That's assuming walking is the main way of locomoting for intelligent species. An intelligent species could just as easily be marine or avian. Or maybe they could bounce - especially if they evolve in low-gravity environments. Or they could roll, or ooze, or tunnel. A biped might be the best adapte shape for walking, but not necessarily for general locomotion, particularly in non-Earth environments.
Screw the KGB, look into the German Democratic Republic. They had more informers per capita than any other society in recorded history. There was a ratio of 1:63 full-time informers. Including part-time informers, the ratio was approximately 1:6.5. The Germans are still compiling personal files from the records the Stasi attempted to destroy; at current rates it will take another 375 years to finish re-assembling the estimated 37,500,000 sheets of shredded paper.
Personally, I wouldn't care if they collected information, as long as I could trust the government. But I don't. So I do.
I'm not saying Jesus wasn't human; Christian theology (or at least protestant theology, I don't know much about Catholic theology) says that Jesus was fully man and fully God. He wasn't God in some sort of pantomine human-suit. He had a full experience of the human condition.
I don't doubt that Jesus was physically capable of marrying, sexual intercourse, and fathering a child, just as he was perfectly capable of suffering pain and dying. But the Bible gives no indication that that was the case (the Gospel of Phillip not being a part of the Bible). It may be that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene, and that he kissed her on the mouth without necessarily being married to her, or sleeping with her. Personally, I doubt it; it seems like an attempt to tack a love interest on to make the story more exciting.
You can be fairly certain that the claim to Jesus' divinity was not manufactured by the Church, regardless of whether you actually believe it. Documents written by non-Christians have been found describing the early Church, and the fact that they worship Jesus as God; documents that date back before the Church had any political power.
The Priory of Sion has only existed for around fifty years or so, and was founded by a few friends as a joke. Read more here.
A quote:
In 1996, Andre told the BBC: "The Priory of Sion doesn't exist anymore. We were never involved in any activities of a political nature. It was four friends who came together to have fun. We called ourselves the Priory of Sion because there was a mountain by the same name close-by. I haven't seen Pierre Plantard in over 20 years and I don't know what he's up to but he always had a great imagination. I don't know why people try to make such a big thing out of nothing."
Dan Brown's book was reasonably well-written fiction, but you have to realise that the facts presented to support the premise are part of the fiction - the sourcebooks he quotes in the text (notable Holy Blood, Holy Grail are not generally considered reliable, more like sensational conspiracy-theory publications.)
In addition to the problems with the Priory of Sion, he also gets most of the stuff about Opus Dei wrong (they also exist, you can look them up online), and the stuff about the Council of Nicea voting on Jesus divinity (there was a similar vote, but Da Vinci's book claimed it was "close" - it was actually 300 to 2 ). He also claims there were 5 million women burnt as witches, which is an impossibly high figure - even adding every single death (not just burnings) of both genders (and witchcraft was not, as now, a thing necessarily female), 5 million is still absurdly high. The interpretation of Da Vinci's work is also suspect - see the first link I posted for pictures of the Last Supper and commentry. I also was curious, and looked up the Madonna of the Rocks, but I couldn't see anything like what was described in the book.
The Da Vinci Code was an interesting read, but nobody who knows anything about the subject matter actually takes its claims seriously; even Holy Blood, Holy Grail which was intended(unlike TDVC) to be a non-fiction is taken with large amounts of scepticism.
Just the thought of using RAID-0 makes me shiver. The only people who should use this are people who keep good backups, and like using them. The speed gains are of little use for individuals, and for the professionals or corporations that might actually want the speed-up, the chances of data-loss are too high.
That's not to say there isn't a purpose for RAID-0 - it teaches people how useful backups are. The hard way.
I was speaking about the voters' education. GWB was not elected because of his education, he was because of the lack of education of the population (most of the poors don't vote in the USA even though they would have a big influence if they supported a third candidate)
As I said before, I would argue the problem is with the way US elections run, rather than the education of the constituents.
This is a common misunderstanding of the patent system and of copyrights. Copyrights do not regulate knowledge in any way, they regulate copy, they do not forbid "inspirated" (inspired ?) work.
Copyrights do restrict knowledge. They prevent the propogation of material. If you want to know something, you have to buy the book (or get the information from someone who is willing to give their copyrighted material away for free). That means that knowledge is restricted to those who can pay the distributors. I'm not arguing wether copyright is right or wrong here, but it does in fact restrict knowledge.
And, yes, I suppose you're right about patents. They don't restrict information, they just prevent people from being able to do anything with certain information until a certain term has expired.
Silly ? Any opinion is worth having if it's argumented
You're right in a sense - an opinions worth rests on its arguments. If its arguments are sensible, it's a sensible opinion; if its arguments are silly, it's a silly opinion. My response to your opinion was a reaction to seeing far too many people say "I have a right to XXXXXXXX" while having no conception as to what they were actually saying.
Regarding education not being a right, well, this is your opinion
No, its not. In a technical sense, "rights" are legal definitions. What rights you have are a matter of legality, not a matter of opinion.
If you have a "right" to something, it cannot legally be denied you (with convicted criminals being a special case). Most of the rights granted citizens are things like those enumerated in the US Declaration of Independance - "life, libery and pursuit of happiness". These things might be thought of as being "natural" rights. That is, it takes some form of external force to abrogate those rights - they are a "default" state. In the case of education, it takes an active application of an oustide influence to educate someone.
If a government was to declare that their citizens had a "right" to education, it would open a whole can of worms. Expelling or suspending someone from a school, for example, would be a violation of their right. It would mean that any sort of academic restrictions on who could take what course would be a violation of people's rights - it would probably result in hundreds of people without sufficient aptitude taking medical or legal courses. There would probably be insufficient instructors for those subjects, meaning an inferior education for that proportion of students who actually have a chance of graduating.
If I remember correctly, the goal of the state is to protect and serve the citizens. And it is the interest of every democraty to have citizens as highly educated as possible
Yes. But it's also in the interest of a democracy for every citizen to have a job - but declare employment a right and suddenly every unemployed person is having their rights violated. Just because it would be good to have something, doesn't mean that thing should be a right.
(see what the United States now have as a president because of restricting access to college education to a wealthy minority).
George Bush's actions have nothing to do with restriction of education; he had access to the best available. If you're talking about the people who voted him in, well, that's up to debate. I personally think it's more the case of the US electoral system (instant runoff and compulsory voting would improve things dramatically I think).
The air we breathe is free, and I - with the majority of europeans - think the knowledge with which we build our citizen brains and spirits should be too.
And yet European nations still have copyrights and patents - designed specifically to restrict knowldege. I have no problem with information being free - fine by me - but education implies a lot more than a pile of textbooks. It implies professors, examinations, laboratory equipment, etc. In fact, with the sort of stuff you can find online, I'd say it would be possible to educate yourself fairly well - at least on technical topics. But access to information isn't the same thing as an education.
Don't be silly. Education isn't a right - you have the right to pursue an education if you want to, but the government is under no moral obligation to ensure all its citizens are educated.
On the other hand, any government should realise the benefits of having a large segment of their population educated. Personally, I think the Australian way is pretty good. The government will give any Australian citizen a loan with no interest for their first degree (indexation applies, but not interest). If you pay a part of your fees each semester up front, you get a discount. When you start earning more than $15,000, then you have to start making repayments through your tax return. Everyone has the opportunity of getting an education, government doesn't spend too much money (it spends money on people who get a degree, but never earn over $15,000 a year, and for the subsidised discount when people pay up-front, but for the vast majority, it breaks even.) and young people are given incentives to keep themselves debt-free.
The parents point is that the question was not testing your knowledge of geometry. The question was testing your ability to use a protractor. Of course, in that case, the question waa artificial, and stupid. They should have written a question which could only be solved by using a protractor, not one whose answer could be found more efficiently using geometry.
Why, as a Linux user, would I need this sort of insurance? If (and this is a large if) Linux violates a valid patent, then the people liable are the creators. When Eolas thought Microsoft was violating their patent, they sued Microsoft, not all their users. If Linux is found to be in violation, the people liable will be people like Red Hat, Suse, etc.
What you're talking about is "marketing" not "manufacture" or "distribution". If you manage to create a new super-algorithm, how is BigCorp supposed to figure it out just by purchasing a binary copy of your program? If the algorithm is obvious enough that a look at the working program is sufficient to show how it works, then it shouldn't qualify for a patent in the first place. If BigCorp downloads your program, looks at it, and creates their own algorithm that does a similar thing in a different way, then that wouldn't be covered by your patent anyway.
In the mean time, all the BigCorps of the real world have patented obvious algorithms all over the place, so if an inventor comes up with something new, he'll have to cross-license his patent to them anyway to avoid being sued into bankruptcy for violating their "summation of two integral numbers via electronic manipulation logic gates" patents.
I don't get the real problem with this. The summary says that, all other things being equal, MSNBC pages get priority. So what? If the heuristic analysing a pages' relevance gives the same value to multiple pages, what criteria do you use to figure out a display order? Assuming their releveance algorithm (which is the part of a search engine the public cares about) works properly, then the MSNBC page would be just as relevant as any of the following few pages. Now if their heuristic pumped MSNBC pages ahead of more relevant non-MSNBC, that would be worthy of discussion. But in that case, that would just be a deliberate flaw in Newsbot, meaning it would produce less relevant results, meaning in turn that fewer people would use it.
The real difference between software and hardware patents is the time taken to bring it to market. If you invent a mechanical device, if you want to market it, you need to find some way to mass produce it. Unless you are independantly wealthy, that means finding someone who owns a manufactuting plant or two, and getting them to make the device for you. This means that you have to let somebody into your confidence. After you've gone around having meetings with ten or twenty manufacturers, there's ten or twenty people who know a good deal about your invention. You need a patent to ensure that they can't just start ripping off your invention without cutting you in.
Software, on the other hand, as intangible data, is dead easy to replicate and distribute. Put up a website, buy a bit of bandwidth - and nowadays, setup a torrent, and bingo - the equivelant of mechanical "manufacture and distribution". You don't need a patent to protect you while you struggle to manufacture your software and bring it to market.
It depends; there's a road near my place that is marked as a 60k zone; it's three lanes wide and is the major road that runs through my suburb. Everybody speeds along it because it is zoned so inappropriately. It's a case of people losing respect for the law, because the law is untenable. Is it still illegal? Yes. Should it be illegal? No.
Whack your car up on jacks, get in and spin the wheels up to 140km/h twenty times or so. Let the government spend money figuring out which "speeding violations" occurred on the road, and which in your garage on blocks.
You're right. In the same vein, if you go the toilet during an ad break on TV, you are actually stealing! You are costing those TV stations money. Unless you want to lose free-to-air television, you must only leave the couch for toilet/snack breaks during officially sanctioned time periods.
The place of Linux is where the hardware of modern IT landscape is going - sub-50k servers.
Agreed. But its not going there anytime soon. Companies with hugely expensive hardware are not going to just chuck it all out and start again. Just as there are still corporations who have huge programs written in Cobol or Fortran, there will still be companies with mainframes running Unix. Unix isn't going anywhere, not for a long time.
Which market figures? The ones that are quoting how many new machines shipped with what OS? A high-end SPARC server costs $2.5 million - what weighting is that given compared to a $500 Walmart special? The ones from weblog traffic? How many people surf from their company's server? Then there's the fact that big iron like that isn't chucked every three years for newer models, like cheap workstations.
Linux is good, and I'm not denying it, but it's place, at the moment, is as a personal server, or as part of a cluster of cheap computers. It's not quite on the desktop yet; it sure as hell ain't running on the company's million-dollar hardware.
Linux isn't a Unix. It isn't POSIX compliant. And while Linux is gettting more room on Intel-farms, people with Suns, and other big machines are still going to go for Solaris, or other real Unixes.
Um, that wasn't spin, that was a disclaimer. The Open Group has produced a document that endorses open standard. It's business is compliance testing for an open standard. The editors wanted to make sure everyone knew this, before people started going on about how it is just a deceitful business ploy.
Why does an id have to be unique in the page? XHTML is designed to contain nested elements - surely you could use nested IDs. So that, for example, you could have a
<input type="text" id="username"/>
inside both a
<form id="logon">
and a
<form id="register">
and reference one as logon.username and the other as register.username in CSS? (OK, . is already taken, but you get the point).
Secondly, the positional layout is a pain in the butt - and that's not even taking into consideration the browser problems. When designing a layout, it's conceptually much easier to divide the page into cells, and fit elements into the cells. Now, I agree using table tags for this is a hack, but why can't we have something like:
Chuck in something to let you set the size of the columns/rows, and you're done. Oh, and give me some way to set the horizontal alignment of a non-text element inside its container - I find myself using transitional simply so I can add an "align" tag to images and suchlike.
Only because the way radio groups are setup in HTML/XHTML sucks. This is a NESTED STRUCTURE! Make a bloody tag and stick your radio button inside that.
Slashdot Mirror
That's assuming walking is the main way of locomoting for intelligent species. An intelligent species could just as easily be marine or avian. Or maybe they could bounce - especially if they evolve in low-gravity environments. Or they could roll, or ooze, or tunnel. A biped might be the best adapte shape for walking, but not necessarily for general locomotion, particularly in non-Earth environments.
Screw the KGB, look into the German Democratic Republic. They had more informers per capita than any other society in recorded history. There was a ratio of 1:63 full-time informers. Including part-time informers, the ratio was approximately 1:6.5. The Germans are still compiling personal files from the records the Stasi attempted to destroy; at current rates it will take another 375 years to finish re-assembling the estimated 37,500,000 sheets of shredded paper.
Personally, I wouldn't care if they collected information, as long as I could trust the government. But I don't. So I do.
I'm not saying Jesus wasn't human; Christian theology (or at least protestant theology, I don't know much about Catholic theology) says that Jesus was fully man and fully God. He wasn't God in some sort of pantomine human-suit. He had a full experience of the human condition.
I don't doubt that Jesus was physically capable of marrying, sexual intercourse, and fathering a child, just as he was perfectly capable of suffering pain and dying. But the Bible gives no indication that that was the case (the Gospel of Phillip not being a part of the Bible). It may be that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene, and that he kissed her on the mouth without necessarily being married to her, or sleeping with her. Personally, I doubt it; it seems like an attempt to tack a love interest on to make the story more exciting.
You can be fairly certain that the claim to Jesus' divinity was not manufactured by the Church, regardless of whether you actually believe it. Documents written by non-Christians have been found describing the early Church, and the fact that they worship Jesus as God; documents that date back before the Church had any political power.
In addition to the problems with the Priory of Sion, he also gets most of the stuff about Opus Dei wrong (they also exist, you can look them up online), and the stuff about the Council of Nicea voting on Jesus divinity (there was a similar vote, but Da Vinci's book claimed it was "close" - it was actually 300 to 2 ). He also claims there were 5 million women burnt as witches, which is an impossibly high figure - even adding every single death (not just burnings) of both genders (and witchcraft was not, as now, a thing necessarily female), 5 million is still absurdly high. The interpretation of Da Vinci's work is also suspect - see the first link I posted for pictures of the Last Supper and commentry. I also was curious, and looked up the Madonna of the Rocks, but I couldn't see anything like what was described in the book.
The Da Vinci Code was an interesting read, but nobody who knows anything about the subject matter actually takes its claims seriously; even Holy Blood, Holy Grail which was intended(unlike TDVC) to be a non-fiction is taken with large amounts of scepticism.
Just the thought of using RAID-0 makes me shiver. The only people who should use this are people who keep good backups, and like using them. The speed gains are of little use for individuals, and for the professionals or corporations that might actually want the speed-up, the chances of data-loss are too high.
That's not to say there isn't a purpose for RAID-0 - it teaches people how useful backups are. The hard way.
I was speaking about the voters' education. GWB was not elected because of his education, he was because of the lack of education of the population (most of the poors don't vote in the USA even though they would have a big influence if they supported a third candidate)
As I said before, I would argue the problem is with the way US elections run, rather than the education of the constituents.
This is a common misunderstanding of the patent system and of copyrights. Copyrights do not regulate knowledge in any way, they regulate copy, they do not forbid "inspirated" (inspired ?) work.
Copyrights do restrict knowledge. They prevent the propogation of material. If you want to know something, you have to buy the book (or get the information from someone who is willing to give their copyrighted material away for free). That means that knowledge is restricted to those who can pay the distributors. I'm not arguing wether copyright is right or wrong here, but it does in fact restrict knowledge.
And, yes, I suppose you're right about patents. They don't restrict information, they just prevent people from being able to do anything with certain information until a certain term has expired.
Silly ? Any opinion is worth having if it's argumented
You're right in a sense - an opinions worth rests on its arguments. If its arguments are sensible, it's a sensible opinion; if its arguments are silly, it's a silly opinion. My response to your opinion was a reaction to seeing far too many people say "I have a right to XXXXXXXX" while having no conception as to what they were actually saying.
Regarding education not being a right, well, this is your opinion
No, its not. In a technical sense, "rights" are legal definitions. What rights you have are a matter of legality, not a matter of opinion.
If you have a "right" to something, it cannot legally be denied you (with convicted criminals being a special case). Most of the rights granted citizens are things like those enumerated in the US Declaration of Independance - "life, libery and pursuit of happiness". These things might be thought of as being "natural" rights. That is, it takes some form of external force to abrogate those rights - they are a "default" state. In the case of education, it takes an active application of an oustide influence to educate someone.
If a government was to declare that their citizens had a "right" to education, it would open a whole can of worms. Expelling or suspending someone from a school, for example, would be a violation of their right. It would mean that any sort of academic restrictions on who could take what course would be a violation of people's rights - it would probably result in hundreds of people without sufficient aptitude taking medical or legal courses. There would probably be insufficient instructors for those subjects, meaning an inferior education for that proportion of students who actually have a chance of graduating.
If I remember correctly, the goal of the state is to protect and serve the citizens. And it is the interest of every democraty to have citizens as highly educated as possible
Yes. But it's also in the interest of a democracy for every citizen to have a job - but declare employment a right and suddenly every unemployed person is having their rights violated. Just because it would be good to have something, doesn't mean that thing should be a right.
(see what the United States now have as a president because of restricting access to college education to a wealthy minority).
George Bush's actions have nothing to do with restriction of education; he had access to the best available. If you're talking about the people who voted him in, well, that's up to debate. I personally think it's more the case of the US electoral system (instant runoff and compulsory voting would improve things dramatically I think).
The air we breathe is free, and I - with the majority of europeans - think the knowledge with which we build our citizen brains and spirits should be too.
And yet European nations still have copyrights and patents - designed specifically to restrict knowldege. I have no problem with information being free - fine by me - but education implies a lot more than a pile of textbooks. It implies professors, examinations, laboratory equipment, etc. In fact, with the sort of stuff you can find online, I'd say it would be possible to educate yourself fairly well - at least on technical topics. But access to information isn't the same thing as an education.
Don't be silly. Education isn't a right - you have the right to pursue an education if you want to, but the government is under no moral obligation to ensure all its citizens are educated.
On the other hand, any government should realise the benefits of having a large segment of their population educated. Personally, I think the Australian way is pretty good. The government will give any Australian citizen a loan with no interest for their first degree (indexation applies, but not interest). If you pay a part of your fees each semester up front, you get a discount. When you start earning more than $15,000, then you have to start making repayments through your tax return. Everyone has the opportunity of getting an education, government doesn't spend too much money (it spends money on people who get a degree, but never earn over $15,000 a year, and for the subsidised discount when people pay up-front, but for the vast majority, it breaks even.) and young people are given incentives to keep themselves debt-free.
You're so right - virus writers need to be made aware of the dangers of a monoculture.
The parents point is that the question was not testing your knowledge of geometry. The question was testing your ability to use a protractor. Of course, in that case, the question waa artificial, and stupid. They should have written a question which could only be solved by using a protractor, not one whose answer could be found more efficiently using geometry.
Why, as a Linux user, would I need this sort of insurance? If (and this is a large if) Linux violates a valid patent, then the people liable are the creators. When Eolas thought Microsoft was violating their patent, they sued Microsoft, not all their users. If Linux is found to be in violation, the people liable will be people like Red Hat, Suse, etc.
What you're talking about is "marketing" not "manufacture" or "distribution". If you manage to create a new super-algorithm, how is BigCorp supposed to figure it out just by purchasing a binary copy of your program? If the algorithm is obvious enough that a look at the working program is sufficient to show how it works, then it shouldn't qualify for a patent in the first place. If BigCorp downloads your program, looks at it, and creates their own algorithm that does a similar thing in a different way, then that wouldn't be covered by your patent anyway.
In the mean time, all the BigCorps of the real world have patented obvious algorithms all over the place, so if an inventor comes up with something new, he'll have to cross-license his patent to them anyway to avoid being sued into bankruptcy for violating their "summation of two integral numbers via electronic manipulation logic gates" patents.
I don't get the real problem with this. The summary says that, all other things being equal, MSNBC pages get priority. So what? If the heuristic analysing a pages' relevance gives the same value to multiple pages, what criteria do you use to figure out a display order? Assuming their releveance algorithm (which is the part of a search engine the public cares about) works properly, then the MSNBC page would be just as relevant as any of the following few pages. Now if their heuristic pumped MSNBC pages ahead of more relevant non-MSNBC, that would be worthy of discussion. But in that case, that would just be a deliberate flaw in Newsbot, meaning it would produce less relevant results, meaning in turn that fewer people would use it.
Um....who mentioned micropayment torrents? Torrents are just a distribution method, same as HTTP or Electronic Boutique.
The real difference between software and hardware patents is the time taken to bring it to market. If you invent a mechanical device, if you want to market it, you need to find some way to mass produce it. Unless you are independantly wealthy, that means finding someone who owns a manufactuting plant or two, and getting them to make the device for you. This means that you have to let somebody into your confidence. After you've gone around having meetings with ten or twenty manufacturers, there's ten or twenty people who know a good deal about your invention. You need a patent to ensure that they can't just start ripping off your invention without cutting you in.
Software, on the other hand, as intangible data, is dead easy to replicate and distribute. Put up a website, buy a bit of bandwidth - and nowadays, setup a torrent, and bingo - the equivelant of mechanical "manufacture and distribution". You don't need a patent to protect you while you struggle to manufacture your software and bring it to market.
It depends; there's a road near my place that is marked as a 60k zone; it's three lanes wide and is the major road that runs through my suburb. Everybody speeds along it because it is zoned so inappropriately. It's a case of people losing respect for the law, because the law is untenable. Is it still illegal? Yes. Should it be illegal? No.
Whack your car up on jacks, get in and spin the wheels up to 140km/h twenty times or so. Let the government spend money figuring out which "speeding violations" occurred on the road, and which in your garage on blocks.
You're right. In the same vein, if you go the toilet during an ad break on TV, you are actually stealing! You are costing those TV stations money. Unless you want to lose free-to-air television, you must only leave the couch for toilet/snack breaks during officially sanctioned time periods.
The place of Linux is where the hardware of modern IT landscape is going - sub-50k servers.
Agreed. But its not going there anytime soon. Companies with hugely expensive hardware are not going to just chuck it all out and start again. Just as there are still corporations who have huge programs written in Cobol or Fortran, there will still be companies with mainframes running Unix. Unix isn't going anywhere, not for a long time.
Which market figures? The ones that are quoting how many new machines shipped with what OS? A high-end SPARC server costs $2.5 million - what weighting is that given compared to a $500 Walmart special? The ones from weblog traffic? How many people surf from their company's server? Then there's the fact that big iron like that isn't chucked every three years for newer models, like cheap workstations.
Linux is good, and I'm not denying it, but it's place, at the moment, is as a personal server, or as part of a cluster of cheap computers. It's not quite on the desktop yet; it sure as hell ain't running on the company's million-dollar hardware.
Linux isn't a Unix. It isn't POSIX compliant. And while Linux is gettting more room on Intel-farms, people with Suns, and other big machines are still going to go for Solaris, or other real Unixes.
Um, that wasn't spin, that was a disclaimer. The Open Group has produced a document that endorses open standard. It's business is compliance testing for an open standard. The editors wanted to make sure everyone knew this, before people started going on about how it is just a deceitful business ploy.
Why does an id have to be unique in the page? XHTML is designed to contain nested elements - surely you could use nested IDs. So that, for example, you could have a inside both a and a and reference one as logon.username and the other as register.username in CSS? (OK, . is already taken, but you get the point).
Secondly, the positional layout is a pain in the butt - and that's not even taking into consideration the browser problems. When designing a layout, it's conceptually much easier to divide the page into cells, and fit elements into the cells. Now, I agree using table tags for this is a hack, but why can't we have something like:Chuck in something to let you set the size of the columns/rows, and you're done. Oh, and give me some way to set the horizontal alignment of a non-text element inside its container - I find myself using transitional simply so I can add an "align" tag to images and suchlike.
Only because the way radio groups are setup in HTML/XHTML sucks. This is a NESTED STRUCTURE! Make a bloody tag and stick your radio button inside that.
Crime != Terrorism