If I lived in nightmare Chicago or some other giant urban utopia, I'd be terrified too.
Gun ownership in Chicago is already highly regulated. Strangely, gun violence in Chicago remains high. How this can be when clearly nobody owns bad guns because they are all illegal baffles me.
You may, of course, feel free to maintain the distinction in professional discussions among gunsmiths and professional legislators. But it's just stupid to expect anybody else to care.
It's not really a question of "is pot harmful". It's a question of "how harmful is pot in comparison to other legal activities". Other people could provide similar anecdotes about the affects of alcohol, gambling, or online games - yet possession of any of those isn't illegal.
Our society is hypocritical. It needs to decide once and for all, whether citizens have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness in a manner they choose, or whether the state abrogates to itself the right to decide for its citizens what level of risk they are allowed to take, and the adopt a consistent policy.
They won't, of course, because a consistent policy will either lead to a lessening of authority and money, as the privatised prison system is forced to downsize, and police authority curtailed, or to mass corruption and civil disobedience as briefly glimpsed in prohibition. So they'll remain happily hypocritical, not because it is the right thing to do, or backed by scientific evidence, but because it is the best way to retain the current balances of power - and that, after all, is what politics is all about.
"There are nearly a billion malnourished people in the world, but all of them could be lifted out of hunger with less than a quarter of the food wasted in Europe and North America"
No, they couldn't, not unless that food could be transported to them and distributed before it became inedible. In countries with good infrastructure, that's not a problem, but those billion malnourished generally don't live in a place with good air freight service, well-maintained highways, and refrigerated trucking.
Any solution to global poverty is going to have to largely rely on bootstrapping local production. Despite importing a lot of food, most western nations export a whole lot more - they have sufficient capacity to feed themselves, and trade for variety/seasonality. Getting developing nations to the point of self sufficiency is key - anything else leaves them dependant on the developed world, which will screw them over when a drought/famine/whatever hits, and we have less excess to give.
Depends what you mean by "bulimia", I guess. Like anorexia, I thought the disease was characterised by its psychological components (ie: binging, guilt, desire for an unattainable ideal, etc) more than the physical means used in response to those drives. For instance, binging followed by taking laxatives, or binging followed by an extreme diet are considered examples of bulimia - but not all people who go an an extreme diet or take laxatives are bulimic.
I don't think this is raw CPU cycles they're looking for here. It's more like: "We're trying to grab information on this guy. We see he visits www.somesite.com.au an awful lot. Let's get access to the computer of somesite's developer, grab his access keys, and modify somesite to deliver our trojan to the target."
Of course, once you've compromised a computer, are you going to just clean it up and let it go? After all that trouble of getting a warrant? Pfft, no - what if you need it again? You're going to list it as a resource and add it to the pile of private computers your agency owns.
It's like asking a girl you haven't even met yet to sleep with you is ridiculous
...except that the girl isn't your elected representative, paid ostensibly to represent your best interests. I also find it interesting how, apparently, it's feasible to create a government agency out of whole cloth, but dismantling it is apparently some epic task that must be composed of a thousand little steps.
If the Republicans succeed in making that happen, the consequences for the nation will be similar to the consequences for anyone else who decides to simply stop paying their bills
I really don't get why this is being spun as the Republicans doing this. From what I can see, both sides are being intransigent - the Rs are demanding that spending is lowered before they consider raising the debt ceiling, the Ds are demanding that the debt ceiling is raised before they consider lowering spending. US fiscal policy looks to me to be more and more like a giant game of chicken. And the thing about chicken is that it needs both people to play.
So what you're saying is that the only petitions that can be taken seriously are on minor and inconsequential issues; that nothing involving wide-sweeping changes or something that's actually likely to make a difference should be submitted, because those are not "serious".
An unfair and unbalanced search result is one where Google is modifying search results to assure that it's services are hight on the results list but those of competirors are buried on page 8. If Google is doing that they are engaging in anti-competitive behaviour because they are conciously trying to drive comptetitors out of business like Microsoft did with Netscape.
So what you're saying is, if Google is just using an algorithmic search method, and it happens to select their own sites because they are popular in their own right and legitimate results, they're not doing anything wrong?
Is there any evidence of this not being the case? email, , maps, videos, calendar, search - all of these have competitors on the first page, and half of them have the non-Google service as the first result.
I don't think the EU gives a rat's ass about what is in Google's blackbox as long as you can put in your search term and get output int the form of fair and balanced search results.
What's a "fair and balanced" result? Wouldn't a search engine returning what it thinks is the best results be "fair and balanced"? Is there any evidence that any of these services being returned aren't what consumers are looking for? Is Google supposed to artificially promote a bunch of crappy map services so it can be seen not to favour its own? Wouldn't that just piss off consumers who are trying to find a good service?
It's bollox. Search stands or falls by it's results. If Google starts doctoring results, then people are going to stop trusting it. What the EU seems to be demanding is that Google doctor its results to fit the EUs opinions on what should be returned.
So? Even if they were, why is that a problem? A search engine exists for end users to find what they're looking for, not to give commercial entities some sort of equal platform for advertising. I ask a question, Google tells me what it thinks the best answer is. What does the EU want? The ability to vet Googles' search algorithms?
No, not really - nothing about this proposition legalizes invading other people's machines and installing unauthorized software on it. Many of those Anonymous attacks were using LOIC, a piece of software that's basically an opt-in for a DDOS swarm. That's why they were caught so easily.
How about both? They're not mutually exclusive, you know. Corning definitely advertises the strength of Gorilla Glass as one of its advantages, not just scratch resistance.
Yeah, it's stronger for it's thickness, but all vendors (not just Apple) tend to use that increased strength to get away with thinner and thinner screens.
Why do you think aluminum is a heavy material? Aluminum alloy has been the primary structural material used in airplanes for over half a century. Advanced non-metals like carbon fiber have higher strength to weight ratios, but aluminum alloys are still quite good.
Aluminium isn't a heavy material - it's just heavier than plastics. It's strength is relatively unimportant, because whether the body's aluminium or plastic, the glass is going to be the weak point anyway. Apple didn't use aluminium for it's physical properties, but for it's aesthetic ones - it feels colder, heavier, more sold and more durable than plastic, even if plastic may actually demonstrate better properties for the use at hand.
According to wikipedia, the original iPhone (thin stamped sheet aluminum back with a plastic RF window) weighed 135g. The 3G/3GS (all-plastic back) weighed 133g/135g. The 4 and the 4S (glass sandwich around a stainless steel frame) were the heavyweights, at 137g/140g. The current generation iPhone 5 (milled aluminum unibody with small glass RF windows on the back) weighs just 112g.
Yeah, the 4Gs were the outstanding winner for "oops, they smashed cause I breathed on them". They're also (still) the ones I see around the place the most.
And the fact that they can't be privately owned (although, practically speaking, cost is a greater factor than legislation) is why the whole "a well-regulated militia can keep the government in check through threat of rebellion" thingy breaks down these days. The government can be more well-armed than its citizens.
Chemical/bio/nuclear weapons are a different matter, as they're restricted under treaty - technically, the government shouldn't be owning/producing them either.
Actually, I'd consider One Nation to be a success story. They drew attention to a relatively large portion of the voting public that was not being heard. They forced the major parties to react to them. Then, when the issues that required attention had been resolved, they burnt out and died. They never really got that close to having any effective power, but their rapid rise caused a re-evaluation in the incumbents.
Actually, I do, because I'm not American. Even proportional representation does't solve the problem created by a few, large parties dominating the political landscape. Parties with few seats are generally irrelevant unless the difference between the major parties is small enough for their votes to become decisive, and then they get power out of all proportion to their position.
That's not to say PR isn't better than first-past-the-post - it is - but a governmental duopoly is problematic regardless.
The problem is, you can't vote against someone. You have to vote for someone. For your vote to be meaningful, there has to be someone worth voting for. Those people are culled before they get in a position to be included on a ballot.
Would that more in both major parties thought like this.
Isn't that sort of problem? People who do think like that get kicked out of their parties. Serving their constituents isn't the purpose of the modern political machine, that's just something they need to do enough of to retain power.
If you want to make the scope into a computing device that's fine.
If you read even the summary, you'd know that's precisely what this is. Assuming headlines are at all factual or correct is likely to lead you to fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Considering there was no diagnosed psychopath living in the same house as her.
What's even more hilarious is when you fail to convict anyone because you used the wrong damn term in your legislation. Ah-hahahahahaha.
If I lived in nightmare Chicago or some other giant urban utopia, I'd be terrified too.
Gun ownership in Chicago is already highly regulated. Strangely, gun violence in Chicago remains high. How this can be when clearly nobody owns bad guns because they are all illegal baffles me.
You may, of course, feel free to maintain the distinction in professional discussions among gunsmiths and professional legislators. But it's just stupid to expect anybody else to care.
Fixed that for you.
It's not really a question of "is pot harmful". It's a question of "how harmful is pot in comparison to other legal activities". Other people could provide similar anecdotes about the affects of alcohol, gambling, or online games - yet possession of any of those isn't illegal.
Our society is hypocritical. It needs to decide once and for all, whether citizens have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness in a manner they choose, or whether the state abrogates to itself the right to decide for its citizens what level of risk they are allowed to take, and the adopt a consistent policy.
They won't, of course, because a consistent policy will either lead to a lessening of authority and money, as the privatised prison system is forced to downsize, and police authority curtailed, or to mass corruption and civil disobedience as briefly glimpsed in prohibition. So they'll remain happily hypocritical, not because it is the right thing to do, or backed by scientific evidence, but because it is the best way to retain the current balances of power - and that, after all, is what politics is all about.
"There are nearly a billion malnourished people in the world, but all of them could be lifted out of hunger with less than a quarter of the food wasted in Europe and North America"
No, they couldn't, not unless that food could be transported to them and distributed before it became inedible. In countries with good infrastructure, that's not a problem, but those billion malnourished generally don't live in a place with good air freight service, well-maintained highways, and refrigerated trucking.
Any solution to global poverty is going to have to largely rely on bootstrapping local production. Despite importing a lot of food, most western nations export a whole lot more - they have sufficient capacity to feed themselves, and trade for variety/seasonality. Getting developing nations to the point of self sufficiency is key - anything else leaves them dependant on the developed world, which will screw them over when a drought/famine/whatever hits, and we have less excess to give.
Of course, this practical advice doesn't make a guy on TV any money and doesn't make a mega-corp any money and doesn't sell books on a talk show
Sure it does. Jamie Oliver for one has about three different shows running on the free view channels here, and a squizillion books.
Given that without using this device, you'll put on fat you'll likely never need, and excrete the rest, the food was probably being wasted anyhow.
Depends what you mean by "bulimia", I guess. Like anorexia, I thought the disease was characterised by its psychological components (ie: binging, guilt, desire for an unattainable ideal, etc) more than the physical means used in response to those drives. For instance, binging followed by taking laxatives, or binging followed by an extreme diet are considered examples of bulimia - but not all people who go an an extreme diet or take laxatives are bulimic.
I don't think this is raw CPU cycles they're looking for here. It's more like: "We're trying to grab information on this guy. We see he visits www.somesite.com.au an awful lot. Let's get access to the computer of somesite's developer, grab his access keys, and modify somesite to deliver our trojan to the target."
Of course, once you've compromised a computer, are you going to just clean it up and let it go? After all that trouble of getting a warrant? Pfft, no - what if you need it again? You're going to list it as a resource and add it to the pile of private computers your agency owns.
It's like asking a girl you haven't even met yet to sleep with you is ridiculous
...except that the girl isn't your elected representative, paid ostensibly to represent your best interests. I also find it interesting how, apparently, it's feasible to create a government agency out of whole cloth, but dismantling it is apparently some epic task that must be composed of a thousand little steps.
If the Republicans succeed in making that happen, the consequences for the nation will be similar to the consequences for anyone else who decides to simply stop paying their bills
I really don't get why this is being spun as the Republicans doing this. From what I can see, both sides are being intransigent - the Rs are demanding that spending is lowered before they consider raising the debt ceiling, the Ds are demanding that the debt ceiling is raised before they consider lowering spending. US fiscal policy looks to me to be more and more like a giant game of chicken. And the thing about chicken is that it needs both people to play.
So what you're saying is that the only petitions that can be taken seriously are on minor and inconsequential issues; that nothing involving wide-sweeping changes or something that's actually likely to make a difference should be submitted, because those are not "serious".
An unfair and unbalanced search result is one where Google is modifying search results to assure that it's services are hight on the results list but those of competirors are buried on page 8. If Google is doing that they are engaging in anti-competitive behaviour because they are conciously trying to drive comptetitors out of business like Microsoft did with Netscape.
So what you're saying is, if Google is just using an algorithmic search method, and it happens to select their own sites because they are popular in their own right and legitimate results, they're not doing anything wrong?
Is there any evidence of this not being the case? email, , maps, videos, calendar, search - all of these have competitors on the first page, and half of them have the non-Google service as the first result.
I don't think the EU gives a rat's ass about what is in Google's blackbox as long as you can put in your search term and get output int the form of fair and balanced search results.
What's a "fair and balanced" result? Wouldn't a search engine returning what it thinks is the best results be "fair and balanced"? Is there any evidence that any of these services being returned aren't what consumers are looking for? Is Google supposed to artificially promote a bunch of crappy map services so it can be seen not to favour its own? Wouldn't that just piss off consumers who are trying to find a good service?
It's bollox. Search stands or falls by it's results. If Google starts doctoring results, then people are going to stop trusting it. What the EU seems to be demanding is that Google doctor its results to fit the EUs opinions on what should be returned.
So? Even if they were, why is that a problem? A search engine exists for end users to find what they're looking for, not to give commercial entities some sort of equal platform for advertising. I ask a question, Google tells me what it thinks the best answer is. What does the EU want? The ability to vet Googles' search algorithms?
No, not really - nothing about this proposition legalizes invading other people's machines and installing unauthorized software on it. Many of those Anonymous attacks were using LOIC, a piece of software that's basically an opt-in for a DDOS swarm. That's why they were caught so easily.
How about both? They're not mutually exclusive, you know. Corning definitely advertises the strength of Gorilla Glass as one of its advantages, not just scratch resistance.
Yeah, it's stronger for it's thickness, but all vendors (not just Apple) tend to use that increased strength to get away with thinner and thinner screens.
Why do you think aluminum is a heavy material? Aluminum alloy has been the primary structural material used in airplanes for over half a century. Advanced non-metals like carbon fiber have higher strength to weight ratios, but aluminum alloys are still quite good.
Aluminium isn't a heavy material - it's just heavier than plastics. It's strength is relatively unimportant, because whether the body's aluminium or plastic, the glass is going to be the weak point anyway. Apple didn't use aluminium for it's physical properties, but for it's aesthetic ones - it feels colder, heavier, more sold and more durable than plastic, even if plastic may actually demonstrate better properties for the use at hand.
According to wikipedia, the original iPhone (thin stamped sheet aluminum back with a plastic RF window) weighed 135g. The 3G/3GS (all-plastic back) weighed 133g/135g. The 4 and the 4S (glass sandwich around a stainless steel frame) were the heavyweights, at 137g/140g. The current generation iPhone 5 (milled aluminum unibody with small glass RF windows on the back) weighs just 112g.
Yeah, the 4Gs were the outstanding winner for "oops, they smashed cause I breathed on them". They're also (still) the ones I see around the place the most.
Tanks are arms. A10 gunships are arms.
And the fact that they can't be privately owned (although, practically speaking, cost is a greater factor than legislation) is why the whole "a well-regulated militia can keep the government in check through threat of rebellion" thingy breaks down these days. The government can be more well-armed than its citizens.
Chemical/bio/nuclear weapons are a different matter, as they're restricted under treaty - technically, the government shouldn't be owning/producing them either.
brush (noun):
1. A dense growth of bushes or shrubs
2. Land covered by such a growth
3. Cut or broken branches
Learn English before criticising others' use of it.
Actually, I'd consider One Nation to be a success story. They drew attention to a relatively large portion of the voting public that was not being heard. They forced the major parties to react to them. Then, when the issues that required attention had been resolved, they burnt out and died. They never really got that close to having any effective power, but their rapid rise caused a re-evaluation in the incumbents.
Actually, I do, because I'm not American. Even proportional representation does't solve the problem created by a few, large parties dominating the political landscape. Parties with few seats are generally irrelevant unless the difference between the major parties is small enough for their votes to become decisive, and then they get power out of all proportion to their position.
That's not to say PR isn't better than first-past-the-post - it is - but a governmental duopoly is problematic regardless.
The problem is, you can't vote against someone. You have to vote for someone. For your vote to be meaningful, there has to be someone worth voting for. Those people are culled before they get in a position to be included on a ballot.
Would that more in both major parties thought like this.
Isn't that sort of problem? People who do think like that get kicked out of their parties. Serving their constituents isn't the purpose of the modern political machine, that's just something they need to do enough of to retain power.
If you want to make the scope into a computing device that's fine.
If you read even the summary, you'd know that's precisely what this is. Assuming headlines are at all factual or correct is likely to lead you to fail.