Last I checked, neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft was a law-enforcement agency. From TFA, it sounds like this is a criminal not civil trial. Or maybe this is Gorbechev's way of (consciously or not) saying that the rich and powerful pretty much are the law?
Maybe some Russian agency should remind people that there's other operating systems besides Windows, some of which actually encourage downloading, copying, and wide distribution.
1. Historically, the peers of scientists have presented political agenda's by cloaking them in jargon and supporting studies.
2.The argument is hardly, if ever, presented in a logical, coherent manner.
Aren't these how the religious right deals with issues like creationism, homosexuality, and gay marriage?
One more reason to not start too early is that requirements often change after their first delivery. Happens with college classes, then happens s'more in the corporate environment. Throwing away obsoleted work is inevitable sometimes, but why exasperate it?
It says nothing about why the terminals were malfunctioning, which had everything to do with touch screen calibration (and the need to recalibrate from time to time) and nothing to do with some right-wing conspiracy. In fact, the article implies that it was one machine in particular, not all of them.
According to wikipedia: Plausible deniability is the term given to the creation of loose and informal chains of command in government. In the case that assassinations, false flag or black ops or any other illegal or otherwise disrespectable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any connection to or awareness of such act, or the agents used to carry out such act.
Which brings up the question- why do the random and non-intentional Florida voting issues always seem to favor one specific party over the other?
Congress knew exactly what they were doing. The voting machines and process has flaws (which, realistically, is to be expected), but for some reason, in 2004 the flaws worked reliably in favor of the incumbents, in some cases giving them very narrow victories.
But some Chinese newspapers criticized the move as a farce that highlighted the 'laziness of the court' and that would not curb judicial corruption as touted."
What kind of penalty does the software mete out to Chinese reporters who dare question the wisdom or methods of the courts?
> No... it would mean that the New York City resident's vote would count EXACTLY the same as the Wyoming rancher's vote. One each.
>
> As it stands now, The average citizen in Wyoming is 1/160,000th of an electoral vote. The average citizen of New York State is about 1/300,000th of an electoral vote.
>
> Why should the Wyoming citizen's vote count for twice as much as the New York citizen's vote?
The individual Wyoming vote might have more clout toward electoral votes, but the New York vote still counts a lot more toward the overall election, because New York's much larger electoral votes all go to one candidate. How many presidental forcasts say New York's electoral votes are a requirement for a particular candidate to win, versus Wyoming's electoral votes?
Imagine if we had national-popular-vote-wins in 2000 and 2004. Now imagine a national "Florida-recount debacle".
> Did you not see the video from that prison in Iraq?
Guess what, there's going to be a few morons in every bunch. ...
> And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
Yes. They are processed, which includes a medical checkup by the best doctors in the world. They get to send a postcard to their family to let them know where they are and that they're safe. They get clean laundry, prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen. Each detainee is given a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask. The surgical mask is used as storage for the Koran. There is a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. 64% of the detainees get "comfort items" that inclue perfume oil and prayer beads. There's plenty more, but you get the idea.
You forgot the part where they're detained indefinately, without a chance of ever going before a judge. And the torture. And the living in a 5' x 8' cage. And the shackels. And the distinct possiblility of never seeing said family again (in normal prisons even convicted murderers get visitiation rights). And to be surveiled by the "few morons in every bunch" military personel. And to be chewing toys every time some moron with a pit bull needs to prove he's a big man.
Are they terrorists? Who the hell knows, certainly not you or I.
Do they have valuable information to share? Maybe four years ago, but probably not now.
If Gitmo prisoners were shown in court of planning mass-murder terror activities, I'd be the first to say "bullet to the head". But their whole situation right now is to prove, I don't know, you tell me. Why are we holding them like this and so afraid to put them under trial?
Will the system be used the same way the color-coded terror-level was used? Put out continuous "terror-warnings" just before the 2006 elections, maybe ending with a "your safety depends on a tough-on-terrorist administration" signature?
I'm not saying the system is necessarily politically-motivated, it just seems like election-time sharpens the administration's focus on terrorism.
I'm talking about changing science education. It MUST, MUST, MUST include a high level of ethics, policy, and social study. I find it insane that people can specialize in science and from the moment they step into college, focus almost solely on their technical field.
Unlike our business, political, and religious leaders, of course, who show an uncanny knack for upholding the highest level of ethics and social responsibility.
I suspect you've never actually been there and spoken to ordinary Chinese. I have, many times, and I can testify that they are not in the least afraid of having an opinion or speaking it in public.
Maybe you talked to a biased group, because the people who really are afraid of speaking their opinion in public have been incarcerated or silenced by the threat of incarceration? (I don't know that this is true, I'm just saying it's possible.)
Those that don't believe in God will look at intellegent design as something that they already know to be false and those that DO believe in God will look at Neo-Darwinism as something THEY know to be false. Thus it happens that neither can understand the other side's argument.
And this is the crux of the problem. Teach evolution but not ID in school? Then you must be teaching that God doesn't exist.
I merely want people to be CLEAR on what ID really is. It is important when discussing such a charged topic as the origin of life for there to be clarity as to what each side REALLY believes.
Yes. Based on the first quote, if you believe in God then you know evolution to be false. Therefore only anti-God people can believe in evolution.
Not wanting ID taught in science class isn't the kneejerk belief that God doesn't exist, it's the belief that until ID becomes a valid scientific theory (based on measurable evidence, and able to be proven false), it doesn't belong in science class.
The anti-war left loves to chant that Iraq is a war for oil. Okay, let's assume that statement is true. Now that we "occupy" Iraq, why haven't we gotten our greedy, American pig-dog capitalist hands on it? Why hasn't the worldwide market for oil reflected (via lower, not higher prices) increased supply of oil flowing out of Iraq?
The answer is, because the premise is false. Anyone who takes the time to understand a nit of oil production learns that Iraq's oil reserves are largely untapped because of the difficulty extracting it (Financial Times did a wonderful piece on this in May 2003). At a cost of trillions of dollars to simply prosecute the war and secure the country, if you could somehow extract the oil, it would take decades to earn a return on investment. In short, it would a) financially cheaper, and b) politically more expedient to piss off the environmental kooks and drill in ANWaR than go to war in Iraq if the goal was oil.
War for oil doesn't necessarily mean we're going in to take all of the oil with us when we leave. It could mean a war to insure a US-friendly government, which won't start withholding oil from us in the future (not that we've propped up such governments in the past, of course).
You know, there are different types of innovation. I just attended MILCOM and one of the guest speakers was talking about innovation and they listed both Apple and Dell. What did Dell do? They innovated the process of purchasing and distributing a PC. They are able to offer lower prices and make PCs accessible to a greater number of people.
Yes, Dell's innovation is selling for less, which they can do because they save money by not innovating.
The Apollo missions were incredibly productive. The first geological exploration another world? 6 missions exploring amazingly diverse sites. Apollo contibuted greatly geomorphology, volcanology, geochemistry, isotope studies, remnote sensing, mapping..
But did any of this exploration really require a manned mission? If the same (dollar|weight|time) budget had been spent creating unmanned probes (that didn't have to provide food/oxygen to a crew, be safely brought home, etc), do you think more exploration could've been done in the same timeframe?
There is an anti-Christian and anti-South portrayal in nearly all popular media and all news stories.... Christians are the punchlines of jokes, and their beliefs are actively mocked and parodied.
Yes, and we'll probably never see a Christian governor/congresscritter or Southern Christian president in my lifetime.
Oh wait. Maybe the "anti-Christian bias" we've been told about is more of a distraction from the problems that the people in charge haven't been able to solve/control.
I'm not from the South and I'm not a Christian
Well, I am a Christian and I'm sick of the people who've been in charge for 200 years telling us that they're the victims of nonstop discrimination.
The media is also extremely racist, though they'd never fathom it. If a white girl disappears, it's national news.... Meanwhile, a black girl could disappear, and no journalists would be around to cover it...
Does anybody ever notice how whenever the free market fails at something, the government steps in to take the blame
No. "taking the blame" means accountability, and accountability is the last thing on this government's mind. Do you really think heads will roll over this fiasco? Do you think somebody will even get a slap on the wrist? Only if they can find some enlisted shmoe in the national guard to dump this on.
As far as accountablity, the head of FEMA is probably due for a "presidential medal of freedom" by now, if the president can find time to get away from his guitar-playing photo-ops, that is.
> At first thought it doesn't seem like it is somehow going to be able to detect and prevent terrorists?
You seem unaware that London did not have any IRA bombings after their downtown surveillance camera system went in place.
Homer: No bears since the bear patrol.
Lisa: Dad, that's rather specious reasoning.
Homer: Thank you honey.
Lisa: No Dad, I could just as easily say that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't, but you don't see any tigers around do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy that magic rock.
Sure, every rich joe (and plenty of joes who hope to become rich) will want to hitch a ride into space. But once they all have done it (and, yeah, I know that will take quite a few years), what happens next?
Well, what do Hawaii, Cancun, and Paris do now that everybody who wants to has already visited?
FedEx does not object to giving it's boxes away for free, but under the assumption you will use them for FedEx shipments.
Wow, they made an assumption. Sounds legally binding to me...
Not to mention he is using boxes that they create, with their logo and their name - as well as naming his website "fedexfurniture.com" - and then selling these things.
I've sold stuff that people gave me for free. That's why they call it _giving_ it away.
and if they can cite the DMCA then kudos for their legal team who figured a way.
This is a little scary. FedEx deserves kudos, for taking a law which clearly does not apply, and whacking him with it? Why not go full-bore and call him a abuses-free-boxes-terrorist?
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft was a law-enforcement agency. From TFA, it sounds like this is a criminal not civil trial. Or maybe this is Gorbechev's way of (consciously or not) saying that the rich and powerful pretty much are the law?
Maybe some Russian agency should remind people that there's other operating systems besides Windows, some of which actually encourage downloading, copying, and wide distribution.
As a Republican, let me present a few points:
1. Historically, the peers of scientists have presented political agenda's by cloaking them in jargon and supporting studies.
2.The argument is hardly, if ever, presented in a logical, coherent manner.
Aren't these how the religious right deals with issues like creationism, homosexuality, and gay marriage?
As a company creating music and video products, how can we use Vista to create, distribute, and use legal media?
You could always buy the development version of Vista. I believe the working code-name was "OSX Tiger".
One more reason to not start too early is that requirements often change after their first delivery. Happens with college classes, then happens s'more in the corporate environment. Throwing away obsoleted work is inevitable sometimes, but why exasperate it?
It's called lose not loose LOSE LOSE LOSE GODDAMNIT
Don't loose your cool, man.
It says nothing about why the terminals were malfunctioning, which had everything to do with touch screen calibration (and the need to recalibrate from time to time) and nothing to do with some right-wing conspiracy. In fact, the article implies that it was one machine in particular, not all of them.
According to wikipedia:
Plausible deniability is the term given to the creation of loose and informal chains of command in government. In the case that assassinations, false flag or black ops or any other illegal or otherwise disrespectable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any connection to or awareness of such act, or the agents used to carry out such act.
Which brings up the question- why do the random and non-intentional Florida voting issues always seem to favor one specific party over the other?
> The real issue is that Congress screwed up
Congress knew exactly what they were doing. The voting machines and process has flaws (which, realistically, is to be expected), but for some reason, in 2004 the flaws worked reliably in favor of the incumbents, in some cases giving them very narrow victories.
But some Chinese newspapers criticized the move as a farce that highlighted the 'laziness of the court' and that would not curb judicial corruption as touted."
What kind of penalty does the software mete out to Chinese reporters who dare question the wisdom or methods of the courts?
> No... it would mean that the New York City resident's vote would count EXACTLY the same as the Wyoming rancher's vote. One each.
>
> As it stands now, The average citizen in Wyoming is 1/160,000th of an electoral vote. The average citizen of New York State is about 1/300,000th of an electoral vote.
>
> Why should the Wyoming citizen's vote count for twice as much as the New York citizen's vote?
The individual Wyoming vote might have more clout toward electoral votes, but the New York vote still counts a lot more toward the overall election, because New York's much larger electoral votes all go to one candidate. How many presidental forcasts say New York's electoral votes are a requirement for a particular candidate to win, versus Wyoming's electoral votes?
Imagine if we had national-popular-vote-wins in 2000 and 2004. Now imagine a national "Florida-recount debacle".
> Did you not see the video from that prison in Iraq?
...
Guess what, there's going to be a few morons in every bunch.
> And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
Yes. They are processed, which includes a medical checkup by the best doctors in the world. They get to send a postcard to their family to let them know where they are and that they're safe. They get clean laundry, prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen. Each detainee is given a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask. The surgical mask is used as storage for the Koran. There is a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. 64% of the detainees get "comfort items" that inclue perfume oil and prayer beads. There's plenty more, but you get the idea.
You forgot the part where they're detained indefinately, without a chance of ever going before a judge. And the torture. And the living in a 5' x 8' cage. And the shackels. And the distinct possiblility of never seeing said family again (in normal prisons even convicted murderers get visitiation rights). And to be surveiled by the "few morons in every bunch" military personel. And to be chewing toys every time some moron with a pit bull needs to prove he's a big man.
Are they terrorists? Who the hell knows, certainly not you or I.
Do they have valuable information to share? Maybe four years ago, but probably not now.
If Gitmo prisoners were shown in court of planning mass-murder terror activities, I'd be the first to say "bullet to the head". But their whole situation right now is to prove, I don't know, you tell me. Why are we holding them like this and so afraid to put them under trial?
> No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused.
Pretty bold statement, for somebody who has absolutely no way of knowing whether it's true or not...
Will the system be used the same way the color-coded terror-level was used? Put out continuous "terror-warnings" just before the 2006 elections, maybe ending with a "your safety depends on a tough-on-terrorist administration" signature? I'm not saying the system is necessarily politically-motivated, it just seems like election-time sharpens the administration's focus on terrorism.
They're being very up-front: they want more money. There's nothing "stealth" about it.
I'm talking about changing science education. It MUST, MUST, MUST include a high level of ethics, policy, and social study. I find it insane that people can specialize in science and from the moment they step into college, focus almost solely on their technical field.
Unlike our business, political, and religious leaders, of course, who show an uncanny knack for upholding the highest level of ethics and social responsibility.
I suspect you've never actually been there and spoken to ordinary Chinese. I have, many times, and I can testify that they are not in the least afraid of having an opinion or speaking it in public.
Maybe you talked to a biased group, because the people who really are afraid of speaking their opinion in public have been incarcerated or silenced by the threat of incarceration? (I don't know that this is true, I'm just saying it's possible.)
Those that don't believe in God will look at intellegent design as something that they already know to be false and those that DO believe in God will look at Neo-Darwinism as something THEY know to be false. Thus it happens that neither can understand the other side's argument.
And this is the crux of the problem. Teach evolution but not ID in school? Then you must be teaching that God doesn't exist.
I merely want people to be CLEAR on what ID really is. It is important when discussing such a charged topic as the origin of life for there to be clarity as to what each side REALLY believes.
Yes. Based on the first quote, if you believe in God then you know evolution to be false. Therefore only anti-God people can believe in evolution.
Not wanting ID taught in science class isn't the kneejerk belief that God doesn't exist, it's the belief that until ID becomes a valid scientific theory (based on measurable evidence, and able to be proven false), it doesn't belong in science class.
The anti-war left loves to chant that Iraq is a war for oil. Okay, let's assume that statement is true. Now that we "occupy" Iraq, why haven't we gotten our greedy, American pig-dog capitalist hands on it? Why hasn't the worldwide market for oil reflected (via lower, not higher prices) increased supply of oil flowing out of Iraq?
The answer is, because the premise is false. Anyone who takes the time to understand a nit of oil production learns that Iraq's oil reserves are largely untapped because of the difficulty extracting it (Financial Times did a wonderful piece on this in May 2003). At a cost of trillions of dollars to simply prosecute the war and secure the country, if you could somehow extract the oil, it would take decades to earn a return on investment. In short, it would a) financially cheaper, and b) politically more expedient to piss off the environmental kooks and drill in ANWaR than go to war in Iraq if the goal was oil.
War for oil doesn't necessarily mean we're going in to take all of the oil with us when we leave. It could mean a war to insure a US-friendly government, which won't start withholding oil from us in the future (not that we've propped up such governments in the past, of course).
You know, there are different types of innovation. I just attended MILCOM and one of the guest speakers was talking about innovation and they listed both Apple and Dell. What did Dell do? They innovated the process of purchasing and distributing a PC. They are able to offer lower prices and make PCs accessible to a greater number of people.
Yes, Dell's innovation is selling for less, which they can do because they save money by not innovating.
Now my head hurts.
The Apollo missions were incredibly productive. The first geological exploration another world? 6 missions exploring amazingly diverse sites. Apollo contibuted greatly geomorphology, volcanology, geochemistry, isotope studies, remnote sensing, mapping..
But did any of this exploration really require a manned mission? If the same (dollar|weight|time) budget had been spent creating unmanned probes (that didn't have to provide food/oxygen to a crew, be safely brought home, etc), do you think more exploration could've been done in the same timeframe?
There is an anti-Christian and anti-South portrayal in nearly all popular media and all news stories. ... Christians are the punchlines of jokes, and their beliefs are actively mocked and parodied.
... Meanwhile, a black girl could disappear, and no journalists would be around to cover it...
Yes, and we'll probably never see a Christian governor/congresscritter or Southern Christian president in my lifetime.
Oh wait. Maybe the "anti-Christian bias" we've been told about is more of a distraction from the problems that the people in charge haven't been able to solve/control.
I'm not from the South and I'm not a Christian
Well, I am a Christian and I'm sick of the people who've been in charge for 200 years telling us that they're the victims of nonstop discrimination.
The media is also extremely racist, though they'd never fathom it. If a white girl disappears, it's national news.
You nailed this one, though.
Does anybody ever notice how whenever the free market fails at something, the government steps in to take the blame
No. "taking the blame" means accountability, and accountability is the last thing on this government's mind. Do you really think heads will roll over this fiasco? Do you think somebody will even get a slap on the wrist? Only if they can find some enlisted shmoe in the national guard to dump this on.
As far as accountablity, the head of FEMA is probably due for a "presidential medal of freedom" by now, if the president can find time to get away from his guitar-playing photo-ops, that is.
> At first thought it doesn't seem like it is somehow going to be able to detect and prevent terrorists?
You seem unaware that London did not have any IRA bombings after their downtown surveillance camera system went in place.
Homer: No bears since the bear patrol.
Lisa: Dad, that's rather specious reasoning.
Homer: Thank you honey.
Lisa: No Dad, I could just as easily say that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't, but you don't see any tigers around do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy that magic rock.
Sure, every rich joe (and plenty of joes who hope to become rich) will want to hitch a ride into space. But once they all have done it (and, yeah, I know that will take quite a few years), what happens next?
Well, what do Hawaii, Cancun, and Paris do now that everybody who wants to has already visited?
FedEx does not object to giving it's boxes away for free, but under the assumption you will use them for FedEx shipments.
Wow, they made an assumption. Sounds legally binding to me...
Not to mention he is using boxes that they create, with their logo and their name - as well as naming his website "fedexfurniture.com" - and then selling these things.
I've sold stuff that people gave me for free. That's why they call it _giving_ it away.
and if they can cite the DMCA then kudos for their legal team who figured a way.
This is a little scary. FedEx deserves kudos, for taking a law which clearly does not apply, and whacking him with it? Why not go full-bore and call him a abuses-free-boxes-terrorist?
The military is a valid career alternative for anyone regardless of their highschool grades or economic status.
Then why haven't Jenna and Barbara Bush signed up? They're currently looking for jobs...