I envision that in the future, innocent people will be killed and new excuses will be created
Innocent people are already being killed. It may not be happening in US quite yet, but the number of civilian casualties and children from drone strikes in all those "-stans" is already quite high. There is some debate on exactly how many casualties there were. The humanitarian organizations and observers vary in estimates. The White House position is somewhere between "there are no drone programs" and "precision of drones/intelligence is so awesome that they never kill bad people".
I suppose any politician that tries to count the civilian casualties will be branded as soft on terrorism, so except Ron Paul no one says anything
Drones I can understand, they're primarily detailed to doing surveillance or limited to small munitions, but now we're talking about a full bomber that could be remote controlled?
If this isn't the embodiment of "slippery slope", then I don't know what is! So drones are ok because they only kill up to a dozen people at a time? You draw the line at a hackable/unmanned device that can really do some damage? How many people does it take to count?
Drones are NOT OK. Well, surveillance ones (outside of US) are probably ok, but otherwise they create a video-game-like situation where no risks are taken and mistakes are less connected to those committing them. Makes it way too easy to order an extra strike here and there (yes, I know that the official position is "drones never kill good people", but I find it unlikely).
Just because drones are already being used without any debate does not make them ok. Quote the opposite, in fact.
Also he asked fora new roommate cuz he didnt wanna room with a gay
You say that like it's a bad thing (well, he should have asked to move out himself, of course). If one is uncomfortable with a gay roommate they should part ways rather than power through. You should respect other people (their preferences, etc), but you certainly don't have to be comfortable living with them.
You know that you are allowed to discriminate by gender when searching for roommates (e.g., sharing common bathroom/kitchen/etc.) on craigslist? I assume that is similar.
Porn drove the Video Cassette business and is probably responsible for VHS defeating the superior Beta format.
I hear that "superior" Beta format also lost because it was more expensive and would (for a while) insist on 60 minute limitation to avoid compromising quality. Even when movies clearly needed more than 1hour. "Technically superior" and "worth the price for a buyer" are rarely the same thing.
The rental agency is happy to rent you a Corvette for lots of money that can do almost 200MPH, in spite of the fact that most roads are "throttled" to 30-70MPH. And if there are too many people driving, you might only get 5MPH.
Sorry, how is this "informative"? No one is complaining that they got throttled because of network overload or state-based network link regulation (your analogy). People are complaining of being throttled after using up 3Gigs of data (or so). In your analogy it'd be after your first three hours of driving the Corvette, regardless of speed limits or road congestion.
"you can use unlimited data up to this particular limit at which point you will be charged X/throttled/something else".
There is a big difference between "charged" and "throttled". I assume that if they ever tried to charge users for an "unlimited" plan, they would be sued much faster
I believe the argument is that "unlimited" refers to amount of data and not the speed. You certainly can't argue that you expected "unlimited" download speed because obviously you'd be limited by the physical link capacity
Why _does_ wireless plan cost 30/month for 3Gigs of data? It's not like other competitors are rushing in to offer something better.
The TSA was created to comfort passengers after 9/11 by providing a highly visible change to the airport security measures
I am pretty sure TSA was created for Chertoff to be able to sell as many $250,000 scanners as possible, and it has done perfectly well in that intended task.
I also sometimes wonder if bottled water/soda vendors had a hand in the "3-oz liquid" policy (particularly when I see a dude with several cases of water bottles passing by the same security check that took my soda can), but that's probably just a happy coincidence.
They are stopping Citizens from traveling, and the issue has absolutely nothing to do with commerce of any kind.
You think they follow common sense, but they don't. How does personally grown (for private use) marijuana affect interstate commerce? It doesn't. But they ruled that it counted anyway.
So now you have the constitution in conflict with itself, and off to the supremes you go.
Hah! If they managed to connect privately grown, for private consumption marijuana to "interstate commerce", then I suspect state-to-state flight would be a piece of cake. Don't count on supreme court...
I hope it is law, because they can certainly harass/detain and fine you ($10,000 for refusing both scan and pat down, I hear). If they can fine you $10K based on "policy" then we are truly screwed.
Those powers are not granted to it, so instead they simply bribe the states into passing laws to their intended effect by threatening to withhold transportation money.
That is absolutely true, but don't forget that supreme court had helpfully allowed to enforce many rules through the "interstate commerce clause". I believe there was only one case where government was stopped (and that was claiming that a hand-gun brought to school could have affected interstate commerce through the potential increase in violence/gangs). Every other claim was cheerfully supported by supreme court.
The TSA are wasting boatloads of money sexually assaulting and generally harassing everyone they can get their hand on.
They are also spurring the economy! They have created a market for $250,000 scanner machines (without a safety study that would normally delay such devices). They have created a whole industry that now produces "TSA-approved" liquid bottles, TSA-approved luggage locks and laptop bags... And they nearly doubled prices of water/soda in the airport. So it's not just sexual assault.
And Paul, as much as he may appeal to some people, is one fall away from a hip replacement.
Yeah, _that_ is the issue with Ron Paul
It's not the fact that he is opposed to waging 5-10 wars while most Republicans would like to continue what Obama does and attack Iran for good measure.
It's not the fact that Ron Paul is opposed to PATRIOT act, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, TSA, etc. I am no longer sure who supports pro-war and anti-terrorist craze more, Republicans or Democrats, but I am sure that not a single politician seems to be interested in fixing the damage caused by those things.
And Ron Paul is also the guy who wants to abolish IRS and a large number of (somewhat useful) government departments. ... but yeah, it's the "hip thing", of course. (For the record, I do admire Ron Paul for honesty and anti-war/anti-PATRIOT stance)
BTW, the Dems had both houses of Congress for most of Obama's first term. So I guess you can blame those damned dirty Dem Congress members too.
I call bullshit. Democrats had 59 votes + 1 Lieberman (who is hardly Democrat). Every time Republicans chose to filibuster (which was nearly always), requiring 61 votes to push something through, the majority meant nothing.
this is a large part of the reason I'm a Paul supporter -- he actually has a long voting history that almost invariably matches his rhetoric.
I highly admire that fact -- if only we had more honest politicians like Ron Paul...
But he is planning to eliminate IRS, Dept. of Public Health, public schools, etc. How far can one get with that plan? Having principles is good. Not being realistic is bad.
To the sibling poster who claims that you "need to vote for him the next time, too", that's patently ridiculous.
Oh, but you really do. That's what Obama must be counting on. Have you even _heard_ what the (viable) Republican contenders are saying? Gingrich/Romney/Santorum must be walking close to (if not past) the mark of being declared clinically insane.
TFA states that it was an airline official who refused to allow the passenger to board, not an agent of the government.
This is not an accident! The airlines are purposely referring to all their rules as "government mandated" to stop customers from arguing. As I understand it, many of their rules aren't actually mandated by anyone but the airlines themselves.
I dislike the fines, but this is EXACTLY the way things like this should be tried out. Try things at relatively small scale and on a population that volunteers for it. This is exactly the way medical research is carried out.
Aha, so the equivalent medical research would be to start with 100 sick patients and then charge fines (scare off by fees) and expel the patients that are feeling sicker. You are guaranteed to do better than all the other studies (that have to evaluate all 100 patients at the end)!
I'm glad some schools out there are trying something different, esp if it seems to be working.
I would not argue if that's a good or a bad thing (though I disagree with you). However, I think you are missing the point. It is not working because students learn better as a result of strict rules/fines/etc. It is working by filtering because bad students are held back/fined/scared off. This model only works for small private schools, since public schools don't get to eliminate bad students.
If you don't want your kid to be educated with a strict set of rules in the school, then choose a different school.
Oooh, you are SO missing the point. There is no problem with a private school running like that. But they are being compared to public schools. And there is least talk about replacing some schools, because "these do better". But they do better by essentially scaring off undisciplined and underprivileged (i.e. poor) students. Public schools can't do that.
They're not imposing fines on a whim. You sent your kids to their school, their rules were agreed to.
They are posing as and comparing themselves to a public school! And they are lobbying to replace more public schools. This "miracle" system will break down if they are unable to charge money and then scare off poor and undisciplined students. Public schools don't get to filter their students to focus on the good ones only.
A splash screen says "Don't worry Mr. Computer User, this program has successfully launched and is now loading." Without the splash, you'd sit and wonder if the program was loading or not...
Most developers clearly don't know what the splash screens are for, though. Many applications (that I dealt with) show NO progress bar. All they do is stick mandatory "always on top" flag, lest I try to use something else while the app loads. It is obviously preferable that the user stare at the static splash screen and try to intuit where the load progress happens to be at the moment.
They are good for really long processes (OS or window-system startup, game loading), because they give confirmation that something is really happening.
Most of the splash screens I have seen do not have a progress bar, so it tells you nothing about whether something is happening. What they do all remember to enforce is the "always on top" option, however. So while the splash screens provide no useful information, they do make it difficult to use anything else while the application loads. I always stop and wonder who thought "This is what users want!"
If by "we", you mean a few hundred people who donate 80%+ of the politician's budgets, then I agree with you. Running for election has gotten way, way too expensive (it was never cheap, but costs apparently are rising exponentially). As I understand it, currently about 96% of the politicians who had more money than their opponent win the election.
A number of things that have very broad support of population majority on both Republican and Democrat side clearly have no chance of passing. How's _that_ for democracy?
you need a signed agreement with the company in question to perform penetration testing, otherwise it's illegal, no matter what your motivations are.
Indeed, I am not sure what is this "ethical hacking defense" that the summary refers to. That may have prevented him from going to jail for a decade instead (i.e. if he had also sold private information or did some obvious damage he'd be punished further). But it isn't a defense, more of a good topic to bring up at sentencing.
Slashdot Mirror
I envision that in the future, innocent people will be killed and new excuses will be created
Innocent people are already being killed. It may not be happening in US quite yet, but the number of civilian casualties and children from drone strikes in all those "-stans" is already quite high. There is some debate on exactly how many casualties there were. The humanitarian organizations and observers vary in estimates. The White House position is somewhere between "there are no drone programs" and "precision of drones/intelligence is so awesome that they never kill bad people".
I suppose any politician that tries to count the civilian casualties will be branded as soft on terrorism, so except Ron Paul no one says anything
Drones I can understand, they're primarily detailed to doing surveillance or limited to small munitions, but now we're talking about a full bomber that could be remote controlled?
If this isn't the embodiment of "slippery slope", then I don't know what is! So drones are ok because they only kill up to a dozen people at a time? You draw the line at a hackable/unmanned device that can really do some damage? How many people does it take to count?
Drones are NOT OK. Well, surveillance ones (outside of US) are probably ok, but otherwise they create a video-game-like situation where no risks are taken and mistakes are less connected to those committing them. Makes it way too easy to order an extra strike here and there (yes, I know that the official position is "drones never kill good people", but I find it unlikely). Just because drones are already being used without any debate does not make them ok. Quote the opposite, in fact.
Also he asked fora new roommate cuz he didnt wanna room with a gay
You say that like it's a bad thing (well, he should have asked to move out himself, of course). If one is uncomfortable with a gay roommate they should part ways rather than power through. You should respect other people (their preferences, etc), but you certainly don't have to be comfortable living with them.
You know that you are allowed to discriminate by gender when searching for roommates (e.g., sharing common bathroom/kitchen/etc.) on craigslist? I assume that is similar.
Porn drove the Video Cassette business and is probably responsible for VHS defeating the superior Beta format.
I hear that "superior" Beta format also lost because it was more expensive and would (for a while) insist on 60 minute limitation to avoid compromising quality. Even when movies clearly needed more than 1hour. "Technically superior" and "worth the price for a buyer" are rarely the same thing.
The rental agency is happy to rent you a Corvette for lots of money that can do almost 200MPH, in spite of the fact that most roads are "throttled" to 30-70MPH. And if there are too many people driving, you might only get 5MPH.
Sorry, how is this "informative"? No one is complaining that they got throttled because of network overload or state-based network link regulation (your analogy). People are complaining of being throttled after using up 3Gigs of data (or so). In your analogy it'd be after your first three hours of driving the Corvette, regardless of speed limits or road congestion.
"you can use unlimited data up to this particular limit at which point you will be charged X/throttled/something else".
There is a big difference between "charged" and "throttled". I assume that if they ever tried to charge users for an "unlimited" plan, they would be sued much faster
I believe the argument is that "unlimited" refers to amount of data and not the speed. You certainly can't argue that you expected "unlimited" download speed because obviously you'd be limited by the physical link capacity
Why _does_ wireless plan cost 30/month for 3Gigs of data? It's not like other competitors are rushing in to offer something better.
The TSA was created to comfort passengers after 9/11 by providing a highly visible change to the airport security measures
I am pretty sure TSA was created for Chertoff to be able to sell as many $250,000 scanners as possible, and it has done perfectly well in that intended task.
I also sometimes wonder if bottled water/soda vendors had a hand in the "3-oz liquid" policy (particularly when I see a dude with several cases of water bottles passing by the same security check that took my soda can), but that's probably just a happy coincidence.
They are stopping Citizens from traveling, and the issue has absolutely nothing to do with commerce of any kind.
You think they follow common sense, but they don't. How does personally grown (for private use) marijuana affect interstate commerce? It doesn't. But they ruled that it counted anyway.
So now you have the constitution in conflict with itself, and off to the supremes you go.
Hah! If they managed to connect privately grown, for private consumption marijuana to "interstate commerce", then I suspect state-to-state flight would be a piece of cake. Don't count on supreme court...
But is the TSA stuff law, or policy?
I hope it is law, because they can certainly harass/detain and fine you ($10,000 for refusing both scan and pat down, I hear). If they can fine you $10K based on "policy" then we are truly screwed.
Those powers are not granted to it, so instead they simply bribe the states into passing laws to their intended effect by threatening to withhold transportation money.
That is absolutely true, but don't forget that supreme court had helpfully allowed to enforce many rules through the "interstate commerce clause". I believe there was only one case where government was stopped (and that was claiming that a hand-gun brought to school could have affected interstate commerce through the potential increase in violence/gangs). Every other claim was cheerfully supported by supreme court.
The TSA are wasting boatloads of money sexually assaulting and generally harassing everyone they can get their hand on.
They are also spurring the economy! They have created a market for $250,000 scanner machines (without a safety study that would normally delay such devices). They have created a whole industry that now produces "TSA-approved" liquid bottles, TSA-approved luggage locks and laptop bags... And they nearly doubled prices of water/soda in the airport. So it's not just sexual assault.
And Paul, as much as he may appeal to some people, is one fall away from a hip replacement.
Yeah, _that_ is the issue with Ron Paul
... but yeah, it's the "hip thing", of course. (For the record, I do admire Ron Paul for honesty and anti-war/anti-PATRIOT stance)
It's not the fact that he is opposed to waging 5-10 wars while most Republicans would like to continue what Obama does and attack Iran for good measure.
It's not the fact that Ron Paul is opposed to PATRIOT act, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, TSA, etc. I am no longer sure who supports pro-war and anti-terrorist craze more, Republicans or Democrats, but I am sure that not a single politician seems to be interested in fixing the damage caused by those things.
And Ron Paul is also the guy who wants to abolish IRS and a large number of (somewhat useful) government departments.
BTW, the Dems had both houses of Congress for most of Obama's first term. So I guess you can blame those damned dirty Dem Congress members too.
I call bullshit. Democrats had 59 votes + 1 Lieberman (who is hardly Democrat). Every time Republicans chose to filibuster (which was nearly always), requiring 61 votes to push something through, the majority meant nothing.
this is a large part of the reason I'm a Paul supporter -- he actually has a long voting history that almost invariably matches his rhetoric.
I highly admire that fact -- if only we had more honest politicians like Ron Paul...
But he is planning to eliminate IRS, Dept. of Public Health, public schools, etc. How far can one get with that plan? Having principles is good. Not being realistic is bad.
To the sibling poster who claims that you "need to vote for him the next time, too", that's patently ridiculous.
Oh, but you really do. That's what Obama must be counting on. Have you even _heard_ what the (viable) Republican contenders are saying? Gingrich/Romney/Santorum must be walking close to (if not past) the mark of being declared clinically insane.
TFA states that it was an airline official who refused to allow the passenger to board, not an agent of the government.
This is not an accident! The airlines are purposely referring to all their rules as "government mandated" to stop customers from arguing. As I understand it, many of their rules aren't actually mandated by anyone but the airlines themselves.
I dislike the fines, but this is EXACTLY the way things like this should be tried out. Try things at relatively small scale and on a population that volunteers for it. This is exactly the way medical research is carried out.
Aha, so the equivalent medical research would be to start with 100 sick patients and then charge fines (scare off by fees) and expel the patients that are feeling sicker. You are guaranteed to do better than all the other studies (that have to evaluate all 100 patients at the end)!
I'm glad some schools out there are trying something different, esp if it seems to be working.
I would not argue if that's a good or a bad thing (though I disagree with you). However, I think you are missing the point. It is not working because students learn better as a result of strict rules/fines/etc. It is working by filtering because bad students are held back/fined/scared off. This model only works for small private schools, since public schools don't get to eliminate bad students.
If you don't want your kid to be educated with a strict set of rules in the school, then choose a different school.
Oooh, you are SO missing the point. There is no problem with a private school running like that. But they are being compared to public schools. And there is least talk about replacing some schools, because "these do better". But they do better by essentially scaring off undisciplined and underprivileged (i.e. poor) students. Public schools can't do that.
They're not imposing fines on a whim. You sent your kids to their school, their rules were agreed to.
They are posing as and comparing themselves to a public school! And they are lobbying to replace more public schools. This "miracle" system will break down if they are unable to charge money and then scare off poor and undisciplined students. Public schools don't get to filter their students to focus on the good ones only.
A splash screen says "Don't worry Mr. Computer User, this program has successfully launched and is now loading." Without the splash, you'd sit and wonder if the program was loading or not...
Most developers clearly don't know what the splash screens are for, though. Many applications (that I dealt with) show NO progress bar. All they do is stick mandatory "always on top" flag, lest I try to use something else while the app loads. It is obviously preferable that the user stare at the static splash screen and try to intuit where the load progress happens to be at the moment.
They are good for really long processes (OS or window-system startup, game loading), because they give confirmation that something is really happening.
Most of the splash screens I have seen do not have a progress bar, so it tells you nothing about whether something is happening. What they do all remember to enforce is the "always on top" option, however. So while the splash screens provide no useful information, they do make it difficult to use anything else while the application loads. I always stop and wonder who thought "This is what users want!"
Politicians only keep their jobs if we let them.
If by "we", you mean a few hundred people who donate 80%+ of the politician's budgets, then I agree with you. Running for election has gotten way, way too expensive (it was never cheap, but costs apparently are rising exponentially). As I understand it, currently about 96% of the politicians who had more money than their opponent win the election.
A number of things that have very broad support of population majority on both Republican and Democrat side clearly have no chance of passing. How's _that_ for democracy?
you need a signed agreement with the company in question to perform penetration testing, otherwise it's illegal, no matter what your motivations are.
Indeed, I am not sure what is this "ethical hacking defense" that the summary refers to. That may have prevented him from going to jail for a decade instead (i.e. if he had also sold private information or did some obvious damage he'd be punished further). But it isn't a defense, more of a good topic to bring up at sentencing.