"Don't put your trash in my backyard, my backyard, my backyard. Don't put your trash in my backyard, my backyard's full!"
More to the point, if throwing stuff away starts getting expensive, maybe that will change the economics around so that people will do less of it and stop designing stuff to be thrown away. Or if we're talking about recycling systems, how about *gasp* building recycling plants here in the US?
You and I may not like it but torture was in fact not illegal.
Yes it was. The US is signatory of several treaties saying so, and that makes it the "law of the land" according to the Constitution. We executed Japanese and Germans in 1945 for doing the same things that you are saying we don't consider illegal.
It does not explain why we get obese now. It only explains why we can get obese to begin with.
Yes it does: If your limbic system (your core emotional system) says "eat", that will tend to override anything the more rational parts of the cerebrum say. For a simple household experiment, get some tasty chocolate chip cookies, set them out in front of you, and see how long you can go without eating one, even if you've just had a nice meal.
We get obese now because the food's available, it's as simple as that. In every other period of human history, starvation was much more common than obesity.
For a long time, governments of modern democracies have been rather afraid of public opinion and the press, and have avoided doing things that would result in protests and opposition.
When would that have been, exactly? The first US president to shove an unpopular policy (a whiskey tax) down the throats of the masses was George Washington - leading to one of the 2 times in US history that an American president has actually commanded troops as president. The French revolutionary governments were so unpopular that they decided to scrap the whole thing and put Napoleon in charge. The Italians, Germans, and Romanians tried it in the 1920's and bungled it so badly that many thought the fascists were an improvement.
Democracies are probably more responsive to their people than dictatorships, but that's not saying much. An interesting point someone made recently: In order to become president of Iran, a candidate has to be accepted by the unelected ayatollahs. In order to become president of the US, a candidate has to be accepted by the unelected Wall St tycoons. How different are those systems, really?
A train heading towards a bridge over a chasm, but the bridge is actually out. 15 km away, you find out about the problem and starts telling the train staff "Hey, you really ought to hit the brakes now!", but the staff say "We can't do that, we'd be late to the next station!" Now, you may start making plans to somehow get off before things get worse, but you're still going to do your best to convince the engineer to stop as quickly as possible. And of course there will be some folks on the train who think it's an action movie and will argue instead to speed up and try to make a jump over the gap!
Those organizations with the power to do something are steadfastly pretending the problem doesn't exist.
On the upside, the Great Lakes region where I live is likely to become prime real estate, because it will be (A) not underwater, (B) well-supplied with fresh water, (C) relatively safe from hurricanes, (D) not on fire, (E) not a prime tornado target, and (F) less cold.
Humans, like most animals, evolved in an environment where food was scarce. We're built to eat as much as we can handle whenever we can handle it, because back in the day we had no idea when our next meal would be. Sure, it might give us diabetes or other nasty problems, but starvation was more likely than obesity to kill us before we could reproduce.
That's somewhat different than, say, most dogs, who have no concept of appetite and will eat any food available regardless of whether their digestive tract can handle it.
That is a fair point. It is also ignored in most history books that blacks fought back against the KKK and ended up killing more than a few of them
Care for a citation on that? I've heard of cases where the KKK attacked black people and the black people defended themselves, but I'm not aware of cases where black people sought out and killed Klansmen except when doing their duty as US soldiers.
One other difference is that the KKK was not explicitly trying to overthrow or even hope for the destruction of the U.S. government.
That's not entirely true: Some incarnations of the Klan were in fact trying to do just that on the grounds that it had been taken over by Catholics, Jews, black people, etc. The more realistic members were aiming for rendering the former Confederacy free from any practical influence from the US government, at least when it came to treatment of black people, and in this they were largely successful for about a century.
It's not really different from the IRA trying to make it so Northern Ireland was ungovernable by the UK, and having a political wing (Sinn Fein) that was part of the legal government of the area.
Give the sheet music to a conductor of an orchestra, and it's gong to sound amazing.
I agree, nothing livens up a performance like a good gong hit. For example, a friend of mine who's a Catholic organist was in the Vatican attending the Papal Mass, and was sitting near the front. The priests come over and smack the gong really loudly, so startling my buddy that he exclaimed "Holy shit!"
Then you use GNU Denemo to sketch out your line. That and a little manual LilyPond work is fine for what I typically write (traditional-style pieces and folk songs).
Before the Berne Convention, many folk musicians (e.g. Pete Seeger and Woodie Guthrie) intentionally did not copyright their music. Nowadays, many folkies are either just totally ignoring copyright or using Creative Commons to give it away more effectively. And they're definitely more lax about enforcement than the RIAA ever was.
Also pretty common is to make the song itself public domain while copyrighting particular performances, arrangements, editions, etc. For example, while Bach's music isn't copyrighted, modern editions are, so you aren't supposed to photocopy them (but people do, all the time). The "Too Fat For Me Polka" may be public domain, but the recording of Frankie Yankovic playing it is not. And "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" isn't copyrighted, but a 4-part choir arrangement of it probably is.
If the blood is coming out of the patient's wrists in spurts, out of a gunshot wound to the head (where the patient has the gun in one hand and a note in the other), then it's likely the person is suicidal.
One legitimate reason for the slow release is it keeps the issue in the public mind for longer. That actually seems to be more effective than 1 giant event.
For an example, compare the tactics of Occupy Wall Street with Feb 15 2003. I'll bet good money that you can tell me a bit about Occupy Wall street, but can't tell me what happened on Feb 15 2003 that might be related in any way to Occupy Wall Street.
Give up?
That day was the Largest single-day protest in the history of the world. Approximately 8 million people were out in the streets complaining about George W Bush's decision to invade Iraq. That's about 1 out of every 500 people on the planet at the time. And it's almost completely forgotten, because there was a splash in the papers the next day, and then it disappeared from the headlines. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street stuck around for months, and by simply not ending until the police came by to beat people up at 3 AM, they became a long-term part of the public consciousness.
You may disagree with the politics of either or both protests, but my point here is about tactics - both involved massive efforts, but one was a lot more effective than the other.
Nothing like that has remotely happened in the United States.
It certainly did: The KKK is the largest and longest-lasting terrorist group in the history of the United States (unless you count the Confederate States of America). They were involved in acts of terrorism almost continuously for about a century, and there are still people claiming to be heirs of the group who are out there beating and killing people.
Of course, if you're not the population that the terrorists are targeting, it's easier to forget about.
1) Auto trans These are clearly inferior to manual transmissions in every way
Not in every way: They leave 1 less way for the driver to screw up. That probably matters more than the fact that automatics don't accelerate as well, are harder to maintain, weigh more, etc.
6) airbags Red herring. Airbags are passive safety devices, not a device to automatically do something the driver had to do previously.
Automatically not go flying through the windshield during an accident.
One more obvious point that GP didn't include: cruise control.
There's a difference in design philosophies which explains the difference perfectly well. From pep-20:
Explicit is better than implicit.
The Python way of doing what you want to do is: range(len(['a', 'b', 'c'])) That way, someone reading it doesn't have to look up the range function to know why the interpreter treated ['a','b','c'] as equivalent of 3.
By contrast, perl is built with implicit assumptions all over the place so that a programmer experienced in perl doesn't have to type as much. The best known example of this is the $_ variable, which means all sorts of things depending on context.
Neither one is wrong, per se, but the difference reflects different language goals.
Why would you limit yourself to ssh, when there's so many useful unpatched exploits for so many other server applications? Among other things, you're missing out on all the easily exploitable Windows ME boxen out there.
However, given that the UK likely violated the European Convention on Human Rights, GP is not entirely wrong. There's definitely an issue of how legal this all was, given that: 1. There was no suspicion that Mr Miranda committed a crime, which brings up Article 5. 2. The only reason to seize Mr Miranda's electronic devices was to search them, again with no reason to believe that they were used for a crime, violating Article 8. 3. The reason they picked Mr Miranda was because of his association with Glenn Greenwald, violating Article 11. 4. And what Glenn Greenwald did was covered under Article 10.
So yeah, Land of the Free, unless you embarrass important people or organizations in the US or UK or NATO.
Here's the proof that the conspiracy is real: Most of the people who try to make tinfoil hats screw up and actually make their hats out of aluminum foil instead!
Slashdot Mirror
"Don't put your trash in my backyard, my backyard, my backyard.
Don't put your trash in my backyard, my backyard's full!"
More to the point, if throwing stuff away starts getting expensive, maybe that will change the economics around so that people will do less of it and stop designing stuff to be thrown away. Or if we're talking about recycling systems, how about *gasp* building recycling plants here in the US?
Although, as George Carlin stated, if fire fighters fight fires, and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?
You and I may not like it but torture was in fact not illegal.
Yes it was. The US is signatory of several treaties saying so, and that makes it the "law of the land" according to the Constitution. We executed Japanese and Germans in 1945 for doing the same things that you are saying we don't consider illegal.
It does not explain why we get obese now. It only explains why we can get obese to begin with.
Yes it does: If your limbic system (your core emotional system) says "eat", that will tend to override anything the more rational parts of the cerebrum say. For a simple household experiment, get some tasty chocolate chip cookies, set them out in front of you, and see how long you can go without eating one, even if you've just had a nice meal.
We get obese now because the food's available, it's as simple as that. In every other period of human history, starvation was much more common than obesity.
For a long time, governments of modern democracies have been rather afraid of public opinion and the press, and have avoided doing things that would result in protests and opposition.
When would that have been, exactly? The first US president to shove an unpopular policy (a whiskey tax) down the throats of the masses was George Washington - leading to one of the 2 times in US history that an American president has actually commanded troops as president. The French revolutionary governments were so unpopular that they decided to scrap the whole thing and put Napoleon in charge. The Italians, Germans, and Romanians tried it in the 1920's and bungled it so badly that many thought the fascists were an improvement.
Democracies are probably more responsive to their people than dictatorships, but that's not saying much. An interesting point someone made recently: In order to become president of Iran, a candidate has to be accepted by the unelected ayatollahs. In order to become president of the US, a candidate has to be accepted by the unelected Wall St tycoons. How different are those systems, really?
the American standard
That's ok, you can get American Standards pretty easily these days.
An analogy:
A train heading towards a bridge over a chasm, but the bridge is actually out. 15 km away, you find out about the problem and starts telling the train staff "Hey, you really ought to hit the brakes now!", but the staff say "We can't do that, we'd be late to the next station!" Now, you may start making plans to somehow get off before things get worse, but you're still going to do your best to convince the engineer to stop as quickly as possible. And of course there will be some folks on the train who think it's an action movie and will argue instead to speed up and try to make a jump over the gap!
Those organizations with the power to do something are steadfastly pretending the problem doesn't exist.
On the upside, the Great Lakes region where I live is likely to become prime real estate, because it will be (A) not underwater, (B) well-supplied with fresh water, (C) relatively safe from hurricanes, (D) not on fire, (E) not a prime tornado target, and (F) less cold.
Humans, like most animals, evolved in an environment where food was scarce. We're built to eat as much as we can handle whenever we can handle it, because back in the day we had no idea when our next meal would be. Sure, it might give us diabetes or other nasty problems, but starvation was more likely than obesity to kill us before we could reproduce.
That's somewhat different than, say, most dogs, who have no concept of appetite and will eat any food available regardless of whether their digestive tract can handle it.
That is a fair point. It is also ignored in most history books that blacks fought back against the KKK and ended up killing more than a few of them
Care for a citation on that? I've heard of cases where the KKK attacked black people and the black people defended themselves, but I'm not aware of cases where black people sought out and killed Klansmen except when doing their duty as US soldiers.
One other difference is that the KKK was not explicitly trying to overthrow or even hope for the destruction of the U.S. government.
That's not entirely true: Some incarnations of the Klan were in fact trying to do just that on the grounds that it had been taken over by Catholics, Jews, black people, etc. The more realistic members were aiming for rendering the former Confederacy free from any practical influence from the US government, at least when it came to treatment of black people, and in this they were largely successful for about a century.
It's not really different from the IRA trying to make it so Northern Ireland was ungovernable by the UK, and having a political wing (Sinn Fein) that was part of the legal government of the area.
I sure don't: After a couple of centuries, I'd get bored, and I don't really feel like going around insulting the universe.
Give the sheet music to a conductor of an orchestra, and it's gong to sound amazing.
I agree, nothing livens up a performance like a good gong hit. For example, a friend of mine who's a Catholic organist was in the Vatican attending the Papal Mass, and was sitting near the front. The priests come over and smack the gong really loudly, so startling my buddy that he exclaimed "Holy shit!"
Then you use GNU Denemo to sketch out your line. That and a little manual LilyPond work is fine for what I typically write (traditional-style pieces and folk songs).
It's a bit more complicated than that.
Before the Berne Convention, many folk musicians (e.g. Pete Seeger and Woodie Guthrie) intentionally did not copyright their music. Nowadays, many folkies are either just totally ignoring copyright or using Creative Commons to give it away more effectively. And they're definitely more lax about enforcement than the RIAA ever was.
Also pretty common is to make the song itself public domain while copyrighting particular performances, arrangements, editions, etc. For example, while Bach's music isn't copyrighted, modern editions are, so you aren't supposed to photocopy them (but people do, all the time). The "Too Fat For Me Polka" may be public domain, but the recording of Frankie Yankovic playing it is not. And "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" isn't copyrighted, but a 4-part choir arrangement of it probably is.
If the blood is coming out of the patient's wrists in spurts, out of a gunshot wound to the head (where the patient has the gun in one hand and a note in the other), then it's likely the person is suicidal.
One legitimate reason for the slow release is it keeps the issue in the public mind for longer. That actually seems to be more effective than 1 giant event.
For an example, compare the tactics of Occupy Wall Street with Feb 15 2003. I'll bet good money that you can tell me a bit about Occupy Wall street, but can't tell me what happened on Feb 15 2003 that might be related in any way to Occupy Wall Street.
Give up?
That day was the Largest single-day protest in the history of the world. Approximately 8 million people were out in the streets complaining about George W Bush's decision to invade Iraq. That's about 1 out of every 500 people on the planet at the time. And it's almost completely forgotten, because there was a splash in the papers the next day, and then it disappeared from the headlines. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street stuck around for months, and by simply not ending until the police came by to beat people up at 3 AM, they became a long-term part of the public consciousness.
You may disagree with the politics of either or both protests, but my point here is about tactics - both involved massive efforts, but one was a lot more effective than the other.
Nothing like that has remotely happened in the United States.
It certainly did: The KKK is the largest and longest-lasting terrorist group in the history of the United States (unless you count the Confederate States of America). They were involved in acts of terrorism almost continuously for about a century, and there are still people claiming to be heirs of the group who are out there beating and killing people.
Of course, if you're not the population that the terrorists are targeting, it's easier to forget about.
1) Auto trans
These are clearly inferior to manual transmissions in every way
Not in every way: They leave 1 less way for the driver to screw up. That probably matters more than the fact that automatics don't accelerate as well, are harder to maintain, weigh more, etc.
6) airbags
Red herring. Airbags are passive safety devices, not a device to automatically do something the driver had to do previously.
Automatically not go flying through the windshield during an accident.
One more obvious point that GP didn't include: cruise control.
There's a difference in design philosophies which explains the difference perfectly well. From pep-20:
Explicit is better than implicit.
The Python way of doing what you want to do is:
range(len(['a', 'b', 'c']))
That way, someone reading it doesn't have to look up the range function to know why the interpreter treated ['a','b','c'] as equivalent of 3.
By contrast, perl is built with implicit assumptions all over the place so that a programmer experienced in perl doesn't have to type as much. The best known example of this is the $_ variable, which means all sorts of things depending on context.
Neither one is wrong, per se, but the difference reflects different language goals.
Have the prospects of Python in any way improved since you grew a beard? To what degree does language success correlate to beard length?
Why would you limit yourself to ssh, when there's so many useful unpatched exploits for so many other server applications? Among other things, you're missing out on all the easily exploitable Windows ME boxen out there.
But not to be confused with "hetero-life-mate".
However, given that the UK likely violated the European Convention on Human Rights, GP is not entirely wrong. There's definitely an issue of how legal this all was, given that:
1. There was no suspicion that Mr Miranda committed a crime, which brings up Article 5.
2. The only reason to seize Mr Miranda's electronic devices was to search them, again with no reason to believe that they were used for a crime, violating Article 8.
3. The reason they picked Mr Miranda was because of his association with Glenn Greenwald, violating Article 11.
4. And what Glenn Greenwald did was covered under Article 10.
So yeah, Land of the Free, unless you embarrass important people or organizations in the US or UK or NATO.
Back to the Future IV - Great Scott!
Here's the proof that the conspiracy is real: Most of the people who try to make tinfoil hats screw up and actually make their hats out of aluminum foil instead!