I'm in two minds, because the rumours highlighted in the summary specifically seem orientated toward creating panic and unrest within a large population - how do you deal with that while maintaining free speech?
So, what if the "rumours" are true, and the Chinese government is trying to hide another Tiananmen Square situation?
Which raises the question of why Hara et al. chose to publish there. That I can't answer, obviously, but will keep it firmly in mind as I read the paper in more detail.
Because it's rather long on speculation and short on facts?
And because there's no way to test any of this for a very long time to come?
Height doesn't mean squat. Zimmerman was bigger, older, and illogically confrontational
Height means quite a lot. Tall people are more intimidating, all other things being equal. Zimmerman was wider, true. But not enough heavier (20 pounds, from what I've read) to actually look all that big.
As to Zimmerman being "illogically confrontational", I'll have to assume you were there and defer to you on that one.
Note, by the way, that I'm about Martin's size, and my father is about Zimmerman's size (we're about an inch taller in both cases). I wouldn't be intimidated by someone my father's size walking up to me unless he was carrying a knife...
but I'd be sketched out by some un-uniformed slob stalking me through the streets after dark. Especially if I was a skinny young kid and he was a large adult male.
I take it you didn't realize that the "skinny young kid" was five inches taller than the "large adult male"?
And not a lot lighter, either.
Do remember that the standard picture of Martin that has appeared in the news constantly is a five-year-old picture - kids change a lot in the five years between 12 and 17....
One guy pointed out that Australia has lots of dangerous (and just plain wierd) animals.
Another guy points out that Africa does too.
And I point out, just because I was bored, that hippos are actually the most dangerous animal to man on the planet (except other men).
Not one of us suggested that "dangerous animals" were an issue to be addressed by the people wanting this telescope.
If *I* were trying to point out that "dangerous animals" were an issue for this telescope, the only one I'd have bothered to mention would have been the Most Dangerous Animal to men - other men....
The paper suggests that evolution favors cooperation
The experiment in question picked "games" that require cooperation to achieve best results. So naturally the paper would suggest that evolution favors cooperation.
Linking reproduction to cooperation might be a reasonable theory. Or not. But this experiment doesn't suggest anything other than "if we make cooperation an asset in our experiment, then cooperation will work better in our experiment".
Not because the bill means anything - I agree that it probably has no effect relative to what is currently allowed - but because we, as a nation, need to get over this urge to make meaningless laws.
If the law has zero net effect, than DON'T MAKE IT LAW!
And if the legislature makes meaningless laws, veto it as a statement of principle. If they want to override, that's their privilege.
He doesn't want to shut down public schools, he wants to shut down the Federal Department of Education, which is an entity that should not exist according to the Constitution, so states can handle it themselves. The post you replied to wasn't correct.
So I assumed. Which was why I tried to suggest the implausibility of shutting down public education (which is beyond the purview of the Feds, even if they were so inclined).
The problem is where they stick enforcing copyrights and patents into a bill that has nothing to do with it, and is otherwise a fairly decent bill.
It doesn't do that.
What it does is define a "cybersecurity system" as one that (among other things) protects copyrights and patents.
It does NOT give the feds any enforcement powers they didn't already have.
It does NOT give "entities" any enforcement powers they didn't already have.
It does NOT specify any criminal penalties for ANYTHING, and only implies criminal penalties for people who are given a security clearance as a result of this bill.
What this bill actually does is allow the feds to share information with antivirus and computer security people. Which they (mostly) can't do now (if it involves knowledge gained covertly, say by spying on the Chinese). It does NOT create new copyright/patent protections.
This is where, as a non-US citizen, I get confused. Government is government, it really doesn't matter whether you call it local, parish, town, county, state or Federal government. They all fit together. You can't just get rid of one element as though it was unnecessary icing on a cake.
In the USA, we have a Federal Constitution. It specifies what the FEDERAL government can do, and what it cannot.
Each State has a Constitution. Which specifies what it can do, and what it cannot.
Local governments don't have Constitutions, but are restricted in what they can do by what the Federal and State Constitutions permit higher levels of government to do.
Then there's INDIVIDUAL Rights, which limit what ANY level of government can do.
Note, for reference, that much of what the Federal government does these days is not, strictly speaking, allowed by the Constitution. But that much of what is unconstitutional for the Federal government is perfectly legal if done by a State government.
Can someone with some US law background explain Why there is a bill needed? to prevent HR or employers to ask for passwords?
I mean: in the rest of the world it is either illegal to ask, or illegal to give the password away. Illegal in italics as it is not strictly speaking against the law (in the) later case but against the TOS definitely. In the former case it is illegal... for what reason should a potential future employer have access to your private "property"?
Hmm, in your case above "illegal" means that a law has already been passed. In the USA, the subject has only recently come up, and someone has decided a law is needed (as happened when the law was passed in other countries), hence the bill.
In your second case, "illegal", it's against the ToS to give someone your password here too. It is not, however, illegal to ASK for your password. Note that this is true everywhere that it is illegal to do it.
He scares the left because he's basically about leaving the states to their own resources, and most states (especially the Red States), don't generate enough GDP to do anything on their own.
Frankly, the USA as a whole doesn't either, or we wouldn't be running trillion dollar per year deficits for the last four years.
Also, state politics are notoriously corrupt and prone to special interest groups (see California).
Do you really believe that the feds are NOT "corrupt and prone to special interest groups"??
After going to thomas.loc.gov and reading the text of the proposed law, it seems that it really is pretty harmless.'
Once you get past the scary definitions, what you have is a law that requires the government and "cybersecurity providers" to not make public any otherwise confidential material relevant to a security breach.
Plus it allows the government to share information it may have about "cybersecurity threats" with outsiders.
The only really interesting bit in the whole thing is that it uses "entity" a lot, and specifically defines it as NOT including "an individual".
So Zimmerman fired his gun, and the kickback made him stumble backwards and fall over, bumping his head on the ground as he fell.
Umm, no.
My daughter, who is far smaller than either Zimmerman or Martin, can fire a.45 without the kickback making her stumble backwards.
1) Stumbling backwards at a firing range will get the Range Safety Officer to kick your ass out.
2) You have to demonstrate some ability to actually shoot a firearm to get a CCW (qualifier - in every State I've lived in. I've no evidence that Florida is different, but stranger things have happened).
Therefore it is EXTREMELY unlikely that your scenario is anything other than the ramblings of someone who knows absolutely nothing about firearms.
or at least a silver star (I know a guy who got two silver stars and doesn't believe that he should have; "I didn't do anything anybody else woudn't have," he said.)
I've never heard of someone who won a medal (CMH, DSC, Silver Star) who didn't say much the same thing.
considering that one of the two pebble-bed reactor ever built and operated [wikipedia.org] is classified as the highest beta-contaminated site worldwide.
Beta-contaminated?!?
Who cares about beta contamination? Wrap the whole reactor in old newspapers, and you've blocked all the beta emissions....
Here's a similar problem from physics:
Model A: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~10 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in 4 seconds.
Model B: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~5 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in ~5.8 seconds.
Time for a ball to fall 100 is slightly over 4 seconds. Ergo, 10 m/s^2 is less wrong than 5 m/s^2.
Intriguing example. Too bad your math was wrong.
Time for the ball to fall 100 meters is about 4.5 seconds, halfway between your predictions in the two models.
Of course, your two predictions are wrong anyway. Should be ~4.5 seconds for model A, and ~6.3 seconds for model B.
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to be Godwinning the thread, but replace "embryo" with "Jew" and you pretty much summarize their attitude....
Just curious, what IS your defnition of "child"? And why?
So, what if the "rumours" are true, and the Chinese government is trying to hide another Tiananmen Square situation?
Because it's rather long on speculation and short on facts?
And because there's no way to test any of this for a very long time to come?
Height means quite a lot. Tall people are more intimidating, all other things being equal. Zimmerman was wider, true. But not enough heavier (20 pounds, from what I've read) to actually look all that big.
As to Zimmerman being "illogically confrontational", I'll have to assume you were there and defer to you on that one.
Note, by the way, that I'm about Martin's size, and my father is about Zimmerman's size (we're about an inch taller in both cases). I wouldn't be intimidated by someone my father's size walking up to me unless he was carrying a knife...
I take it you didn't realize that the "skinny young kid" was five inches taller than the "large adult male"?
And not a lot lighter, either.
Do remember that the standard picture of Martin that has appeared in the news constantly is a five-year-old picture - kids change a lot in the five years between 12 and 17....
Grocery near my house sells eggs in six-packs. Which I find remarkably useful, because I don't use eggs enough to need 12 before they go south on me.
No-one was making up imaginary problems.
One guy pointed out that Australia has lots of dangerous (and just plain wierd) animals.
Another guy points out that Africa does too.
And I point out, just because I was bored, that hippos are actually the most dangerous animal to man on the planet (except other men).
Not one of us suggested that "dangerous animals" were an issue to be addressed by the people wanting this telescope.
If *I* were trying to point out that "dangerous animals" were an issue for this telescope, the only one I'd have bothered to mention would have been the Most Dangerous Animal to men - other men....
The experiment in question picked "games" that require cooperation to achieve best results. So naturally the paper would suggest that evolution favors cooperation.
Linking reproduction to cooperation might be a reasonable theory. Or not. But this experiment doesn't suggest anything other than "if we make cooperation an asset in our experiment, then cooperation will work better in our experiment".
If that were true, he'd have signed it.
Instead, he just refused to veto it, which still makes it law, without your endorsement.
Not because the bill means anything - I agree that it probably has no effect relative to what is currently allowed - but because we, as a nation, need to get over this urge to make meaningless laws.
If the law has zero net effect, than DON'T MAKE IT LAW!
And if the legislature makes meaningless laws, veto it as a statement of principle. If they want to override, that's their privilege.
So I assumed. Which was why I tried to suggest the implausibility of shutting down public education (which is beyond the purview of the Feds, even if they were so inclined).
It doesn't do that.
What it does is define a "cybersecurity system" as one that (among other things) protects copyrights and patents.
It does NOT give the feds any enforcement powers they didn't already have.
It does NOT give "entities" any enforcement powers they didn't already have.
It does NOT specify any criminal penalties for ANYTHING, and only implies criminal penalties for people who are given a security clearance as a result of this bill.
What this bill actually does is allow the feds to share information with antivirus and computer security people. Which they (mostly) can't do now (if it involves knowledge gained covertly, say by spying on the Chinese). It does NOT create new copyright/patent protections.
More people are killed by hippos than by any other animal (other than man himself, of course).
In the USA, we have a Federal Constitution. It specifies what the FEDERAL government can do, and what it cannot.
Each State has a Constitution. Which specifies what it can do, and what it cannot.
Local governments don't have Constitutions, but are restricted in what they can do by what the Federal and State Constitutions permit higher levels of government to do.
Then there's INDIVIDUAL Rights, which limit what ANY level of government can do.
Note, for reference, that much of what the Federal government does these days is not, strictly speaking, allowed by the Constitution. But that much of what is unconstitutional for the Federal government is perfectly legal if done by a State government.
Hmm, in your case above "illegal" means that a law has already been passed. In the USA, the subject has only recently come up, and someone has decided a law is needed (as happened when the law was passed in other countries), hence the bill.
In your second case, "illegal", it's against the ToS to give someone your password here too. It is not, however, illegal to ASK for your password. Note that this is true everywhere that it is illegal to do it.
Frankly, the USA as a whole doesn't either, or we wouldn't be running trillion dollar per year deficits for the last four years.
Do you really believe that the feds are NOT "corrupt and prone to special interest groups"??
How would he manage that? Public schools are run at the State and local level, not by the Federal government.
And the President really doesn't have the power to shut down State and local programs.
After going to thomas.loc.gov and reading the text of the proposed law, it seems that it really is pretty harmless.'
Once you get past the scary definitions, what you have is a law that requires the government and "cybersecurity providers" to not make public any otherwise confidential material relevant to a security breach.
Plus it allows the government to share information it may have about "cybersecurity threats" with outsiders.
The only really interesting bit in the whole thing is that it uses "entity" a lot, and specifically defines it as NOT including "an individual".
Umm, no.
My daughter, who is far smaller than either Zimmerman or Martin, can fire a .45 without the kickback making her stumble backwards.
1) Stumbling backwards at a firing range will get the Range Safety Officer to kick your ass out.
2) You have to demonstrate some ability to actually shoot a firearm to get a CCW (qualifier - in every State I've lived in. I've no evidence that Florida is different, but stranger things have happened).
Therefore it is EXTREMELY unlikely that your scenario is anything other than the ramblings of someone who knows absolutely nothing about firearms.
Note that this seems to have been killed in committee by the Dems before the Reps got around to killing it in committee.
Do you realize that every Keynesian economist that read that is having a heart-attack now? Shame on you!
Your cynical side might make more sense if it remembered that water rights were an issue long before the existence of water companies.
I've never heard of someone who won a medal (CMH, DSC, Silver Star) who didn't say much the same thing.
Beta-contaminated?!?
Who cares about beta contamination? Wrap the whole reactor in old newspapers, and you've blocked all the beta emissions....
Intriguing example. Too bad your math was wrong.
Time for the ball to fall 100 meters is about 4.5 seconds, halfway between your predictions in the two models.
Of course, your two predictions are wrong anyway. Should be ~4.5 seconds for model A, and ~6.3 seconds for model B.