The more refined approach is graphite dust(like for lubricating door locks) and a vibratory table.
The second advantage to this method is that it can be rented out after-hours. The downside is the huge drycleaning bill trying to get powdered graphite out of expensive Victoria's Secret undies, and the evidence tends to stick to the table.
I wrote this joke using pen and paper while holding my eyes shut. I hope you can read it. If not, I'll ask the local police to recover it for you. I know you'd enjoy it.
Not sure what this says about the "Highway Patrol Officer"'s abilities as a driver. If he couldn't manage either of those then this new system won't save him.
He was distracted by all the bright shiny things dangling off a ring near his right hand. They were making tinking sounds and reflecting sunlight, and he ignored the fact that turning the one sticking into the steering column two clicks to the left would have shut the engine off and saved all their lives..
Either that, or he was too busy trying to pull his Taser out of his off-duty weapons bag so he could shock the vehicle into submission.
"Uh, we know what we want to do isn't legal and isn't morally acceptable in a civilized society,...
Interrogation and intelligence interviews certainly are legal and morally acceptable in a civilized society. Do you think we're supposed to catch bad guys and then say "you sit over there, we aren't going to ask you anything about what your friends are planning because someone told us it wasn't morally acceptable to interview you"? Do you think that other civilized societies don't interrogate anyone?
What isn't legal or acceptable is torture, and if you read the fine article you'd notice that nothing at all was said about coming up with new and better torture methods, only evaluation existing interrogation methods to see how those could be improved.
Classifying this as "department of creepy" displays the author's bias. That it comes from NetworkWorld makes as much sense as the Zimmerman story that appeared in slashdot recently. Neither one has any special relevance to nerds or networks.
ATM: "Hmmm, I see from your lifeline... well, you might as well leave the money in the bank, you won't need it in about ten minutes..."
ATM: "I see a tall well-dressed woman in your future. You better take out more money." (To provide some context for/. readers, "woman" is what your mom is, and when you date well-dressed ones it takes money to keep them happy. A "date" is, well, nevermind. Clean up your bedroom. As long as you live under my roof you follow my rules.)
ATM: "Your sun is in ascencion and all will go well in that fiscal matter you are contemplating. There will be a $2 fee for this transaction."
TFS isn't tied up well because it's missing a "not".
"Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does not involve a premeditated plan to kill."
And but you totally missed the absurd use of "and but", whether there is a "not" missing or.
Doing something ethical more than once doesn't, by definition, make it unethical. Doing something unethical more than once doesn't, by definition, make it ethical. Thus, the number of sites is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is ethical or not.
According to the summary, the person is being asked to go to their "social websites", not every social website on the planet, and not to create fake accounts at social websites. Just go to the ones he already uses. This is a critical difference between this and true astroturfing. The other difference is that he's not being asked to write "glowing reviews" of the product, only click on "like" or similar options on the sites he uses. Also a significant difference from true astroturfing.
And I disagree. Liking does imply endorsement.
Who are you disagreeing with? "Liking" is an endorsement, of course. It does not, however, imply anything about being a USER. Only when the endorsement says "I use X and am happy with it" can you claim any statement about use. Just "I like X" doesn't.
Have you ever seen the JG Wentworth commercials? Do you imagine that every opera singer they've used in those ads has "a long term settlement and I need cash now?" That's what they are saying. Are they all users of JG Wentworth's product? I doubt it. I assume nothing about their use despite them singing happily about it.
And here you prove my point for me. You might not BE a "happy user",
How can my NOT being a "happy satisfied user" prove in any way that when I say I like Sugar Smacks that I'm saying I'm a "happy satisfied user"? I'm not. I am not a user, and it is NOT unethical to say I like them. Just as the Trojan example showed. You are inferring something that isn't implied.
I'll give you another example. I can say I like "Lunelle" based on reading about it. There is not a chance that I'll ever be a user. Not going to happen. So, are you saying, if I suggest it as a product to someone else, I'm being unethical because I will never use it myself? If I go to a blog where someone is asking about those kinds of products, and I say "I think Lunelle looks like a good product", am I astroturfing simply because I am not a user myself, and have I implied that I actually use it? Of course not.
Anonymous email from one of those temporary email services like 10-minute mail, then. Then there's no possible way they could tie it to any specific employee.
The issue is not how to report them, but that by suggesting that they will be reported by someone and lose access to the app store, you will probably be seen as making a threat. If you intend on reporting them, the last thing you want to say to them is "you could lose your app store access of you violate their terms..." The implication is that someone will report them, and you are currently standing there telling them that what they are doing is reportable.
Yes, you can do it anonymously, using any number of means. Setting up a gmail account would be easier. But just who do you think the company is going to think reported them? It won't matter if you did or didn't at that point. The threat that they inferred from your statement and the actual report will be linked, and you will be hosed. Even if it is the smarter, quieter non-threatening employees who do make the report.
Employees are being asked to falsely represent themselves as happily satisfied users of the product.
They are being asked to "like" the product on a social website. This implies nothing about being a user. You have inferred something that isn't there. I like Sugar Smacks. I haven't had any Sugar smacks for twenty years. I would not say I am a "happy user", but I have no problem at all saying I "like" them.
There is no difference.
There is a significant difference between posting on a blog under a fake name saying "I use Trojan condoms and I think they are great", and clicking the "like" button on your facebook account. One is fake, one is not. One says you are a happy user, one does not. It's another example of something I do not use but would have no problem recommending to others by "liking" them, because I think they are a good product.
It is the differences that make the difference. If you can start with a tautology, I can end with one.
Dakota Channing was named after North Dakota. Does that mean she lives in North Dakota? No. She was born in Georgia. Georgia O'Keefe, named after Georgia, was born in Wisconsin and probably never got to Georgia, even though she did work in South Carolina.
Caroline Kennedy was named after South Carolina. Does she live there? No, she lives in New York. Dick York (first and really only true husband to Samantha, for those who care abouts such things), named after that vernerable city (and state!) doesn't live in New York (city OR state), he lived in Grand Rapids Michigan until he died in 1992.
Speedy Gonzalez (rapido == speedy) never went to Michigan, although he was named after Grand Rapids. (Little known fact: his full name was Super Speedy Gonzalez, or "La Grando Rapido".)
And Morey Amsterdam was named after what New York used to be called -- New Amsterdam. Ok, he did live in New York. Forget about him.
Just point out to whoever's in charge that what you're being asked to do violates their policies and could potentially result in your company's app being pulled off of their app store altogether.
That really looks like you are making the threat to report the company to the app store.
As a fellow anonymous, representing the big E and the A, we get it in our inboxes daily to astroturf our products.
He's not being asked to astroturf. He's being asked to like the product. Astroturfing is when you post comments to blogs and in other places saying how great the product is... not unlike the occasional product plug we see here in slashdot. It's a term that comes from a "fake grassroots organization". If you pretend to be some unaffiliated user who posts things like "hey, the solution to your problem is Spiffy Car and Cat wax, it will solve two problems at the same time..." you're astroturfing. If you simply click "like" on Facebook, you're not.
Do you actually not like the product your company makes, whether you use it or not? If not, don't like it. If so, what's the problem? You're not being fake.
Lol. Off you go on some grammar parsing mission completely ignoring the point of the words themselves - that those "facts" are even worth mentioning in a serious conversation.
I'm sorry, but the fact that someone went to court and said something inflammatory isn't worth mentioning? We aren't supposed to pay attention to what the people who are doing the attacks say?
It still doesn't change his point - that it is legitimate to fear people simply because you think they are muslim.
He didn't say that. He didn't make that point. You can twist the words all you want, but the claim that his thoughts were "fair" or "legitimate" never appears. He admitted he had them. Period. People can admit they have ringworm, but that doesn't make having ringworm good or fair.
An untold number of people die every year from AIDS and cancers. Is that a fact we can't get away from? Absolutely. Is it fair? Which planet do you come from where it would be? Saying something is a fact doesn't mean it's fair or good or right. Just that it is a fact. Since the facts he referred to actually have nothing to do with his fears or emotions, what you are saying shouldn't be appearing in a serious conversation.
Emphasis on the part where he says that those thoughts are fair.
No, the emphasis was on the part where he said there was no way to get away from "these facts". He said nothing about his thoughts or emotions there. YOU put the entire quote into one paragraph as if it belonged that way logically. I see a quite logical break at "Now, I remember...". That puts his feelings in a different part of his statement. It is a fact that english speakers will often use the interjection "now..." to indicate a break in the chain of thought. "Here's how I feel... Now, here's something someone said..."
In writing, breaking paragraphs is easy. Hit CR twice. In speaking, which he was, the breaks have to be inferred. It's easy to jump to the least complimentary assumption as to where the breaks occur, which may be proof of the point I was making about humans having biases. Si?
You quoted the facts he referred to: "Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood." Is it not a fact that the Times Square bomber was in court? Is it not a fact that he said what Juan claimed he did?
Agreed, we're missing context here, but nobody really cares what behavior Juan exhibits on a plane, but all of his fans care which behavior Juan thinks is appropriate to exhibit on a plane.
Now you are trying to paint a large group of people with an opinion that they don't necessarily share. Hmm... He didn't talk about what behaviour he thinks is appropriate, he talked about what he felt. He admitted to being an imperfect human. "This is what I feel..." And I see nothing in the quoted text that says "it's good to feel that way and then act upon those feelings...".
Fuck that, it's NOT ok,
Yes, it is ok to have emotions and thoughts. It's being human. It's what you DO with them that counts. I bet that his response to his feelings is to be more concerned about his actions than most. He knows and admits that he has them.
Compare that to the liberal media pundits who absolutely have biases and prejudices but adamantly refuse to admit that they do. The only way they cannot have biases is to not be human. The first step to dealing with a prejudice is to recognize it. Until you do that, you cannot get over it. And the wrong thing to do is punish people who have the courage to admit an emotional bias, because you will only force others to remain silent and harbor grudges against those who punish human thought. (Do you notice the basis for the first amendment here? Better a nutcase who can freely speak and be identified and counteracted than a silent festering underground you can't ever get rid of just by lecturing at them. Even if you hate what they say.)
If you're nervous about Muslims, or black guys, or the Irish, or the Canadians, then it's your job to talk to the ones you meet so you realize that people are people and assholes are assholes.
I would bet that in his job at NPR, Juan Williams talked to a lot of Muslims (and blacks, and Irish, and Canadians) and I bet he has a firm intellectual grasp on the concept that "people are people and assholes are assholes". And I bet he has a firm grasp on the difference between emotions and intellectual knowledge.
Why do people scream when they go over the top of a roller coaster ride? Intellectually they must know that the chance of injury is vanishingly small, and yet, they scream their heads off in fear. Why do people scream when they bungi jump? Same thing. They don't scream when they cross the street, even though they know, intellectually, that their chance of being hit by a car is greater than dying on a roller coaster or bungi jump. Why do children getting their first haircut scream and cry? Their emotion is to be afraid, they don't have the intellectual experience to know it doesn't hurt -- much. Emotions and intellect are two vastly different things.
Overall, I would rather have someone who has and admits to having emotions reporting the news than someone who thinks his intellect puts him above it all. The former will understand where he may have biases and work to counter them; the latter will utter biased "news" without any concern or recognition of that at all.
IN you example the system would realize it wasn't on the correct road in microseconds. It and probably adjust.
My only error was in talking about the driver being stuck. In a driverless vehicle that failed, there would be nobody there with the vehicle. Just a vehicle stuck under an overpass.
You ASSUME that the system is perfect and that the computer in the car would "realize" (very anthropomorphic, by the way) that it wasn't on the right street. Just like the tens or hundreds of examples of bogus map data in modern GPS has alerted the driver that he wasnt on the right road. We have examples of existing failure modes that we can't get rid of. You go to the extreme when you assume that the data being used in a driverless vehicle will be perfect.
And it would use laser finder to determine the actual bridge position, not read some damn sign.
I wasn't the one who brought up OCRing the bridge sign.
Driver less cars will mean a lot fewer accidents.
In your perfect world of perfect systems and perfect data. The rest of us live in the real world and understand the saying "to err is human, to really screw it up takes a computer..."
You really have no argument if you have to go to such extremes.
I went to no extremes. I simply pointed out that removing the human factor from the system doesn't necessarily mean that things will work better and there will be fewer accidents.
Humans are remarkably resilient and able to solve problems that computers cannot. Risk's Digest is filled with case of computer and system failure.
If a human sees that the "superhighway" that his computerized driving system has him on is made of gravel, he can override the system a long time before the "three inch sensor sticking up from the top of his truck" impacts the overpass. (By the time the sensor triggers, it's too late.) A human can see that the overpass is kinda short, even when a computerized camera cannot OCR the bridge information from the posted sign that is covered with dirt or hidden behind a tree branch.
The FAA has a history of blaming everything on "pilot error". They are just as wrong for doing that as anyone here is for assuming that getting humans out of the system will inherently make it safer.
taxes should be paid by where the customer is at, not where the business is at. It's the only way to put businesses on the same playing field level.
Taxes paid by a customer should be at the rate where the customer is. Taxes paid by a business should be paid at the rate where the business is. That's the only way to create a fair, level playing field for both.
Tariffs and import duties (taxes levied by a government to force the rate paid by businesses to be based on where the customer is) aren't the way to create a level playing field. That, and this "no taxation without representation" idea.
Oh, at 5%, it lets the government exclude IRA's and your personal home from that tax, without reducing the amount the government gets.
Every version of a flat tax I've seen has said they need to be at 17% to be revenue neutral. This analysis talks about 19%. Perry's proposal is 20%. You've managed to come up with a tax rate that is one quarter of what everyone else is proposing and still get the same revenue?
And then to claim that you can exclude things from taxation and not reduce the revenue? How do you apply a 5% to a smaller number and get the same result?
Because my version puts almost all the tax burden on the rich, as opposed to the vile conservative version that puts almost all the tax burden on the poor.
The latter part of your statement is patently wrong. The "poor" pay almost nothing in taxes, at least in the income tax system that you are proposing to replace. The rich pay the most. But let's ignore that class bias and talk about the first part of your statement...
It, too, is wrong. Conservatives will oppose it because it is patently unfair to anyone who owns anything, not because of who owns it.
But wait, you've suggested an ASSET tax. So, if you've managed to save money out of your salary this year, you will be taxed on those savings every year for the rest of your life.
Once, twice, thrice, four times, five times, taxed on the same money over and over again. Yes, I can see how someone who has no money would call this "fair".
If you buy a car, you'll be taxed at some estimated value for that car every year until you get rid of it.
If you are a business owner, or a farmer, you'll be paying 5% of the value of your property every year. If a farmer has a million dollar farm that's managing to break even now, tomorrow you want $50,000 from him in taxes. And again the next year. And again the next year. And again the next year. Yes, I can see how someone who owns nothing would think this is "fair".
In just 14 years you will have taken from every person in the country half of what he owns. If someone can't make the tax payment on his business, he'll have to sell. It won't matter if the farm lost money, or the business employes 100 people. Yes, I can see how someone who has nothing would call this "fair".
Oh, wait. They can BORROW the money to pay the tax. Put the farm up as collateral. Pay interest on the borrowed money, and deduct the loan amount from the asset value. Eventually the property will be fully mortgaged and the tax you get will be zero, and the costs to the property owner astronomical. Banks will own everything, and when the owner defaults we'll have a great time in the recession that causes.
No, you CAN'T separate these taxes out then say the poor pay no 'income taxes', because you don't count the taxes they do pay.
And you don't count the massive amounts of income tax the rich pay when claiming that they don't pay their fair share.
The multiple taxation aspect of your plan is unfair from the start. Fixing that, and creating exemptions, will create a system that is just as complicated, eventually, as the one we have now. By requiring everyone to keep track of all their assets, you will create a paperwork nightmare for the individual that far exceeds what we have today. Kiss the short form goodby, you'll need to inventory everything you have every year. It will also mean that the rate will have to go up to be revenue neutral, and go up anytime the government wants more money. Add on the points that the states and local governments will want, and you'll be taking half of what everyone owns in a lot less than 14 years.
I mean, how many accidents will occur once human error is removed from the equation?
Yes, because we all know that GPS and street information can never be wrong. That truck driver won't just be stuck under the overpass, he'll be all the way through (just missing a bit of the trailer), since the vehicle will be going full, safe speed for that unpaved part of the superhighway.
No, another reason not to upload your photo to facebook.
If your friends don't know what you look like, are they really your friends?
If someone tries using my facebook photo to identify me as the person who slugged them in a bar, unless the cops are really really stupid they'll arrest the guy for filing a false police report. Let's just say that my photo isn't a good likeness of me.
However, isn't the value of rural farmland almost entirely based on how good it is for growing crops (and the current value of those crops)?
No. The value of farmland is dependent upon how much someone will pay to buy it.
If a developer wants to build a subdivision on it, he doesn't care how good it is for growing crops. Will a developer want to build a new subdivision next to a wind farm? Not if he can find someplace else.
It's a fair statement that a wind farm on your neighbor's property will lower your property value. (And that may mean, in a good economy, that the value of your property may not go up as much as it should.) You can bet that the assessed value for taxation purposes will ignore any market effect the wind farms have, so your taxes will go up but your true property value will go down.
The entire reason the government is dropping these wind farms out amongst the real farms is because nobody in the suburbs wants them anywhere close to them. "Tyranny of the majority" I think applies.
An argument against them that I haven't seen made yet has to do with agricultural operations. If a farm uses crop dusters to dispense fertilizer or other ag chemicals, then a big wind farm right next door pretty much removes that option. Crop dusters are used when they are cheaper and more efficient (which means "cheaper" in time), so preventing crop dusting by putting large obstacles in the way will increase the costs of production on that farm.
And for those who say the farmer benefits from lower costs of energy, try again. Here in Oregon we have "Blue Sky". You can get your energy from renewable sources! It costs more. You save nothing. You get a warm fuzzy feeling for being eco-friendly.
Another reason for the pink "not a bomb!!!!" sticker that only the TSA has access to.
I've never seen that one. What airport do they use that at? And how, once they apply it to the device that is "not a bomb" and hand it back to the passenger, do they keep it out of the hands of a passenger?
Kind of self-defeating if you ask me. A pink sticker they can put on carryon items that they have to take off the carryon items so only they have access to them.
That was a kind of roundabout way of saying it's impossible. TSA may be the only ones who have access to them before they start using them, but once in use, passengers will have them, and a passenger who is carrying "not a bomb" today may be excited to stick it on his "is a bomb" tomorrow. That makes it useless.
Better question - if they let it on the plane, then why didn't TSA ask the flight crew what the thing was instead of treating it like a bomb?
Because the flight crew had no idea what it was. They're the ones who reported it. This was the incoming flight crew that had just walked onto the plane. And the outgoing flight crew certainly doesn't know what every passenger is carrying, so even if you could find them, they couldn't help.
Slashdot Mirror
They helped somebody out, got to practice obviously useful forensics skills,
Yep. The next time someone writes a 26 page confession or bomb threat using a pen with no ink, Dorset constabulary will be all ready to go!
The more refined approach is graphite dust(like for lubricating door locks) and a vibratory table.
The second advantage to this method is that it can be rented out after-hours. The downside is the huge drycleaning bill trying to get powdered graphite out of expensive Victoria's Secret undies, and the evidence tends to stick to the table.
I wrote this joke using pen and paper while holding my eyes shut. I hope you can read it. If not, I'll ask the local police to recover it for you. I know you'd enjoy it.
Not sure what this says about the "Highway Patrol Officer"'s abilities as a driver. If he couldn't manage either of those then this new system won't save him.
He was distracted by all the bright shiny things dangling off a ring near his right hand. They were making tinking sounds and reflecting sunlight, and he ignored the fact that turning the one sticking into the steering column two clicks to the left would have shut the engine off and saved all their lives..
Either that, or he was too busy trying to pull his Taser out of his off-duty weapons bag so he could shock the vehicle into submission.
I'm assuming there has to be more to that story.
"Uh, we know what we want to do isn't legal and isn't morally acceptable in a civilized society,...
Interrogation and intelligence interviews certainly are legal and morally acceptable in a civilized society. Do you think we're supposed to catch bad guys and then say "you sit over there, we aren't going to ask you anything about what your friends are planning because someone told us it wasn't morally acceptable to interview you"? Do you think that other civilized societies don't interrogate anyone?
What isn't legal or acceptable is torture, and if you read the fine article you'd notice that nothing at all was said about coming up with new and better torture methods, only evaluation existing interrogation methods to see how those could be improved.
Classifying this as "department of creepy" displays the author's bias. That it comes from NetworkWorld makes as much sense as the Zimmerman story that appeared in slashdot recently. Neither one has any special relevance to nerds or networks.
ATM: "I see a tall well-dressed woman in your future. You better take out more money." (To provide some context for /. readers, "woman" is what your mom is, and when you date well-dressed ones it takes money to keep them happy. A "date" is, well, nevermind. Clean up your bedroom. As long as you live under my roof you follow my rules.)
ATM: "Your sun is in ascencion and all will go well in that fiscal matter you are contemplating. There will be a $2 fee for this transaction."
TFS isn't tied up well because it's missing a "not". "Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does not involve a premeditated plan to kill."
And but you totally missed the absurd use of "and but", whether there is a "not" missing or.
Sites, not site.
Doing something ethical more than once doesn't, by definition, make it unethical. Doing something unethical more than once doesn't, by definition, make it ethical. Thus, the number of sites is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is ethical or not.
According to the summary, the person is being asked to go to their "social websites", not every social website on the planet, and not to create fake accounts at social websites. Just go to the ones he already uses. This is a critical difference between this and true astroturfing. The other difference is that he's not being asked to write "glowing reviews" of the product, only click on "like" or similar options on the sites he uses. Also a significant difference from true astroturfing.
And I disagree. Liking does imply endorsement.
Who are you disagreeing with? "Liking" is an endorsement, of course. It does not, however, imply anything about being a USER. Only when the endorsement says "I use X and am happy with it" can you claim any statement about use. Just "I like X" doesn't.
Have you ever seen the JG Wentworth commercials? Do you imagine that every opera singer they've used in those ads has "a long term settlement and I need cash now?" That's what they are saying. Are they all users of JG Wentworth's product? I doubt it. I assume nothing about their use despite them singing happily about it.
And here you prove my point for me. You might not BE a "happy user",
How can my NOT being a "happy satisfied user" prove in any way that when I say I like Sugar Smacks that I'm saying I'm a "happy satisfied user"? I'm not. I am not a user, and it is NOT unethical to say I like them. Just as the Trojan example showed. You are inferring something that isn't implied.
I'll give you another example. I can say I like "Lunelle" based on reading about it. There is not a chance that I'll ever be a user. Not going to happen. So, are you saying, if I suggest it as a product to someone else, I'm being unethical because I will never use it myself? If I go to a blog where someone is asking about those kinds of products, and I say "I think Lunelle looks like a good product", am I astroturfing simply because I am not a user myself, and have I implied that I actually use it? Of course not.
Anonymous email from one of those temporary email services like 10-minute mail, then. Then there's no possible way they could tie it to any specific employee.
The issue is not how to report them, but that by suggesting that they will be reported by someone and lose access to the app store, you will probably be seen as making a threat. If you intend on reporting them, the last thing you want to say to them is "you could lose your app store access of you violate their terms..." The implication is that someone will report them, and you are currently standing there telling them that what they are doing is reportable.
Yes, you can do it anonymously, using any number of means. Setting up a gmail account would be easier. But just who do you think the company is going to think reported them? It won't matter if you did or didn't at that point. The threat that they inferred from your statement and the actual report will be linked, and you will be hosed. Even if it is the smarter, quieter non-threatening employees who do make the report.
Astroturfing is astroturfing, no matter the form.
Tautology is the word I'm looking for, I think.
Employees are being asked to falsely represent themselves as happily satisfied users of the product.
They are being asked to "like" the product on a social website. This implies nothing about being a user. You have inferred something that isn't there. I like Sugar Smacks. I haven't had any Sugar smacks for twenty years. I would not say I am a "happy user", but I have no problem at all saying I "like" them.
There is no difference.
There is a significant difference between posting on a blog under a fake name saying "I use Trojan condoms and I think they are great", and clicking the "like" button on your facebook account. One is fake, one is not. One says you are a happy user, one does not. It's another example of something I do not use but would have no problem recommending to others by "liking" them, because I think they are a good product.
It is the differences that make the difference. If you can start with a tautology, I can end with one.
Maybe Groening failed geography.
Dakota Channing was named after North Dakota. Does that mean she lives in North Dakota? No. She was born in Georgia. Georgia O'Keefe, named after Georgia, was born in Wisconsin and probably never got to Georgia, even though she did work in South Carolina.
Caroline Kennedy was named after South Carolina. Does she live there? No, she lives in New York. Dick York (first and really only true husband to Samantha, for those who care abouts such things), named after that vernerable city (and state!) doesn't live in New York (city OR state), he lived in Grand Rapids Michigan until he died in 1992.
Speedy Gonzalez (rapido == speedy) never went to Michigan, although he was named after Grand Rapids. (Little known fact: his full name was Super Speedy Gonzalez, or "La Grando Rapido".)
And Morey Amsterdam was named after what New York used to be called -- New Amsterdam. Ok, he did live in New York. Forget about him.
Short version: "named after" is not "is in".
Just point out to whoever's in charge that what you're being asked to do violates their policies and could potentially result in your company's app being pulled off of their app store altogether.
That really looks like you are making the threat to report the company to the app store.
As a fellow anonymous, representing the big E and the A, we get it in our inboxes daily to astroturf our products.
He's not being asked to astroturf. He's being asked to like the product. Astroturfing is when you post comments to blogs and in other places saying how great the product is ... not unlike the occasional product plug we see here in slashdot. It's a term that comes from a "fake grassroots organization". If you pretend to be some unaffiliated user who posts things like "hey, the solution to your problem is Spiffy Car and Cat wax, it will solve two problems at the same time..." you're astroturfing. If you simply click "like" on Facebook, you're not.
Do you actually not like the product your company makes, whether you use it or not? If not, don't like it. If so, what's the problem? You're not being fake.
Lol. Off you go on some grammar parsing mission completely ignoring the point of the words themselves - that those "facts" are even worth mentioning in a serious conversation.
I'm sorry, but the fact that someone went to court and said something inflammatory isn't worth mentioning? We aren't supposed to pay attention to what the people who are doing the attacks say?
It still doesn't change his point - that it is legitimate to fear people simply because you think they are muslim.
He didn't say that. He didn't make that point. You can twist the words all you want, but the claim that his thoughts were "fair" or "legitimate" never appears. He admitted he had them. Period. People can admit they have ringworm, but that doesn't make having ringworm good or fair.
An untold number of people die every year from AIDS and cancers. Is that a fact we can't get away from? Absolutely. Is it fair? Which planet do you come from where it would be? Saying something is a fact doesn't mean it's fair or good or right. Just that it is a fact. Since the facts he referred to actually have nothing to do with his fears or emotions, what you are saying shouldn't be appearing in a serious conversation.
Emphasis on the part where he says that those thoughts are fair.
No, the emphasis was on the part where he said there was no way to get away from "these facts". He said nothing about his thoughts or emotions there. YOU put the entire quote into one paragraph as if it belonged that way logically. I see a quite logical break at "Now, I remember...". That puts his feelings in a different part of his statement. It is a fact that english speakers will often use the interjection "now..." to indicate a break in the chain of thought. "Here's how I feel ... Now, here's something someone said..."
In writing, breaking paragraphs is easy. Hit CR twice. In speaking, which he was, the breaks have to be inferred. It's easy to jump to the least complimentary assumption as to where the breaks occur, which may be proof of the point I was making about humans having biases. Si?
You quoted the facts he referred to: "Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood." Is it not a fact that the Times Square bomber was in court? Is it not a fact that he said what Juan claimed he did?
Agreed, we're missing context here, but nobody really cares what behavior Juan exhibits on a plane, but all of his fans care which behavior Juan thinks is appropriate to exhibit on a plane.
Now you are trying to paint a large group of people with an opinion that they don't necessarily share. Hmm... He didn't talk about what behaviour he thinks is appropriate, he talked about what he felt. He admitted to being an imperfect human. "This is what I feel..." And I see nothing in the quoted text that says "it's good to feel that way and then act upon those feelings...".
Fuck that, it's NOT ok,
Yes, it is ok to have emotions and thoughts. It's being human. It's what you DO with them that counts. I bet that his response to his feelings is to be more concerned about his actions than most. He knows and admits that he has them.
Compare that to the liberal media pundits who absolutely have biases and prejudices but adamantly refuse to admit that they do. The only way they cannot have biases is to not be human. The first step to dealing with a prejudice is to recognize it. Until you do that, you cannot get over it. And the wrong thing to do is punish people who have the courage to admit an emotional bias, because you will only force others to remain silent and harbor grudges against those who punish human thought. (Do you notice the basis for the first amendment here? Better a nutcase who can freely speak and be identified and counteracted than a silent festering underground you can't ever get rid of just by lecturing at them. Even if you hate what they say.)
If you're nervous about Muslims, or black guys, or the Irish, or the Canadians, then it's your job to talk to the ones you meet so you realize that people are people and assholes are assholes.
I would bet that in his job at NPR, Juan Williams talked to a lot of Muslims (and blacks, and Irish, and Canadians) and I bet he has a firm intellectual grasp on the concept that "people are people and assholes are assholes". And I bet he has a firm grasp on the difference between emotions and intellectual knowledge.
Why do people scream when they go over the top of a roller coaster ride? Intellectually they must know that the chance of injury is vanishingly small, and yet, they scream their heads off in fear. Why do people scream when they bungi jump? Same thing. They don't scream when they cross the street, even though they know, intellectually, that their chance of being hit by a car is greater than dying on a roller coaster or bungi jump. Why do children getting their first haircut scream and cry? Their emotion is to be afraid, they don't have the intellectual experience to know it doesn't hurt -- much. Emotions and intellect are two vastly different things.
Overall, I would rather have someone who has and admits to having emotions reporting the news than someone who thinks his intellect puts him above it all. The former will understand where he may have biases and work to counter them; the latter will utter biased "news" without any concern or recognition of that at all.
IN you example the system would realize it wasn't on the correct road in microseconds. It and probably adjust.
My only error was in talking about the driver being stuck. In a driverless vehicle that failed, there would be nobody there with the vehicle. Just a vehicle stuck under an overpass.
You ASSUME that the system is perfect and that the computer in the car would "realize" (very anthropomorphic, by the way) that it wasn't on the right street. Just like the tens or hundreds of examples of bogus map data in modern GPS has alerted the driver that he wasnt on the right road. We have examples of existing failure modes that we can't get rid of. You go to the extreme when you assume that the data being used in a driverless vehicle will be perfect.
And it would use laser finder to determine the actual bridge position, not read some damn sign.
I wasn't the one who brought up OCRing the bridge sign.
Driver less cars will mean a lot fewer accidents.
In your perfect world of perfect systems and perfect data. The rest of us live in the real world and understand the saying "to err is human, to really screw it up takes a computer..."
You really have no argument if you have to go to such extremes.
I went to no extremes. I simply pointed out that removing the human factor from the system doesn't necessarily mean that things will work better and there will be fewer accidents.
Humans are remarkably resilient and able to solve problems that computers cannot. Risk's Digest is filled with case of computer and system failure.
If a human sees that the "superhighway" that his computerized driving system has him on is made of gravel, he can override the system a long time before the "three inch sensor sticking up from the top of his truck" impacts the overpass. (By the time the sensor triggers, it's too late.) A human can see that the overpass is kinda short, even when a computerized camera cannot OCR the bridge information from the posted sign that is covered with dirt or hidden behind a tree branch.
The FAA has a history of blaming everything on "pilot error". They are just as wrong for doing that as anyone here is for assuming that getting humans out of the system will inherently make it safer.
taxes should be paid by where the customer is at, not where the business is at. It's the only way to put businesses on the same playing field level.
Taxes paid by a customer should be at the rate where the customer is. Taxes paid by a business should be paid at the rate where the business is. That's the only way to create a fair, level playing field for both.
Tariffs and import duties (taxes levied by a government to force the rate paid by businesses to be based on where the customer is) aren't the way to create a level playing field. That, and this "no taxation without representation" idea.
Oh, at 5%, it lets the government exclude IRA's and your personal home from that tax, without reducing the amount the government gets.
Every version of a flat tax I've seen has said they need to be at 17% to be revenue neutral. This analysis talks about 19%. Perry's proposal is 20%. You've managed to come up with a tax rate that is one quarter of what everyone else is proposing and still get the same revenue?
And then to claim that you can exclude things from taxation and not reduce the revenue? How do you apply a 5% to a smaller number and get the same result?
Because my version puts almost all the tax burden on the rich, as opposed to the vile conservative version that puts almost all the tax burden on the poor.
The latter part of your statement is patently wrong. The "poor" pay almost nothing in taxes, at least in the income tax system that you are proposing to replace. The rich pay the most. But let's ignore that class bias and talk about the first part of your statement...
It, too, is wrong. Conservatives will oppose it because it is patently unfair to anyone who owns anything, not because of who owns it.
But wait, you've suggested an ASSET tax. So, if you've managed to save money out of your salary this year, you will be taxed on those savings every year for the rest of your life. Once, twice, thrice, four times, five times, taxed on the same money over and over again. Yes, I can see how someone who has no money would call this "fair".
If you buy a car, you'll be taxed at some estimated value for that car every year until you get rid of it.
If you are a business owner, or a farmer, you'll be paying 5% of the value of your property every year. If a farmer has a million dollar farm that's managing to break even now, tomorrow you want $50,000 from him in taxes. And again the next year. And again the next year. And again the next year. Yes, I can see how someone who owns nothing would think this is "fair".
In just 14 years you will have taken from every person in the country half of what he owns. If someone can't make the tax payment on his business, he'll have to sell. It won't matter if the farm lost money, or the business employes 100 people. Yes, I can see how someone who has nothing would call this "fair".
Oh, wait. They can BORROW the money to pay the tax. Put the farm up as collateral. Pay interest on the borrowed money, and deduct the loan amount from the asset value. Eventually the property will be fully mortgaged and the tax you get will be zero, and the costs to the property owner astronomical. Banks will own everything, and when the owner defaults we'll have a great time in the recession that causes.
No, you CAN'T separate these taxes out then say the poor pay no 'income taxes', because you don't count the taxes they do pay.
And you don't count the massive amounts of income tax the rich pay when claiming that they don't pay their fair share.
The multiple taxation aspect of your plan is unfair from the start. Fixing that, and creating exemptions, will create a system that is just as complicated, eventually, as the one we have now. By requiring everyone to keep track of all their assets, you will create a paperwork nightmare for the individual that far exceeds what we have today. Kiss the short form goodby, you'll need to inventory everything you have every year. It will also mean that the rate will have to go up to be revenue neutral, and go up anytime the government wants more money. Add on the points that the states and local governments will want, and you'll be taking half of what everyone owns in a lot less than 14 years.
By taxin
I mean, how many accidents will occur once human error is removed from the equation?
Yes, because we all know that GPS and street information can never be wrong. That truck driver won't just be stuck under the overpass, he'll be all the way through (just missing a bit of the trailer), since the vehicle will be going full, safe speed for that unpaved part of the superhighway.
To not use Facebook.
No, another reason not to upload your photo to facebook.
If your friends don't know what you look like, are they really your friends?
If someone tries using my facebook photo to identify me as the person who slugged them in a bar, unless the cops are really really stupid they'll arrest the guy for filing a false police report. Let's just say that my photo isn't a good likeness of me.
However, isn't the value of rural farmland almost entirely based on how good it is for growing crops (and the current value of those crops)?
No. The value of farmland is dependent upon how much someone will pay to buy it.
If a developer wants to build a subdivision on it, he doesn't care how good it is for growing crops. Will a developer want to build a new subdivision next to a wind farm? Not if he can find someplace else.
It's a fair statement that a wind farm on your neighbor's property will lower your property value. (And that may mean, in a good economy, that the value of your property may not go up as much as it should.) You can bet that the assessed value for taxation purposes will ignore any market effect the wind farms have, so your taxes will go up but your true property value will go down.
The entire reason the government is dropping these wind farms out amongst the real farms is because nobody in the suburbs wants them anywhere close to them. "Tyranny of the majority" I think applies.
An argument against them that I haven't seen made yet has to do with agricultural operations. If a farm uses crop dusters to dispense fertilizer or other ag chemicals, then a big wind farm right next door pretty much removes that option. Crop dusters are used when they are cheaper and more efficient (which means "cheaper" in time), so preventing crop dusting by putting large obstacles in the way will increase the costs of production on that farm.
And for those who say the farmer benefits from lower costs of energy, try again. Here in Oregon we have "Blue Sky". You can get your energy from renewable sources! It costs more. You save nothing. You get a warm fuzzy feeling for being eco-friendly.
Another reason for the pink "not a bomb!!!!" sticker that only the TSA has access to.
I've never seen that one. What airport do they use that at? And how, once they apply it to the device that is "not a bomb" and hand it back to the passenger, do they keep it out of the hands of a passenger?
Kind of self-defeating if you ask me. A pink sticker they can put on carryon items that they have to take off the carryon items so only they have access to them.
That was a kind of roundabout way of saying it's impossible. TSA may be the only ones who have access to them before they start using them, but once in use, passengers will have them, and a passenger who is carrying "not a bomb" today may be excited to stick it on his "is a bomb" tomorrow. That makes it useless.
Unless there is derogatory content hosted on there with the intent of associating said content with said toddler, I'm not sold.
From TFA: "Perhaps due to the negative attention, Cox took down the content she had started publishing on the nataliarandazza.com site."
Better question - if they let it on the plane, then why didn't TSA ask the flight crew what the thing was instead of treating it like a bomb?
Because the flight crew had no idea what it was. They're the ones who reported it. This was the incoming flight crew that had just walked onto the plane. And the outgoing flight crew certainly doesn't know what every passenger is carrying, so even if you could find them, they couldn't help.