If you think of the sounds of things in space as being enhanced reality injected into your cabin environment by computers that are trying to map electronic sensors into something that human senses can cope with - then it starts to make some sense.
Well, let me put it this way: JMS explained it something like this when talking about space combat: "Yeah, we put noise in space, because... um... there's pressure on the sides of the spacecraft, yeah, that's it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it." In other words, yes, he knew perfectly well that there's a problem, and decided to gloss over it because it's more fun to have lasers make noise.
According to J Michael Straczyski, some guys at NASA actually contacted the B5 crew to see about the designs of the Star Fury, because that was the most realistic and maneuverable fighter-sized ship they'd seen in fiction. They also did make use of some interesting concepts, like (a) having semi-realistic tactics in space combat instead of just a free-for-all, (b) factoring in gravity of nearby planets and stars, and (c) making sure portrayed military practices bore some relationship to actual militaries.
Of course, there are some violations of physics in B5 too: Shots make noise in space, and you can hear the engine noise of passing ships.
I'm going to start off by saying that I'm ignoring the fact he violated probation.
That's central to the case (and it was parole, not probation, those are significantly different): If he had not been convicted of a crime that he's still technically serving time for, they couldn't do this. As it is, they can because he was let out under specific conditions and violated those conditions.
Right. Parole is basically letting you out as a favor - the state has a very low burden of proof to keep you locked up instead, and a very low standard before they can lock you up again.
Also, parolees have only much as much freedom as the parole board says they have. They've already been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for some other crime (in this guy's case, bank fraud) that allows the government to legally keep them locked up for the full time of their sentence. The parole board let him out under certain conditions, he violated those conditions, they have every right to lock him up again. Yes, they should have been on it earlier, but that doesn't mean they can't legally do it.
Let me put it this way: My dad made the switch from working programmer to math teacher in late middle age, and not once did he run into a problem with unions.
A couple of relevant economic definitions for you:
shortage: (n) A situation where the price of what you want to buy is going up. surplus: (n) A situation where the price of what you want to buy is going down.
Since employers are buying engineering labor, they want surpluses, not shortages. Since a lot of/.ers are the labor that they're buying, we should want a shortage, not a surplus.
Also include teachers in this mix. If you want really good engineers to graduate from 5-year college programs, you need good math teachers in secondary schools. And the only way you're going to get good math teachers in secondary schools is to pay them enough so that it's a rational economic choice to go into teaching rather than engineering (or engineering stock trades).
The inflection points are everything: * Unemployment - Unemployment started heading upwards in March 2008, reaching approximately 9.5% on Jan 20, 2009, you know, when Obama actually had the power to do something. It peaked at over 10% a month or two later, and has been heading downwards ever since. So the fact that we're about 1% lower today is in fact an improvement. * Millions of home foreclosures - Again, before Obama took office this was turning into a mess. The increase actually started in 2007 (surprisingly, Wall St didn't seem to notice the problem back then), rose to slightly under 1 million active foreclosures in Q2 2009, and leveled out. If anything, Obama's policies have prevented it from getting worse. * Downgrading of US debt - Moody's specifically cited the fact that the Republicans were unwilling to raise the debt ceiling as the primary motivation for their downgrade. Also, it's has had no obvious effects on demand for US treasury bonds or their interest rates. * National debt - Obama started at about about $9 trillion, so you're now looking at $7 trillion rather than $16 trillion. Tax revenue is down due to the Bush tax cuts and the economy tanking. Entitlement spending is up, not because of any change in laws but because more people are eligible now. Discretionary spending is actually down.
So all the numbers suggest Bush ran things into the ground, Obama came in and managed to set the floor of how bad it was going to get. That doesn't mean we're in a boom economy again, but it's a lot better than it could be. And he's doing a lot better than his counterparts in many other countries.
As far as teaching kids responsibility, one of my favorites from my sister's swim team coach: Kid: "My mom forgot to pack a bathing suit." Coach: "Is your mom on the swim team?"
Their mandate was to get people involved, and informed, so they could make their own decisions, because that's how the system works best. The system fails when you have a few informed people and masses of uninformed people who just vote for the candidate they think is the most attractive.
So, if I'm reading this correctly, you said the Kiwanis were a community service group, so you probably want to vote for that community organizer guy rather than a hard-nosed businessman, and don't want the poor to just lie down and die if they can't get a job. Plus you want the system to work correctly, and any true conservative knows that government can never work well. This effort was clearly run by those liberal elites who think everyone should get a decent "education", which is actually a Communist indoctrination effort that teaches kids about evolution and religious freedom and pulls them away from the good conservative Christian faith they were born with. See, you might think it was a non-partisan effort, but really it's a very subtle socialist conspiracy, just like fluoridation of drinking water.
The preceding is applicable to Texas, where after having received two injunctions in one week vis a vis the Voting Rights Act, instead of amending the Voter ID law to allow free IDs to satisfy the federal judge, Texas appeals. Is it clear to everyone yet that when all the state republican partys made implementing Voter ID a priority, they cared more about disenfranchisement and making a poll tax not seem like a poll tax rather than lofty ideals like integrity and honor.
Well, here in Ohio the hue and cry was over something a bit different, namely that in areas dominated by Republicans early voting was going to be held 7 days a week, while in Democratic-dominated areas early voting was going to be held weekdays only during work hours. The reason this could happen was that each county election board decides the rules for themselves, each board is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, and the Republican Ohio Secretary of State gets the tie-breaking vote.
A remarkable number of people completely trust their government. I'm still not sure who these strange folks are, but I regularly get the argument (for example) that the thoroughly benevolent and just TSA is using naked body scanners not to enrich Michael Chertoff or give agents cheap thrills but to protect us from terrorism (number of terrorists caught using these scanners: 0).
The difference between somebody who disagrees with management and a jerk: When the boss presses the dissenter for more details, the non-jerk can produce information about exactly what's going wrong, why it's hurting the company, and what they propose to fix it. The jerk, when pressed, on the other hand, will announce that the boss is a moron who will never "get it".
And yes, the greatest managers in history tolerated all sorts of dissent. For instance, Abraham Lincoln dealt regularly with cabinet secretaries (e.g. Samuel Chase) and top generals (particularly George McClellan) who hated both Lincoln and his other top officials.
Seriously, he's never met a brilliant jerk MBA business guy? He needs to get out more.
Yeah, I thought I'd run into a brilliant jerk MBA recently who said he was running for president. Then he gave a speech and it turned out that guy wasn't brilliant at all.
We also have laws that our government's officials have sworn to uphold. Whether we do anything about it when they fail to do their duty should not be a question of politics. Without that idea that law trumps politics, somebody in power can break the law with impunity, while somebody out of power can be thrown in jail arbitrarily.
I'd also much rather have a system where public officials are constantly under investigation than a system in which public officials are never investigated. For instance, because of Kenneth Starr, I know for certain that there's not a shred of evidence that remotely suggests that Bill Clinton was responsible for the death of Vincent Foster - if there had been, Starr would have found it and would have told the world. I want my public officials on their toes and wondering what the consequences of their actions are going to be. Sure, it's high-stress, but you asked for that when you ran for office.
1. Give them a sandbox where they're the autocratic ruler and sole resident. 2. Slowly make that sandbox not at all relevant to the core of the business, by creating alternative approaches to solving the problem that the jerk used to solve. Other people will naturally route around the jerk whenever possible anyways, since nobody wants to deal with a jerk if they can help it. 3. When the sandbox becomes irrelevant and socially outcast, fire the jerk.
There are smart people who aren't jerks. Get them instead.
That's because you aren't Anwar Al-Awlaki, or his son (neither of which were ever proven to have anything to do with terrorism in any kind of judicial process).
As far as living in a concentration camp, I assume he's referring to Gitmo, which last I checked had released the US citizens imprisoned there (e.g. Yaser Esam Hamdi, in 2004).
The cart would have a tough time: Try taking a cart along this or this. For a backpack, the problem is that the backpack is attached to the back of a person who has to stop for a while to steady and aim the camera.
Well there is all the damage and dead bodies that resulted from throwing the info out there.
What dead bodies? Even the US military hasn't been able to point to a single soldier that was attacked because of what the bad guys learned from Wikileaks.
What damage? Damage to the reputations of those who've broken the rules of engagement, broken the law, or broken the Constitution? Or something more tangible?
Slashdot Mirror
If you think of the sounds of things in space as being enhanced reality injected into your cabin environment by computers that are trying to map electronic sensors into something that human senses can cope with - then it starts to make some sense.
Well, let me put it this way: JMS explained it something like this when talking about space combat: "Yeah, we put noise in space, because ... um ... there's pressure on the sides of the spacecraft, yeah, that's it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it." In other words, yes, he knew perfectly well that there's a problem, and decided to gloss over it because it's more fun to have lasers make noise.
According to J Michael Straczyski, some guys at NASA actually contacted the B5 crew to see about the designs of the Star Fury, because that was the most realistic and maneuverable fighter-sized ship they'd seen in fiction. They also did make use of some interesting concepts, like (a) having semi-realistic tactics in space combat instead of just a free-for-all, (b) factoring in gravity of nearby planets and stars, and (c) making sure portrayed military practices bore some relationship to actual militaries.
Of course, there are some violations of physics in B5 too: Shots make noise in space, and you can hear the engine noise of passing ships.
I'm going to start off by saying that I'm ignoring the fact he violated probation.
That's central to the case (and it was parole, not probation, those are significantly different): If he had not been convicted of a crime that he's still technically serving time for, they couldn't do this. As it is, they can because he was let out under specific conditions and violated those conditions.
Right. Parole is basically letting you out as a favor - the state has a very low burden of proof to keep you locked up instead, and a very low standard before they can lock you up again.
This isn't a First Amendment case. RTFA.
Also, parolees have only much as much freedom as the parole board says they have. They've already been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for some other crime (in this guy's case, bank fraud) that allows the government to legally keep them locked up for the full time of their sentence. The parole board let him out under certain conditions, he violated those conditions, they have every right to lock him up again. Yes, they should have been on it earlier, but that doesn't mean they can't legally do it.
Yes, because a few thousand people is always representative of a religion with roughly 1 billion followers.
Let me put it this way: My dad made the switch from working programmer to math teacher in late middle age, and not once did he run into a problem with unions.
That's why I included the bit about fluoridation, to try to make it clear it was in fact satire.
Also, Poe's Law.
A couple of relevant economic definitions for you:
shortage: (n) A situation where the price of what you want to buy is going up.
surplus: (n) A situation where the price of what you want to buy is going down.
Since employers are buying engineering labor, they want surpluses, not shortages. Since a lot of /.ers are the labor that they're buying, we should want a shortage, not a surplus.
Also include teachers in this mix. If you want really good engineers to graduate from 5-year college programs, you need good math teachers in secondary schools. And the only way you're going to get good math teachers in secondary schools is to pay them enough so that it's a rational economic choice to go into teaching rather than engineering (or engineering stock trades).
The inflection points are everything:
* Unemployment - Unemployment started heading upwards in March 2008, reaching approximately 9.5% on Jan 20, 2009, you know, when Obama actually had the power to do something. It peaked at over 10% a month or two later, and has been heading downwards ever since. So the fact that we're about 1% lower today is in fact an improvement.
* Millions of home foreclosures - Again, before Obama took office this was turning into a mess. The increase actually started in 2007 (surprisingly, Wall St didn't seem to notice the problem back then), rose to slightly under 1 million active foreclosures in Q2 2009, and leveled out. If anything, Obama's policies have prevented it from getting worse.
* Downgrading of US debt - Moody's specifically cited the fact that the Republicans were unwilling to raise the debt ceiling as the primary motivation for their downgrade. Also, it's has had no obvious effects on demand for US treasury bonds or their interest rates.
* National debt - Obama started at about about $9 trillion, so you're now looking at $7 trillion rather than $16 trillion. Tax revenue is down due to the Bush tax cuts and the economy tanking. Entitlement spending is up, not because of any change in laws but because more people are eligible now. Discretionary spending is actually down.
So all the numbers suggest Bush ran things into the ground, Obama came in and managed to set the floor of how bad it was going to get. That doesn't mean we're in a boom economy again, but it's a lot better than it could be. And he's doing a lot better than his counterparts in many other countries.
As far as teaching kids responsibility, one of my favorites from my sister's swim team coach:
Kid: "My mom forgot to pack a bathing suit."
Coach: "Is your mom on the swim team?"
Stupid liberal bitch newscaster
Whether the newscaster was wrong or not, that was uncalled for.
Also, Mitt Romney needs to learn how to properly tell a joke - might I suggest he sit down with Mike Huckabee or Arlen Specter?
Their mandate was to get people involved, and informed, so they could make their own decisions, because that's how the system works best. The system fails when you have a few informed people and masses of uninformed people who just vote for the candidate they think is the most attractive.
So, if I'm reading this correctly, you said the Kiwanis were a community service group, so you probably want to vote for that community organizer guy rather than a hard-nosed businessman, and don't want the poor to just lie down and die if they can't get a job. Plus you want the system to work correctly, and any true conservative knows that government can never work well. This effort was clearly run by those liberal elites who think everyone should get a decent "education", which is actually a Communist indoctrination effort that teaches kids about evolution and religious freedom and pulls them away from the good conservative Christian faith they were born with. See, you might think it was a non-partisan effort, but really it's a very subtle socialist conspiracy, just like fluoridation of drinking water.
The preceding is applicable to Texas, where after having received two injunctions in one week vis a vis the Voting Rights Act, instead of amending the Voter ID law to allow free IDs to satisfy the federal judge, Texas appeals. Is it clear to everyone yet that when all the state republican partys made implementing Voter ID a priority, they cared more about disenfranchisement and making a poll tax not seem like a poll tax rather than lofty ideals like integrity and honor.
Well, here in Ohio the hue and cry was over something a bit different, namely that in areas dominated by Republicans early voting was going to be held 7 days a week, while in Democratic-dominated areas early voting was going to be held weekdays only during work hours. The reason this could happen was that each county election board decides the rules for themselves, each board is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, and the Republican Ohio Secretary of State gets the tie-breaking vote.
A remarkable number of people completely trust their government. I'm still not sure who these strange folks are, but I regularly get the argument (for example) that the thoroughly benevolent and just TSA is using naked body scanners not to enrich Michael Chertoff or give agents cheap thrills but to protect us from terrorism (number of terrorists caught using these scanners: 0).
The difference between somebody who disagrees with management and a jerk: When the boss presses the dissenter for more details, the non-jerk can produce information about exactly what's going wrong, why it's hurting the company, and what they propose to fix it. The jerk, when pressed, on the other hand, will announce that the boss is a moron who will never "get it".
And yes, the greatest managers in history tolerated all sorts of dissent. For instance, Abraham Lincoln dealt regularly with cabinet secretaries (e.g. Samuel Chase) and top generals (particularly George McClellan) who hated both Lincoln and his other top officials.
Seriously, he's never met a brilliant jerk MBA business guy? He needs to get out more.
Yeah, I thought I'd run into a brilliant jerk MBA recently who said he was running for president. Then he gave a speech and it turned out that guy wasn't brilliant at all.
We also have laws that our government's officials have sworn to uphold. Whether we do anything about it when they fail to do their duty should not be a question of politics. Without that idea that law trumps politics, somebody in power can break the law with impunity, while somebody out of power can be thrown in jail arbitrarily.
I'd also much rather have a system where public officials are constantly under investigation than a system in which public officials are never investigated. For instance, because of Kenneth Starr, I know for certain that there's not a shred of evidence that remotely suggests that Bill Clinton was responsible for the death of Vincent Foster - if there had been, Starr would have found it and would have told the world. I want my public officials on their toes and wondering what the consequences of their actions are going to be. Sure, it's high-stress, but you asked for that when you ran for office.
1. Give them a sandbox where they're the autocratic ruler and sole resident.
2. Slowly make that sandbox not at all relevant to the core of the business, by creating alternative approaches to solving the problem that the jerk used to solve. Other people will naturally route around the jerk whenever possible anyways, since nobody wants to deal with a jerk if they can help it.
3. When the sandbox becomes irrelevant and socially outcast, fire the jerk.
There are smart people who aren't jerks. Get them instead.
That's because you aren't Anwar Al-Awlaki, or his son (neither of which were ever proven to have anything to do with terrorism in any kind of judicial process).
As far as living in a concentration camp, I assume he's referring to Gitmo, which last I checked had released the US citizens imprisoned there (e.g. Yaser Esam Hamdi, in 2004).
The cart would have a tough time: Try taking a cart along this or this. For a backpack, the problem is that the backpack is attached to the back of a person who has to stop for a while to steady and aim the camera.
Now the PM needs to follow up by tasking their equivalent of the US Attorney General to investigate and prosecute
Well, the same position, but different in that the NZ guy needs to actually prosecute government officials when they commit crimes.
Except the Constitution is quite clear: You can't convict somebody of something that wasn't illegal when they did it.
Well there is all the damage and dead bodies that resulted from throwing the info out there.
What dead bodies? Even the US military hasn't been able to point to a single soldier that was attacked because of what the bad guys learned from Wikileaks.
What damage? Damage to the reputations of those who've broken the rules of engagement, broken the law, or broken the Constitution? Or something more tangible?