of picture a "thought crime"?
Many viewpoints that are portrayed as anti-science are nothing of the sort.
Many people, for example, accept global warming while at the same time relying on economic estimates that say guarding against global warming would be more expensive than dealing with it. For rejecting a "Manhattan Project" sized government response they are dubbed "anti-science" even though they accept the science.
Likewise, people that are opposed to stem-cell research on ethical grounds are called "anti-science". These people, again, do not doubt that the science they oppose is sound. They have moral objections that should be easier to understand than the science, but evidently aren't.
Playing chess requires no skill? Since the gameplay mechanics are so simple -- in fact far simpler than WoW?
Knowledge is an aspect of skill -- they are not opposites. If you disagree please direct your comments to the people who write dictionaries.
Secondly, Puzzle Pirates is a skill-based MMOG and there are still plenty of cheats and scams.
That a reason cited for Net Neutrality is that NARAL was initially denied a short code by Verizon?
You know -- a short code -- something that gives groups willing to pony up the money a infrastructure-level advantage over those that don't?
Support Telephone Neutrality Today -- Abolish Short Codes
Kind of a loaded wording, but no more loaded than the survey question.
For example, scientists that challenge secular orthodoxy also find themselves persecuted. And I'm sure you'd find similar examples in other oppressive regimes. That science can thrive under oppressive regimes owes more to the usefulness of said science than the intellectual tolerance of those regimes.
As for considering opposition to genetic research as some sort of medieval clash between science and religion I would disagree. Science should not have the final word on morality -- scientists should be still subject to the general mores of society. Although progress is generally portrayed as the victory of science over religion, we would do well to remember Eugenics. Pre-WWII, eugenics was quite popular among scientists and quite unpopular among the religious. In this case (rightly, I believe) religion carried the day.
So if Google cooperates with the Chinese government to suppress 'dangerous' speech and (probably) to identify dissidents, that's perfectly ok.
But if they cooperate with the US Department of Homeland Security -- oh no! Look out freedom! Google is now evil!
One of these countries imprisons, tortures, and kills political dissidents. One has annexed a foreign country and has been promising to annex another for fifty years. One destroys "illegal" churches and forces abortions.
But thank goodness that Google is cooperating with the "Good" one.
While we all appreciate the contribution of the baker, it's no longer his bread to give away.
Yeah, God forbid that someone who was elected to run the country also gets to run the government.
If it's really the latter, we should consider electing or appointing our scientists, so we can keep that democracy thing alive and well.
Congress can make whatever laws they want about presidential appointments. They would be just be unconstitutional.
Although it is popular (as of late) to argue that congress has pretty much unlimited power, especially when it comes to trampling executive powers.
It shouldn't be lost on people that the Woodward and Bernstein's source was not a Nixon insider, but an FBI guy. How exactly did the FBI get the information? Did they get a memo? Or is that, maybe, Nixon could have been deposed without any help from the media whatsoever?
I'm not faulting the engineers. I'm just saying that if these predicted problems were really as some people painted them (inevitable), then engineers would surely share some of the blame for not communicating properly if it was not fixed.
I don't think they were seen by engineers as inevitable, so I don't think that engineers are necessarily to blame. But likewise, if the engineers didn't see a problem as inevitable, it's hard to lay all the blame at management's feet, as is the slashdot style.
Anyway, on a big scary program, here's how these sorts of problems are spotted :
Step #3 is about as important as step #1, because you absolutely cannot fix every problem. There's neither the time, nor the money.
Something else to keep in mind : if I spotted a problem that would surely doom my project, and can't get engineering leadership/management to agree with me, I should share some of the blame.
In reality, everybody who would have known about the relationship denies it, even the (now retired) CIA guys that worked in afghanistan at the time. They have confirmed that they didn't want to give money to OBL, and he wouldn't have taken it anyway.
Since it wasn't, it's just a hypothetical.
I think the draenei might just look very different from what we've previously seen of them (ala Klingons). I scanned the article and didn't notice the Actual Bliz Quote. My mistake.
There is a leaked video from the E3 floor (filmed during setup). And it shows a video playing on the show floor, with the new alliance race -- which was originally misidentified as Draenei but was really Erador.
Nobody predicted it, because the Erador are evil demons. These (alliance) Erador are somehow the wisps that killed Archimonde (an Erador himself) at the end of WCIII, or something like that.
Either that, or someone made a fake video showing a huge videoscreen showing faked in-game WoW cut-scenes.
No effort was made to quiz NPR-listeners about any facts that might have made the war seem justified. Facts that, of course, the Fox listeners are much more familiar with.
It's like getting a bunch of Math and History professors together, then giving them all a math test to see which group is smarter.
On the other side, there are a bunch of businesses who claim they can make money, which boosts the economy and creates jobs.
I'm all for net neutrality ... but, frankly, unless the geeks have a good economic case to make, I don't see why congress should listen to us.