During the last big hurricane that went through central Virginia and up the east coast (forgot the name.) Not only did my wife and I keep power (thanks to burried power lines.) but we watched the whole show on DirecTV. We lost signal for maybe five minutes during the entire event.
Is it quite possible that NASA engineers simply have not mastered the art and science of designing hardware and software operable in the harshest of environments?
More likely that NASA Engineers learned to solve many of these problems decades ago, and then retired or were forced to retire. Taking with them all of the knowledge to do many amazing things.
NASA then can't/won't find and hire enough experienced talent to do the job. There are many very good engineers throughout The US. Many of them work for NASA. But how many of them have a great deal of experience solving problems in space? For that matter how many of them have had the opportunity to do any work at all on systems beyond near earth orbit?
Um, how about those arcing missiles the Cylons shot out? Looked great, definately impossible.
I disagree. If a computer is driving, and has already computed the course, it already knows when to fire its manuvering jets and can presumeably do so very quickly and precisely. Any curve that can be "drawn" as the resultant vector of two or more primary vectors should be easy for a computer to execute.
Humans, on the other hand, have to constantly "poll" for their poition relative to their destination and make adjustments. It takes amazing coordination and training to do that quickly and precisely, even when you have the friction of a fluid (air) to limit your extranious motion.
Perhaps I worded my original post poorly. I was speaking of cloned organs and body parts.
Transplants would work, but I make the assumption that, like me, most people would not accept a used organ or body part unless theirs was failing and the technology or cost was prohibitive of cloned replacements. e.g. current technology. However, the advantages of cloned replacements extend beyond simple substitution to rejuvenation, and this would be desireable to many people. The problem is I don't know if I would get the same set of prints by regrowing my fingertips. How much of that is environmental, or would perhaps be an artifact of the cloning process? Even if twins have the same prints, is there any variation at all? And even it there isn't, it wouldn't be a valid test since the environmental conditions are identical for the gestation of each. I think it will take clones (or twins) gestated in different females to ever have that answer.
To paraphrase Bruce Schneier; Once your key is stolen, it stays stolen.
Talk about identity theft. If your scan (the key) is compromised, it's not like you can get another eye ball, or finger tip from the government. And even it you could, your DNA would code for the exact same pattern (in theory anyway.)
And then there's the whole:
"Why did you change your identity citizen?"
"My identity was stolen Mr. Beaurocratic Overlord."
"And how do I know you're not the thief, citizen?"
It gets harder to prove you're you, when the government defines who you are.
The simple answer to the problem, is to answer the question of who owns the trucks. If the State owns them, then there's no question that the State can track them. If the trucks are privately owned, then tracking them would require either a contract provision, or another onerous law.
The nice thing about a free market is that you can always shop for some company willing to give up their employee's privacy for the right money. And the employees are, of course, free to find an employer who respects their privacy a little more. If the State can't find any takers, then the idea fails. If the contractor can't find any employees, then the idea fails (and the contractor gets sued.)
In principle, it's a very simple problem with a very simple answer; as long as people are free to engage in commerce with who they choose. But after the lawyers get involved it becomes a question of workers rights. People would rather file a law suit than try to find find a more reasonable employer.
I view advertisments as content. When I'm watching a show, which is then interupted by advertising, I often fast-forward. However, I've found that many times I stop and watch certian ads if they're interesting.
For example, if IBM, Aflac, Geico, and others have a new ad then I'll stop and watch. They get my undivided attention instead of my half-listening-from-the-kitchen attention.
I think that what we are seeing is the death of saturation advertising. After all, I have a copy of the add now. If I rewatch the show, the advertiser has a chance to get my attention again. But if I've seen an ad once, and paid attention, then why force me to watch it again. That will just make me resent the product. For example, I need to refinance my second mortgage. I am activly shopping, but I won't call Ditech. They pissed me off by advertising too much, and I'm sick of that phony bank rep. Traditional marketing says that I'm now more likely to have a positive image of the company because I'm aware of it's existance. That's not true. I now know that any ad they come up with is going to piss me off, so I look for their ads so that I can fast-forward or change the channel. Their extreme repitition has served to reenforce my disdain, and I haven't even done business with them.
This seems to be an artifact of the DVR. I don't get up and leave the room as much because I can fast-forward. I even have a more positive attitude toward the ads I do watch because I'm not forced to watch them. But if a company has a lousey advertising campaign, and tries to inflict it on me often enough, then they will face the wrath of the remote.
I still like the cred' stick idea from Shardowrun.
Good idea, and a fun game, but as an ex-employee of the NSA once told me; As you expand your sphere of influence, you gain greater control of the things in that sphere.
Anonymous cash is contrary to that doctrine. It allows an individual the autonomy to make purchases anonymously. And that, of course, means the government can't stick its nose in your finances to make sure you're paying your taxes to feed the power hungry monster.
Without getting religous in a technical discussion...
The real challenge will be to function in a society that requires this. If your convictions are such that you cannot abide this or any other personally identifiable implant, as mine are. Then this would be the greatest and longest test of your beliefs, religious or otherwise, that you could possibly face. How many of us are willing to face expulsion from society, and the poverty and uncertianty that it will cause, in order to be true to your beliefs? How many will do it just to keep their children in school, or to keep themselves insured?
I'm having a difficult enough time making money to pay my obscene tax levy without loosing contracts because some customers or emplyers want me to skirt the bounds of ethical propriety for them. I refuse, they fire me. Fine, it's a free market. Morality is expensive. I feel sorry for those who can't bear the cost. As well as those who think that it hasn't become that bad yet. They won't be ready when it hits them.
Of course, I could just go along. But my instinct for survival prevents me.
I think people should stop personalizing this to John Ashcroft. It's not just him, or this administration. It's our entire corrupt government. Get rid of Ashcroft and they replace him with an idealogical clone. Elect a Democrat president and they replace him with an Democrat idealogical clone.
As long as we continue to allow our government to swill from the keg-o-power, it will continue to encroach on freedom and maintain a life of its own. This is historically axiomatic. America will eventually become tyranical if the people don't act to stop it before they loose that power completly.
It's no accident (though perhaps coincidence) that someone is developing a way to use RFIDs for commerce. It is money that is the source of all governmental power. When someone takes your money and gives nothing, they are taking away the time you spent earning it. Money is very much more important than people seem to understand, and in a society that is wealthy enough that even the poorest often have enough to buy luxuries, few seem to understand that taking it from you is not diferent than going into your pantry and taking the food from your shelves, or taking the tools from your shed, workbench, or desk.
I must agree. It will soon be a new tool for government to manage the willingly oppressed. Eventually becoming mandatory. Social Security, Medicare, and payroll withholding were all voluntary once. But this also turns the market into a human ranch.
Whether for commerce or government, it has been the unholy grail of all tyrants (CEOs often make the best tyrants if given the power) to know everything about everyone. If your laziness propels you to have your credit card implanted, you place your trust in the hands of people who have no more interest in your wellbeing than I have for the cattle harvested for my dinner table. It is in my best interest that the herd flourish so that I have a steady supply of tasty steaks. But I would hardly call the cattle ranch a free society just because the animals can choose their own spot to graze.
First, I'm a parent. That doesn't make my advise better than that of anyone else, but it does mean I am not being flippant like the majority of post to this topic.
Children are trying to find the boundaries to life. They have no idea where those are. Good parents teach children the bounds of acceptable behavior. That includes preventing behavior that may damage or kill them. Access to certain sensory inputs that are not age appropriate can be damaging. I believe that the majority of pornography falls into that area. Will it hurt them physically? Masturbation jokes aside, no. Will they recover from any psychological damage they incur? Of course. but this is one of many things that make growing-up more difficult than it needs to be, and can lead to long term dysfunction in rare cases. Anyone who doesn't think that what you see can have a negative effect on you psychologically, is not giving proper consideration to the question. Violence on television (as opposed to sexual content, and NOT including cartoon violence) has a very real and negative effect on adults. Most adults have reasonable impulse control. Most children do not. I am unable to cite the study that concluded this, but any social science types out there should be able to.
The point of all of this is that parents must be vigilant always and unyielding at times. If you don't enforce the boundaries you set, then children learn that there are no consequences to their actions. How many times a day do we lament that behavior in adults? If you want to raise a potential criminal, you teach that nothing but your own satisfaction matters, and there are no boundaries to your behavior. Like most choices in life, you do that by inaction rather than action.
As for trust. That must be earned, and constantly reaffirmed. children are not adults. They often have great intelligence, but never have the wisdom of experience. To raise a child well you don't have to be smarter than your child, just wiser. It is not unfair to say "don't quickly exit from everything." It is unfair not to enforce the rule. What you don't know can hurt your child.
Finally, you don't create a sense of privacy by turning a blind eye to certain areas of your child's life. You must know everything. You, instead, allow certain behaviors that you know to be benign but possibly out of the norm. And others that may teach a lesson without doing long term harm. One of the most difficult jobs of parents is to decide what mistakes to allow their children to make and what to save them from. You can't save them from all mistakes, and you do more harm that good to try.
As for on-line behavior. I like the TIS firewall toolkit's web proxy feature of being able to log all or just initial http requests. I also have a phone systems that logs all incoming and out going calls. It also prevents calls from certain extensions at certain times. This is useful for requiring younger children to be in a public part of the house when they talk on the phone. If they want privacy I can leave the room, but they must ask for it. But it's all just a fall back position, so I can check up on the trust building part of things. I want to know if my children are lying to me, but I have to give them the opportunity to tell the truth. I also have to teach them not to blindly trust others, by teaching what is expected of them to earn my trust. Lastly, I have to have the wisdom let them be themselves within limits.
The big difference being:
1. the people are not trained to arms, having been disarmed by Saddam. And everyone does not have a Kalashnikov. Only a few are resisting, and most of them are outsiders who want to impose their own brand of tyranny on the people.
2. Had the country been a democratic republic with an armed populace the US would not only have never needed to go in, but would not have been able to do so. The guerrilla insurgency we are seeing now would have instead been a wave of resistance, so expensive in men and material, that we could not easily sustain it.
3. The secondary purpose for the US being there is to establish self rule, not to occupy land. If the people of Iraq see that we don't get out when we say we will, then there will be an uprising. This is why I oppose disarming the few citizens of Iraq who are armed. It will encourage us to leave on time. I only hope that they don't disarm themselves under their new constitution. Resistance to tyranny is as important as resistance to outside invaders. Don't think that the would be tyrants in the US aren't afraid of the 80 million gun owners who would resist their tyranny. You don't need tanks to bring down an army. But fighting against propaganda is a different matter.
Nothing's going to happen to your kidneys if you follow the diet reasonably well.
I wanted to know if the diet had any health problems so I conducted my own single person study. Not useful scientifcally, but my results have mirrored those of others.
I spent a year eating low carb under the supervision of my doctor. (my idea, not his) At the end of the year I had a full physical with blood work. The results? Perfect. All tests normal. Blood sugar, triglycerides, blood pressure, LDL, and HDL, etc...
That was more than a year ago. My blood work is still perfect. Also, my between meal mood swings went away after the first week, and I have more energy, more consistantly. Why is this significant? Because I've eaten three eggs and sausages with whole milk every morning for breakfast for the last two years, and I didn't get high cholestrol (however you spell it) Tonight for supper I had a 24oz ribeye on my back yard grill. I firmly believe that low carb is the healthiest way to eat.
Wow, that was either an incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant comment.
First, until about 1968 guns were allowed on planes. Pilots, passengers, small furry rodents. No problems, one day someone just decided to ban them.
Second, handgun projectiles are fairly low energy (relative to rifles, and other projectiles) The likelihood of complete penetration of the skin of the aircraft is low. Also personal defense ammo (hollow point) is designed to DECREASE penetration and INCREASE energy transfer against soft targets. In humans that results a large temporary wound channel due to hydrostatic shock. If you really mean to end the threat, you want the projectile to expand and stop. This is the opposite of what you need against a hard target like metal or a very thick skinned animal.
Third, a.32 to.45 inch hole in the skin of an airplane is not catastrophic, but would likely require a decent to below 10k feet. Assuming the terrorists were neutralized, the plane would continue to its destination. If not, it would continue to its new alternate destination and three thousand people would die.
Fourth, the mandatory use of frangible ammo (breaks up on impact, also has very good stopping power/energy transfer to soft targets) would eliminate any risk of penetration by a handgun projectile.
Sounds to me like guns on planes are a VERY GOOD idea. Just make sure that everyone has frangible ammo, and has had some safety training (anyone who uses their gun unsafely deserves to have it taken away until they get some sense.)
Since "well-regulated" means practiced, disciplined, and ready to deploy, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the phrase. The theory was that if everyone brought their own gun to the gun fight, then any country stupid enough to try to invade the US would be met with overwhelming resistance in the form of a civilian population, trained to arms, and bearing military rifles. There would be no place that an invasion could not immediately be resisted, which would buy time to raise an army and bring in the big guns. This would also keep taxes low since there would be no need for a large standing army, and the populace would fund their own firearms and practice ammo purchases. Well, it worked. Now few can conceive of an invasion of US soil and see no need for the Militia.
Unfortunately, fewer still are willing to sacrifice themselves for the freedom of their people, and the time will come again when we need to watch our borders. Oh wait, that's exactly what we're doing, but with professionals who, like much of the population, see themselves as the appointed guardians of the populace, and therefore above them. Wow, we've come a long way. Just keep believing that the Government should regulate the ownership of your property (including firearms.) Soon everyone will believe it, and you'll own nothing. Nor will you fight back when someone decides he wants what's yours (UK, France?) This has happened time after time for several thousand years and continues today. But today, thanks to the invention of the small reliable firearm, even the weakest among us can stand up to the strongest. And that scares the hell out of everyone who wants to own your property, and tell you how to live your life. But unlike Sara Brady, I refuse to life my life in fear.
I'm curious as to specifically why you dislike the NRA.
The NRA, as opposed to the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action, and known by many as The Gun Lobby) is in fact a one hundred+ year old organization that promotes education, safety, and competitions for the firearms community. The NRA Certified Instructor is the gold standard for firearms use and safety instruction.
The NRA-ILA, on the other hand, is the group that goes to Capital Hill and with membership contributions, attempt to get Congress to see reason. I can understand someone disliking the ILA for political reasons, but the NRA has done vastly more good than most people realize. And are just about the only organization with the vision and scope to help firearms owners to be more safety conscious and better shooters.
Anyway, the main reason I would like to know your reasons is that I suspect, that like racism, most hatred of gun owners is a matter of ignorance. And, frankly, I'm more interested in fighting ignorance of all forms than castigating those who profess it.
Also, since I don't want to hide behind on-line anonymity, I am a life member of the NRA, and supporter of JPFO, GOA, VCDL (member) VSSA (member) and serveral other pro-RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) and pro-bill of rights organizations.
While IANL, I just got off the phone with mine for an unrelated reason, but the SCO question came up. The question is, who is being infringed? Did the contributers to the kernel give up their copyright in favor of Linus's (i.e. Linus (or his legal entity) now owns all kerl code for Linux) or does the Linux kernel have many different owners, all of whom have agreed to distribute thier code under the same license.
If it's the former, then only Linus (or his legal entity) can send SCO a C&D letter. If not then SCO is looking at a lot of potential law suits. But that also means very bad things for companies that use Linux because they would not have a sngle point of negotiation. Also, there are a lot of GPL'd packages that are typically distributed with Linux. Each of those owners is likely being infringed as well.
Anyway, this is an interesting problem. If you do want to sue SCO (in the US) or serve them for some reason you must find thier registered agent. Many national companies maintain one in each state. I was unsuccessfull, after speaking with the VA SCC, in finding one in my home state of VA.
Yeah, they make pretty lights in the sky at night, and when you get three in a week everyone gets a little nervous and starts talking about the end of the world, and then you get laid.
Of course, I'm married so getting laid is out of the question. Getting fucked, on the other hand...
And if they hadn't all died-off to make that miracle product crude oil then we would all be dead of asphyxiation.
Please invent a car that goes fast(100+ mph), is fun to drive, cheap to operate, relatively save, can haul my entire family around even in the snow and sand, and is affordable enough that I can own two. While doing everything that my SUV does, this future vehicle must not pollute. Please do this so I can buy one. Oh wait, I already own two SUVs that can do all of these things, and I don't really care that they pollute (I live in an uncongested area) so why should I buy a new car?
Anyway you need to make this new vehicle better than mine so I have a reason to buy it. Or maybe you should just get a law passed forcing me to spend the money now so that I have a reason to buy the new car and line the pockets of the lobbyists, politicians, and auto manufacturers for doing nothing of value. Let's further fuck up the economy by placing additional artificial restraints on the markets. Then we can all sit around and complain about how we can't afford anything because we all just bought new cars and couldn't get any value on the trade-in because it's worthless. And now that they are forcing auto dealers to pay you for your old car, the prices are outrageous. Oh, and since they gave the auto manufacturers incentives and tax breaks to lesson the burden on them and insure that they wouldn't simply quit the business, my already burdensome taxes have gone up. I sure hope those people who live on the other side of the country are enjoying the clean air I'm paying for. It's too bad they couldn't solve the problem on their own and had to make my family pay for it.
But please invent that car, I WILL buy one if it's better than mine. I don't want to pollute. I just don't really care that I do because there's no compelling reason not to.
One last observation: this is supposed to be news for nerds. Why do so many nerds want to solve problems by compelling the behavior of others rather than compelling the forces of nature?
This was a likely a foolish comment on the part of Mr. Gates. We know that security bugs sometime take weeks or months to fix once they are revealed privately to the vendor. Then the public revelation is often accompanied by the public release of the fix.
This comment will simply encourage more individuals and groups to release information about MS vulnerabilities publicly rather than go through channels. Apparently Gates thinks he's taking advantage of the fact that Linux doesn't have a PR department, and it will likely hurt MS shops in the long run.
MS acts much like an addict. "I don't have a problem, and it wouldn't be my fault if I did."
ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS. ... Microsoft reserves the right to update the TOU at any time without notice to you....
Is it just me, or does this say that the license you agreed to can be changed to anything, and no one has to notify you. But, oh! by the way, you agreed to the changes too so now anything they want to say you agreed to is in fact what you agreed to. As my lawyer says, that's a major "Fuck-U" paragraph.
I suspect that it will get to the point, since everyone else is doing this also, that it won't matter when the terms were changed. It will be assumed that the current agreement was always in force since you agreed to whatever future changes might be made. You always loose in any disagreement with the company, because you agreed to always agree.
Slashdot Mirror
During the last big hurricane that went through central Virginia and up the east coast (forgot the name.) Not only did my wife and I keep power (thanks to burried power lines.) but we watched the whole show on DirecTV. We lost signal for maybe five minutes during the entire event.
Is it quite possible that NASA engineers simply have not mastered the art and science of designing hardware and software operable in the harshest of environments?
More likely that NASA Engineers learned to solve many of these problems decades ago, and then retired or were forced to retire. Taking with them all of the knowledge to do many amazing things.
NASA then can't/won't find and hire enough experienced talent to do the job. There are many very good engineers throughout The US. Many of them work for NASA. But how many of them have a great deal of experience solving problems in space? For that matter how many of them have had the opportunity to do any work at all on systems beyond near earth orbit?
Um, how about those arcing missiles the Cylons shot out? Looked great, definately impossible.
I disagree. If a computer is driving, and has already computed the course, it already knows when to fire its manuvering jets and can presumeably do so very quickly and precisely. Any curve that can be "drawn" as the resultant vector of two or more primary vectors should be easy for a computer to execute.
Humans, on the other hand, have to constantly "poll" for their poition relative to their destination and make adjustments. It takes amazing coordination and training to do that quickly and precisely, even when you have the friction of a fluid (air) to limit your extranious motion.
Wow! Wish I'd thought of that one.
"I'll lure them in with the promise of an open relay...
Then BAM! Shut off their access."
Not like that happens every day.
Perhaps I worded my original post poorly. I was speaking of cloned organs and body parts.
Transplants would work, but I make the assumption that, like me, most people would not accept a used organ or body part unless theirs was failing and the technology or cost was prohibitive of cloned replacements. e.g. current technology. However, the advantages of cloned replacements extend beyond simple substitution to rejuvenation, and this would be desireable to many people. The problem is I don't know if I would get the same set of prints by regrowing my fingertips. How much of that is environmental, or would perhaps be an artifact of the cloning process? Even if twins have the same prints, is there any variation at all? And even it there isn't, it wouldn't be a valid test since the environmental conditions are identical for the gestation of each. I think it will take clones (or twins) gestated in different females to ever have that answer.
Sorry to lead you to an erroneous assumption.
To paraphrase Bruce Schneier; Once your key is stolen, it stays stolen.
Talk about identity theft. If your scan (the key) is compromised, it's not like you can get another eye ball, or finger tip from the government. And even it you could, your DNA would code for the exact same pattern (in theory anyway.)
And then there's the whole:
"Why did you change your identity citizen?"
"My identity was stolen Mr. Beaurocratic Overlord."
"And how do I know you're not the thief, citizen?"
It gets harder to prove you're you, when the government defines who you are.
The simple answer to the problem, is to answer the question of who owns the trucks. If the State owns them, then there's no question that the State can track them. If the trucks are privately owned, then tracking them would require either a contract provision, or another onerous law.
The nice thing about a free market is that you can always shop for some company willing to give up their employee's privacy for the right money. And the employees are, of course, free to find an employer who respects their privacy a little more. If the State can't find any takers, then the idea fails. If the contractor can't find any employees, then the idea fails (and the contractor gets sued.)
In principle, it's a very simple problem with a very simple answer; as long as people are free to engage in commerce with who they choose. But after the lawyers get involved it becomes a question of workers rights. People would rather file a law suit than try to find find a more reasonable employer.
I view advertisments as content. When I'm watching a show, which is then interupted by advertising, I often fast-forward. However, I've found that many times I stop and watch certian ads if they're interesting.
For example, if IBM, Aflac, Geico, and others have a new ad then I'll stop and watch. They get my undivided attention instead of my half-listening-from-the-kitchen attention.
I think that what we are seeing is the death of saturation advertising. After all, I have a copy of the add now. If I rewatch the show, the advertiser has a chance to get my attention again. But if I've seen an ad once, and paid attention, then why force me to watch it again. That will just make me resent the product. For example, I need to refinance my second mortgage. I am activly shopping, but I won't call Ditech. They pissed me off by advertising too much, and I'm sick of that phony bank rep. Traditional marketing says that I'm now more likely to have a positive image of the company because I'm aware of it's existance. That's not true. I now know that any ad they come up with is going to piss me off, so I look for their ads so that I can fast-forward or change the channel. Their extreme repitition has served to reenforce my disdain, and I haven't even done business with them.
This seems to be an artifact of the DVR. I don't get up and leave the room as much because I can fast-forward. I even have a more positive attitude toward the ads I do watch because I'm not forced to watch them. But if a company has a lousey advertising campaign, and tries to inflict it on me often enough, then they will face the wrath of the remote.
I still like the cred' stick idea from Shardowrun.
Good idea, and a fun game, but as an ex-employee of the NSA once told me; As you expand your sphere of influence, you gain greater control of the things in that sphere.
Anonymous cash is contrary to that doctrine. It allows an individual the autonomy to make purchases anonymously. And that, of course, means the government can't stick its nose in your finances to make sure you're paying your taxes to feed the power hungry monster.
Without getting religous in a technical discussion...
The real challenge will be to function in a society that requires this. If your convictions are such that you cannot abide this or any other personally identifiable implant, as mine are. Then this would be the greatest and longest test of your beliefs, religious or otherwise, that you could possibly face. How many of us are willing to face expulsion from society, and the poverty and uncertianty that it will cause, in order to be true to your beliefs? How many will do it just to keep their children in school, or to keep themselves insured?
I'm having a difficult enough time making money to pay my obscene tax levy without loosing contracts because some customers or emplyers want me to skirt the bounds of ethical propriety for them. I refuse, they fire me. Fine, it's a free market. Morality is expensive. I feel sorry for those who can't bear the cost. As well as those who think that it hasn't become that bad yet. They won't be ready when it hits them.
Of course, I could just go along. But my instinct for survival prevents me.
I think people should stop personalizing this to John Ashcroft. It's not just him, or this administration. It's our entire corrupt government. Get rid of Ashcroft and they replace him with an idealogical clone. Elect a Democrat president and they replace him with an Democrat idealogical clone.
As long as we continue to allow our government to swill from the keg-o-power, it will continue to encroach on freedom and maintain a life of its own. This is historically axiomatic. America will eventually become tyranical if the people don't act to stop it before they loose that power completly.
It's no accident (though perhaps coincidence) that someone is developing a way to use RFIDs for commerce. It is money that is the source of all governmental power. When someone takes your money and gives nothing, they are taking away the time you spent earning it. Money is very much more important than people seem to understand, and in a society that is wealthy enough that even the poorest often have enough to buy luxuries, few seem to understand that taking it from you is not diferent than going into your pantry and taking the food from your shelves, or taking the tools from your shed, workbench, or desk.
I must agree. It will soon be a new tool for government to manage the willingly oppressed. Eventually becoming mandatory. Social Security, Medicare, and payroll withholding were all voluntary once. But this also turns the market into a human ranch.
Whether for commerce or government, it has been the unholy grail of all tyrants (CEOs often make the best tyrants if given the power) to know everything about everyone. If your laziness propels you to have your credit card implanted, you place your trust in the hands of people who have no more interest in your wellbeing than I have for the cattle harvested for my dinner table. It is in my best interest that the herd flourish so that I have a steady supply of tasty steaks. But I would hardly call the cattle ranch a free society just because the animals can choose their own spot to graze.
First, I'm a parent. That doesn't make my advise better than that of anyone else, but it does mean I am not being flippant like the majority of post to this topic.
Children are trying to find the boundaries to life. They have no idea where those are. Good parents teach children the bounds of acceptable behavior. That includes preventing behavior that may damage or kill them. Access to certain sensory inputs that are not age appropriate can be damaging. I believe that the majority of pornography falls into that area. Will it hurt them physically? Masturbation jokes aside, no. Will they recover from any psychological damage they incur? Of course. but this is one of many things that make growing-up more difficult than it needs to be, and can lead to long term dysfunction in rare cases. Anyone who doesn't think that what you see can have a negative effect on you psychologically, is not giving proper consideration to the question. Violence on television (as opposed to sexual content, and NOT including cartoon violence) has a very real and negative effect on adults. Most adults have reasonable impulse control. Most children do not. I am unable to cite the study that concluded this, but any social science types out there should be able to.
The point of all of this is that parents must be vigilant always and unyielding at times. If you don't enforce the boundaries you set, then children learn that there are no consequences to their actions. How many times a day do we lament that behavior in adults? If you want to raise a potential criminal, you teach that nothing but your own satisfaction matters, and there are no boundaries to your behavior. Like most choices in life, you do that by inaction rather than action.
As for trust. That must be earned, and constantly reaffirmed. children are not adults. They often have great intelligence, but never have the wisdom of experience. To raise a child well you don't have to be smarter than your child, just wiser. It is not unfair to say "don't quickly exit from everything." It is unfair not to enforce the rule. What you don't know can hurt your child.
Finally, you don't create a sense of privacy by turning a blind eye to certain areas of your child's life. You must know everything. You, instead, allow certain behaviors that you know to be benign but possibly out of the norm. And others that may teach a lesson without doing long term harm. One of the most difficult jobs of parents is to decide what mistakes to allow their children to make and what to save them from. You can't save them from all mistakes, and you do more harm that good to try.
As for on-line behavior. I like the TIS firewall toolkit's web proxy feature of being able to log all or just initial http requests. I also have a phone systems that logs all incoming and out going calls. It also prevents calls from certain extensions at certain times. This is useful for requiring younger children to be in a public part of the house when they talk on the phone. If they want privacy I can leave the room, but they must ask for it. But it's all just a fall back position, so I can check up on the trust building part of things. I want to know if my children are lying to me, but I have to give them the opportunity to tell the truth. I also have to teach them not to blindly trust others, by teaching what is expected of them to earn my trust. Lastly, I have to have the wisdom let them be themselves within limits.
Sort of.
The big difference being:
1. the people are not trained to arms, having been disarmed by Saddam. And everyone does not have a Kalashnikov. Only a few are resisting, and most of them are outsiders who want to impose their own brand of tyranny on the people.
2. Had the country been a democratic republic with an armed populace the US would not only have never needed to go in, but would not have been able to do so. The guerrilla insurgency we are seeing now would have instead been a wave of resistance, so expensive in men and material, that we could not easily sustain it.
3. The secondary purpose for the US being there is to establish self rule, not to occupy land. If the people of Iraq see that we don't get out when we say we will, then there will be an uprising. This is why I oppose disarming the few citizens of Iraq who are armed. It will encourage us to leave on time. I only hope that they don't disarm themselves under their new constitution. Resistance to tyranny is as important as resistance to outside invaders. Don't think that the would be tyrants in the US aren't afraid of the 80 million gun owners who would resist their tyranny. You don't need tanks to bring down an army. But fighting against propaganda is a different matter.
Nothing's going to happen to your kidneys if you follow the diet reasonably well.
I wanted to know if the diet had any health problems so I conducted my own single person study. Not useful scientifcally, but my results have mirrored those of others.
I spent a year eating low carb under the supervision of my doctor. (my idea, not his) At the end of the year I had a full physical with blood work. The results? Perfect. All tests normal. Blood sugar, triglycerides, blood pressure, LDL, and HDL, etc...
That was more than a year ago. My blood work is still perfect. Also, my between meal mood swings went away after the first week, and I have more energy, more consistantly. Why is this significant? Because I've eaten three eggs and sausages with whole milk every morning for breakfast for the last two years, and I didn't get high cholestrol (however you spell it) Tonight for supper I had a 24oz ribeye on my back yard grill. I firmly believe that low carb is the healthiest way to eat.
Wow, that was either an incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant comment.
.32 to .45 inch hole in the skin of an airplane is not catastrophic, but would likely require a decent to below 10k feet. Assuming the terrorists were neutralized, the plane would continue to its destination. If not, it would continue to its new alternate destination and three thousand people would die.
First, until about 1968 guns were allowed on planes. Pilots, passengers, small furry rodents. No problems, one day someone just decided to ban them.
Second, handgun projectiles are fairly low energy (relative to rifles, and other projectiles) The likelihood of complete penetration of the skin of the aircraft is low. Also personal defense ammo (hollow point) is designed to DECREASE penetration and INCREASE energy transfer against soft targets. In humans that results a large temporary wound channel due to hydrostatic shock. If you really mean to end the threat, you want the projectile to expand and stop. This is the opposite of what you need against a hard target like metal or a very thick skinned animal.
Third, a
Fourth, the mandatory use of frangible ammo (breaks up on impact, also has very good stopping power/energy transfer to soft targets) would eliminate any risk of penetration by a handgun projectile.
Sounds to me like guns on planes are a VERY GOOD idea. Just make sure that everyone has frangible ammo, and has had some safety training (anyone who uses their gun unsafely deserves to have it taken away until they get some sense.)
But rifles on planes, now that scares me.
Since "well-regulated" means practiced, disciplined, and ready to deploy, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the phrase. The theory was that if everyone brought their own gun to the gun fight, then any country stupid enough to try to invade the US would be met with overwhelming resistance in the form of a civilian population, trained to arms, and bearing military rifles. There would be no place that an invasion could not immediately be resisted, which would buy time to raise an army and bring in the big guns. This would also keep taxes low since there would be no need for a large standing army, and the populace would fund their own firearms and practice ammo purchases. Well, it worked. Now few can conceive of an invasion of US soil and see no need for the Militia.
Unfortunately, fewer still are willing to sacrifice themselves for the freedom of their people, and the time will come again when we need to watch our borders. Oh wait, that's exactly what we're doing, but with professionals who, like much of the population, see themselves as the appointed guardians of the populace, and therefore above them. Wow, we've come a long way. Just keep believing that the Government should regulate the ownership of your property (including firearms.) Soon everyone will believe it, and you'll own nothing. Nor will you fight back when someone decides he wants what's yours (UK, France?) This has happened time after time for several thousand years and continues today. But today, thanks to the invention of the small reliable firearm, even the weakest among us can stand up to the strongest. And that scares the hell out of everyone who wants to own your property, and tell you how to live your life. But unlike Sara Brady, I refuse to life my life in fear.
you can change it.
Somehow I don't think you would take that stance if the shoe were on the other foot.
The vast majority of users never change the defaults for anything, including the locations of lawn furniture in thier back yard.
I'm curious as to specifically why you dislike the NRA.
The NRA, as opposed to the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action, and known by many as The Gun Lobby) is in fact a one hundred+ year old organization that promotes education, safety, and competitions for the firearms community. The NRA Certified Instructor is the gold standard for firearms use and safety instruction.
The NRA-ILA, on the other hand, is the group that goes to Capital Hill and with membership contributions, attempt to get Congress to see reason. I can understand someone disliking the ILA for political reasons, but the NRA has done vastly more good than most people realize. And are just about the only organization with the vision and scope to help firearms owners to be more safety conscious and better shooters.
Anyway, the main reason I would like to know your reasons is that I suspect, that like racism, most hatred of gun owners is a matter of ignorance. And, frankly, I'm more interested in fighting ignorance of all forms than castigating those who profess it.
Also, since I don't want to hide behind on-line anonymity, I am a life member of the NRA, and supporter of JPFO, GOA, VCDL (member) VSSA (member) and serveral other pro-RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) and pro-bill of rights organizations.
While IANL, I just got off the phone with mine for an unrelated reason, but the SCO question came up. The question is, who is being infringed? Did the contributers to the kernel give up their copyright in favor of Linus's (i.e. Linus (or his legal entity) now owns all kerl code for Linux) or does the Linux kernel have many different owners, all of whom have agreed to distribute thier code under the same license.
If it's the former, then only Linus (or his legal entity) can send SCO a C&D letter. If not then SCO is looking at a lot of potential law suits. But that also means very bad things for companies that use Linux because they would not have a sngle point of negotiation. Also, there are a lot of GPL'd packages that are typically distributed with Linux. Each of those owners is likely being infringed as well.
Anyway, this is an interesting problem. If you do want to sue SCO (in the US) or serve them for some reason you must find thier registered agent. Many national companies maintain one in each state. I was unsuccessfull, after speaking with the VA SCC, in finding one in my home state of VA.
Yeah, they make pretty lights in the sky at night, and when you get three in a week everyone gets a little nervous and starts talking about the end of the world, and then you get laid.
Of course, I'm married so getting laid is out of the question. Getting fucked, on the other hand...
And if they hadn't all died-off to make that miracle product crude oil then we would all be dead of asphyxiation.
Please invent a car that goes fast(100+ mph), is fun to drive, cheap to operate, relatively save, can haul my entire family around even in the snow and sand, and is affordable enough that I can own two. While doing everything that my SUV does, this future vehicle must not pollute. Please do this so I can buy one. Oh wait, I already own two SUVs that can do all of these things, and I don't really care that they pollute (I live in an uncongested area) so why should I buy a new car?
Anyway you need to make this new vehicle better than mine so I have a reason to buy it. Or maybe you should just get a law passed forcing me to spend the money now so that I have a reason to buy the new car and line the pockets of the lobbyists, politicians, and auto manufacturers for doing nothing of value. Let's further fuck up the economy by placing additional artificial restraints on the markets. Then we can all sit around and complain about how we can't afford anything because we all just bought new cars and couldn't get any value on the trade-in because it's worthless. And now that they are forcing auto dealers to pay you for your old car, the prices are outrageous. Oh, and since they gave the auto manufacturers incentives and tax breaks to lesson the burden on them and insure that they wouldn't simply quit the business, my already burdensome taxes have gone up. I sure hope those people who live on the other side of the country are enjoying the clean air I'm paying for. It's too bad they couldn't solve the problem on their own and had to make my family pay for it.
But please invent that car, I WILL buy one if it's better than mine. I don't want to pollute. I just don't really care that I do because there's no compelling reason not to.
One last observation: this is supposed to be news for nerds. Why do so many nerds want to solve problems by compelling the behavior of others rather than compelling the forces of nature?
This was a likely a foolish comment on the part of Mr. Gates. We know that security bugs sometime take weeks or months to fix once they are revealed privately to the vendor. Then the public revelation is often accompanied by the public release of the fix.
This comment will simply encourage more individuals and groups to release information about MS vulnerabilities publicly rather than go through channels. Apparently Gates thinks he's taking advantage of the fact that Linux doesn't have a PR department, and it will likely hurt MS shops in the long run.
MS acts much like an addict. "I don't have a problem, and it wouldn't be my fault if I did."
Of course, I'm being replaced by a sys admin expert system written by underpaid oversees programers.
Here's the one that I like. First paragraph:
... Microsoft reserves the right to update the TOU at any time without notice to you. ...
ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS.
Is it just me, or does this say that the license you agreed to can be changed to anything, and no one has to notify you. But, oh! by the way, you agreed to the changes too so now anything they want to say you agreed to is in fact what you agreed to. As my lawyer says, that's a major "Fuck-U" paragraph.
I suspect that it will get to the point, since everyone else is doing this also, that it won't matter when the terms were changed. It will be assumed that the current agreement was always in force since you agreed to whatever future changes might be made. You always loose in any disagreement with the company, because you agreed to always agree.